Low Water Crossings?? (Austin, Georgetown: tax, live, cost of) - Texas (TX) - City-Data Forum

brattpowered · 03-29-2007, 07:42 AM

Just a quick question from a 2 year Austinite:

What's up with the "low water crossings"? I hadn't even seen one before I moved to Texas. Where I'm from (New England) we have bridges that cross above moving water (rivers, brooks, intermittent streams). Is it because this part of the country used to be quite poor and it was cheaper to do it this way? Are they still like this because the crossings are a source of "Texas Prod (pride)" or because people who want to improve the safety of these places are tax and spend libbruls? Please enlighten me.

momof2dfw · 03-29-2007, 07:51 AM

Low water crossings are seen in many places ALL OVER Texas, not just Austin. I've seen them in Colorado too amoung other states. All of your reasons are wrong (and sadly, kind of in poor taste and way off base). The reason for them is we can have sudden flash floods and even if a creekbed, river, low-lying area has a bridge over it they have been known to be covered in swiftly moving water when this happens. The rain comes so fast that the ground can not soak it in and there are only so many ways it can runoff. Notice whenever you go over some bridges the waterlevel pole. A word of warning, NEVER, EVER drive thru ANY depth of water. A foot of water moving swiftly can wash away even a large SUV.

Trainwreck20 · 03-29-2007, 08:12 AM

Actually, one of your reasons is correct - they are cheap. Due to the terrain, the cost of building a bridge over certain intermittent 'streams' can be huge, for a variety of reasons. Generally, the flood condition can go from no water to 10 feet (or more) in a good rain. The terrain often has a gradual slope, so the bridge would have to be long to ensure that it is above the flood stage. Also, many of these crossing were (or are) on ranch land and paid for by the owners. These crossing can be very numerous...some are not even bridges in any sense of the word, they are just low roads. In a flash flood, dozens of streams may appear is a few moments and last for just a few hours.

So, a rancher may have to build several 100 foot long bridges 15 feet high that can withstand flood water forces, and possibly several smaller bridges, to ensure that the road is open a few more hours of the year. Even on completely public farm-market roads, the city will not usually improve the bridge if there are other routes or bridges available (which there generally are, these days).

From my (albeit limited) experience in the NE, even the intermittent streams tend to be in a defined creekbed, so that the bridges are relatively limited in length. Also, the banks are steeper, so a 5', 10', or 15' rise in water will only spread out so far, as opposed to spreading out. Also, I suspect that the rise in water in NE last more than a few hours, as is common here.

brattpowered · 03-29-2007, 08:18 AM

I'm sorry you were offended by my post, mom. The reason I asked if it's a matter of pride is because I saw someone interviewed on the local news mention that replacing LRC's with bridges would impact the "beauty" of the Hill Country.

brattpowered · 03-29-2007, 08:33 AM

Trainwreck-- That does make a lot of sense. But I do think it would be a good idea to have some kind of campaign in place to improve the safety of well traveled roads. Granted, it is not the greatest display of "personal responsibility" to drive yourself through water, and there may be alternate routes available for most of these places, but the number of tragic deaths sustained by non-ranching suburbanites who don't realize the force of these floodwaters dictates that something should really be done, in my opinion.

Trainwreck20 · 03-29-2007, 08:57 AM

Many of the more travelled roads, such as the ones in Georgetown related to the recent fatality, have flashing lights and road blocks (similar to what is used on RR tracks) that trigger when the water goes up. Apparently, those in G'town were malfunctioning and where being manually engaged. If the driver had been a few seconds (literally) later, the guard would have been down.

In any case, the campaign for LWXs is "turn around, don't drown". Catchy, eh?

. Anyway, I the TV and radio stations are constantly warning you not to cross the crossings if there is water. But people don't believe it, especially those in SUPER DUPER IMPERVIOUS GO ANYWHERE (fill in the blank) SUV. I really don't have anything against SUVs or their drivers, but it has been shown that SUVs are more likely to be involved in an accident due to the feeling of protection the large vehicle offers. I think this probably carries over to LWXs, too.

I think there is a little bit of a "look out for yourself attitude" around Texas, whether right or wrong, and many people feel it is unnecessary to spend their own money to take care of an unresponsible minority. Too many times, you see it on live TV or on footage later, the mother trying to get to soccer practice or the man trying to get to the local pub (pardon the sterotypes) who drives up to the LWX, stops, looks at the rushing water, then drives right in, because whatever they are doing is so important. They generally KNOW that they are not supposed to go in, they KNOW people have died, but they just HAVE to get to where they are going...

AustinTraveler · 03-29-2007, 09:21 AM

The City's website shows where the low water crossings are located.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/disasterready/lowwater.htm

momof2dfw · 03-29-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Many of the more travelled roads, such as the ones in Georgetown related to the recent fatality, have flashing lights and road blocks (similar to what is used on RR tracks) that trigger when the water goes up. Apparently, those in G'town were malfunctioning and where being manually engaged. If the driver had been a few seconds (literally) later, the guard would have been down.

In any case, the campaign for LWXs is "turn around, don't drown". Catchy, eh?

. Anyway, I the TV and radio stations are constantly warning you not to cross the crossings if there is water. But people don't believe it, especially those in SUPER DUPER IMPERVIOUS GO ANYWHERE (fill in the blank) SUV. I really don't have anything against SUVs or their drivers, but it has been shown that SUVs are more likely to be involved in an accident due to the feeling of protection the large vehicle offers. I think this probably carries over to LWXs, too.

I think there is a little bit of a "look out for yourself attitude" around Texas, whether right or wrong, and many people feel it is unnecessary to spend their own money to take care of an unresponsible minority. Too many times, you see it on live TV or on footage later, the mother trying to get to soccer practice or the man trying to get to the local pub (pardon the sterotypes) who drives up to the LWX, stops, looks at the rushing water, then drives right in, because whatever they are doing is so important. They generally KNOW that they are not supposed to go in, they KNOW people have died, but they just HAVE to get to where they are going...

Hey, I drove one of those "SUPER DUPER ___ SUV's"

I REFUSE to drive thru rushing/high water. I grew up not far from a local road that was in a low lying area that would always be under water in heavy rains. Several hours later it would be dry but lots of debris all over the place. I now live close by another low water crossing that has a bridge over a small creek that always has some water in it. In heavy rains it can be over the bridge. I came up on it one time and saw the water covering the area even before the bridge and stopped even before I got to the waters edge, stopped as soon as I saw it up ahead. I went to turn around and go back and you would not believe the people behind me that got mad. Whatever. Sorry, I'm not going to risk my life or my families for that. I was in my Suburban that is taller than most cars yet I refused to go thru it but these little cars all behind me went flying right on in. Go for it buddy........ but I sure don't want to see your cryin on the news tonight that no one told you or that you did not see it. You had plenty of time to see the high water while you were too busy honking at me and getting mad that I was taking too long and turned around.

There are MANY campaigns about the risks involved. Every time there is a risk of flash floods the news people on the radio and tv ALWAYS warn about the dangers and risks of crossing and/or driving into high water. Some people just have the mentality that they are invincible and it does not matter what is done they will still be the type to push the limits and blame someone else. We could build tall bridges all over the place but they would still be the ones finding fault w/ those or doing something that put their lives at risk.

Trainwreck20 · 03-29-2007, 11:08 AM

Not implying that all SUV drivers are crazy....but the stupid commecials they show on TV imply that you can do all sorts of things in your SUV (or pickup truck), when really, they are pretty much limited by the same factors as a typical car.

gigi927 · 03-29-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

But people don't believe it, especially those in SUPER DUPER IMPERVIOUS GO ANYWHERE (fill in the blank) SUV. I really don't have anything against SUVs or their drivers, but it has been shown that SUVs are more likely to be involved in an accident due to the feeling of protection the large vehicle offers.

We had lots of low water crossings like that in Arizona as well, due to the flash floods and heavy downpours that occur during monsoon season. I lived up in the high desert in kind of a less populated area, and several years back the main story on the local news was a guy standing on the top of the roof of his Hummer, hoping a traffic helicopter would see him and rescue him (and his Hummer) out of the 5 feet of standing water that he thought he could get through at one of the lowest points in the town.

he got a big bill from the city for the ensuing helicopter rescue, too.