Flood Tunnel Rejected Again? **UPDATE** It's being considered

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Does anyone know the exact specifics of this flood tunnel?

I always assumed that it was to divert the Elbow only, and not the Bow. Yet today I read this

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/al...779/story.html



Is this factually correct, or a mistake. The Elbow flows no where near downtown, so I would have to think if this article is taken literally, that this would help mitigate the Bow, therefore helping Bowness, Sunnyside, etc?

If so how? Anyone know?

If not, why the heck are they spending this amount on something that won't help the folks on the Bow?

Just really curious as I have never seen an actual detailed explanation anywhere to date.

Downtown Calgary and East Village flooded from the elbow River. What happened is the water flowed into downtown via the LRT tunnel and the underpasses to get past the elevation of the CPR tracks.

It is counter intuitive but consider that when the Bow is really high level, water from the Elbow has no place to drain into. One could imagine that if downtown only had to deal with the Bow river high flow, the situation would be more manageable.

Sunnyside's flood was not directly from the Bow river. With the river at a high level the storm drain gates were closed to keep the bow water out. However the communities uphill of Sunnyside still had their storm water running down to the river valley.

[InglewoodFan]

Even it's bored with a tunnel boring machine, there will need to be a good sized excavation at each end to lower the TBM in and remove the excavated earth. Heritage Park parking lot would be a likely spot. Had it been the 58 Ave routing, Calgary Golf & CC? That would have been amusing.

Is the report available online? Be interesting to see how big, etc.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by J-bo09

As someone who was out of my place for 3 months from the flood, followed by seeing the devestation of the floods in UK first-hand, there is almost 0 reason I can find to not build this.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

Originally Posted by btimbit

Might not need it for 50+ years, it'd still be worth it when the day comes

Agree, lets also build a nucular shelter for a million people for the inevitable time we do end up needing it, and lets throw half a billion dollars at a tunnel that may or may not be useful in the next 30 years.

We're better off spending it on other, more pressing issues or tangible mitigation projects that have other uses and cost less.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Agree, lets also build a nucular shelter for a million people for the inevitable time we do end up needing it, and lets throw half a billion dollars at a tunnel that may or may not be useful in the next 30 years.

We're better off spending it on other, more pressing issues or tangible mitigation projects that have other uses and cost less.

This might be the dumbest thing I've seen written on this subject to date.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Agree, lets also build a nucular shelter for a million people for the inevitable time we do end up needing it, and lets throw half a billion dollars at a tunnel that may or may not be useful in the next 30 years.

We're better off spending it on other, more pressing issues or tangible mitigation projects that have other uses and cost less.

If this tunnel and other proposed measures would have prevented the flooding downtown than we should build it immediately. It is tough to tell from the report if this is the case.

At 500 million given this is a 100 year event that is only 5 mil per year. Even if 100% is borrowed its only 15 million or so per year until its paid off. That seems like a pretty good way to spend money.

[chalms04]

Plus, aside from the LRT, when else would we get some sweet sweet TBM action in Calgary?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Or was our flood last year a fluke; not likely to be repeated?

While it was definitely the worst we've had in the history of the city and possibly a level we'll never see again (many called it even worse than a 100 year flood) I don't think it's a fluke. It was what, only 7 years before we had a flood with significant damage? And I can think of two other times in my lifetime Calgary has dealt with a 'flood' (quoted the word cause that's how it was presented, but I can't really speak to what constitutes an official flood, if there is such a thing).

Calgary has shown, it's susceptible to flooding and flood damage. I think some prevention would be a good thing.

I can't comment on if the proposed tunnel is worth the money or not because I don't know how much damage it would mitigate, how much of the city it would protect etc. But if it is reasonable to think it would be somewhat effective in minimizing the worst damage in the last two events we had, (which I assume it would be) I think it's a good idea.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Daradon

While it was definitely the worst we've had in the history of the city and possibly a level we'll never see again (many called it even worse than a 100 year flood) I don't think it's a fluke.

Who said this was the worst, and who said it worse than a 100 year flood? As far I recall, this wasn't close, and you only need to look back to the 30s for higher water levels.

[Rathji]

I certainly recall it breaking the 100 year flood predictions.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I am unclear how this helps most of your CP'rs who live along the Elbow - how wuill you get your mansions rebuilt yet again?

I don't live on the floodplain but I want it because:

1) Having downtown shut for a week is bad for our cities' economy, and thus everyone in it

2) Having small businesses that get wiped out is also bad for the whole city. We need to be a place that attracts entrepreneurship and supports that sector of our population.

3) We either keep paying to rebuild mansions on the Elbow or let it turn to urban prairie. I know which option I prefer:

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Downtown Calgary and East Village flooded from the elbow River. What happened is the water flowed into downtown via the LRT tunnel and the underpasses to get past the elevation of the CPR tracks.

It is counter intuitive but consider that when the Bow is really high level, water from the Elbow has no place to drain into. One could imagine that if downtown only had to deal with the Bow river high flow, the situation would be more manageable.

Sunnyside's flood was not directly from the Bow river. With the river at a high level the storm drain gates were closed to keep the bow water out. However the communities uphill of Sunnyside still had their storm water running down to the river valley.

I think what you are suggesting is that the resources spent on building the berms in Mission, and such could be focused on the Bow? I suppose that is one way of looking at it. However, I would prefer we mitigate both rivers equally, and I am sure the skyscrapers in Eau Claire, Prince's Island, the Stampede grounds, Bowness, Sunnyside, Inglewood, the Zoo, Fish Creek, etc would all agree.

On Sunnyside, you are right it was not the only factor. However it was a major factor as I have been told. Yes the rain that day, the shut gates, taking the pumping stations offline did all factor in. However, the berm broke by the curling club, and the berms themselves are made of permeable soil thus allowing the river to slowly leach onto Memorial Drive and into the sewers and then into my basement.

I am fine with the diversion tunnel being built, but I we can't forget about the Bow. It is as much if not more damaging than the Elbow. To say we will fix one and not the other isn't going to work.

At any rate, I did chat with my neighbor and he did talk recently at an event the Premier was also at. He did share some things they have been doing for the Bow, but as my neighbor astutely pointed out, they need to do better communication with us common folk. Also, at the same event my neighbor said Nenshi spoke and was quite firm that he wants to make sure the folks in Sunnyside are helped so it doesn't happen again. That was great to hear.

The street we are on have formed a flood brigade so to speak. We have purchased our own pumps, and come up with a good action plan. I just want to make sure it isn't us left all alone again next flood to help ourselves out. We did a great job, but we need all the help we can get, especially if the next one is bigger.

[Flash Walken]

I don't know what it's been like in Calgary for the last week, but I remember how the weather was in Vancouver prior to the flooding in Calgary last year.

We just had some very, very intense thunder storms here in the last few days, and about a week of off and on rain.

It will be interesting to hear from some Calgarians what the weather is like this coming week and how it might affect the water levels there, as I believe the two went hand in hand last year?

Very similar circumstances here this weekend as last year.

[Bill Bumface]

It always pours rain in June. That part isn't new. The pathway underpasses aren't even closed yet, I'd say that water levels are lower than the last few years at this point, completely anecdotally speaking.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Who said this was the worst, and who said it worse than a 100 year flood? As far I recall, this wasn't close, and you only need to look back to the 30s for higher water levels.

I'll look for specific examples, but I am very certain about this. I recall more than one, probably even in the actual city pressers saying 'more like a one in 300 year flood'.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'll look for specific examples, but I am very certain about this. I recall more than one, probably even in the actual city pressers saying 'more like a one in 300 year flood'.

And I recall those being tagged as sensationalism, as there was an effort at these very same pressers to tone down that sensationalism.



Based on previous studies, if the peak of the Bow last year was 1740 m3/s, then at worst you're looking at a 1:50 year flood.

[4X4]

Just a half assed idea here, but maybe instead of a really expensive flood tunnel, we could do a little more business with the Tsuu Tina, and build a dry reservoir on their land, that we lease, which only gets used when the Elbow gets threateningly high.

Move around some earth to build a basin in an existing valley near the Elbow, and then build a diversion canal from the Elbow. Sounds wayyy cheaper than tearing up Heritage Drive and building a 5+ km tunnel. Plus the Tsuu Tina get some residual income out of it, and maybe we become (slowly but surely) business partners in many ways.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just a half assed idea here, but maybe instead of a really expensive flood tunnel, we could do a little more business with the Tsuu Tina, and build a dry reservoir on their land, that we lease, which only gets used when the Elbow gets threateningly high.

Move around some earth to build a basin in an existing valley near the Elbow, and then build a diversion canal from the Elbow. Sounds wayyy cheaper than tearing up Heritage Drive and building a 5+ km tunnel. Plus the Tsuu Tina get some residual income out of it, and maybe we become (slowly but surely) business partners in many ways.

Nice new fishing pond too!

Nevermind, you said Dry...
How about a massive one that's 50% full and capacity to take a bunch more, enough to mitigate a flood.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just a half assed idea here, but maybe instead of a really expensive flood tunnel, we could do a little more business with the Tsuu Tina, and build a dry reservoir on their land, that we lease, which only gets used when the Elbow gets threateningly high.

Move around some earth to build a basin in an existing valley near the Elbow, and then build a diversion canal from the Elbow. Sounds wayyy cheaper than tearing up Heritage Drive and building a 5+ km tunnel. Plus the Tsuu Tina get some residual income out of it, and maybe we become (slowly but surely) business partners in many ways.

Not enough space to achieve much when the water has flowed that close to Calgary.

Are you familiar with the other two Elbow river project proposals??

http://www.gov.ab.ca/springbank-road.cfm

http://www.gov.ab.ca/mclean-creek.cfm

'Course the locals will have to be consulted...

http://www.rockyviewweekly.com/artic...for-springbank

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

And I recall those being tagged as sensationalism, as there was an effort at these very same pressers to tone down that sensationalism.



Based on previous studies, if the peak of the Bow last year was 1740 m3/s, then at worst you're looking at a 1:50 year flood.

Ok, well I'll yield then, it's possible I heard the sensationalist leanings. As I mentioned in my first post, I believe the tunnel as I know it is a good idea anyway. My conclusion was, fluke or not, worst ever or not, Calgary does show a tendency to flood so a more permanent prevention system would be great in my books. I think we're on the same side on that.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just a half assed idea here, but maybe instead of a really expensive flood tunnel, we could do a little more business with the Tsuu Tina, and build a dry reservoir on their land, that we lease, which only gets used when the Elbow gets threateningly high.

Move around some earth to build a basin in an existing valley near the Elbow, and then build a diversion canal from the Elbow. Sounds wayyy cheaper than tearing up Heritage Drive and building a 5+ km tunnel. Plus the Tsuu Tina get some residual income out of it, and maybe we become (slowly but surely) business partners in many ways.

The way they do business we will go through 2 more floods and it will cost twice as much as they tunnel. And every time we are ready to walk away, they will pretend to be ready to approve it.