# Sargent Bridge meeting Thursday....



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

Anybody going? I cant go, but would be interested to hear what they have to say.


----------



## Retired Hazmat (Jul 31, 2011)

Where and what time? I knew that TXdot had it on the list, but show to be 2016 if i remember correctly. 
Have place on canal dr.


----------



## 2foxy4u (May 16, 2005)

TXDot website shows it from 5-8 at the VFW Hall. They even have a proposed design of a "corkscrew" type bridge.

Don't know what good it's going to do to put a bridge in when they better figure out how to repliish the beach and land or there won't be an island


----------



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm pretty sure it's got everything to do with revenue from barge traffic and nothing to do with the wishes of property owners in Sargent.

I would be interested to know what the meeting is all about but I can't make it...if anybody goes, let me know.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

the reason behind it is to open up the ICW, not make beach traffic easier, they could care less about that. 

The ICW is a water highway.............wanting no stop signs


----------



## Reel Time (Oct 6, 2009)

This is from TxDot

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/yoakum/fm457-bridge-replacement.html


----------



## Runway (Feb 6, 2005)

D... the bad luck. There are some brand new houses right under that thing! I won't miss waiting on three barges at a time, though. That house in the second rendering must have gotten a makeover.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Y'all don't wake up Harbormaster under that bridge now... LOL


----------



## Reel Time (Oct 6, 2009)

Runway said:


> D... the bad luck. There are some brand new houses right under that thing! I won't miss waiting on three barges at a time, though. That house in the second rendering must have gotten a makeover.


You're not kidding. Here's the last time I saw it.


----------



## Reel Time (Oct 6, 2009)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Y'all don't wake up Harbormaster under that bridge now... LOL


He's awake. He's over at StingRae's!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Reel Time said:


> He's awake. He's over at StingRae's!


The panhandling must be good this time of year!


----------



## sotexhookset (Jun 4, 2011)

Not an engineer or even to smart but why a corkscrew bridge? To acquire needed elevation with limited run space? Why not come back up the existing road many hundreds of yards to ramp up? Seems the corkscrew concept would cost quite a bit more.


----------



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

sotexhookset said:


> Not an engineer or even to smart but why a corkscrew bridge? To acquire needed elevation with limited run space? Why not come back up the existing road many hundreds of yards to ramp up? Seems the corkscrew concept would cost quite a bit more.


I assume because then the houses immediately under the landing would have no access to their drive.


----------



## Reel Time (Oct 6, 2009)

sotexhookset said:


> Not an engineer or even to smart but why a corkscrew bridge? To acquire needed elevation with limited run space? Why not come back up the existing road many hundreds of yards to ramp up? Seems the corkscrew concept would cost quite a bit more.





freedbaby said:


> I assume because then the houses immediately under the landing would have no access to their drive.


I agree. There is a restaurant, a bait camp, and a few other structures near the intracoastal that would not have easy access to their drives and it would be more costly to maintain. It still looks like with the guardrail, they will have to put another "feeder" anyway. Sotexhookset, you make a good point though. The corkscrew could only be built on the coastal side. That is the biggest problem with land width.

Oh, the other answer is so they can tax us more!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Reel Time said:


> I agree. There is a restaurant, a bait camp, and a few other structures near the intracoastal that would not have easy access to their drives and it would be more costly to maintain. It still looks like with the guardrail, they will have to put another "feeder" anyway. Sotexhookset, you make a good point though. The corkscrew could only be built on the coastal side. That is the biggest problem with land width.
> 
> Oh, the other answer is so they can tax us more!


 I don't know that the corkscrew is any more costly than a straight run: you're still talking X feet off the ground, Y length of elevated roadway, etc.: decreased land and easement costs may offset any additional engineering costs.

As far as why not straight on the mainland side and corkscrew on the island, that might be a safety issue: somebody's going straight for 20 miles, then a sudden corkscrew 50 foot in the air... The double-side one may slow the pace down some on both ends..


----------



## Reel Intimidator (May 28, 2008)

*Bridge*

Looks like a lot of wasted money to go no where. One more storm and probably won't be beach there at all. I can remember when I was a kid (not that long ago) there was four rows of houses there.


----------



## donmac (Aug 3, 2010)

Looks like a slot car track!


----------



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

My fear would be that because the property to the east of the bridge can probably be bought pretty cheap, someone comes in with a marina, then jetties, then restaurants etc etc etc.

If you are thinking of the houses on the other side, yes its probably not money well spent. But this is all for the revenue of the ICW. I cant imagine how many billions of dollars it generates annually.


----------



## Retired Hazmat (Jul 31, 2011)

Thanks 2foxy4u, I see that they only plan one meeting. During the week so the weekenders cannot come down. 
If they could make it Friday I could get there. 
So if any 2coolers attend please post any info other that what Txdot has. 

I remember riding the old one lane swing bridge with Mr. Kelley at night. That was exciting for us city kids when we could not drive, on the highway that is. 

Howard


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

The space limitation is on the beach side. If you have been to Matagorda since the new bridge came in you can see how much space they need to build an elevated bridge.

There is a revetment (sea) wall on the beach side. If it every erodes away it would have to be from the ICW side. Plenty of bulkheads on the ICW side.


----------



## Ready.Fire.Aim (Sep 22, 2009)

freedbaby said:


> But this is all for the revenue of the ICW. I cant imagine how many billions of dollars it generates annually.


ICW itself doesn't generate revenue directly. It is supported by tax on fuel and is 90% subsidized by the Federal Government. See the information below.

However, the ICW does support our economy by providing a cheap form of transportation for bulk goods thus creating wealth that can be taxed.

*The Inland Waterways Trust Fund​*In 1824, Congress tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with its first civil works mission â€" making inland
waterway navigation possible.​​​​1 Taxpayers have been paying ever since. The nationâ€™s inland waterways system holds the
award for the most heavily subsidized form of transportation, while negligible amounts of cargo are shipped on them.
Fully 90 percent of the systemâ€™s costs are borne by taxpayers. The Trust Fund that pays for construction and major
rehabilitation on these waterways is insufficient. Yet the barge industry and their USACE advocates are looking to
increase the federal subsidy for inland waterways. With the nation facing a more than $15 trillion debt, itâ€™s time
taxpayers stop carrying water for the barge industry.​
*Background and Current Policies​​​​2​
*For most of the nationâ€™s history, inland waterways users contributed little to the costs of constructing and maintaining
these waterways to safely handle commercial navigation. After decades of resistance from the commercial beneficiaries
of this taxpayer largesse, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) was created as part of the Inland Waterways Revenue
Act of 1978.
The IWTF was established to finance construction and major rehabilitation on the nationâ€™s inland waterways. Under the
IWTF, commercial users of waterways contribute to the trust fund through a modest tax on fuel they use on the
waterway system. The fund is then tapped to cover 50 percent of the costs for construction of new dams and navigation
locks and major rehabilitation (major maintenance work costing over $8 million) of existing facilities. The other 50
percent of project costs is covered by taxpayers. Once these projects are completed, taxpayers â€" not users â€" also pick
up 100 percent of the tab for operations and maintenance of
the system, currently costing roughly $600
million annually.​​​​3 The aggregate federal
expenditures result in a more than 90
percent taxpayer subsidy.
Funds for the IWTF come from a $0.20 pergallon
tax on diesel fuel used on 27
stretches of the countryâ€™s natural and manmade​
inland waterways (see map).


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Bayscout22 said:


> *The space limitation is on the beach side.* If you have been to Matagorda since the new bridge came in you can see how much space they need to build an elevated bridge.
> 
> There is a revetment (sea) wall on the beach side. If it every erodes away it would have to be from the ICW side. Plenty of bulkheads on the ICW side.


this,

and both sides have to match so it looks cool on Google earth and then the aliens won't attack


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

I like Sargent, have a good friend on the creek. That being said. This is going to be a bridge leading to no where eventually. Anyone should be able to figure that out. 
Why don't they do some set times when the bridge can be accessed for cars. Then leave it open for barge traffic the rest of the time.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

apparently you haven't been way down the east icw road on the surf side, 

way down...............past the blacktop

already laid out for a huge run of homes


----------



## TIMBOv2 (Mar 18, 2010)

sotexhookset said:


> Not an engineer or even to smart but why a corkscrew bridge? To acquire needed elevation with limited run space? Why not come back up the existing road many hundreds of yards to ramp up? Seems the corkscrew concept would cost quite a bit more.


Yea, What a stupid arse design!!! Start the bridge over where the "Shell Pile" use to be, up and over the ICW on an angle that would have you come out West of the old vacant resturant.
Original design is pizz poor. I guess they didn't think about the kids throwing beer bottles off the bridge into somebodies living room.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

MarkU said:


> I like Sargent, have a good friend on the creek. That being said. This is going to be a bridge leading to no where eventually. Anyone should be able to figure that out.
> Why don't they do some set times when the bridge can be accessed for cars. Then leave it open for barge traffic the rest of the time.


 Wanna be on the other side when you have a heart attack under those rules?


----------



## Reel Intimidator (May 28, 2008)

*Bridge*

No difference than having a heart attack 50 miles offshore or in East Matagorda Bay.......Why spend millions of tax dollars to go no where. Most people that pay taxes don't even know where Sargent is.


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

Its for the ICW but, people that never would build there, will build when its done. Property values will skyrocket. No more quaint little fishin' village.


----------



## Daddio (Sep 6, 2006)

Some points that will probably be discussed today is TXDot is is going to have to get moving, because the current swing bridge is in very poor condition.
They did a patch job about a year ago on the decks of the metal approach ramps the amount of corrosion on the beams and draw works support beams is spooky. Stop and look next time you cross it's an EYE opener! Also the barge is a hand me down from Matagorda.
TXDot says between 5-10 million to upgrade current swing bridge, not counting 24 hour staff, benefits, pensions.
Or build a 30 million bridge very low maintenance no barge strikes!

Yep bridge was struck yesterday about 10:30 am non captain driving got crosswise and crunched some of mooring timbers and lighting very close to the south approach ramp! 
If he had hit the metal rust ramp not sure how long bridge would have been non- functional!
I don't want swing bridge to go too many good reds around it, some worth a lot of money!
High span bridge is coming due to long term economics.


----------



## Swampus (Sep 1, 2005)

Gonna flat take out our home away from home for the past 20 yrs.--sad.

Also there are no fish in that whole area.......................!:slimer:


----------



## Runway (Feb 6, 2005)

Swampus said:


> Gonna flat take out our home away from home for the past 20 yrs.--sad.
> 
> Also there are no fish in that whole area.......................!:slimer:


Yes, I have also caught no fish anywhere around there.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Reel Intimidator said:


> No difference than having a heart attack 50 miles offshore or in East Matagorda Bay.......Why spend millions of tax dollars to go no where. Most people that pay taxes don't even know where Sargent is.


 If you build a house on the island, and pay taxes for county services, I'd dare say you'd consider that somewhat different than 50 miles offshore...


----------



## Sambo_The_Great (Dec 10, 2008)

I second what Mr. Williams stated and will add that with the existing houses and soon to be developed property... Matagorda County is making quite a bit of revenue from a very small segment of land.


----------



## Sambo_The_Great (Dec 10, 2008)

Oh, and one more thing.......
There aren't any fish within 200 miles of that area except little, slimy, fin yo a** Hardheads.


----------



## Crab Trap (May 7, 2006)

Anyone make the meeting last night?


----------



## Reel Intimidator (May 28, 2008)

dwilliams35 said:


> If you build a house on the island, and pay taxes for county services, I'd dare say you'd consider that somewhat different than 50 miles offshore...


Since when did the county pay for ambulance or medical treatment? About like the Coast Guard. Still think its a waste of money, when they can't even repair the roads already built.


----------



## Daddio (Sep 6, 2006)

Went to mtg yesterday TXDot folks were very nice, very informal mtg. 
They had 2 corkscrew plans on the table very similar .

Current swing bridge needs 6-8 million to get up to specs.
250,000 a year to operate.

New bridge 25 million. Spring 2016 start date 1.5 years to complete.
Would be paid for vs swing bridge cost in 10 years.

Several interesting comments a new bridge down south, corpus area is being built to allow larger ships into harbor, combined with booming oil industry and Panama Canal widening our barge traffic is expected to increase over the next decade.
One strange comment was made by TxDot they said they would build what ever Sargent folks want? Want to keep swing bridge we will go that route!
As a tax payer I would expect TxDot to say we are building the most economical solution for the long run, they did not!

A few folks expressed concerns of current erosion coupled with possible hurricanes wiping out the island leaving a bridge to nowhere! TxDot said that was a Glo / Army corps issue!

Looks like new bridge headed to Sargent and I am loosing my Redfish hotspot!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Reel Intimidator said:


> Since when did the county pay for ambulance or medical treatment? About like the Coast Guard. Still think its a waste of money, when they can't even repair the roads already built.


 If you'll go back a bit, you'll notice that my original "ambulance" premise was in response to a suggestion that they schedule the times when the bridge was open... One way or another, taxpayers pay for services such as ambulance and fire service: a taxpayer dying or a house burning down because they didn't have the courtesy to initiate the emergency between the hours of four and five PM isn't going to sit well.... you'll hear all about it in the lawsuit.


----------



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

Thanks Daddio...I appreciate the info.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

Anything other than a swing bridge that operates on demand, opens only when a barge is coming and immediately closes after passage, or a bridge will absolutely destroy the property values on the island. I sure as heck don't want that. Nobody will want to only cross at certain hours or on a set schedule. Just my .02.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

dwilliams35 said:


> Wanna be on the other side when you have a heart attack under those rules?


Obviously a true emergency would trump any barge traffic. I'm sure they have that contingency in place now.

I don't see it being that difficult, for the few who live on that stretch of beach, or who recreate there. To follow a basic posted schedule. Just like waiting on a ferry...


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

There is no other word to describe this other than stupid.

$25 million for this bridge? I highly doubt they could build it for that for one thing.

It would benefit the community, the state, and the fishery in a far more beneficial way to put that money into dredging/building jetties at Mitchell's Cut.

Un-fricking believable.

Reminds me of the bridge to nowhere that Senator Ted Stevens got put through up in Alaska; $398 million to go to an island that had 50 residents... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge ANOTHER great thing that Stevens will be remembered for (Magnuson-Stevens Act).


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

MarkU said:


> I don't see it being that difficult, for the few who live on that stretch of beach, or who recreate there. To follow a basic posted schedule. Just like waiting on a ferry...


There is a huge amount of traffic that crosses that swing bridge all day during the summer and almost every weekend the rest of the year. You have to cross the bridge to get to the beach. Also, there are no services (restaurant, store, etc) on the island, just houses.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

HydraSports said:


> There is a huge amount of traffic that crosses that swing bridge all day during the summer and almost every weekend the rest of the year. You have to cross the bridge to get to the beach. Also, there are no services (restaurant, store, etc) on the island, just houses.


I realize this, I've been there many times. When barges are running, people are waiting. It's worked for this long. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to build a new bridge for 100 homes, and beach access.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

MarkU said:


> I realize this, I've been there many times. When barges are running, people are waiting. It's worked for this long. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to build a new bridge for 100 homes, and beach access.


If it has a 10 year pay back, it is not a waste of money. That new bridge should last at least 50 years and the cost of maintaining/operating the swing bridge will never stop whether it opens/closes for each barge or whether it opens/closes on some set schedule.


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

Bridge is a no brainer.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Mr. Breeze said:


> Bridge is a no brainer.


Yup, should have built a bridge long ago.

If TXDOT was to only build roads/bridges where there was population to justify the cost. Then there would only be bridges and roads in citys. Texas a long time ago made a commitment to develop the rural areas along with the citys.


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

MarkU said:


> I realize this, I've been there many times. When barges are running, people are waiting. It's worked for this long. It's a waste of taxpayer dollars to build a new bridge for 100 homes, and beach access.


I think you are losing sight of the fact that the current solution is not working (or won't work much longer). The decision is $10M for a fix or $25M for a new bridge.

Plus, this isn't costing the taxpayers of Matagorda county (I'm one) much of anything. This is probably still FEMA money from Hurricane Ike. A few years ago the county paid $6M (again, Ike money) to "improve and maintain" the dirt road from where the pavement ends to down past the old Corps projects to the East. Matagorda has more coastline than any county in Texas. When cash flows down from the Fed to assist in emergency remediation, Matagorda County is at the head of the soup line.

This is an awesome way for the county to spend their federal assistance.


----------



## Reel Intimidator (May 28, 2008)

Hell the last time i went to the new boat ramps across the bridge you almost needed a 4x4 to get down the road. Still a bridge to nowhere and nowhere will be gone the next hurricane. That area has not seen a bad storm since 1961. So look out when it happens.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

Bayscout22 said:


> I think you are losing sight of the fact that the current solution is not working (or won't work much longer). The decision is $10M for a fix or $25M for a new bridge.
> 
> Plus, this isn't costing the taxpayers of Matagorda county (I'm one) much of anything. This is probably still FEMA money from Hurricane Ike. A few years ago the county paid $6M (again, Ike money) to "improve and maintain" the dirt road from where the pavement ends to down past the old Corps projects to the East. Matagorda has more coastline than any county in Texas. When cash flows down from the Fed to assist in emergency remediation, Matagorda County is at the head of the soup line.
> 
> This is an awesome way for the county to spend their federal assistance.


FEMA / FED money is our Tax Dollars. Well actually it's borrowed money from our childrens, children.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

I drew a line with Google Earth. The way it stands _now_, there is about 200 yards from the ICW to the gulf to land that bridge. That's not much.


----------



## Friendswoodmatt (Feb 22, 2005)

Build it and they will come


----------



## bigdav160 (Aug 25, 2004)

Stuart said:


> I drew a line with Google Earth. The way it stands _now_, there is about 200 yards from the ICW to the gulf to land that bridge. That's not much.


That must be a low tide because I don't think it's that far!

Where's that old pic I saved from this site. I'm not sure when this was taken. Someone mentioned 1940's. But you can see they have an erosion problem.


----------



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

sad it took until 1998 to get a revetment wall built


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

WOW

If you measure from the seaweed line on Google earth.....to the spot where natural land hits the ICS (not bulkhead)....you get about 530'.

I guess that explains the corkscrew on the gulf side....but why on the land side?

Engineers....................................


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

MarkU said:


> Obviously a true emergency would trump any barge traffic. I'm sure they have that contingency in place now.
> 
> I don't see it being that difficult, for the few who live on that stretch of beach, or who recreate there. To follow a basic posted schedule. Just like waiting on a ferry...


 So if you're going to pay somebody to babysit the bridge waiting on an emergency, why bother having the schedule you propose? Just doesn't really make much sense to bother scheduling it, plus adding a logistical burden to the barges as well: they can't just hit the brakes if they get there two minutes late..


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Daddio said:


> Went to mtg yesterday TXDot folks were very nice, very informal mtg.
> They had 2 corkscrew plans on the table very similar .
> 
> Current swing bridge needs 6-8 million to get up to specs.
> ...


 Sounds like it's just them trying to keep up with traffic patterns like they're paid to do: barge traffic increasing, island traffic increasing: they've got to deal with a 10 year window, and you're going to be look at a major trainwreck in that 10 years if you leave a swing bridge in place to service the island when there's a barge stacked up every half mile all the way to Louisiana.. At that point, they get to say "I told you so" to Sargent if they wanted to pull the plug on a bridge.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

some of you are missing the point, people are willing to pay big bucks for a waterfront view, property values on the island have skyrocketed in the last 10 years, bare $1500 lots are easily $30k on the reventment side.

Most of those new spec. homes are in the $500k+ range, the island can easily hold 200 homes , do the math, all they need is a sewer plant. and you have another west end Galveston.

As I said before, way down the east road is already platted for development past the blacktop.

And finally don't ever think the GLO or TPWD won't sell off the far east end up to the old Bernard, money talks.


----------



## bigdav160 (Aug 25, 2004)

> As I said before, way down the east road is already platted for development past the blacktop.


That's crazy talk. Its barely above sea level.


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

bigdav160 said:


> That's crazy talk. Its barely above sea level.


How long did it take you to work through that assessment? It's beachfront property. What would you expect the elevation to be?


----------



## Hookem-Guy81 (Apr 3, 2013)

There is a lot of opinions out there, naturally. The pic by Bigdav160 says it all. I keep my trailer down by the Y during the Summer and fall and I went to the Island yesterday and in several places the granite rocks put in years ago are exposed, no sand dunes or small ones to say the least, and the surf was up. If you are worried about erosion, drive down to High Island and see what happened to Hyway 87 during a Hurricane that did not even hit Texas but skirted the coast. We are losing the battle


----------



## TIMBOv2 (Mar 18, 2010)

Bayscout22 said:


> How long did it take you to work through that assessment? It's beachfront property. What would you expect the elevation to be?


:biggrin:that's some funny shat rat there


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

bigdav160 said:


> That's crazy talk. Its barely above sea level.


I visited that area for the first time today. I was at a home north/east of the swing bridge. The ground beneath the home seemed about 13 feet above sea level, which surprised me considering how narrow the island is. My guess is that bigger and nicer homes will continue to be built there; it is just a matter of time. Think of how many high-rise condos and hotels are on Texas islands at a lower elevation.


----------



## sea hunt 202 (Nov 24, 2011)

yep I had a beer with him


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I visited that area for the first time today. I was at a home north/east of the swing bridge. The ground beneath the home seemed about 13 feet above sea level, which surprised me considering how narrow the island is. My guess is that bigger and nicer homes will continue to be built there; it is just a matter of time. Think of how many high-rise condos and hotels are on Texas islands at a lower elevation.


How can a house on the ICW be at 13' above sea level?

I have never seen a 13' bluff bank on the ICW?

I'm about 10 miles inland from Sargent....and at 16'.

How does something "seem like 13'"?


----------



## Hookem-Guy81 (Apr 3, 2013)

Once you are across the bridge and turn left down the road, there is some high ground, and the road goes up and down. What is underneath I don't know, but the grade feathers out quickly to sea level, and the road eventually levels out. Maybe some old salts from Sargent know how that ground got higher, from dredge or backfill or dunes but that is the area where you can still see a few pilings in the water from whatever washed away. However, there are some awesome houses down there.


----------



## Daddio (Sep 6, 2006)

Many years of Dredge Spoil from the ICW created the mounds out on the island.
Sorry but quite a few are over 13 feet tall. Now the low spots probably not over4- 5 feet above sea level.

You cannot pass a slow auto out on the island road due to the hills are too tall.
Believe me I drive it almost every day!


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

*I stand corrected*

Its been a LONG time since I've driven that road......don't remember it being this hilly.

Google Earth shows the elevations ranging anywhere from 0' to 16' above sea level.

That's some crazy elevation changes across a short distance.

Interesting pic below with the path and chart at the bottom showing the elevation changes from the bridge to the barge terminal.


----------



## Hookem-Guy81 (Apr 3, 2013)

Daddio, I assume you have a house down there. I have to admit, there have been some fine places built down there since 2007. A lot of cleaning up too. I did not go to the Bridge meeting, I was at Charlies drinking a brewski and picking up some shrimp for the night fish before the stormy weather kicked in. Did I miss something or did TxDot say they would work on the road after the corkscrew. Bridge is one thing, but the road could use some work too, on both sides. Cant drive to the Roundhouse without getting a headache from the rough### road. What about erosion control?


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I visited that area for the first time today. I was at a home north/east of the swing bridge. The ground beneath the home seemed about 13 feet above sea level, which surprised me considering how narrow the island is. My guess is that bigger and nicer homes will continue to be built there; it is just a matter of time. Think of how many high-rise condos and hotels are on Texas islands at a lower elevation.





98aggie77566 said:


> How can a house on the ICW be at 13' above sea level?
> 
> I have never seen a 13' bluff bank on the ICW?
> 
> ...


It 'seemed like 13' by being over twice my height from the pier level to the floor of the garage.


----------



## tim b (Jul 20, 2010)

i have a lot about 15 to 16 lots from the swinging bridge and it is 10ft above sea level on the ICW side.


----------



## tim b (Jul 20, 2010)

i had a house on carancahua in caney creek that was only 11 ft elevation and it was one of the higher lots on the canal side.


----------



## Swampus (Sep 1, 2005)

Did anyone go to the Meeting?

Any info talked/decided on that U know?

Thanks in advance...........

swamp


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Post #37, bud


----------



## Daddio (Sep 6, 2006)

Hookem Guy

Everything east or west of the corkscrew is Matagorda County precinct 2 not TexDot.

West towards public boat ramp has been repaired since the beach restoration boondoggle barely got road repaired before 40% of sand gone!

Erosion control was discussed TxDot said that in GLO/ Army Corps issue.


----------



## freedbaby (Oct 22, 2009)

Bridge was hit by a barge last night I hear...I guess that doesn't help anyone who is on the "keep the swing bridge" team.


----------



## Runway (Feb 6, 2005)

We have a place on the creek. I would be a crazy man by now waiting on the bridge if I had a place on the island. All that being said, when will a pool be started for the the first drunk local to try and jump the ICW off of the "bridge under construction."


----------

