Thoughts on the Unfolding Disaster in New Orleans?

[Robinsons]

Keep in mind that much of this happened not because of a hurricane but
because of a structural failure in a 50-year old levee system that no one -
Republican or Democrat - bothered to repair - including after the dam burst.

Helicopters were unavailable to drop emergency sandbags in the breach, due
apparently to being elsewhere at the time (in Iraq?) which is why the city
and TV news declared efforts to fix the breach had allegedly "failed".

And the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than attempt to stop the flooding
while lives were still at stake (all the affected people are dead now...)
decided to step back and let the waters equalize and "study the problem
to make sure that any fix holds."

It is also worth noting that plenty of expert sources, journalists, etc.
ranging from Ted Koppel to the good folks on alt.planning.transportation
and alt.planning.urban, simply do not see the need for the city to be rebuilt;
citing its location, not mentioning its demographics (of course!)

In this
light, the decision of the Corps to hold back and let the waters equalize
makes sense (not to mention the decision not to repair the levees earlier,
as liberals and conservatives alike cited the artificial, unsustainable,
unenvironmental nature of the quest to keep the waters of Lake Ponchartrain
out of the poorest areas of the city; resulting in funding for the necessary
repairs having been gutted recently.)

Also note that much watchfulness will be required to find out what plans
are for restoration of the hardest hit areas, such as Louisiana's 9th Ward.

There has been talk on the Internet and TV news of abandoning New Orleans
to the elements, or tearing down most of the city. Let us not forget that
the majority of the displaced people are renters or cannot afford the
environmental cleanup costs, imposed by both Republicans and Democrats due
to the near-flammable pollution of Lake Ponchartrain that will surely be
passed on to them in the form of liens, condemnation notices, federal
eviction notices not to return to the area until it has been certified
non-hazardous, and urban renewal projects.

New Orleans, through no fault of its historic buildings or residents,
sits on 7,000 feet of mud. It is physically impossible to raise the
elevation of the affected areas except through continuous sedimentation,
i.e. regular flooding. Only the buildings themselves can be raised,
which is possible, but cost money that the mostly black homeowners
do not have and that landlords are unwilling or unable to spend.

If the State or Federal government deems it unaffordable to jack up, restore
or re-build the poorest parts of New Orleans, then the State or Federal Govt
will probably not rely on the private sector, due to the pollution angle.

The affected areas could be condemned en masse for reasons of pollution -
pollution from Lake Ponchartrain - and half the city, historic or not,
culturally distinct or not - permanently razed and relocated with the
active support, perhaps even encouragement of some of the approved
charitable relocation agencies on which Americans must be depend to
provide help since the affected areas have been sealed off and a federal
military task force appointed to coordinate aid -- MoveOn.Org, Red Cross,
Catholic Charities, Southern Baptist Missionary services, etc.

Their mission is not to determine where folks end up; only to help
transport them to temporary shelter and provide the necessary food
and lodging, which is of course, IMMEDIATE and vital.

As important as it is for us all to help out with that NOW,
we need to keep the problems of long term restoration (or as
the media puts it, reconstruction of the entire city) in mind.

This is one of the reasons (fear of permanent displacement) so many poor
New Orleanians (including apparently Jazz musician Jelly Roll Morton, who
one commentator flippantly remarked "we don't know where he is; he decided
to remain in the 9th ward; he's a pretty stubborn guy") were so reluctant
to leave their homes.

Although they had no way to get out: the city shut off vehicular and
bus access to the poorest areas a day before ordering the evacuation.

"Orphans. People Without Homes. People Without Cars." read one article by-line.
If you have no car in New Orleans... you're pretty much a second-class citizen.

Even affluent people without cars -- French Quarter residents, tourists and
the like -- were essentially trapped in the city because of this, according
to primary sources; and some papers felt the need to refute unnamed
"popular sentiment" which allegedly blames the people remaining in the city
for "ignoring" the evacuation order and presumably, for everything that followed.

New Orleans is a very poor city; there are folks in New Orleans who do not
have TV's, or phones, much less cars; as they interviewed one guy in Mississippi,
there are entire towns on the Gulf Coast that were wiped out (all dead) where
the elderly residents would not have had the gas money or hotel money to flee.

The important thing is we must all help out now, however... Keep in mind
that more people may have died because of broken levees than on 9-11,
(Will a war start because of this? What if terrorists had broken the dam
insead of deferred maintenance by a 100% liable federal gov't?)

and if the city response is anything similar to the developer-driven
World Trade Center reconstruction, then New Orleans will be irrevocably
altered -- and not for the better... but certainly to the liking of
whoever is paying for the reconstruction!!!

--BER

[Jack May]

Post by Robinsons
Helicopters were unavailable to drop emergency sandbags in the breach, due
apparently to being elsewhere at the time (in Iraq?) which is why the city
and TV news declared efforts to fix the breach had allegedly "failed".

The break are about 200 feet wide which means only one helicopter could be
in there at a time with small load. That would never fix the levy. In
other word you are lying piece of crap.

Post by Robinsons
And the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than attempt to stop the flooding
while lives were still at stake (all the affected people are dead now...)
decided to step back and let the waters equalize and "study the problem
to make sure that any fix holds."

More crap. They were talking about floating a barge in to try to plug the
hole. That is a lot of material that flowing water would quickly wash away.

Post by Robinsons
"Orphans. People Without Homes. People Without Cars." read one article by-line.
If you have no car in New Orleans... you're pretty much a second-class citizen.

They have a busses transporting people out, but there are not enough buses
obviously to carry anywhere the number of people being carried by cars.
Just the same old lesson that any evacuation has to be planned with what
people mainly use day to day, not some small part of the total
transportation system.

Post by Robinsons
and if the city response is anything similar to the developer-driven
World Trade Center reconstruction, then New Orleans will be irrevocably
altered -- and not for the better... but certainly to the liking of
whoever is paying for the reconstruction!!!

How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

[Robinsons]

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
and if the city response is anything similar to the developer-driven
World Trade Center reconstruction, then New Orleans will be irrevocably
altered -- and not for the better... but certainly to the liking of
whoever is paying for the reconstruction!!!

How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Show me that rebuilding is necessary, first of all.

Obviously petrochemical pollution in the waters of
Lake Ponchartrain is no help. But I thought it was
conservative position that people should be allowed
to reinhabit their homes without the government telling
them, "No -- that's unsafe -- you'll be endangering
your children -- toxic chemicals -- we'll just have
to tear down your house."

"(It's out of date, anyhow. Live somewhere else!
Please!)"

I am sure plenty of people would profit if half the
historic (especially high rent) areas of New Orleans,
including areas merely flooded to the steps, were
condemned and rebuilt. Not to mention areas deluged
to their rooftops that are still structurally sound!
But it wouldn't be the decision of anyone who cared
about New Orleans as it is today.

And if that's not what you want... (New Orleans as it
is at present)... might as well keep
people from returning... to empty out the population and
make it a more pleasant place to live. The area's under
military lockdown, or will be soon.

Roll over Portland, talk about urban growth boundaries!!!

[Jack May]

Post by Robinsons
But I thought it was
conservative position that people should be allowed
to reinhabit their homes without the government telling
them,

I am not a conservative, I want to figure out how to make thing work the
best, who ever has the best idea.

At this time with such massive destruction, it is very hard to see how its
going to be done. One of the largest parts of the New Orleans economy is
tourism and conferences. That has to be brought back because the jobs of
far too many people depend on it to not bring it back.

I also have a bias because I spent two great night at the "Cats Meow"
karaoke bar on Bourbon street when I was there for a DARPA project review.
One night especially there were about 40 student nurses from LSU there
trying to top each others with singing and dancing that they probably would
not like their mothers to see :-)

I even stole a very beautiful woman from her timid husband or boy friend and
sung and danced with her a for a while.

I see the full motion video webcam is still down, but it can really be fun
at times.
http://www.nola.com/karaokecam/

[Robinsons]

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
But I thought it was
conservative position that people should be allowed
to reinhabit their homes without the government telling
them,

I am not a conservative, I want to figure out how to make thing work the
best, who ever has the best idea.
At this time with such massive destruction, it is very hard to see how its
going to be done. One of the largest parts of the New Orleans economy is
tourism and conferences. That has to be brought back because the jobs of
far too many people depend on it to not bring it back.
I also have a bias because I spent two great night at the "Cats Meow"
karaoke bar on Bourbon street when I was there for a DARPA project review.
One night especially there were about 40 student nurses from LSU there
trying to top each others with singing and dancing that they probably would
not like their mothers to see :-)
I even stole a very beautiful woman from her timid husband or boy friend and
sung and danced with her a for a while.
I see the full motion video webcam is still down, but it can really be fun
at times.
http://www.nola.com/karaokecam/

Thanks, Jack! :-) Well, the good news is that the French Quarter
is the most intact part of the city. Hopefully they can bring in
water, so it doesn't get destroyed by fire! (To quote
Pirates of the Carribbean: "now THAT's what you'd call ironic".)

There is about 4-6 foot flooding in the Garden district though, but
according to the map in the Washington post, the older parts of the
city along the Mississippi river are the highest in elevation,
which goes against what one might expect. I guess there are alot
more stable deposits due to the presence of the river and possibly
the remains of earlier settlement?

ObTransit: Based on the news footage at least parts of St. Charles
Ave. appear to be dry, and of course the riverfront rail lines are
probably dry since they run along the Mississippi levee. But that's
no comfort to folks on the Ponchartrain end of the city, of course...

Trees all along the Gulf Coast appear to have fared remarkbly well,
compared to the buildings around them. I suspect engineers might
want to take a page from the vegetation in the future.

[Robinsons]

I wonder if it would be possible, in the case of the
most extreme damage (where houses were completely
submerged), instead of raising the entire surrounding
terrain, to place all new construction on (individual)
earthen berms of some sort?

Or a continuous earthen berm in the case of rowhouses,
i.e. jack up the whole block, like they did in Chicago,
but instead of raising the level of the street or adding
a ground floor basement level, insert pilings underneath
and fill in the rest with dirt to create a house that must
be accessed via steps. Since the rear of some of these
rowhouses are narrow alleys, the alleys could be raised too
to provide vehicular access. Alternatively garages could
be built underneath below the floodline. This way, in the
event of future flooding only the streets would be flooded.

While I realize the resulting landfill would sink into
the ground -- it would be equalized by the surrounding
terrain underneath the at-grade streets, which would be
pushed up. Admittedly this would result in ongoing road
and utilities problems. And if pilings were used to support
the weight of the buildings, lighter fill (sand and clay?
wood chips or wood pieces? organic landfill and detritus?)
could be used.

Anther option might be to take another $10 billion and sink
the new levee 5000 feet on all sides with friction pilings of
some sort, creating a static bathtub that can gradually
be silted in, as happens in all human habitat, instead of
the weight compressing and displacing the underlying mud.

The present city is basically a raft of asphalt and wood
floating on a sea of mud, when you think about it. The
levees are merely lips on the sides of the raft that keep
the deck from being submerged.

Many of the houses in the worst areas may not be worth it
to jack up except in the case of older, historic homes.
The objective in the case of new construction should be
to do everything the former residents need to return and
be made whole, not chalk it up to natural disaster and
tell them to find somewhere else to live while the city
quietly sells off the land on which their flooded houses sit.

This could be an opportunity to fix up the older, more historic
homes on behalf of poorer residents, instead of them gradually
disappearing, or relying on gentrification to solve the problem
as would otherwise have happened if they hadn't been flooded.

(similar to how Abu Simbel would have survived better if
they had left it beneath the waves instead of jacking it
up above the level of the Aswan Dam, piece by piece.)

Like I said I cannot imagine water damage would necessitate
condemning houses except in the hardest hit areas. It seems
that most of the hardest hit areas are newer construction,
and they are presently a graveyard; I am not sure how much
of the "charm" of the city would be lost by rebuilding those
areas, PROVIDED the residents are allowed to return and
benefit from the rebuilding. :-(

[Robert Cote]

Post by Robinsons
I wonder if it would be possible, in the case of the
most extreme damage (where houses were completely
submerged), instead of raising the entire surrounding
terrain, to place all new construction on (individual)
earthen berms of some sort?

There's plenty of high ground already about 80 miles inland.

Post by Robinsons
Or a continuous earthen berm in the case of rowhouses,
i.e. jack up the whole block, like they did in Chicago,
but instead of raising the level of the street or adding
a ground floor basement level, insert pilings underneath
and fill in the rest with dirt to create a house that must
be accessed via steps. Since the rear of some of these
rowhouses are narrow alleys, the alleys could be raised too
to provide vehicular access. Alternatively garages could
be built underneath below the floodline. This way, in the
event of future flooding only the streets would be flooded.

Or we walk away and forget the whole thing. No cost, no danger.

Post by Robinsons
While I realize the resulting landfill would sink into
the ground -- it would be equalized by the surrounding
terrain underneath the at-grade streets, which would be
pushed up. Admittedly this would result in ongoing road
and utilities problems. And if pilings were used to support
the weight of the buildings, lighter fill (sand and clay?
wood chips or wood pieces? organic landfill and detritus?)
could be used.

This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms? The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Post by Robinsons
Anther option might be to take another $10 billion and sink
the new levee 5000 feet on all sides with friction pilings of
some sort, creating a static bathtub that can gradually
be silted in, as happens in all human habitat, instead of
the weight compressing and displacing the underlying mud.

$10b is also 100,000 $100,000 new homes in a safe location. That
assuming $10b is enough to do your levee.

...

Post by Robinsons
Like I said I cannot imagine water damage would necessitate
condemning houses except in the hardest hit areas.

Try Fox or CNN and get back to us.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote
This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms?

And instead have them build on quarter-acre plots on barrier islands?

[george conklin]

Post by Robert Cote
This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms? The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

What I have posted many times is that urban forms are inherently much,
much more expensive than any other alternative. New Orleans is just a good
example. Calcutta and even DC were also built as ports in the sailing era,
but were very unhealthy places to live because of disease. Today we may
have drugs for the disease, but the other high costs of urban residence are
still there. I suspect New Orleans will be rebuilt.

When I was dealing with airport noise, a we found it would cost about
$6,000 to build a house which would muffle all but the most loud airplanes
if you were indoors and/or trying to sleep. But guess what? No one was
interested, least of all politicians and developers. Together, they love
the current system. Just look at all the money to be made rebuilding!!
Ditto for our billion $ transit system in Raleigh/Durham.


We really need to plan for livable cities and planners want an ideal-type
city which never existed. The problem with dreams is that they have become
hallunications.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin
What I have posted many times is that urban forms are inherently much,
much more expensive than any other alternative.

Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative.

[george conklin]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin
What I have posted many times is that urban forms are inherently much,
much more expensive than any other alternative.

Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative.

Of course it is, Baxter, but your little brain wants maximized expenses
while you go on cutting down our forests for private profit.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Baxter

Post by george conklin
What I have posted many times is that urban forms are inherently much,
much more expensive than any other alternative.

Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative.

Of course it is, Baxter,

On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Post by george conklin
but your little brain wants maximized expenses
while you go on cutting down our forests for private profit.

You have no facts for your argument, so you have to resort to lying slander.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Baxter

Post by george conklin

Post by Baxter

Post by george conklin
What I have posted many times is that urban forms are inherently much,
much more expensive than any other alternative.

Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative.

Of course it is, Baxter,

On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated and
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment criteria
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

Post by Baxter

Post by george conklin
but your little brain wants maximized expenses
while you go on cutting down our forests for private profit.

You have no facts for your argument, so you have to resort to lying slander.

That would be a hoot. Leroy Baxter sues for slander. This would make
internet history. The discovery phase alone would make blogfodder for
decades. Imagine the legal implications of say, hypothetically of
course, someone using a forged email address and false name to slander
others. Does the use of an alias while committing a crime prove guilt?
Does the real owner of the stolen email address have liability?
Hypothetically, would say DeBeers be a party to paying damages or would
they also have a case against the thief, liar and slanderer?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated and
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment criteria
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

90,000 square miles of devastation says you're wrong.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated and
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment criteria
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

90,000 square miles of devastation says you're wrong.

No, -you- say my reporting of the FActs is wrong. Big difference.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated and
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment criteria
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

90,000 square miles of devastation says you're wrong.

No, -you- say my reporting of the FActs is wrong. Big difference.

What "facts" are those? You seem to think that you can pull any assertion
out of your ass, repeat it a half-dozen times, and it becomes a "FAct".
You've made multiple assertions above that you cannot support.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated

and

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment

criteria

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

90,000 square miles of devastation says you're wrong.

No, -you- say my reporting of the FActs is wrong. Big difference.

What "facts" are those? You seem to think that you can pull any assertion
out of your ass, repeat it a half-dozen times, and it becomes a "FAct".
You've made multiple assertions above that you cannot support.

I make 4 assertions broken out for the inevitable stupid reply:

Quarter acre SFR residential is a stated preference.

Quarter acre SFR residential is a revealed preference.

Quarter acre SFR residential has been a good investment.

Baxter will say the sky is pink if I say otherwise.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated

and

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment

criteria

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

90,000 square miles of devastation says you're wrong.

No, -you- say my reporting of the FActs is wrong. Big difference.

What "facts" are those? You seem to think that you can pull any assertion
out of your ass, repeat it a half-dozen times, and it becomes a "FAct".
You've made multiple assertions above that you cannot support.

Quarter acre SFR residential is a stated preference.

You basically said this.

Post by Robert Cote
Quarter acre SFR residential is a revealed preference.

You claimed this, but you are wrong.

Post by Robert Cote
Quarter acre SFR residential has been a good investment.

This is not part of what you said, and has nothing to do with the issue:
"Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative."

Post by Robert Cote
Baxter will say the sky is pink if I say otherwise.

Apparently you can't count to four. You've also not supported your claim
that large lot sizes results in optimal personal behavior. My experience
has been the opposite - more crime in small towns and suburban
neighborhoods.

[Robert Cote]

...

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
Quarter acre SFR residential is a stated preference.

You basically said this.

Post by Robert Cote
Quarter acre SFR residential is a revealed preference.

You claimed this, but you are wrong.

Post by Robert Cote
Quarter acre SFR residential has been a good investment.

"Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative."

Original wording; "By nearly every historical and investment criteria it
also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well." Both topical and
an accurate restatement that even an idiot should understand.

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
Baxter will say the sky is pink if I say otherwise.

Apparently you can't count to four.

Repeated and numbered to prove the "inevitable stupid reply" part:

I make 4 assertions broken out for the inevitable stupid reply:

1 Quarter acre SFR residential is a stated preference.
2 Quarter acre SFR residential is a revealed preference.
3 Quarter acre SFR residential has been a good investment.
4 Baxter will say the sky is pink if I say otherwise.

I think that's 4 and pretty much defines Baxterworld. Even when the
issue is "I make 4 claims" you cannot agree no matter how much more
stupid it makes you appear. You cannot help yourself. Sick.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
On *your* say-so? Um, yeah, right -- in a pig's eye.

Quarter acre SFR residential seems to be as a general rule a stated and
revealed preference. By nearly every historical and investment criteria
it also seems to be optimal personal behavior as well.

90,000 square miles of devastation says you're wrong.

No, -you- say my reporting of the FActs is wrong. Big difference.

What "facts" are those? You seem to think that you can pull any assertion
out of your ass, repeat it a half-dozen times, and it becomes a "FAct".

You have a fixation with that, don't you?

Leroy has an RCI - http://rectcraninversion.tripod.com/

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Baxter

Post by Baxter
--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

Post by george conklin
What I have posted many times is that urban forms are inherently much,
much more expensive than any other alternative.

Ten-acres per household is not an alternative. Nor is every house on a
quarter-acre lot an alternative.

Of course it is, Baxter, but your little brain wants maximized expenses
while you go on cutting down our forests for private profit.

If density is really Portland's answer, they should be glad to offer to take
in, say, 30,000 or 40,000 from New Orleans. That should really make it a
superior city.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sancho Panza
If density is really Portland's answer, they should be glad to offer to take
in, say, 30,000 or 40,000 from New Orleans. That should really make it a
superior city.

You think the people of N.O. want to be that far from home? How about we
pick you up and move you halfway across the country?

But yes, Portland DOES stand ready to take in people from N.O. - does your
city?

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sancho Panza
If density is really Portland's answer, they should be glad to offer to

take

Post by Sancho Panza
in, say, 30,000 or 40,000 from New Orleans. That should really make it a
superior city.

You think the people of N.O. want to be that far from home? How about we
pick you up and move you halfway across the country?

They're doing that with Maine, but maybe you don't consider that part of the
country.

Post by Baxter
But yes, Portland DOES stand ready to take in people from N.O.

We know there won't be an answer, but might you just have a citation for
this assertion?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
But yes, Portland DOES stand ready to take in people from N.O.

We know there won't be an answer, but might you just have a citation for
this assertion?

Do your own homework - it's not that hard to confirm my claim -- for
instance, it's in today's Oregonian (get your own damn link), it's been on
all the TV stations, there's national stories that include it, you can find
a discussion on it in the pdx newsgroups, etc.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
But yes, Portland DOES stand ready to take in people from N.O.

We know there won't be an answer, but might you just have a citation for
this assertion?

Do your own homework - it's not that hard to confirm my claim -- for
instance, it's in today's Oregonian (get your own damn link), it's been on
all the TV stations, there's national stories that include it, you can find
a discussion on it in the pdx newsgroups, etc.

Maybe someone didn't want to make too easy to find out just how hospitable
Portland is:

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/front_page/112591771578621.xml&coll=7

" Several neighborhood people said they had safety concerns about plopping
up to 1,000 people from another city in the middle of a residential
neighborhood."

So they're planning to cut it to 500.

"Potter said the Police Bureau is working on a security plan to ensure the
safety of residents and evacuees. His chief of staff, Nancy Hamilton, said
the evacuees will be security screened either before they are brought to
Portland or at Portland International Airport.
Hamilton also said putting all the evacuees in the old high school will make
it crowded, and that officials are looking for a second or third site, but
so far haven't located any.

Delaying the evacuees' arrival until midweek will give planners more time to
find other locations as well as fine-tune procedures that have been done on
the fly, Hamilton said.

Hamilton said the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it will
reimburse the city's out-of-pocket costs.

Later, Potter met with leaders of Portland's African American community to
gather ideas on how to make the newcomers welcome. Many of the evacuees are
likely to be African American, like the majority of New Orleans residents."

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
--

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
But yes, Portland DOES stand ready to take in people from N.O.

We know there won't be an answer, but might you just have a citation for
this assertion?

Do your own homework - it's not that hard to confirm my claim -- for
instance, it's in today's Oregonian (get your own damn link), it's been on
all the TV stations, there's national stories that include it, you can

find

Post by Baxter
a discussion on it in the pdx newsgroups, etc.

Maybe someone didn't want to make too easy to find out just how hospitable

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/front_page/112591771578621.xml&coll=7

Post by Sancho Panza
" Several neighborhood people said they had safety concerns about plopping
up to 1,000 people from another city in the middle of a residential
neighborhood."
So they're planning to cut it to 500.

I've not heard that. Besides, it was the Governor that said 1000.

Post by Sancho Panza
"Potter said the Police Bureau is working on a security plan to ensure the
safety of residents and evacuees. His chief of staff, Nancy Hamilton, said
the evacuees will be security screened either before they are brought to
Portland or at Portland International Airport.
Hamilton also said putting all the evacuees in the old high school will make
it crowded, and that officials are looking for a second or third site, but
so far haven't located any.
Delaying the evacuees' arrival until midweek will give planners more time to
find other locations as well as fine-tune procedures that have been done on
the fly, Hamilton said.
Hamilton said the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it will
reimburse the city's out-of-pocket costs.
Later, Potter met with leaders of Portland's African American community to
gather ideas on how to make the newcomers welcome. Many of the evacuees are
likely to be African American, like the majority of New Orleans residents."

You got a problem with any of this?

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
--

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
But yes, Portland DOES stand ready to take in people from N.O.

We know there won't be an answer, but might you just have a citation

for

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter

Post by Sancho Panza
this assertion?

Do your own homework - it's not that hard to confirm my claim -- for
instance, it's in today's Oregonian (get your own damn link), it's

been

Post by Baxter
on

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Baxter
all the TV stations, there's national stories that include it, you can

find

Post by Baxter
a discussion on it in the pdx newsgroups, etc.

Maybe someone didn't want to make too easy to find out just how hospitable

http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/front_page/1125917715786
21.xml&coll=7

Post by Baxter

Post by Sancho Panza
" Several neighborhood people said they had safety concerns about plopping
up to 1,000 people from another city in the middle of a residential
neighborhood."
So they're planning to cut it to 500.

I've not heard that. Besides, it was the Governor that said 1000.

Try reading the article you referred to but were once again too
inconsiderate to post the link for. (Or maybe you didn't even bother to read
it yourself.) But both those scores may be expecting too much from someone
who's intent is to spray his urine all around. Keep pissing away. That's all
you've got.

Post by Baxter

Post by Sancho Panza
"Potter said the Police Bureau is working on a security plan to ensure the
safety of residents and evacuees. His chief of staff, Nancy Hamilton, said
the evacuees will be security screened either before they are brought to
Portland or at Portland International Airport.
Hamilton also said putting all the evacuees in the old high school will

make

Post by Sancho Panza
it crowded, and that officials are looking for a second or third site, but
so far haven't located any.
Delaying the evacuees' arrival until midweek will give planners more

time

Post by Baxter
to

Post by Sancho Panza
find other locations as well as fine-tune procedures that have been done

on

Post by Sancho Panza
the fly, Hamilton said.
Hamilton said the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it will
reimburse the city's out-of-pocket costs.
Later, Potter met with leaders of Portland's African American community to
gather ideas on how to make the newcomers welcome. Many of the evacuees

are

Post by Sancho Panza
likely to be African American, like the majority of New Orleans

residents."
You got a problem with any of this?

Sure sounds as if Portland is going to conduct screening to ensure that no
one falls below the mysterious standards it might set. Doesn't sound too
hospitable. As a matter of fact, it sounds downright exclusionary. Setting
high bars doesn't sound much like any sort of superior progressive
community. More like just plain snooty stuck-up-their-ass snobs who might
let in a couple of token folks of another persuasion just to show other
cities and to reassure themselves how goodly they are. What a load of
crapola!

[Robinsons]

Post by Sancho Panza
Sure sounds as if Portland is going to conduct screening to ensure that no
one falls below the mysterious standards it might set. Doesn't sound too
hospitable. As a matter of fact, it sounds downright exclusionary. Setting
high bars doesn't sound much like any sort of superior progressive
community. More like just plain snooty stuck-up-their-ass snobs who might
let in a couple of token folks of another persuasion just to show other
cities and to reassure themselves how goodly they are. What a load of
crapola!

Would anyone here like to pool bets on which neighborhood the incredibly
progressive and NON-RACIST (shout to the heavens!!!) city of Portland
will relocate New Orleanians to?

Hint: Reference to plopping down 1,000 people in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood.

You can't put black people in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood!!!

that is for affluent, white liberals!!!!

Red-lining, baby.

Any bets? We could start a pool. Baxter, I'll take your $50 on any
community of your choice west of the Willammette.

The over-under is 50 people in any one area. Payout depends on how
many people join the pool.

Any takers?

Did I mention that Portlander's discussing RELOCATION as if these
people will have no right to return? Black New Orleanians are being
forced out of their (dry) homes at gunpoint by white contractors with
private arms even as we speak.

The New Orleans police force has been sent to Las Vegas for 3 weeks' R & R
with their families, using some of that $10 Billion while Posse Bushitatus,
AKA the Mississippi and Northern Louisiana National Guard, focus on
establishing 9-months of martial law during which period NO-ONE,
except for contractors and business owners will be allowed into New Orleans
for enviro-nazi "safety" reasons. Lawyers, contractors, restaurant owners
and engineers will be invited to remain in the city, of course, to facilitate
in the condemnation process for the underwater (i.e. black) parts of the city.

--Brian

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Robert Cote
The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Just a few weeks ago, railroads and buses moved twice the citizenship of
New Orleans into and out of Cologne, both within a day.


Great days for the choo-choo foamers: The rail stars or my childhood got
out of the museum, for smelling fresh air in front of 200 km/h
choo-choos.
http://zu-den-zuegen.de/seiten/fotokiste/kiste3.htm
http://zu-den-zuegen.de/seiten/fotokiste/kiste4.htm



Hans-Joachim

[Tim Kynerd]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Robert Cote
The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Just a few weeks ago, railroads and buses moved twice the citizenship of
New Orleans into and out of Cologne, both within a day.

But just because I was unfortunate enough to be there at the same time,
I'll say: They did it badly. (Although that's mostly due to the
unbelievably atrocious behavior of those who were traveling. I was there
with an American Jewish friend. As we were sitting on a platform listening
to these kids yell and scream at the top of their lungs, I turned to him
and said, "This makes me ashamed that I was raised Christian." After a few
minutes, he said, "This makes me ashamed that I was raised religious.")
The lengths of time that the trains were dwelling in the stations was just
absurd, as were the resulting delays.

However, that's not to dispute your point, which is that it did get done
and could have gotten done in New Orleans if the US still had
transportation facilities that were up to the task.

Best,
Tim

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tim Kynerd
But just because I was unfortunate enough to be there at the same time,
I'll say: They did it badly.

The media said the same, because they needed 8 or 9 hours to move people
away, but ... AFAIK, this main event has had far more than 1 million
participants. Hundredthousands were going by rail. Accomodating several
hundredthousands on top of the normal daily traffic in less than 8 - 9
hours is quite a challenge.

Post by Tim Kynerd
(Although that's mostly due to the
unbelievably atrocious behavior of those who were traveling. I was there
with an American Jewish friend. As we were sitting on a platform listening
to these kids yell and scream at the top of their lungs, I turned to him
and said, "This makes me ashamed that I was raised Christian." After a few
minutes, he said, "This makes me ashamed that I was raised religious.")
The lengths of time that the trains were dwelling in the stations was just
absurd, as were the resulting delays.

Yes, there might have been a judgement error. Obviously, planners
thought, that the catholic kids would behave a little more disciplined
than a Love Parade crowd on ecstasy.

For Love Parade day in Berlin, the railroad planners have given up. They
shut down the inner city stations, because the Bundesgrenzschutz wasn't
able to handle tenthousands at a time within the very restricted space of
stations like Zoo. So they start the trains at more peripherical places.

Post by Tim Kynerd
However, that's not to dispute your point, which is that it did get done
and could have gotten done in New Orleans if the US still had
transportation facilities that were up to the task.

In comparison to the situation in New Orleans, boxcar class is the much
better option, even if there might be emotional barriers due to not so
good memories of the 30s. There is not much doubt, that the Class 1s
could have evacuated the whole city in 5 hours.


Hans-Joachim

[Tim Kynerd]

-snip-

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tim Kynerd
(Although that's mostly due to the
unbelievably atrocious behavior of those who were traveling. I was there
with an American Jewish friend. As we were sitting on a platform listening
to these kids yell and scream at the top of their lungs, I turned to him
and said, "This makes me ashamed that I was raised Christian." After a few
minutes, he said, "This makes me ashamed that I was raised religious.")
The lengths of time that the trains were dwelling in the stations was just
absurd, as were the resulting delays.

Yes, there might have been a judgement error. Obviously, planners
thought, that the catholic kids would behave a little more disciplined
than a Love Parade crowd on ecstasy.

*lol* No joke! We saw ridiculous behavior on the trains as well --
enormous crowds of kids playing the guitar, singing, even dancing (and
using my friend as a support while dancing) -- these creatures apparently
didn't realize they had not rented out the entire region and all its
facilities, and that other people wanted to use them.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
For Love Parade day in Berlin, the railroad planners have given up. They
shut down the inner city stations, because the Bundesgrenzschutz wasn't
able to handle tenthousands at a time within the very restricted space of
stations like Zoo. So they start the trains at more peripherical places.

I thought the Love Parade was dead. It's still going on?

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Tim Kynerd
However, that's not to dispute your point, which is that it did get
done and could have gotten done in New Orleans if the US still had
transportation facilities that were up to the task.

In comparison to the situation in New Orleans, boxcar class is the much
better option, even if there might be emotional barriers due to not so
good memories of the 30s. There is not much doubt, that the Class 1s
could have evacuated the whole city in 5 hours.

Agreed. Although it looked to me like most of those kids in and
around Köln deserved to travel (to the destinations they intended, let me
be clear) in boxcar class.

Best,
Tim

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Tim Kynerd
*lol* No joke! We saw ridiculous behavior on the trains as well --
enormous crowds of kids playing the guitar, singing, even dancing (and
using my friend as a support while dancing) -- these creatures apparently
didn't realize they had not rented out the entire region and all its
facilities, and that other people wanted to use them.
I thought the Love Parade was dead. It's still going on?

Let's see what happens next year. 1 million tourists on one day is such
an economic boost for a city, even with most of them being budget
tourists, that I can't believe, that the city government will really let
things slip away.

Love Parade day used to be THE capacity test for Germany's railroad
system. Cars borrowed from as far away as Slovakia.
Engineers told me about the joys of passing completely crowded platforms
at 100 mph, with the kids deafened enough by their headphones to ignore
all warnings by the PA system. Only generous usage of the train horn
brought the message across and cleared the platform edge just in front of
the train.

Post by Tim Kynerd
Agreed. Although it looked to me like most of those kids in and
around Köln deserved to travel (to the destinations they intended, let me
be clear) in boxcar class.

On a scale, these kids won't rank higher than 3rd place.

1st place: The soccer fans. It happened quite often, that such trains
had to go to the shop for repairs afterwards. Windows missing, and
somesuch. Believe me, in comparison to drunken hooligans, your dancing
kids are gold.
Meanwhile, the situation has been improved by special, separate trains
and generous usage of the Bundesgrenzschutz. Some of the clubs even have
their own trainset for fan travel.

2nd place: The weekend trains to/from major Bundeswehr barracks. Again,
the situation for the normal passenger has been improved by running
specials.



Hans-Joachim

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Robert Cote
The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Just a few weeks ago, railroads and buses moved twice the citizenship of
New Orleans into and out of Cologne, both within a day.

Indeed. A serious problem was (if I remember well) that many people wanted
to get out of the city with a private vehicle, but there was no petrol
available... And of course you had the citizens that were not able to
pay for public transit to get out of the city.

[Robinsons]

Post by Dik T. Winter

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Robert Cote
The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Just a few weeks ago, railroads and buses moved twice the citizenship of
New Orleans into and out of Cologne, both within a day.

Indeed. A serious problem was (if I remember well) that many people wanted
to get out of the city with a private vehicle, but there was no petrol
available... And of course you had the citizens that were not able to
pay for public transit to get out of the city.

Meaning, this was not a transit or urban vs. suburb issue.

Jefferson Parish, home of Metairie, one of the more segregated and
suburban places in the nation, was also abandoned.

All city buses in New Orleans were chartered to take rich hotel guests
out of the city (some as late as Thursday, after waiting for the waters
to go down) at $$ forty dollars a pop.

Singing "Bye, Bye Blackbird", I am sure.

(That's on Thursday, people.)

The hotels hired white contractors and local thugs (both with shotguns)
to keep non-paying customers (hotel guest or not) off the bus.

That is why no busses were available to take the elderly out of
homes (not to mention that the Industrial Canal Levee break,
where the flood waters are deepest and the neighborhoods poorest,
still has not been repaired and will be "left open for a while".

This means the bodies of the dead in the 9th ward will be left
for the gators to consume in order to improve Bush's popularity ratings.

--Brian

[george conklin]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Robert Cote
The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Just a few weeks ago, railroads and buses moved twice the citizenship of
New Orleans into and out of Cologne, both within a day.

Cologne did not have just a few ways out. Riding Amtrak out of New
Orleans on the trestle is enough to make you want to stop eating your
breakfast. It is like being at sea. All you see is water.

As for the response afterwards, it is a horrible mess and a black mark
on the nation.

[Robinsons]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Robert Cote
The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

Just a few weeks ago, railroads and buses moved twice the citizenship of
New Orleans into and out of Cologne, both within a day.

These people are trapped and dying because (a) they are black
(trust me, my family is from Northern Louisiana, which white
residents there insist is the "Home of the Coming Race War")

and (b)

because the EXISTING buses and trains (not transit) was shut down
24 hours before the evacuation notice was given, and without a car
(as Conklin and Cote say) you are a worthless, shiftless individual
who is not worth caring about, never mind built urban form, hence
their spiteful and monomaniacal shifting of topic back to... urban form.

Show some respect, all of you. Talking about planning tranist
systems or bitching about ridership in this kind of thread is
the most contemptible monomaniacal rambling, in league with
Thomas Friedman writing about real estate and investment
opportunities opened up by the hijackers in the wake of 9-11.

Show some frickin' class.

--Brian

[Krzysztof Zietara]

Post by Robert Cote
This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms? The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?

AFAICT from the news, inadequate roads were not a problem, everyone with
car and will to get out got out.

Tarhimdugurth

[Jack May]

Post by Krzysztof Zietara
And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?

We spend a hell of a lot more money to provide them transit than it would
cost to pay for a car and support it running. That would free up a lot of
money to fix bottle necks and other problems to handle the cars.

Not exactly a hard problem unless you have a philosophy that wants to run
transit at all cost no matter how much damage you do to society and how much
you harm poor people.

You may have to do something really weird like require money be used to
obtain maximum benefit to society instead of maintaining hard boundaries
between different pots of money to maintain each bureaucracy no matter the
damaging to society of that bureaucracy

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Krzysztof Zietara
And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?

We spend a hell of a lot more money to provide them transit than it would
cost to pay for a car and support it running. That would free up a lot of
money to fix bottle necks and other problems to handle the cars.
Not exactly a hard problem unless you have a philosophy that wants to run
transit at all cost no matter how much damage you do to society and how much
you harm poor people.
You may have to do something really weird like require money be used to
obtain maximum benefit to society instead of maintaining hard boundaries
between different pots of money to maintain each bureaucracy no matter the
damaging to society of that bureaucracy

If you are advocating buying *and running* a car for everyone below a
certain income, that is worth considering, but what about the vagaries
of car upkeep? Will the state keep repairing cars which gradually fall
apart, a component at a time? I know what I am talking about, my last
car, around 1980, was one of them.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Krzysztof Zietara
And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?

We spend a hell of a lot more money to provide them transit than it would
cost to pay for a car and support it running. That would free up a lot of
money to fix bottle necks and other problems to handle the cars.
Not exactly a hard problem unless you have a philosophy that wants to run
transit at all cost no matter how much damage you do to society and how much
you harm poor people.
You may have to do something really weird like require money be used to
obtain maximum benefit to society instead of maintaining hard boundaries
between different pots of money to maintain each bureaucracy no matter the
damaging to society of that bureaucracy

If you are advocating buying *and running* a car for everyone below a
certain income, that is worth considering, but what about the vagaries
of car upkeep? Will the state keep repairing cars which gradually fall
apart, a component at a time?

30 billion in annual US transit subsidies buys and operates quite a few
vehicles. Something north of 5 million vehicles the first year and
increasing 600,000 per year thereafter. That's 8 million served the
first year thus nearly the entirety of US transit dependents.

Post by Martin Edwards
I know what I am talking about, my last
car, around 1980, was one of them.

English was it?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Jack May

Post by Krzysztof Zietara
And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?

We spend a hell of a lot more money to provide them transit than it would
cost to pay for a car and support it running. That would free up a lot of
money to fix bottle necks and other problems to handle the cars.

Yeah, that's a proposal that's gonna fly like a lead balloon.

[Krzysztof Zietara]

Post by Jack May

Post by Krzysztof Zietara
And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?

We spend a hell of a lot more money to provide them transit than it would
cost to pay for a car and support it running.

I somehow doubt the latter part. And the logistics would be staggeringly
complicated and vulnerable to all kinds of fraud.

Post by Jack May
You may have to do something really weird like require money be used to
obtain maximum benefit to society instead of maintaining hard boundaries
between different pots of money to maintain each bureaucracy no matter the
damaging to society of that bureaucracy

Well, that's how the real world works, like it or not. You can't shuffle
resources available at will (and seeing what government can do when it's
allowed to to that, I'll rather live with separate beauracracies).

Tarhimdugurth

[george conklin]

Post by Krzysztof Zietara

Post by Robert Cote
This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms? The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?
AFAICT from the news, inadequate roads were not a problem, everyone with

There were about 100,000 people who had be identified as 'immobile'
before the flood. Unfortunately, no planning had been made for them by
anyone at all. Evacuation is always optional, even if 'mandatory.' Even
now they have no idea where to put the residents of a whole city + the
Mississippi Gulf.

My wife, a public health nurse, participated in a flood rescue which flooded
Princeville in NC about 5 years back. (Princeville is a black-founded
town/city in NC). It was very hard to handle for her. The nurses had no
idea where they would be sent and after they got there, government lost the
list of who was where. The army had to take some home since the vans/buses
did not know where the nurses had been left!!! The state of NC made no
provision to feed its own rescue workers. They had to beg food from
churches, but at least the army fed its own. The nurses slept with the
displaced on cots. Sanitary conditions were a disgrace too. People ended
up relieving themselves in a parking lot. I later met one of the men in
charge of this mess and I must say he was a total asshole, but a friend of
the governor of NC. When I tried to find out where my wife was, I was told,
"You don't need to know." Fortunately she was allowed a 1-minute phone call
but even then phones had just been reestablished that very day. Later in
the week AT&T sent in satellite phones which was the first the refugees had
a chance to tell anyone where they were. Mind you, this was a very, very
local event, not a major city. But even with a local event, it was a
glorious mess when it did not need to be that way. I could write a lot
more, but you get the idea: government simply does not have quality people
in charge of this kind of thing.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by george conklin

Post by Krzysztof Zietara

Post by Robert Cote
This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms? The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?
AFAICT from the news, inadequate roads were not a problem, everyone with

There were about 100,000 people who had be identified as 'immobile'
before the flood. Unfortunately, no planning had been made for them by
anyone at all. Evacuation is always optional, even if 'mandatory.' Even

I think this is a terrible mistake. Mandatory should mean
mandatory. There should be legal penalties for disobeying a mandatory
evacuation order, or at least an understanding that people who stay
behind are not entitled to any help. (I'm not saying don't help them,
just make sure they understand it's not guaranteed -- this is what some
states do when they close certain roads in winter and people use them
anyway.) Of course, people who *can't* leave should get leniency; I'm
talking about people who willfully stay behind.

Post by george conklin
now they have no idea where to put the residents of a whole city + the
Mississippi Gulf.
My wife, a public health nurse, participated in a flood rescue which flooded
Princeville in NC about 5 years back. (Princeville is a black-founded
town/city in NC). It was very hard to handle for her. The nurses had no
idea where they would be sent and after they got there, government lost the
list of who was where. The army had to take some home since the vans/buses
did not know where the nurses had been left!!! The state of NC made no
provision to feed its own rescue workers. They had to beg food from
churches, but at least the army fed its own. The nurses slept with the
displaced on cots. Sanitary conditions were a disgrace too. People ended
up relieving themselves in a parking lot. I later met one of the men in
charge of this mess and I must say he was a total asshole, but a friend of
the governor of NC. When I tried to find out where my wife was, I was told,
"You don't need to know." Fortunately she was allowed a 1-minute phone call
but even then phones had just been reestablished that very day. Later in
the week AT&T sent in satellite phones which was the first the refugees had
a chance to tell anyone where they were. Mind you, this was a very, very
local event, not a major city. But even with a local event, it was a
glorious mess when it did not need to be that way. I could write a lot
more, but you get the idea: government simply does not have quality people
in charge of this kind of thing.

[Robinsons]

Post by l***@gmail.com
I think this is a terrible mistake. Mandatory should mean
mandatory. There should be legal penalties for disobeying a mandatory
evacuation order, or at least an understanding that people who stay
behind are not entitled to any help. (I'm not saying don't help them,
just make sure they understand it's not guaranteed -- this is what some
states do when they close certain roads in winter and people use them
anyway.) Of course, people who *can't* leave should get leniency; I'm
talking about people who willfully stay behind.

I suggest same should be done to you, and then we bulldoze your house.

By whatever definition of "should" you are referring to, of course.

By the way, contractors are being moved into the city over the bridge
from Algiers (which was sealed off to evacuees who "willfully" stayed
behind to protect their buildings, belongings and loved ones.)

Do you have any property in New Orleans? I'm thinking of going down there.
I'd be happy to bulldoze it for you. Not that I need your permission...
I don't.

[Krzysztof Zietara]

Post by george conklin
There were about 100,000 people who had be identified as 'immobile'
before the flood. Unfortunately, no planning had been made for them by
anyone at all.

And that's pretty much the problem, as far as I can tell. No planning.

Post by george conklin
Evacuation is always optional, even if 'mandatory.'

Yes, however situation where you have city with stranded people which
chose to stay there against better advice is different (and said people
are probably more prepared and much less numerous).

Post by george conklin
Even
now they have no idea where to put the residents of a whole city + the
Mississippi Gulf.

I think that they're better off in overcrowded, unsanitary and
ill-supplied stadiums/tent cities/whatever when they're adjacent to
functioning cities instead of sitting in the flooded one.

Post by george conklin
I could write a lot
more, but you get the idea: government simply does not have quality people
in charge of this kind of thing.

Yes. From my (foreign) perspective it's just... weird that USA
government will fall so flat on it's face.

Tarhimdugurth

[Robinsons]

Post by Krzysztof Zietara

Post by george conklin
There were about 100,000 people who had be identified as 'immobile'
before the flood. Unfortunately, no planning had been made for them by
anyone at all.

And that's pretty much the problem, as far as I can tell. No planning.
I think that they're better off in overcrowded, unsanitary and
ill-supplied stadiums/tent cities/whatever when they're adjacent to
functioning cities instead of sitting in the flooded one.
Yes. From my (foreign) perspective it's just... weird that USA
government will fall so flat on it's face.

You need to bone up on race relations in the US. You clearly have
no idea how deliberate and malicious this treatment was. The people
who got left behind are second class citizens and will remain second
class citizens which is why the "body politic" gets to discss and
argue where and in which godforsaken parts of other cities they should
be permanently relocated, while their belongings are looted by (white)
armed thugs working for the federal government and hauled off to the
junkyard over the course of the next several months, while the city
is sealed off to non-military and military-contractor types.

--Brian

[Robinsons]

Post by george conklin
There were about 100,000 people who had be identified as 'immobile'
before the flood. Unfortunately, no planning had been made for them by
anyone at all. Evacuation is always optional, even if 'mandatory.' Even
now they have no idea where to put the residents of a whole city + the
Mississippi Gulf.

Not any more, George. FEMA provisions enacted by Reagan (I believe) mean
Bush now has the power to declare martial law, and with all but 50 Nawlins
police officers now on vacation in Las Vegas, he has done so. Armed
contractors (crackers) and thugs (urban youth) roam the streets killing
each other. This is perceived to be better than just thugs. (Have they
no respect? This is a National Tragedy! Can't they stop their normal
criminal activities long enough to rally round the flag and make their
leaders look good? Don't they realize this is an Act of God? Those aren't
the Substandard Levees you are looking for!!!)

Anyhow, point is, the Feds are now relying on (mostly white) volunteers
to forcibly evacuate people from houses (mostly dry or undamaged, yes I
know whereof I speak having worked in construction including the Phoenix
project - I am in the midst of an ongoing renovation of a building that
might as well have been flooded with contaminants when we first got it.)

Staying is not an option, the last radio station was told by the gov't
to tell people "everyone must leave, abandon your belongings, you will
not be able to recover them. The City of New Orleans is dead."

Post by george conklin
My wife, a public health nurse, participated in a flood rescue which flooded
Princeville in NC about 5 years back. (Princeville is a black-founded
town/city in NC). It was very hard to handle for her. The nurses had no
idea where they would be sent and after they got there, government lost the
list of who was where. The army had to take some home since the vans/buses
did not know where the nurses had been left!!! The state of NC made no
provision to feed its own rescue workers. They had to beg food from
churches, but at least the army fed its own. The nurses slept with the
displaced on cots. Sanitary conditions were a disgrace too. People ended
up relieving themselves in a parking lot. I later met one of the men in
charge of this mess and I must say he was a total asshole, but a friend of
the governor of NC. When I tried to find out where my wife was, I was told,
"You don't need to know." Fortunately she was allowed a 1-minute phone call
but even then phones had just been reestablished that very day. Later in
the week AT&T sent in satellite phones which was the first the refugees had
a chance to tell anyone where they were. Mind you, this was a very, very
local event, not a major city. But even with a local event, it was a
glorious mess when it did not need to be that way. I could write a lot
more, but you get the idea: government simply does not have quality people
in charge of this kind of thing.

And then they condemned all their houses, which is alot less necessary
in this case. (50,000 gallons of Lake Ponchartrain water /=
50,000 gallons of pig shit from upstream plantations.) But there's a
lot more MONEY in it, and "they're just a bunch of ------s who'd be
better off somewhere else anyways" (to mis-attribute a statement
I encountered in reference to a local public works project.)

The Feds know that folks who have money and are core supporters of the
President do not need FEMA aid to rebuild, and if they need money from
the government, they can go through back channels to get it, just like
Redskins owner Dan Snyder got the National Park Service to cut down
about 50 "non-native species" in the C&O Canal Park that were blocking
his view of the Potomac River.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Krzysztof Zietara

Post by Robert Cote
This on alt.planning.urban? What's wrong with finally getting around to
that unspeakable concept George and I have promulgated for a decade?
When can we stop investing in failed and failing expensive and obsolete
urban forms? The people are trapped and dying because of inadequate
roads and many did not get out in the first place because of transit
dependency.

And you propose to reduce transit dependency of people too poor to
own a car exactly how?
AFAICT from the news, inadequate roads were not a problem, everyone with
car and will to get out got out.

The way to reduce dependency is to reduce dependency services. We don't
market and other public services the way we do transit. Imagine the
water department spending on an advertising campaign to use more water
and encouraging this by adopting a budget that charges customers 20% of
the actual costs. If we hadn't spent the last decade ignoring the roads
and other infrastructure in favor of the dependency trolleys in New
Orleans far fewer people would have been exposed.

[Robinsons]

Post by Robert Cote
The way to reduce dependency is to reduce dependency services. We don't
market and other public services the way we do transit. Imagine the
water department spending on an advertising campaign to use more water
and encouraging this by adopting a budget that charges customers 20% of
the actual costs. If we hadn't spent the last decade ignoring the roads
and other infrastructure in favor of the dependency trolleys in New
Orleans far fewer people would have been exposed.

Yes, Robert, everyone knows that (a) the historic city of New Orleans
should have been torn down and replaced decades ago, just like Venice,
meaning (b) this is not such a great disaster and (c) New Orleans was
one of the biggest sinkholes for rail mass transit funding in the US
over the past 50 years because of their (d) LOOT rail trolleys geared
to transport the desperately poor residents of Downtown Nawlins from
the French Quarter to Uptown and (99.9% white) Lakeshore or wherever,
all of which goes to show you that (e) the mystical layout of the
street grid is why New Orleanians refuse to drive more.

Perhaps we should hire armed thugs (white ex-military crackers from
Northern Louisiana or black thugs from the inner city, take your pick,
the hotels are hiring both!) to force New Orleanians to drive more,
thereby guaranteeing demand for better roads.

[Tim Kynerd]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:53:53 -0400, Robinsons wrote:

-snip-

Post by Robinsons
There is about 4-6 foot flooding in the Garden district though, but
according to the map in the Washington post, the older parts of the
city along the Mississippi river are the highest in elevation,
which goes against what one might expect. I guess there are alot
more stable deposits due to the presence of the river and possibly
the remains of earlier settlement?

The original city was placed at what is now called the French Quarter
*because* it was the highest land around, and thus least susceptible to
flooding.

-snip-

Best,
Tim

[george conklin]

Post by Tim Kynerd
-snip-

Post by Robinsons
There is about 4-6 foot flooding in the Garden district though, but
according to the map in the Washington post, the older parts of the
city along the Mississippi river are the highest in elevation,
which goes against what one might expect. I guess there are alot
more stable deposits due to the presence of the river and possibly
the remains of earlier settlement?

The original city was placed at what is now called the French Quarter
*because* it was the highest land around, and thus least susceptible to
flooding.
-snip-
Best,
Tim

You should tour some of the museums in New Orleans. They show you the
death rate in the city from disease was so high you had a life expectancy of
about 7 years at best. They don't pull any punches. Bombay and Calcutta
(old spellings) were not much better from the same era either, perhaps
worse. Even in Stockholm, where we have good data, the birth rate did not
exceed the death rate until 1860. Mardi Gras in New Orleans is the wildest
public party in North America. Ever been there? The motto of it today is,
"Show your tits," and they do.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Tim Kynerd
-snip-

Post by Robinsons
There is about 4-6 foot flooding in the Garden district though, but
according to the map in the Washington post, the older parts of the
city along the Mississippi river are the highest in elevation,
which goes against what one might expect. I guess there are alot
more stable deposits due to the presence of the river and possibly
the remains of earlier settlement?

The original city was placed at what is now called the French Quarter
*because* it was the highest land around, and thus least susceptible to
flooding.

This is the model for most new development on the fringes. People buy a
quarter acre on a barrier island (Gulf or Atlantic) or flood plain
(Midwest) or liquifaction zone (California) and wonder why people had
never built there before. The only difference now is people feeling
entitled to be made whole and remain in situ after the disaster.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Tim Kynerd
-snip-

Post by Robinsons
There is about 4-6 foot flooding in the Garden district though, but
according to the map in the Washington post, the older parts of the
city along the Mississippi river are the highest in elevation,
which goes against what one might expect. I guess there are alot
more stable deposits due to the presence of the river and possibly
the remains of earlier settlement?

The original city was placed at what is now called the French Quarter
*because* it was the highest land around, and thus least susceptible to
flooding.

This is the model for most new development on the fringes. People buy a
quarter acre on a barrier island (Gulf or Atlantic) or flood plain
(Midwest) or liquifaction zone (California) and wonder why people had
never built there before. The only difference now is people feeling
entitled to be made whole and remain in situ after the disaster.

And when you zone against building there, they jump up and down screaming
"taking" and demanding compensation. You are one of those who fight against
just such zoning or land-use planning.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
But I thought it was
conservative position that people should be allowed
to reinhabit their homes without the government telling
them,

I am not a conservative,

......or not much anyway.

[george conklin]

Post by Robinsons

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
and if the city response is anything similar to the developer-driven
World Trade Center reconstruction, then New Orleans will be irrevocably
altered -- and not for the better... but certainly to the liking of
whoever is paying for the reconstruction!!!

How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Show me that rebuilding is necessary, first of all.
Obviously petrochemical pollution in the waters of
Lake Ponchartrain is no help. But I thought it was
conservative position that people should be allowed
to reinhabit their homes without the government telling
them, "No -- that's unsafe -- you'll be endangering
your children -- toxic chemicals -- we'll just have
to tear down your house."
"(It's out of date, anyhow. Live somewhere else!
Please!)"
I am sure plenty of people would profit if half the
historic (especially high rent) areas of New Orleans,
including areas merely flooded to the steps, were
condemned and rebuilt. Not to mention areas deluged
to their rooftops that are still structurally sound!
But it wouldn't be the decision of anyone who cared
about New Orleans as it is today.
And if that's not what you want... (New Orleans as it
is at present)... might as well keep
people from returning... to empty out the population and
make it a more pleasant place to live. The area's under
military lockdown, or will be soon.
Roll over Portland, talk about urban growth boundaries!!!

It is far far too early to make such a prediction.

[David Lesher]

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
And the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than attempt to stop the flooding
while lives were still at stake (all the affected people are dead now...)
decided to step back and let the waters equalize and "study the problem
to make sure that any fix holds."

More crap. They were talking about floating a barge in to try to plug the
hole. That is a lot of material that flowing water would quickly wash away.

Err; it's not the river side; it's the canal from the north....and
the 17th St, Canal is blocked by a low bridge recently built... they
can NOT get a barge under it...

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
Helicopters were unavailable to drop emergency sandbags in the breach, due
apparently to being elsewhere at the time (in Iraq?) which is why the city
and TV news declared efforts to fix the breach had allegedly "failed".

The break are about 200 feet wide which means only one helicopter could be
in there at a time with small load. That would never fix the levy.

The official in charge of the levee system said it was built for a Category
3 hurricane because that was the largest recorded for New Orleans. Many
people would say that's naive, to say the least.

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
And the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than attempt to stop the flooding
while lives were still at stake (all the affected people are dead now...)
decided to step back and let the waters equalize and "study the problem
to make sure that any fix holds."

They were talking about floating a barge in to try to plug the
hole. That is a lot of material that flowing water would quickly wash away.

Into Day 5, that has not been accomplished.

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
"Orphans. People Without Homes. People Without Cars." read one article by-line.
If you have no car in New Orleans... you're pretty much a second-class citizen.

They have a busses transporting people out, but there are not enough buses
obviously to carry anywhere the number of people being carried by cars.

It is preposterous that the city and/or state of Louisiana could not
comandeer, say, 500 school buses. What have they been waiting for? This is
another clear sign of lack of leadership. They give orders to clear the
city. That's a joke. There's no real communication. That's a travesty.

Post by Jack May
Just the same old lesson that any evacuation has to be planned with what
people mainly use day to day, not some small part of the total
transportation system.

The complete lack of planning is clearly seen by the absence of any
preparations whatsoever to remove criminals from low-lying prisons and to
transfer hospital patients.

Another clear sign is that the state and city either made no plans for
security or were unable to carry them out. Television is reporting that up
to half the officers have deserted the force in certain neighborhoods.

If the rebuilding is back to Category 3 proteection, who would want to bet
on when the next Category 4 or 5 storm arrrives?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
Helicopters were unavailable to drop emergency sandbags in the breach,

due

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
apparently to being elsewhere at the time (in Iraq?) which is why the

city

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
and TV news declared efforts to fix the breach had allegedly "failed".

The break are about 200 feet wide which means only one helicopter could be
in there at a time with small load. That would never fix the levy.

The official in charge of the levee system said it was built for a Category
3 hurricane because that was the largest recorded for New Orleans. Many
people would say that's naive, to say the least.

On the other hand you are talking about public expenditure and, when you
do that, you are talking about taxes. In the UK we have inadequate snow
management equipment. Every thirty years or so we get a winter which
would still be thought mild in Buffalo. The country grinds to a halt.

[greg byshenk]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.urban-transit.]

Post by Martin Edwards
On the other hand you are talking about public expenditure and, when you
do that, you are talking about taxes. In the UK we have inadequate snow
management equipment. Every thirty years or so we get a winter which
would still be thought mild in Buffalo. The country grinds to a halt.

On the third hand, there are actually two different sorts of issues being
talked about here.

There are natural events that are destructive, such as floods, wildfire,
earthquakes, etc., and those that are merely troublesome, such as snow,
heat, etc., and the response to the two will be different.

In the 1980s, I moved from Chicago, Illinois to Portland, Oregon. Having
seen the way that heavy snows are dealt with in Chicago, it at first
struck me as odd that there were few measures available to deal with such
events in Portland. But after a bit of thought, it made perfect sense.
There is a significant snowfall in Portland only once every couple of
years, and when it occurs, the city mostly just shuts down for a day or
two, until the snow melts and things return to normal.

And those last four words are important: after the event, things return
to normal almost immediately, because snow events are (for the most part)
not destructive. And this means that the issues are almost purely
economic ones of costs and benefits. If it costs more to prepare for and
deal with the event than it does simply to "ride it out", and there is no
pracitcal difference over the long term, then it probably doesn't make
sense to spend the money on preparation.

In the case of destructive events, on the other hand, matters are quite
different. To be sure, the costs of preparation are often much higher --
but the costs of failing to prepare are often higher still. And, perhaps
even more significantly, they are costs over the long term. When a
destructive event (a flood or an earthquake, for example) occurs, the
event being "over" is only the beginning. Even not including what are
often massive human costs of death and injury, the cost of returning to
the status quo ante are significant and continuing.

Thus, the way that we prepare for and deal with destructive events (even
those that are extremely infrequent) must be different from that in the
case of non-destructive events (even if such are much more common).

[Jack May]

Post by Sancho Panza
The official in charge of the levee system said it was built for a Category
3 hurricane because that was the largest recorded for New Orleans. Many
people would say that's naive, to say the least.

The strange part is that the main break was on a recently upgraded section
in good shape that failed. Category 3 is the typical strength so they were
betting there would be no hurricanes that were stronger than typical.

Probably the usual, too expensive to do what is needed for a category 5.

[Robinsons]

Post by Jack May
The strange part is that the main break was on a recently upgraded section
in good shape that failed. Category 3 is the typical strength so they were
betting there would be no hurricanes that were stronger than typical.
Probably the usual, too expensive to do what is needed for a category 5.

The section was in good shape for Category 3. Besides, I would be willing
to bet they didn't even rebuild it, merely patched the cracks and recertified
it as "new construction". That is SOP for grandfathered-in buildings in most
places. And a Cat 3 barrier is by definition grandfathered in.

I say this because they were simultaneously paid to "study" upgrading it
FURTHER to Category 5, which means any work done to actually demolish
and rebuild the old levee (to Cat 3 standards) would have been wasted.

I suspect my first supposition is the correct one, that the Corps merely
recertified it after making cosmetic changes.

Regardless, it is new construction which means the Federal Government
is criminally liable for all those deaths west of the Industrial Canal.

Just like someone was criminally liable in the Great White fire, etc.

"I couldn't afford it, so I built it half-assed to the same standard
as before" is not an excuse in the building trade. You go to jail if
you are the contractor/architect, or get fired and put out of business
if you are the executive contracting firm (in this case the Bush Amin).
The buck stops here.

In fact that's what MAKES them liable. If they hadn't gotten to it yet,
they wouldn't be liable. The fact they re-certified it for Cat 3 and then
it got hit by a Cat 5 makes them criminally liable because the Cat 5 storm
was a forseeable event.

--BER

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Robinsons
Helicopters were unavailable to drop emergency sandbags in the breach, due
apparently to being elsewhere at the time (in Iraq?) which is why the city
and TV news declared efforts to fix the breach had allegedly "failed".

The break are about 200 feet wide which means only one helicopter could be
in there at a time with small load. That would never fix the levy. In
other word you are lying piece of crap.

Post by Robinsons
And the Army Corps of Engineers, rather than attempt to stop the flooding
while lives were still at stake (all the affected people are dead now...)
decided to step back and let the waters equalize and "study the problem
to make sure that any fix holds."

More crap. They were talking about floating a barge in to try to plug the
hole. That is a lot of material that flowing water would quickly wash away.

Post by Robinsons
"Orphans. People Without Homes. People Without Cars." read one article by-line.
If you have no car in New Orleans... you're pretty much a second-class citizen.

They have a busses transporting people out, but there are not enough buses
obviously to carry anywhere the number of people being carried by cars.
Just the same old lesson that any evacuation has to be planned with what
people mainly use day to day, not some small part of the total
transportation system.

Post by Robinsons
and if the city response is anything similar to the developer-driven
World Trade Center reconstruction, then New Orleans will be irrevocably
altered -- and not for the better... but certainly to the liking of
whoever is paying for the reconstruction!!!

How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

[David Jensen]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

Surely if there had -existed- markets the only people affected would
either be prepared or deserving their fates. The same thing is starting
to happen to our highways where insurance has become optional in
practice but not in law.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

Surely if there had -existed- markets the only people affected would
either be prepared or deserving their fates. The same thing is starting
to happen to our highways where insurance has become optional in
practice but not in law.

Does this not lead to death or injury to innocent third parties?

[Robinsons]

Post by Robert Cote
Surely if there had -existed- markets the only people affected would
either be prepared or deserving their fates.

Which they apparently do, according to you.

Planning on taking in any of those "little brown ones" any time soon?

Make sure they get jobs and a mortgage and abandon any hope of getting
their property back.

Did I mention many of the affected residents were elderly (and young)
black homeowners? Or do poor people that own their homes not have
rights to return and renovate their existing homes?

Without insurance, (and insurance would insist on demolishing all that
historic architecture, most of which is not considered historic down South)
Bush's plan to hire Halliburton et al. to bulldoze the entire city with
or without permission will adversely affect people's ability to "restart
their lives" the same way Lower Manhattanites were encouraged to restart
their lives -- by moving back to the city that is the home of their
culture, family etc. dating back 2 centuries.

Of course, it is the height of small gov't to declare martial law and
condemn people's houses while they are absent, then let them back in
to pick through the belongings before their homes are bulldozed by the
new owners (old records having been lost). I suggest that future
authoritarian liberal presidents might apply the same principle to
suburban areas.

A military cordon of Iraq vets and armed contractors with "shoot to kill"
orders -- now that's an urban growth boundary!! :-)

--BER

[David Jensen]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:50:17 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

Exactly -- no lender would lend to an uninsured developer or buyer and
the cost of private market insurance would have kept them from buying
both the house and the insurance. Unfortunately, there was an incentive
to build in the flood plain because flood insurance was effectively
subsidized by the Feds, developers didn't have to take the risk that
they couldn't sell buildings on otherwise worthless land, and cities got
a larger tax base.

[DaveW]

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:50:17 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC), in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
How do you know it won't be better or you just another bigot that thinks any
one that can build anything is evil. How do propose the rebuilding be
planned and why do you think your approach will be the best?

Doesn't Professor Friedman have any ideas? After all, this has created
the greatest market ever to have come into being in such a short time.
Surely suppliers should be springing up like soldiers from dragon's teeth.

But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

Exactly -- no lender would lend to an uninsured developer or buyer and
the cost of private market insurance would have kept them from buying
both the house and the insurance. Unfortunately, there was an incentive
to build in the flood plain because flood insurance was effectively
subsidized by the Feds, developers didn't have to take the risk that
they couldn't sell buildings on otherwise worthless land, and cities got
a larger tax base.

But they did (build in the flood plains) long before there was any
thought of the Feds bailing anyone out. The current levee system in New
Orleans was installed in the 1920s, and IIRC, earlier smaller scale
levees existed long before. Apparently, someone was willing to make
construction loans back then,

Was flood insurance for something like a private home (in or out of a
flood plain) even sold 80-100 years ago? Or did folks just take their
chances? Meanwhile, large cities were built, some in better locations
that others, obviously. But you had to put your cotton docks somewhere,
and damn near anywhere along the Mississippi is a natural flood plain.

Not that it matters much to today's reality. I have no doubts that New
Orleans will be rebuilt, and at enormous expense. I also have no doubt
that eventually, perhaps well past my lifetime, it will be devistated
again.

Regards,

DAve

[David Jensen]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:51:43 GMT, in misc.transport.urban-transit
...

Post by DaveW

Post by David Jensen
Exactly -- no lender would lend to an uninsured developer or buyer and
the cost of private market insurance would have kept them from buying
both the house and the insurance. Unfortunately, there was an incentive
to build in the flood plain because flood insurance was effectively
subsidized by the Feds, developers didn't have to take the risk that
they couldn't sell buildings on otherwise worthless land, and cities got
a larger tax base.

But they did (build in the flood plains) long before there was any
thought of the Feds bailing anyone out. The current levee system in New
Orleans was installed in the 1920s, and IIRC, earlier smaller scale
levees existed long before. Apparently, someone was willing to make
construction loans back then,

Apparently, many of the older buildings in New Orleans were built out of
cypress. Cypress can live quite well with flooding, it's the rest of the
house that has a problem. Dry it out and start over was fairly common.
Two major things have changed since then, the petrochemical plants
upstream are not particularly good at managing their effluent, and the
city has continued its ongoing subsidence. The risk 80 years ago was
lower, and the cost of the risk was borne by insurers who had a pretty
good sense of the risk they were taking -- though not good enough --
much of the impetus for the federal flood program came from the
unwillingness of private insurers to take the risk.

Post by DaveW
Was flood insurance for something like a private home (in or out of a
flood plain) even sold 80-100 years ago? Or did folks just take their
chances? Meanwhile, large cities were built, some in better locations
that others, obviously. But you had to put your cotton docks somewhere,
and damn near anywhere along the Mississippi is a natural flood plain.

Yep. Stilts and fill are your friend.

Post by DaveW
Not that it matters much to today's reality. I have no doubts that New
Orleans will be rebuilt, and at enormous expense. I also have no doubt
that eventually, perhaps well past my lifetime, it will be devistated
again.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by DaveW
Not that it matters much to today's reality. I have no doubts that New
Orleans will be rebuilt, and at enormous expense. I also have no doubt
that eventually, perhaps well past my lifetime, it will be devistated
again.

Why?

More than 1/3 of the Netherlands are located below sea level. Coastline
protection is no magic, but science, and while it is impossible to avoid
any catastrophe, it is possible to limit the damage.


Hans-Joachim

[DaveW]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
Not that it matters much to today's reality. I have no doubts that New
Orleans will be rebuilt, and at enormous expense. I also have no doubt
that eventually, perhaps well past my lifetime, it will be devistated
again.

Why?
More than 1/3 of the Netherlands are located below sea level. Coastline
protection is no magic, but science, and while it is impossible to avoid
any catastrophe, it is possible to limit the damage.
Hans-Joachim

Not to doubt the excellent work that the Dutch have done in reclaiming
land from the sea, but does Holland get category 4 or 5 hurricanes? Note
that New Orleans has water on both sides, and that the Mississippi,
before man tried to control it, just to change course regularly. It all
depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Of course, in New Orleans, much of the catastrophic scenes we have seen
in the past few days could have been avoided, without any additional
infrastructure. Just some planning and quick response.

Regards,

DAve

[Bill Bolton]

It all depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Nature doesn't care a hoot about the American fixation on having the
biggest of everything.

Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

[Tim Kynerd]

Post by Bill Bolton

It all depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Nature doesn't care a hoot about the American fixation on having the
biggest of everything.

Thanks. Every once in a while I need a reminder as to why I ever killfiled
you. This one worked well.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Bill Bolton
Nature doesn't care a hoot about the American fixation on having the
biggest of everything.

"Shut up!" might be the nicest suggestion possible.


h.

[DaveW]

Post by Bill Bolton

It all depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Nature doesn't care a hoot about the American fixation on having the
biggest of everything.
Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

You must have me confused with someone from Texas. I have no fixation on
having the biggest of everything, though where an exceptional situation
occurs, I won't shy away from pointing it out, regardless of where it
exists.

Joke:

Texan is visiting New York City. His friend is giving him the grand
tour. First, Central Park.

The Texan remarks, "Very nice, but we have much bigger, better parks in
Texas."

Next, they go to the Statue of Liberty.

The Texan remarks, "Very nice, but we have bigger statues in Texas."

Next, the Empire State Building (the joke originated in the 1950s).

The Texan remarks, "Very nice, but we have outhouses bigger than that in
Texas."

The New Yorker finally comments, "And you need them too!"

Laters,

DAve

[greg byshenk]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.urban-transit.]

Post by DaveW

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
More than 1/3 of the Netherlands are located below sea level. Coastline
protection is no magic, but science, and while it is impossible to avoid
any catastrophe, it is possible to limit the damage.

Not to doubt the excellent work that the Dutch have done in reclaiming
land from the sea, but does Holland get category 4 or 5 hurricanes? Note
that New Orleans has water on both sides, and that the Mississippi,
before man tried to control it, just to change course regularly. It all
depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Well, the Netherlands does not normally get hurricanes, but we do get
significant North Atlantic storms, here, such as the flood of 1953. In
addition, the Netherlands is effectively surrounded by water on three
sides: the North Sea to the North and West, and the Rhine, Scheldt, and
Maas rivers to the South.

From what I can see, the real difference in the Netherlands is as noted
by "Dik T. Winter" <***@cwi.nl> in article <***@cwi.nl>:

We have learned a bit in the course of time. One thing that I think is
still true: do not cut on the budget needed for dikes and whatever. The
current standard is: build them so they can withstand even a statistical
once in 1250 years possibility.

Further, as Dik suggests, there is also a recognition that, in major flood
events, there must be somewhere for the water to go. Which is leading now
to additional plans for designated areas along rivers that can be allowed
to flood, should the need arise.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by DaveW
Not to doubt the excellent work that the Dutch have done in reclaiming
land from the sea, but does Holland get category 4 or 5 hurricanes? Note
that New Orleans has water on both sides, and that the Mississippi,
before man tried to control it, just to change course regularly. It all
depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Stopping the Missippi from moving should be a far more difficult task
than protecting the coastline. I assume that a river like that carries a
very considerable freight, and if you want to fix it in the middle of
flat swamps, it will gain height over the surrounding land, countering
any protection over time, by raising its bed.



No, the Netherlands don't have hurricanes. But the North Sea has its
special dynamics. With combined tidal and storm action, water is pressed
towards the channel or the mound "Deutsche Bucht", which, under certain
circumstances, creates extremely high floods along a coastline of
hundreds of kilometers.

In the Netherlands, there is long history of bad floods therefore,
claiming thousands or tenthousands of lives. The last major damage was
done in 1953: The mechanism pressed a huge amount of water towards the
channel coast, estimations say half a billion cubic meters on top of the
normal flood. It claimed almost 2000 lives. In addition to the
Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain were affected.
In the Netherlands, about 50 dams broke, major parts of the country were
under water.
This flood has motivated today's protection system of the Netherlands.

If you look at today's systems along the North Sea, both in the
Netherlands and Germany (Germany was hit hard in the early 60s, with
hundreds of lives lost), you'll see that there is no trust into the
highest and most modern dam. In addition to the main dam, there will be a
second line of defense, plus a segmentation, designed for damage
limitation.
As long as some segments are kept intact, it is possible to move out
people and move in emergency services, avoiding the huge flooded areas,
which blocked off any help in the 1950s/60s.

Post by DaveW
Of course, in New Orleans, much of the catastrophic scenes we have seen
in the past few days could have been avoided, without any additional
infrastructure. Just some planning and quick response.

Dividing the city into a few protected sectors would have helped a lot,
avoiding that a single dam failure can flood the whole city. With at
least one town quarter dry, there is a much better basis for help.

Hans-Joachim

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Stopping the Missippi from moving should be a far more difficult task
than protecting the coastline. I assume that a river like that carries a
very considerable freight, and if you want to fix it in the middle of
flat swamps, it will gain height over the surrounding land, countering
any protection over time, by raising its bed.

No, you dredge. River stays at same level. If anything, dredge spoils
raise surrounding land.

Columbia River is dredged continuously. Does not change level, does not
change course.

[DaveW]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
Not to doubt the excellent work that the Dutch have done in reclaiming
land from the sea, but does Holland get category 4 or 5 hurricanes? Note
that New Orleans has water on both sides, and that the Mississippi,
before man tried to control it, just to change course regularly. It all
depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Stopping the Missippi from moving should be a far more difficult task
than protecting the coastline. I assume that a river like that carries a
very considerable freight, and if you want to fix it in the middle of
flat swamps, it will gain height over the surrounding land, countering
any protection over time, by raising its bed.

You left out an "iss", grin. Mississippi is one of the words that
American school kids always have trouble with. For some reason, I never
did. Anyway, indeed, it carries a lot of fright traffic. Geologists have
figured out that the lower part of the river has changed course several
times in the past(over thousands of years). And of course, even on its
current route, it used to flood, depositing tons of silt over the
landscape and keeping the land level raised. The Mississippi is famous
for being muddy, and it is. The silt now goes into the Gulf of Mexico.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
No, the Netherlands don't have hurricanes. But the North Sea has its
special dynamics. With combined tidal and storm action, water is pressed
towards the channel or the mound "Deutsche Bucht", which, under certain
circumstances, creates extremely high floods along a coastline of
hundreds of kilometers.
In the Netherlands, there is long history of bad floods therefore,
claiming thousands or tenthousands of lives. The last major damage was
done in 1953: The mechanism pressed a huge amount of water towards the
channel coast, estimations say half a billion cubic meters on top of the
normal flood. It claimed almost 2000 lives. In addition to the
Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain were affected.
In the Netherlands, about 50 dams broke, major parts of the country were
under water.
This flood has motivated today's protection system of the Netherlands.
If you look at today's systems along the North Sea, both in the
Netherlands and Germany (Germany was hit hard in the early 60s, with
hundreds of lives lost), you'll see that there is no trust into the
highest and most modern dam. In addition to the main dam, there will be a
second line of defense, plus a segmentation, designed for damage
limitation.
As long as some segments are kept intact, it is possible to move out
people and move in emergency services, avoiding the huge flooded areas,
which blocked off any help in the 1950s/60s.

Indeed, the efforts in Europe (and other places) are most impressive.
More so than I realized. It is a rather different endevor though, to
expand the land mass (Netherlands) as opposed to trying to preserve
generally dry land from periodic flooding (New Orleans). The fact
remains that nature will of course always win, given enough time.
Continents themselves move thousands of kilometers, after all.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
Of course, in New Orleans, much of the catastrophic scenes we have seen
in the past few days could have been avoided, without any additional
infrastructure. Just some planning and quick response.

Dividing the city into a few protected sectors would have helped a lot,
avoiding that a single dam failure can flood the whole city. With at
least one town quarter dry, there is a much better basis for help.
Hans-Joachim

I was referring more to getting all the people out before the flood and
moving fast to get those remaining out once it happens (more immediate
action). The destruction and flooding was inevitable, but much of the
human suffering was not.

But as you point out, the longer term revamping of the flood control
system is absolutely needed! Perhaps the federal government has had
their eyes opened. (Don't bet on it.)

Regards,

DAve

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by DaveW
Indeed, the efforts in Europe (and other places) are most impressive.
More so than I realized.

Without the big floods of the 50s (Netherlands) and 60s (Germany), it
won't have happened in this fashion. When the big floods hit, I was
3 years old. When I was a school kid, modern dike construction was a
mandatory element of geography, to learn at an age of 10 or 11. It had
become a national project, because in the early 60s, there were enough TV
sets to show the results to the nation, and the "never again" emotion
made it possible to allocate enough money.

It also influenced politics. The local politician, who had successfully
coordinated emergency services in the catastrophe, became Germany's
chancellor later.

Post by DaveW
It is a rather different endevor though, to
expand the land mass (Netherlands) as opposed to trying to preserve
generally dry land from periodic flooding (New Orleans).

It's not just the new land, hundreds of existing coastline kilometers
along the North Sea, both in the Netherlands and Germany, need dike
protection. The struggle is going on for hundreds of years - the sea has
claimed huge areas out of a once existing coastline, humans have tried to
claim it back.
In the old days, there were systems like ... the rights of free farmers
depending on their contribution to dike building, and fighting there on
storm days. Absent a state qualified to coordinate it, this was the way
of the locals to help themselves. It was less successful than today's
operation, because failed attempts in just one of the villages would make
the water get you from behind.

For hundreds of years, there was no clear winner, the sea or the people.
Meanwhile, there is, but if global warming will raise the sea level, this
might be temporary.

In front of the dikes, there are kilometers of shallow water. With a
guide, you may take extended walks on the ground of the sea at low tide.
Some islands are reachable on foot at low tide.

So for kilometers outside, and many kilometers inside, there is not much
difference between land and sea. Historically, there never was. Land
is the part, which has been successfully protected. This was true in the
days of the Mayflower, and is true today.

Post by DaveW
The fact
remains that nature will of course always win, given enough time.
Continents themselves move thousands of kilometers, after all.

It does not matter a lot, wether the distance to America is a few hundred
kilometers more or less, we have to take the plane anyway. ;-)

The coastline very much depends on the temperature level, and was changed
by the cooling and warming cycle. /After/ that change in sea level,
storms will wash away land, sea will create land at other places, and
erosion material, transported away by rivers, will create land as well.
That's the natural process, which has shaped our continents.

We are able to control much of the coastline today, and will have gained
additional capability in 100 years. We aren't able to control the warming
and cooling cycle. At the moment, we aren't even able to control man-made
warming or cooling.

I'm not sure, wether the Homo Sapiens will gain this capability, since it
needs the ability, to organize on a planetwide level, and I'm quite
sceptical about that.
On the other hand, for many centuries, Europeans have had the hobby to
kill each other, but were finally able to create something like the EU.
Maybe, one should have more trust into the human race.
(However, looking at the proceedings of the EU, there is the question,
wether this is just the more cultivated way of fighting each other... )

Post by DaveW
I was referring more to getting all the people out before the flood and
moving fast to get those remaining out once it happens (more immediate
action). The destruction and flooding was inevitable, but much of the
human suffering was not.

It was inevitable, that destruction happened in the path of the hurricane
core (which did not hit New Orleans). But I won't call the rest
inevitable. Identifiying Katrina as a terrorist a few years back should
have been enough to avoid it. (Won't have been illogical, since Katrina
will claim more lives than Muhammed Atta & Co.)

Post by DaveW
But as you point out, the longer term revamping of the flood control
system is absolutely needed! Perhaps the federal government has had
their eyes opened. (Don't bet on it.)

Experience in Germany has been, that there is no bigger plus in
elections, than successfully mastering a catastrophe. It works with the
voters.
A current example is Matthias Platzeck, who did a very good job in the
Oder river flooding some years back. When others still considered what to
do, he had already understood, that the task would overwhelm local
ressources, and had issued formal requests for bringing in THW
reinforcements from West Germany, plus the Bundeswehr. (THW, Technisches
Hilfswerk, is some civilian version of your Navy Seabees.) He also did a
good job in coordinating these efforts. Most of the dams were rescued,
and meanwhile, he's the Ministerpräsident (governor) of his state.

This voter behaviour isn't unwise in my judgement: Most citizens aren't
in urgent need for the government for most of their lives. Thus, it is
logical, to give a big plus, if the government is really there in the
rare times, when everybody needs it.


Hans-Joachim

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
Indeed, the efforts in Europe (and other places) are most impressive.
More so than I realized.

Without the big floods of the 50s (Netherlands) and 60s (Germany), it
won't have happened in this fashion.

It would have happened in the Netherlands, but it would have taken
much longer than it actually did. In the 1930s a dam was laid between
North Holland and Friesland to protect the immense coast-line of what
was called the Zuiderzee at that time. In (I think) 1950 already the
first part of the (what was called) Deltaplan was completed. However,
the flood of 1953 did show that it was better to make haste. The whole
effort was completed by 1986 (or somesuch). Yes, 33 years, but it really
has been a tremendous work. The whole idea has always been to close the
large sea-arms from the sea, so that only the river would feed the arms.
At a few places newer insights changed the plans, so that now there is
(amongst others) a dam in the Oosterschelde that is normally open to let
sea water enter, but that can be closed quickly.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
When the big floods hit, I was
3 years old. When I was a school kid, modern dike construction was a
mandatory element of geography, to learn at an age of 10 or 11. It had
become a national project, because in the early 60s, there were enough TV
sets to show the results to the nation, and the "never again" emotion
made it possible to allocate enough money.

In 1953 there were not many TV sets, but nevertheless there was enough
"never again" emotion so it was easily possible to allocate enough money.
Strange enough, although the flood was heavy, occurred while the storm was
still flying and whatever, there were fewer than 1900 people that died.
(And car property was nearly non-existant at that time. Many people
fled by bicycle through upcoming water. Others were saved by fishers in
boats and whatever.)

A detailed history can be found at (alas, only in Dutch):
<http://www.pzc.nl/krant/pzc/water/watersnoodramp/>. Clicking the
link "Dijkdoorbraken" will show you the over 130 places where dikes
were broken. And reading some of the old newspapers that are shown
there, I find that national help started already on 1 February (the
flood started in the night from 31 January to 1 February), and by 2
February soldiers from all over the country were already busy evacuating
people and closing dikes. Shortly after that help was received from
many countries, both monetary and personnel.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
It is a rather different endevor though, to
expand the land mass (Netherlands) as opposed to trying to preserve
generally dry land from periodic flooding (New Orleans).

It's not just the new land, hundreds of existing coastline kilometers
along the North Sea, both in the Netherlands and Germany, need dike
protection.

Indeed. Much of the "Deltaworks" has been the closing of sea-arms, but
that was *not* to claim land, only to reduce the length of the coast-line.
The dikes that originally were the primary protection against the sea are
now a secundary protection, but still maintained as such.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
For hundreds of years, there was no clear winner, the sea or the people.
Meanwhile, there is, but if global warming will raise the sea level, this
might be temporary.

There is another problem: the increase of rainfall, and the rivers not
being able to cope with it. This year we see the second large occurrence
of such in middle Europe. The river dikes in the Netherlands could (upto
now) in general cope with it, but there is serious thinking about
improvements.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
I was referring more to getting all the people out before the flood and
moving fast to get those remaining out once it happens (more immediate
action). The destruction and flooding was inevitable, but much of the
human suffering was not.

It was inevitable, that destruction happened in the path of the hurricane
core (which did not hit New Orleans). But I won't call the rest
inevitable.

Indeed. In 1953 the flood in the Netherlands could not be predicted, it
happened just in the middle of the night. Getting all the people out
before that was just impossible. So all the getting out was done
afterwards. And if I read the accounts, it was done extremely fast by
a national effort that started just the first full day of the flood.
But I think that many people were already evacuated when the second
tidal wave did occur (which, as nature dictates, is about 12 hours after
the first).

[Robinsons]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by DaveW
Not to doubt the excellent work that the Dutch have done in reclaiming
land from the sea, but does Holland get category 4 or 5 hurricanes? Note
that New Orleans has water on both sides, and that the Mississippi,
before man tried to control it, just to change course regularly. It all
depends on the magnitude of nature's assault.

Stopping the Missippi from moving should be a far more difficult task
than protecting the coastline. I assume that a river like that carries a
very considerable freight, and if you want to fix it in the middle of
flat swamps, it will gain height over the surrounding land, countering
any protection over time, by raising its bed.
If you look at today's systems along the North Sea, both in the
Netherlands and Germany (Germany was hit hard in the early 60s, with
hundreds of lives lost), you'll see that there is no trust into the
highest and most modern dam. In addition to the main dam, there will be a
second line of defense, plus a segmentation, designed for damage
limitation.
As long as some segments are kept intact, it is possible to move out
people and move in emergency services, avoiding the huge flooded areas,
which blocked off any help in the 1950s/60s.
Dividing the city into a few protected sectors would have helped a lot,
avoiding that a single dam failure can flood the whole city. With at
least one town quarter dry, there is a much better basis for help.

Thanks for the information on the North Sea protection systems.

Unfortunately, your last point shows what is wrong and why what happened
was malicious human interference and malicious neglect in the levee system.
The fact that Katrina was a hurricane was irrelevant -- levee failure from
water levels, not high winds or force of the storm surge itself, are the
only reason for what occureed.

To answer your point, fully half the Metro area -- the whiter half, in
Metairie and Algiers, immediately across the sole Mississippi River
bridge from downtown New Orleans, i.e. the Superdome and Convention
Center -- were bone dry. Of these, Metairie suffered badly anyway but
Algiers was bone dry. The City and Federal officials did not permit
so-called "refugees" from leaving the city via the Mississippi Bridge
into Algiers, until after people were dying of hunger and thurst.

Indeed, the Superdome was turned into a death camp, just like they did
in New Orleans in 1927. The black evacuees were bottled up and told
not to leave until they could be escorted out of the city under armed
guard. They were confined in the Superdome, no food, no water, no toilets
for five days and armed National Guardsmen detained anyone who tried to
escape, as more people arrived and filled the parking lot. A death camp.

Oh, it wasn't a death camp, people just died. "Those people" are like that,
you know? Good thing "we" got them out in an organized fashion, instead
of letting them, um, wander across the Mississippi River bridge into
bone-dry Algiers, so the government can direct the resettlement process
to prevent large numbers of black people in any one (unsecured) place.

(The whites have all moved to Baton Rouge, and are already complaining about
"those black people roaming the streets. They are desperate, who knows what
they'll do. We need protection" according to the papers).

(Ever noticed how pedestrians in the US, especially blacks are described
as "wandering" or "roaming" or "loitering" no matter what they are doing,
be it fleeing destrictuon or shopping?)

--BER

[Robinsons]

Post by DaveW
Not that it matters much to today's reality. I have no doubts that New
Orleans will be rebuilt, and at enormous expense. I also have no doubt
that eventually, perhaps well past my lifetime, it will be devistated
again.

Where's the expense?? The BUIILDINGS were for the most part not devastated.
Sorry for any misinformation you might have received. But if folks are
trumpeting the "free market" they might start by lifting martial law and
"freeing" law-abiding citizens to return to the city and renovate their
homes instead of channeling massive demolition contracts to the President's
cronies and massive tax auctions to white Southerners for New New Orleans.

You can't have a free market when people are not free to walk the streets
unless they are a contractor for the US Govt, and individuals are not
free to bring in supplies unless they are part of a gov't approved and
military-cooperant "relief agency" whose central focus is to deny supplies
to people who refuse to leave, and write down their names and addresses
for the people with guns to tally up and visit.

--Brian

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Martin Edwards
Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

One of the problems with NO is that it wasn't a flood plain when they
built - pumping out oil caused the ground to sink.

[David Jensen]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:04:44 -0700, in misc.transport.urban-transit

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Martin Edwards
Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

One of the problems with NO is that it wasn't a flood plain when they
built - pumping out oil caused the ground to sink.

No, the subsidence is natural and, while it wasn't below sea level, it
was in a flood plain. Historically, the river replenished the land with
silt from floods.

Better brush up on your geology.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by David Jensen
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 15:04:44 -0700, in misc.transport.urban-transit

Post by Baxter

Post by Martin Edwards
Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

One of the problems with NO is that it wasn't a flood plain when they
built - pumping out oil caused the ground to sink.

No, the subsidence is natural and, while it wasn't below sea level, it
was in a flood plain. Historically, the river replenished the land with
silt from floods.
Better brush up on your geology.

----------
Bonus Explainer: If New Orleans is below sea level, why isn't it underwater?
Because it's protected by natural and artificial barriers. The city sits on
the banks of the Mississippi, where sediment from the river had created
areas of elevated land called "natural levees." New Orleans' earliest
buildings sat on top of these levees, but as the population grew, houses
were built farther inland at lower elevations. To create usable land, water
had to be pumped out of the area, which in turn caused the ground to sink
even lower.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2125229/?nav=ais

[Dik T. Winter]

Post by Baxter

Post by Martin Edwards
Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

One of the problems with NO is that it wasn't a flood plain when they
built - pumping out oil caused the ground to sink.

That is (probably) not the only reason. In the Netherlands we have some
experience with building below sea-level, I would say. In general, once
you start to use land, the ground will sink, especially when you are close
to the sea or to major rivers. North Holland has sunk from well above
sea-level to well below sea-level in the course of time, and that only due
to the change of use of the land. One of the things to do is to have the
levees and dikes up to date. And that requires continuous improvement.
We also have found that changing the structure of rivers is detrimental
to other effects. And I understand that has been done with the Mississippi.

There are two different causes here, I think. The first is the structural
damage due to wind-force and high floods from the sea. The second is
flooding due to breaking of levees (which occurred much later). The
latter could have been prevented with better levees.

[Jack May]

Post by Dik T. Winter

Post by Baxter

Post by Martin Edwards
Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

One of the problems with NO is that it wasn't a flood plain when they
built - pumping out oil caused the ground to sink.

That is (probably) not the only reason. In the Netherlands we have some
experience with building below sea-level, I would say. In general, once
you start to use land, the ground will sink, especially when you are close
to the sea or to major rivers. North Holland has sunk from well above
sea-level to well below sea-level in the course of time, and that only due
to the change of use of the land. One of the things to do is to have the
levees and dikes up to date. And that requires continuous improvement.
We also have found that changing the structure of rivers is detrimental
to other effects. And I understand that has been done with the Mississippi.
There are two different causes here, I think. The first is the structural
damage due to wind-force and high floods from the sea. The second is
flooding due to breaking of levees (which occurred much later). The
latter could have been prevented with better levees.

It is my understanding that Holland has the best dikes and the best water
engineering in the world. It look like NO is the exact opposite of
Holland.

[l***@gmail.com]

Post by Jack May

Post by Dik T. Winter

Post by Baxter

Post by Martin Edwards
Surely if all those markets had worked properly, nobody would have been
able to build in flood plains.

One of the problems with NO is that it wasn't a flood plain when they
built - pumping out oil caused the ground to sink.

That is (probably) not the only reason. In the Netherlands we have some
experience with building below sea-level, I would say. In general, once
you start to use land, the ground will sink, especially when you are close
to the sea or to major rivers. North Holland has sunk from well above
sea-level to well below sea-level in the course of time, and that only due
to the change of use of the land. One of the things to do is to have the
levees and dikes up to date. And that requires continuous improvement.
We also have found that changing the structure of rivers is detrimental
to other effects. And I understand that has been done with the Mississippi.
There are two different causes here, I think. The first is the structural
damage due to wind-force and high floods from the sea. The second is
flooding due to breaking of levees (which occurred much later). The
latter could have been prevented with better levees.

It is my understanding that Holland has the best dikes and the best water
engineering in the world. It look like NO is the exact opposite of
Holland.

Maybe NO could hire the Dutch as consultants when they rebuild. Of
course this would make too much sense....

[Robinsons]

Post by l***@gmail.com
Maybe NO could hire the Dutch as consultants when they rebuild. Of
course this would make too much sense....

The Bush people would never allow it. Look how close the Dutch
are to Brussels, home of the hated European Union... rebuild
Babylon on the Bayou? I don't think so, not unless Americans
(read contractors) benefit. And since Halliburton doesn't have
the same dam-building tech, who would profit?

I predict there will be a substantial move by religious right
wingers to permanently resettle New Orleanians of lesser means.

The French Quarter and Garden Districts can (and probably will...
no joke) be "reclaimed" as a Seaside-style resort maintained
by Disney, in quite the same fashion as Times Square. Success:
No more apocalypse (end times) indicators emanating from the
Gulf Coast region!

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <XaGdnfIMYtM52oTeRVn-***@comcast.com> "Jack May" <***@comcast.net> writes:
...

Post by Jack May

Post by Dik T. Winter
There are two different causes here, I think. The first is the structural
damage due to wind-force and high floods from the sea. The second is
flooding due to breaking of levees (which occurred much later). The
latter could have been prevented with better levees.

It is my understanding that Holland has the best dikes and the best water
engineering in the world. It look like NO is the exact opposite of
Holland.

We have learned a bit in the course of time. One thing that I think is
still true: do not cut on the budget needed for dikes and whatever. The
current standard is: build them so they can withstand even a statistical
once in 1250 years possibility. In NO that value was quite a bit lower.
But of course not every inundation can be prevented. Current thinking is
along the lines that in a severe crisis it is better to have specially
assigned places inundated (and to do it beforehand) than to have
inundations where it is much more harmful. So I do not think the place
where I live (15 feet below sea level) or the place were I work (10 feet
below sea level) will see problems. I have even not seen any case of
flooding, even after very hefty rainfall.

["/]

Post by Dik T. Winter

Post by Jack May

Post by Dik T. Winter
There are two different causes here, I think. The first is the structural
damage due to wind-force and high floods from the sea. The second is
flooding due to breaking of levees (which occurred much later). The
latter could have been prevented with better levees.

It is my understanding that Holland has the best dikes and the best water
engineering in the world. It look like NO is the exact opposite of
Holland.

We have learned a bit in the course of time. One thing that I think is
still true: do not cut on the budget needed for dikes and whatever.

It did a take a serious flood in 1953 to get that point through though. If
you read the history of the great flood of 1953 you will find some
parallels with the current situation in NO. Except taht the storm was not
as bad as Katrina.

Post by Dik T. Winter
I have even not seen any case of flooding, even after very hefty rainfall.

remember one night of rainfall where more felt than the pumps could dope
with, and all the polders between Den Haag en Rotterdam flooded.

[Robinsons]

Post by Dik T. Winter
We have learned a bit in the course of time. One thing that I think is
still true: do not cut on the budget needed for dikes and whatever. The
current standard is: build them so they can withstand even a statistical
once in 1250 years possibility. In NO that value was quite a bit lower.
But of course not every inundation can be prevented. Current thinking is
along the lines that in a severe crisis it is better to have specially
assigned places inundated (and to do it beforehand) than to have
inundations where it is much more harmful. So I do not think the place
where I live (15 feet below sea level) or the place were I work (10 feet
below sea level) will see problems. I have even not seen any case of
flooding, even after very hefty rainfall.

Where does the fresh water and sewage go?? Agrigulture (I hope?)

Pumps are not sustainable in the long run, and I am sure would consume
much of the nation's energy supply. Irrigation of farmland, might
allow the water to evaporate.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by David Jensen
But the free market only works in advance. Everyone has to know that
they won't get bailed out for making bad decisions. If there were no
chance of a bailout for a flood, no one would build in a flood plain
without insurance, because lenders would require it, but insurance in
high risk plains is too expensive, so the plains would have been left
alone.

In NO, many of the people who stayed, had to because they didn't get paid
until Thursday. They live from paycheck-to-paycheck. They simply had no
money to get out of town.

[Jack May]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In NO, many of the people who stayed, had to because they didn't get paid
until Thursday. They live from paycheck-to-paycheck. They simply had no
money to get out of town.

A third of NO has an income below the poverty level. Living from paycheck
to paycheck is probably an optimistic goal for many of them.

[James Of Tucson]

Jelly Roll Morton died in 1941.

However there are quite a few well-known people whose whereabouts are
unknown, including Fats Domino and Allen Toussaint, and I'm sure there
are lots more. Lots of old musicians live in New Orleans. That's
pretty much what the town is all about.

[Martin Edwards]

Surely bags of new startup companies should have emerged from the
Friedmanite Laputa by now.