OT - Hurricane Sandy damage assistance

Page 3 of 4  


The EPA and the Bayou. We would all be long dead before you ever got permits. You also are talking about an island, not a shoreline. Water can come towards NOLA from any direction. When they had the opportunity (large areas with houses more than 50% damaged), it would have been a lot cheaper to just fill the bowl. I am not even sure how FEMA allowed anyone to rebuild below the datum plane. You sure can't do that in Florida. 50% damage based on the tax assessment of the building, not including the land, you tear it down, fill above the datum plan and build or build back on pilings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in

The remedy to the 1953 floods was the socalled Deltaplan. Because, like NOLA, the most affected part of Holland is the delta of the Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt rivers. Much of Holland's economy depends on activities below sea level. The defense is to keep improving (and often increasing the height) of dikes, and generating ways to divert water. Same types of things could be done around the world, especially NOLA.
The 1953 storm in Holland was very similar to Sandy - extra-ordinary high tides, and a big storm that pushed up the sea against the funnel formed by the land: In 1953 the funnel was the North Sea between the southern parts of the English and Dutch coasts, leading to the English Channel. With 2012 Sandy, it was the funnel of the coasts of NJ and Long Island.
Building codes were changed in Holland (no more homes built into the dikes as was customary in some places) and a very much shortened primary defense was built to replace the hundreds of miles of dikes around smallish islands. That isn't quite possible in NY/NJ, but is done to some extent around Lake Pontchartrain.
Around Rotterdam waterways were protected with movable locks/dams, as was done as well near London. Something like that ought to be done in New York to protect the infrastructure around Staten Island, in Manhattan and up the Hudson, etc. But it won't be done, because it is cheaper to react to disasters than to prevent them, certainly in the short run.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:>>>

You clearly don't understand the dynamics of NOLA, The COE or the local waterways.
Done right the area can be secure. Bean counters chose not to do what was necessary and bet on the come (aka a sucker bet). LSU predicted years before exactly what played out during Katrina. COE/government big wigs walked out of that conference.
The same computer model (with appropriate adjustments for local conditions) was used on NYC area and the result predicted exactly what transpired with Sandy.
BTW I grew up in NOLA (my family has been there since almost the time of the French settled the area) and ran the river, the waterways and the marshes since I was old enough to swim.
FWIW less than 10% of NOLA is above the datum plane if by that you are referring to sea level.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

... and 300 years ago that was a deal breaker but today we have the equipment to move a mountain down there and build a city on a hill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is not a simple as you would want others to believe. (And no I don't plan to go into the engineering)
Regardless there are other alternatives that are both cheaper and more appropriate/effective responce to the problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is hard to beat elevation unless gravity fails..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:33:50 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Moving the whole damned city is a better solution. Stop building under water!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good idea but move to where?
The key to why NOLA is were it is is the Mississippi River. A fact that has been known for several hundred years.
NOLA is the most inland port available on the Gulf Coast. Seagoing ships can make it to NOLA with a lot of work on the part of the COE. Much further north and that access is only part of the year (Like RIGHT NOW) often with partial loads. (Like RIGHT NOW)
No boat drawing more then 10 ft of water can go beyond Baton Rough.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Above water. There is plenty of that stuff called "land" around.

The Mississippi River isn't small.

So?
So what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:55:38 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

He is only pointing out why NOLA is actually losing significance as a port city. The river is also too low for barge traffic up north. If the barges can't get down river, what will they be shipping? If you have to truck the products, truck them to Galveston.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Where did you get that wild idea?

Low water (and high water) happens every year on the Mississippi to various degrees, been that way for eons. Typically not a problem as the system adjust the barge loads to deal with the eventuality. An aside high water has been known to causes more problems than low water but that's a subject for another discussion.
The point I made and you seem to want to ignore is that deep draft ocean going commerce carriers can't get up river beyond Baton Rough. It's not a political thing, it;s not an economic thing it's a physical fact of nature. So the idea of moving the city is not practical either physically or economically.

Have you been to the port facilities in Galveston? Despite what the Chamber of Commencer might promote it's not that big and is not geared for bulk cargo.
Even though the Mississippi has a limited draft inland water, barges are much much cheaper to move bulk cargo than any other transport available. (for some product pipelines are a very close second) That's not rocket science but pure hard economic fact.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Can you move the people to higher ground and leave the water the same (or maybe even deeper if you dredge the channels for the fill)? I am not that familiar with the ins and outs of this.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am only hearing what they have on TV about it. If you think it is not a problem I will believe you.

I was trying to make the place more secure. Elevation always works. Dikes, levees and gates can fail ,,, again
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only at the bottom of a hill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Which is where the (water born) river traffic is locate ... what's your point?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Build the warehouses and residences ABOVE the river, not below it. Actually from what's I understood, the oldest part of the city were above the flood, it was the lower 9th ward that went under.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in wrote in message

There is no need for all that. What you do need is good sea defenses. Rotterdam is the biggest port (at least according to some measures) and it is largely below sea level. Centrally located for river barge traffic up into Germany and even Basel Switzerland. A new freight railroad was built from Rotterdam to the German Ruhr industrial area. Through an area called Betuwe. Almost totally below the levels of the rivers surrounding the area for 75 to 100 miles east. So this can be done. Costs a lot of money, though.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You have no idea how much raising the entire area to an elevation that would protect the city would cost do you? Hint: the bean counters had a heart attack when folk wanted the levees, along, built up to that level.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes I do but they have raised vast areas in Florida above flood level with dump trucks. NOLA has the advantage of the river and barges. Trust me,m it is chump change compared to what Katrina cost and what the next one will cost. That assumes lives are free.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hurricane Sandy will be returning this January. It's estimated to return on or near Sunday January 13, 2013. It has developed at least five times the power it had the last time it passed through, so there will be much more damage this time. It will affect all 50 states and other parts of the world.
Prepare now!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.