Originally Posted by The Tip

When Williamson Creek leaves Sunset Valley, all the property lines touch in the middle of the creek. That means no access for us.

It would be so great if the creek bed was city property as it flowed towards I-35. But it's not until it's east of Manchaca Rd. Then it's private property again until it's east of Congress.

I have looked at it long and carefully trying to make a huge loop of it to Onion Creek/McKinney Falls/Mary Moore but all that damn private property puts a kibosh on that plan.

So the particular piece of undeveloped land in the lower photo, to the right top... Where I saw a trailhead from Westgate Blvd., Is that City land or private land?

Originally Posted by The Tip

When Williamson Creek leaves Sunset Valley, all the property lines touch in the middle of the creek. That means no access for us.

It would be so great if the creek bed was city property as it flowed towards I-35. But it's not until it's east of Manchaca Rd. Then it's private property again until it's east of Congress.

I have looked at it long and carefully trying to make a huge loop of it to Onion Creek/McKinney Falls/Mary Moore but all that damn private property puts a kibosh on that plan.

Honestly explain to me why the Blanco river as an example has a public easement that runs through the middle of it where as people can swim and tube it and they are not trespassing and yet creeks can be considered private land. Consider this a teaching moment.

Originally Posted by AntonioGG

This was an interesting read for me:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/...nedy_faq.phtml

Originally Posted by cramsay3

Honestly explain to me why the Blanco river as an example has a public easement that runs through the middle of it where as people can swim and tube it and they are not trespassing and yet creeks can be considered private land. Consider this a teaching moment.

Just a guess, but in the doc AntonioGG referenced, it defines navigable waterways as average 30ft wide. That's the river bed, not necessarily just the wet part.

Originally Posted by notyal

Just a guess, but in the doc AntonioGG referenced, it defines navigable waterways as average 30ft wide. That's the river bed, not necessarily just the wet part.

I was supposed to read? Well now my head hurts and I'm exhausted. Happy?

And Williamson Creek is not 30ft?

Just read that Slaughter Creek trail is still closed because of wet/muddy areas... Is that how it is in other parts of SATN trails?

Wanted to go out for a ride this afternoon.

Originally Posted by AntonioGG

This was an interesting read for me:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/...nedy_faq.phtml

That is very interesting. Thanks for finding it and posting it. We knew about that law, but I never read it as to how it was defined. We were interested in it when the church closed down "their" part of the trail in the Williamson Creek Greenbelt. We thought that might be a loophole to fight back, but the trail on the south bank was discovered, so it became a moot point.''

So what is needed is a trail advocate that works for the city to pursue that navigable thing. The 30 foot of creek bed certainly works. It is dry most of the time, but it sounds like that doesn't matter. I just know home owners can be a powerful voice so it would definitely be a difficult task. But that would be so sweet if there was trail along Williamson Creek from Sunset Valley all the way under I-35 and further.

Originally Posted by The Tip

That is very interesting. Thanks for finding it and posting it. We knew about that law, but I never read it as to how it was defined. We were interested in it when the church closed down "their" part of the trail in the Williamson Creek Greenbelt. We thought that might be a loophole to fight back, but the trail on the south bank was discovered, so it became a moot point.''

So what is needed is a trail advocate that works for the city to pursue that navigable thing. The 30 foot of creek bed certainly works. It is dry most of the time, but it sounds like that doesn't matter. I just know home owners can be a powerful voice so it would definitely be a difficult task. But that would be so sweet if there was trail along Williamson Creek from Sunset Valley all the way under I-35 and further.

I know of no home owner in the creek bed and if it's legal, I don't much care about their voice anymore. How's that Sunset Valley City Council promise to investigate alternative routes coming? What was that? 2015? I don't know how you guys remain so patient. I'm weary of the mtb community always being on the defensive.

THIS JUST IN: Studies have shown that the Edward's Aquifer and the golden cheeked warbler both benefit from periodic sediment displacement within creek beds. It prevents killer mold, dangerous fungi, and those trust-fund hipster's from moving to Austin after their last ACL festival high.

Ok, I may have made up some of that...not all hipster's are rich.

Just went out for a late afternoon ride and saw that there is some work going on under Mopac just south of Convict Hill, and it continues on the west side of Mopac almost into Dick Nichols... Is this something to do with the Violet Crown trail?

Yes, that is the Violet Crown Trail. They will clear it from Convict Hill to Dick Nichols, then construct it from Dick Nichols back to Convict Hill.

So do we avoid the contruction area, or can we ride through it?

Originally Posted by RidingAgain

So do we avoid the contruction area, or can we ride through it?

Hopefully they listened to my concerns and are creating a pathway for bikers and hikers to continue on more or less the same route while the construction is in process. I have not seen what is going on yet.

Keep riding it until you can't. Then the question will be addressed.

From what I saw on Sunday, they were trying to leave a way around the construction. They may have to block it 100% while they are actively working but they appear to be trying to leave a path around the work zones where they can.

The season is coming up and we are trying to figure out how to get from SCT to Gorzycki without leaving a wake of dead student athletes on the side of the road. Any ideas? The issue is the perpetual swamp east of the low-water crossing bridge.

And "B Line" jokes are welcome.

Enter SCNP from the south only.

Originally Posted by mack_turtle

Enter SCNP from the south only.

Yeah, we do that now. Such a dull long way around - ATX to Spruce Canyon to SCT and back. Even with the new stuff, boring. I'm looking for Army Corp of Engineers or Elon Musk solutions here folks.

I know that the city has an agenda in regards to Slaughter Creek Trail, but it's so frustrating because the solution to this potentially dangerous situation is so easy. But I don't have a degree in water quality protection so I am unqualified to make statements. mack_turtle's suggestion is really the only presently available solution.

It just makes so little sense to "force" us to get in a car to safely ride a bike there. sigh

But, those kid's need a workout, so make them ride all the way around!

Originally Posted by Zeke

Wtf?

edit: wait, that looks like some space just north of Slaughter Creek Nature Preserve. I've ridden past there enough times to know that it's ranches and stuff. It would not directly affect the trails there.

I agree that getting to SCNP on a bike sucks when you get the road/creek crossing. I don't have any suggestions there.

I think that was a plat from a long time ago that obviously never came to fruition.

What I meant by agenda is protecting the water quality by limiting access to the area. Putting an entrance on the east side of the trail would make access so much easier and safer. But that would mean less control and most likely lots higher use. They don't want that. And hey, it's their thing, and I'm just glad we have the access to it that we have now.

All of that land to the north is CoA. Can a trail be routed through there?