nfitz
Superstar
I went through the HEC modelling last year. Currently (if they were to fix the outflow from the existing culvert) on the upstream side, the water ponds up to about 1/3 of the height of the embankment - much higher than the culvert. While this exceeds a railway design standard, it's not really an issue because of high high the embankment is.First of all, what is the 100 year flood plan look like for this creek?? This will determined what is needed to deal with that flood water.
With the new culvert, it's design so the 100-year storm causes minimal, if any (I'd have to check) water above the top of the culvert. But also so the peak flow rate downstream of the culvert doesn't change (but changes the timing and length of the peak - it's going to be earlier now. Essentially they are removing an inadvertently created on-line storage pond.
The old design met the storm just fine. Given just how much of the existing area upstream wasn't flooding, and is all parkland, even greatly exceeding the 100-year storm wouldn't do anything but flood the ravine.I feel ML thinks this tunnel will deal with the 100 year flood issues as well the cheapest way to deal with it as well allowing a 4th track to be added at a future date.
Assuming the embankment is solid.




