Hammett's Crossing meeting results
Below is the complete text of the notes compiled by the organizers of the meeting about Hammett's Crossing bridge replacement. There is a certain consistency to the citizen comments, is there not?
Hammett’s Crossing Bridge Meeting Notes
Oct 23rd, 2007
Environmental Learning Center, Westcave Preserve
Flipchart comments addressing the existing Hammett’s Crossing low water bridge and the proposed new or replacement bridge:Next Steps:
- Leave the existing bridge as a walking trail
- Keep the scenic aspect of the bridge
- It needs to be a safe crossing
- No changes are necessary
- Switchbacks are good
- Real issue: more or less development
- Value of Westcave Preserve
- Concern about canyon and impacts on land
- Add guardrails to the existing bridge
- Need to consider EMS & Fire response access issues
- Consider bicycles
- Pace of subdivision and permits
- Impact of low water crossing on travel and commute
- Existing bridge as a limiting factor & positive psychological barrier
- Switchbacks are dangerous
- Problem with inadequate signage
- Try to span river or keep switchbacks?
- Concerns about clear-cutting near river
- Survey on bridge: 61 (both directions) from 7 – 11am
- 32 people surveyed: 27 said no new bridge; 2 said it depends on what kind of new bridge; 3 said yes new bridge
- In Bridge meeting: of the approximately 80 people present, 46 people were against the new bridge
- Safe bridge, not more traffic
- Coordination among the 3 counties is an issue
- Improving signage would increase safety of existing bridge
- New guardrails on switchbacks have helped
- Improve placement for the “no 30 ft. trailers” sign
- Need a turn around provision
- Road not wide enough for school bus
- Telephone contact or website for road conditions?
- Nearby larger local highways eliminate need for road improvement near bridge
- Consider area planned highways that may impact HPR/962
- What was the rationale for upgrading the expansion of HPR?
- It’s not local traffic, but popularity of the area that brings increased traffic
- Low existing bridge is safer; you can’t fall as far
- Is this a bridge safety project?
- Straighten bad curves west of bridge
- Construction could be detrimental to river
- Will the County Commissioner force the new bridge?
- People need a safe place to park to access old bridge
- Concerns about increased trespassing if there are places to park
- Look at ISD attendance zones & pickup routes
- Have project reports
- Do an E.I.S.
- Staff needs to listen to residents
- Need notice on every step of process
- Hold any public meetings in this area
- Get input from area visitors as well
Written comments submitted by local residents and other stakeholders present at meeting:
“Leave existing bridge as is.”
“Reclassify HPR to a MAD2 in the CAMPO Plan.”
“Develop a comprehensive land use plan before any road expansion plans are made.”
“Support county land use authority.”
“I would like to see the bridge stay as it is, but if there are going to be changes I would like to see the new bridge made just high enough to be above the flood and maybe just slightly wider and with guard rails. The existing roads need only be made slightly wider but no other changes on either side. Signs on both sides need improvement.”
“I would like to see a new bridge high enough to go straight across the valley from the curve at Westcave Preserve over to the curve on top of Hamilton Pool Road. Also keep the existing bridge for a nature walking & fishing trail.”
“The neighbors in general do not want a new bridge.”
“Please provide notice of all steps, additional info, etc.”
“I do not feel a need for a new bridge.”
“I commute in to Austin every week day and I do not need or want a new bridge. I’ve never felt unsafe.”
“Would like to see the bridge not accessible to 18 wheelers.”
“Please don’t upgrade this bridge…it is our last barrier to the rampant growth occurring elsewhere throughout Central Texas. To Commissioner Daugherty: I believe that there are 18 homes/45 residents in Travis County served by this bridge. This is .005% of the County population (approximately 900,000). An appropriate budget would therefore be (.00005) (x $102 million capital budget) = $5100!”
“We wish for the existing bridge to remain as is, with NO new bridge.”
“Hamilton Pool Road should remain two lanes. The present bridge should stay as it is except for repair of railings. If increased flooding over years, then eventually raise present bridge minimally. Improve signs to keep trucks off local/preserve-oriented road. Community is preserve-centered, not development oriented.”
“NO NEW BRIDGE. No bridge needed for the 61 cars that commute across the bridge. Concerning building a new bridge: I’m concerned about impact to the environment and new development that would be encouraged. If old bridge is ever used as just a foot bridge—absolutely no parking so as not to encourage trespassing.”
“My preferences: 1. Leave the bridge as it is; 2. Add signs well before switchbacks—preferably at HWY 71 and HPR, and 962 and Cypress Mill Rd. saying “water over road” and “no vehicles over ? feet”; 3. Set school districts boundaries so school bus doesn’t cross river; 4. Do not widen HPR; 5. Take the popular vote of residents; 6. Preserve a beautiful natural pristine area for the use of everyone; 7. Get input from people who use the preserves and parks—make the public aware.”
“There was a scale of 0 – 100 on bridges that was the condition of bridges. It was stated that 50 was middle ground—this bridge was rated 64 so that was good. The more in-depth problem is the road to the bridge. If the concern is 150 feet on each side of the bridge then these curves will not be touched. The bridge just seems to be an out to fix roads.”
“Save money and leave the existing bridge alone. No new bridge.”
“Do not build a fine bridge until you have the $ to build a better road.”
“Improve existing bridge signage, etc. NO NEW BRIDGE!”
“Better signs, turn arounds for 18 wheelers, plus fines for them—would prevent the current ‘safety’ problems. I feel the bridge is our quality of life safeguard, and want it to remain as is.”
“Use minimum design speeds and alternative vertical and horizontal alignment for road approaches. Estimate timeline and decision steps for process. Emphasize aesthetics of final design.”
“When bridge is closed signs should be placed on Hamilton Pool Rd. at HWY 71 and HWY 281 and RR12 instead of just at the closed bridge as has been the process.”
“No 4 lane roads! NO HOW, NO WAY, NO TIME!!!”
“Keep the bridge as is.”
This email came from Jody Karr-Silaski, Administrative Coordinator, Westcave Preserve.
If a new bridge was built to go OVER the river instead of down into it, we wouldn't need to worry about road closed signs when it floods. I wonder if people acutally know that water ERODES and give a few years, the bridge in it's current state will indeed erode away and there will be no arguments, a new bridge will then be built. But hey, let's just be "reactive" instead of "proactive".
@Scott: almost all those comments came from people living west of the Pedermales, and they almost unanimously put a higher value on preserving the nature of the bridge. They don't mind all that much driving the long way around once every year or two, if the alternative isa bridge to bring more houses to their neighborhood.
Guess you missed the meeting.
@Scott: Also, the engineers say the bridge is fine and safe. The reasone they propose a new bridge is because there is some federal money availalble to do it, and being 50 years old, it was not designed to modern standards. But it's not in danger of floating away.