Waller Creek Flood Tunnel Update Thread

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Okay so let me get this straight, they are making a big deal over a CVC that actually angles down so people can see it from Red River St.? That's just plain dumb and why does the sight line have to be so far down where it meets the Capitol? As long as you can see the dome then it shouldn't matter. The sight line should be raised up to the base of the dome, that alone would not only remove the intake facility out but may even remove the other building out as well.

The CVCs are predetermined based on the elevation above sea level of the Capitol dome and the location of the preserved view. To preserve the view, buildings must be shorter the closer they are to the location of the preserved view. This is why the sight line slopes downward. Buildings must not exceed the sea level elevation of the dome anywhere within that corridor.

So say you're a developer wanting to build a building within one of the CVCs. And let's say within that view corridor the base of the Capitol dome starts at 653 feet above sea level. You would need to determine the sea level elevation of your property before you started designing your project. The top of your building could not exceed 653 feet above sea level.

Here is a list of the CVCs with the sea level elevations of each.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...tm/GV.3151.htm

[jngreenlee]

In today's City Council Meeting, Item 11:

Authorize the negotiation and execution of a construction contract with OSCAR RENDA CONTRACTING for the Waller Creek Tunnel Project 8th Street Creek Side Inlet Facility Rebid in the amount of $5,213,382 plus a $260,670 contingency, for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,474,052.

This -might- be the intake rebuild.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jngreenlee

In today's City Council Meeting, Item 11:



This -might- be the intake rebuild.

I can't read the whole statesman story, but at least the second paragraph presents it as separate/additional/unrelated

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...nel-fea/nhqDc/

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I can't read the whole statesman story, but at least the second paragraph presents it as separate/additional/unrelated

You made a bingo. Picture worth a thousand words:


From the article:

Meanwhile, the City Council is slated to decide Thursday whether to add a separate $5.2 million feature to the tunnel project. City staffers say that feature, an inlet at 8th Street, is not absolutely necessary but will help reduce flooding even more along Waller Creek.

[jngreenlee]

This inlet looks like corporate cronyism for Stubb's!!!



Also, the (not-quite) riverwalk features along that area are always interesting. Wonder what will happen to them.

[corvairkeith]

That area did flood pretty bad a few months back.

[jngreenlee]

http://austintexas.gov/council_meeti...tion_notes.cfm

11 Authorize the negotiation and execution of a construction contract with OSCAR RENDA CONTRACTING for the Waller Creek Tunnel Project 8th Street Creek Side Inlet Facility Rebid in the amount of $5,213,382 plus a $260,670 contingency, for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,474,052.

APPROVED

[LoneStarMike]

April 16, 2015










For reference, here's the initial rendering:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Here's the culprit in Waterloo Park:


http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...othly-o/nW2Y5/

[IluvATX]

Nice update. I noticed that the lake side of Waller Creek looks almost done also.

[airwx]

The Parks and Recreation Board are scheduled to receive an update on the 21st of April. From the slides posted in the backup, it looks like they will be flooding the lagoon and removing the bulkhead any day now.


Also, note that they are using OverAustin's great drone imagery in their presentation.

[airwx]

They flooded the tunnel and lagoon. Here's a before and after picture from user centennialg's thread on reddit:

[hookem]

Man, they seriously need some "Don't swim here!" signs around that lagoon...

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by hookem

Man, they seriously need some "Don't swim here!" signs around that lagoon...

Well, technically swimming isn't allowed anywhere on the river downtown, right?

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by hookem

Man, they seriously need some "Don't swim here!" signs around that lagoon...

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I wonder if this intake will be strong enough to create a whirlpool, and if so, will it be strong enough to suck a person or dog down threw it?

[wwmiv]

Is the intake lagoon filled yet?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I wonder if this intake will be strong enough to create a whirlpool, and if so, will it be strong enough to suck a person or dog down threw it?

That's the out, not the in.

[the Genral]

Ok, I'm confused, a common occurrence in my older age. Where is the water return intake? I assumed this was
where they would get the water to pump back upstream, through this big hole. I guess I forgot the only time the tunnel would be used is in case of flood. Now that the lagoon is flooded, then the tunnel must be full and operational, in time for Memorial day. So how does all this water going down this huge hole not end up squirting back out the northern end of the tunnel?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Ok, I'm confused, a common occurrence in my older age. Where is the water return intake? I assumed this was
where they would get the water to pump back upstream, through this big hole. I guess I forgot the only time the tunnel would be used is in case of flood. Now that the lagoon is flooded, then the tunnel must be full and operational, in time for Memorial day. So how does all this water going down this huge hole not end up squirting back out the northern end of the tunnel?

It's kind-of both? The way the water return is supposed to work doesn't actually connect it all way to this lagoon. Instead, each of the three intake facilities upstream will have a water pump to return water from the bottom of the channel (so that they're only vertical shafts that pump water up, rather than vertical shafts that connect to a horizontal pump system). Because they'll be pretty distant from this lagoon, any current created in the lagoon to generate water flow upstream will be negligible.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's kind-of both? The way the water return is supposed to work doesn't actually connect it all way to this lagoon. Instead, each of the three intake facilities upstream will have a water pump to return water from the bottom of the channel (so that they're only vertical shafts that pump water up, rather than vertical shafts that connect to a horizontal pump system). Because they'll be pretty distant from this lagoon, any current created in the lagoon to generate water flow upstream will be negligible.

Thanks wwmiv, your accurate explanation inspired me to find a drawing. I am no longer confused...about this at least...

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Thanks wwmiv, your accurate explanation inspired me to find a drawing. I am no longer confused...about this at least, now, where did I leave the tv remote?...

Hmm. I thought there was a return pump after every intake, but it appears I'm mistaken. There's only one at the first intake facility. That might be a strategic mistake by the designers.