Comments on: Burrowing Under Railroad Berm: Feasible?

By: Joh

Joh — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:42:35 +0000

Tom W., you’re right that 201 Depot, the office building currently occupied by JJR, is in the floodway. Though the state DNR approved it, we had a huge fight getting it built, because our then-council rep didn’t want it, and spread misinformation that if it were permitted to proceed, everyone in the city could lose their flood insurance. (Didn’t happen.)

Dave may know more about this, but I think that the city has since made it more difficult, if not impossible, to build in the floodway.

By: Vince Caruso

Vince Caruso — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:39:58 +0000

I attended the second tour. It was noted by staff at the tour, when I asked for clarification, that the current (new) Allen’s Creek Floodplain Maps from FEMA are ‘loosely calibrated on 1968 data’. This is mainly 1968 anecdotal data. Meaning they are not very predictive of flood hazard.

There was some discussion at the tour about converting the large building on the north side of the lot next to the drawn floodway to residential. Without a better study of the floodplain this would be ill advised in the least, and irresponsible to put more unsuspecting people in harms way at the worst. I would say this building is way in the floodway with a modern map. The city has refused for years to do a meaningful effort to map this dangerous floodplain!

I should note that the FEMA hired consultants StanTec, from Lexington KY, to coordinate producing the new maps redid the ‘new’ FEMA maps for Lexington and found a much larger floodplain. and now it is forbidden to build anything in the new locally redrawn floodplain!

By: Walter Cramer

Walter Cramer — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:54:43 +0000

@10 – However contaminated the railway berm might be, if it was acting as a dam to hold back floodwater from a major storm, then a lot of those contaminants could be washed into the Huron River. Replacing ~5% of the berm with culverts might greatly reduce the potential for it to either cause flooding or spread contaminants, but at far less cost than replacing the whole berm with a trestle.

Of course, leaving 95% of the (plausibly) contaminated berm in place would not reduce the total cost by 95%. And minimizing the grief and costs from stupid bureaucracy (the disease behind those consulting leeches) could easily be beyond the City’s competence or political clout.

By: Vince Caruso

Vince Caruso — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:56:55 +0000

Agree the Gandy Dancer is a ‘natural’ for a train station.

A opening at the tracks would be great for floodplain reduction and alternate transportation access to the river from the Allen’s Creek Greenway.

The mayor’s comments on a Greenway need to be taken with a grain of salt. As his notion may simply be a thin walk down the center with development all around that is in the floodplain now but with a meaningful watershed study, the city refuses to do, would show it in the floodway.

Once again we have no watershed involved citizens on this taskforce and no greenway involved citizens.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:39:26 +0000

Agreed.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 02:20:54 +0000

Jim wins the thread.

By: Jim Rees

Jim Rees — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:54:36 +0000

The Gandy Dancer building might make a nice train station.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:03:29 +0000

Railroad trackbeds are often “contaminated” with chemicals spilled from tank cars and bulk carriers, drippings from the trains, and generations of heavy applications of herbicides. Digging up berms would probably mean huge costs of disposal of “toxic” material and big fees for environmental consulting leaches. Best to leave them alone for as long as possible.

By: Tom Whitaker

Tom Whitaker — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:58:04 +0000

I think one would have to have considerable knowledge of this area to make the interpretation that “immediately adjacent to the Amtrak station” meant “immediately adjacent to the north Amtrak parking lot.” I do appreciate that Sabra goes out of her way to acquire this kind of knowledge in advance of council decisions, making it easier for her to follow along, but I wonder how many people knew that Amtrak owned anything on the other side of the tracks–even those at the Council table? Until very recently, I assumed that Amtrak only leased the lot from MichCon/DTE and that the entire parcel between the river and the tracks was owned by MichCon/DTE. Perhaps I’m the only one in town who assumed this.

While we’re on the subject, I’m only aware of a restriction on new RESIDENTIAL construction in floodways/floodplains, not other uses. As a matter of fact, the newer office building just west of here on Depot Street, ironically occupied by the offices of SmithGroup/JJR, is built in the floodWAY, not just the floodplain. What about the YMCA? Surely, if these heavily-used buildings with consistent and significant daily occupancy can be built in floodways/floodplains, then portions of a train station complex, with transient customers and only occasional trains can be too? Heck, if there was a flood of this significance, would the trains even be running at all (regardless of where the station was located)?

By: Sabra Briere

Sabra Briere — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:08:27 +0000

Re: #7
Sorry, Tom. This may be one of those issues that seems to be open to interpretation. What land was exactly in question when Mr. Kunselman asked about the MichCon land?
I suspect, although I do not know, that Mr. Cooper was referring to the land that is adjacent to that owned by Amtrak. Because the land in discussion was that owned by MichCon, he is likely to have been talking *only* about the land owned by MichCon. I’ve observed that Mr. Cooper is even more literal than I am.
I doubt that he was confused, and I know that I wasn’t.
Due to flood plain/flood way issues, only part of the Amtrak-owned property and part of the MichCon/DTE-owned property is easily available for new construction. When I heard the question, I thought about that land above the flood plain that MichCon owns.