The crazy thing about this article is that it presents Chicago's solution (make the combined sewer bigger), then solutions that are being tried in other cities (increase permeability), and then completely ignores the entirely successful solution that's been used by Grand Rapids (and soon Lansing) on the other side of the lake: Separate the storm and wastewater sewers. Grand Rapids used to regularly have sewer overflows into the local river (not flooding, though - there was enough capacity to actually get the crap and water into the river). Over the last few decades, a separate storm sewer has been built, and this water can be treated more quickly. The storm sewer skims off things like oil, etc. and then returns the rainwater to the river and lake. No impact on the shit sewer. No shit and piss in the river, no shit and piss in the lake. It works, and it's what should be done in other cities that have this problem (and maybe a little bit of permeability on the side).
> The crazy thing about this article is that it presents Chicago's solution (make the combined sewer bigger)
Except that Chicago's publicly stated position is that the Deep Tunnel system is not the solution. This is not a new thing, either. It's been that way for more than 2 decades.
For more than 10 years, they've had a stormwater management building ordinance and (with few exceptions) any project (new construction or renovation) that changes the amount of stormwater exiting a piece of property is subject to it. It limits the flow rate of stormwater leaving, the volume of stormwater leaving, and the amount of sediment that can leave a piece of property. It is entirely math-based, with published formulas and coefficients and makes determining compliance straightforward, objective and fast.
They've received international recognition for their incremental approach to stormwater management, which recognizes that the vast majority of property in the city is private property built long ago. As for public property, whenever the city rebuilds an alleyway, it is done with permeable pavement and is disconnected from the sewer. Whenever the city rebuilds a road, it is disconnected from the sewer to the extent that surrounding private property allows. Last year an entire block of a road near me was rebuilt and the side that was adjacent to a railroad embankment was built with swales every 50 feet or so to manage stormwater. It was actually visually attractive as well.
The specific project I linked to involved installing over 25 miles of storm drain to avoid combined sewer/storm overflows into the ocean. We lived on one of the impacted streets.
Older houses had gutter downspouts that dumped all rainwater into the combined storm drain/sewer system. The MWRA came to neighborhood association meetings, and helped residents to re-aim downspouts onto green space.
This article takes a really really long time to get to the point. It raves and raves about how great the system is and then the final page it says oh BTW it doesn't work, too much flow, should have diverted that rainwater.
Solving the flooding wasn't really the point. It's Chicago. The point was a multi billion dollar project and all the graft, bribery, and political favors that come with it.
What's to say all of those are mutually exclusive? Chicago can want nice things and still have bribery, graft, political favors and nepotism (you missed that one).
I think it basically is a given. To segregate storm water from sewer would require a rebuild of the system. Pretty impractical at this point. It can be done in some cases. I live in the west suburbs of Chicago, and the storm water from my (less than 5 year old) complex drains into the Salt Creek. I don't think my city is connected to the big dig, but we do have the capability to dump into a local quarry. The quarry has also been used to dump snow into for large winter storms. We've also been through a large expansion in recent years of green areas and detention drainage areas to alleviate flooding. Living right on the Salt Creek, I routinely see the water level fluctuate by around 10 feet or so after even a decent storm. We're probably about 5-6 feet above normal right now after recent storms.
You don’t need to fix this in a weekend. Chicago is likely to be around in 300 years. So, solve 3% of the problem every decade and it gets fixed. Meanwhile runoff becomes a 3% smaller problem every decade.
I agree it's useful evidence, but Grand Rapids is an order of magnitude smaller than Chicago. Geology could be very different too for all I know. Being able to do it in one place does not necessarily make it feasible in the other.
Grand Rapids did it (and Lansing is doing it) in Michigan. Yes, a smaller scale, but still a big enough scale to show that it can be done. In GR, it fixed the problem, period.
Ironic. The project makes Chicago more livable, which increases development / population which...is not sustainable.
Cities close to water used to be a necessity. Now such locations are a liability. It's difficult to imagine politicians and local leaders coming clean on such things.
Side note: I wonder if Amazon factored such things into its decision(s) for picking its new HQ city(s).
That trend will reverse in a decade or so. The losses are entirely because of a fed-up Black population deciding to migrate to the sunbelt instead of continuing to tolerate de facto segregation. Here's a great Twitter thread about this phenomenon: https://twitter.com/petesaunders3/status/1080508428093673474...
Making cities more livable is not sustainable? I don’t even know what this means. Cities are the most efficient way of sustaining populations. Making them better at that is only a net good.
A growing population in CHicago proper is not a problem. It's the solution. The problem is the growing population in the Chicago suburbs, getting more and more land paved, and thus worsening the stormwater problem.
It’s a hard sell to tell someone to pay ~$100k-$500k more for a home, and spend $8k-15k/year more in property taxes to live in Chicago (or Cook County in general) out of land development concerns. Chicago’s population is decreasing for a reason, and it isn’t stormwater management.
Sprawl is not unsustainable. More costly, yes. But people will pay to not live densely and should have the freedom to do so if urban development and building techniques that prioritize mitigating environmental harm are practiced.
> The problem is the growing population in the Chicago suburbs, getting more and more land paved, and thus worsening the stormwater problem.
No, the problem is that the drains from all that paved/overbuilt land end up in the sewers instead of being collected in rainwater tanks or sunk into the ground below the foundation.
Um. If Chicago proper was a literal shit hole then less businesses would locate there; plus the general reputation of the area would be stained. Who wants to move to place where everyone else believes "Chicago stinks"?
The growth might not be in Chicago proper, but the well-being of Chicago proper - drives growth in the area.
