Boston Harbor Flood Protection Projects

stellarfun said:
Another study.



http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/06/18/sea-level-rise-massachusetts-homes
Click to expand...

By the end of the century, a new study from the Union of Concerned Scientists finds that sea level rise could cause half the homes in Hull to face flooding every other week. That goes for a third of the homes in Cambridge, Provincetown and Salisbury — and at least 10 percent of the homes in 21 other coastal communities in the state.

In Boston alone, 32,640 homes could face the threat of chronic flooding, the study finds, pointing to a group of homes that now constitute more than $80 million of the city's tax revenue.

Over the next 30 years, the study finds 1,100 homes in Revere could face flooding every other week. In Nantucket, a billion dollars worth of homes could be at risk, and across the Massachusetts coast, nearly 14,000 people could be hit by chronic flooding.
Click to expand...

Yikes
 
Will it actually cost $3 Billion.... and still not work?

OK you can put your hands down.... don't answer.
 
Dusting of this thread because...
This is the Florida sized Thwaite's Glacier.
This is a bombastic but true headline.
This is a list of other articles quoting that study and a few more.

This is a pull quote from that bombastic article that is making me rethink what high tide will mean in by the time your new Tesla is a paid off:
"They described the discovery of cracks and fissures in the Thwaites eastern ice shelf, predicting that the ice shelf could fracture like a shattered car window in as little as five years."

tl;dr: 100 year Nor'easter King tide = every other tide. In as little as 5 years, and very possible sooner. Like now. And when it goes, everything behind it pops loose, like 200-foot-tall ice dominos on a slanted cookie sheet, fresh out of Mother Nature's Vengeance Oven. Into the ocean. Melting really quick.

Picture Fanueil Hall with canals. The Blue Line permaflooded except for State Street... maybe Bowdoin. Morrissey Blvd as a pair of six lane boat ramps. The Seaport District becomes an actual seaport. Boogie boards under Berkeley on I-90.

So, a barrier wall. Okay, okay. Seems like the only choice. But before I leave with my shovel to go build it myself, let me Venmo the Army Corps of Engineers... about... wait a minute...
"Honey? How much is everything we own and need to survive with worth?"

"That much? Ooooooh."

<clickety click click>
"....Carry the one. Aaaaaannnnnd a shazillion dollareeenos." Send.

I'll see you in Hull.
 
I'm a bit cynical about the likelihood of a Winthrop-Hull barrier ($11b) or Airport-Seaport ($8b) (2018 estimates) being built in our lifetimes. The cost today would probably be more like $15-20b for the Winthrop-Hull barrier, or $ 10-12b for Airport-Seaport . That kind of money isn't going to come from the Feds or anyone else. Even a fairly small (by comparison) project like GLX barely got built after being VE'd down to a bare bones facility. Also, the environmental clearance for the barriers would be a killer. The NIMBY blowback on a Winthrop-Hull barrier would likely be huge . I just don't see either barrier happening.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I'm a bit cynical about the likelihood of a Winthrop-Hull barrier ($11b) or Airport-Seaport ($8b) (2018 estimates) being built in our lifetimes. The cost today would probably be more like $15-20b for the Winthrop-Hull barrier, or $ 10-12b for Airport-Seaport . That kind of money isn't going to come from the Feds or anyone else. Even a fairly small (by comparison) project like GLX barely got built after being VE'd down to a bare bones facility. Also, the environmental clearance for the barriers would be a killer. The NIMBY blowback on a Winthrop-Hull barrier would likely be huge . I just don't see either barrier happening.
Click to expand...

The costs of not doing the GLX is far less than the costs of not doing those barriers. GLX was never as existential (economically, environmentally) as these barriers. And I LOVE mass transit projects.

But help me with this one sentence: "The NIMBY blowback on a Winthrop-Hull barrier would likely be huge ." Wouldn't the citizens of Hulls-Winthrop be the biggest proponents of "anything possible" to save their property? I would assume the taxpayer opposition would come from inland folks inland in the Berkshires, etc.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
The costs of not doing the GLX is far less than the costs of not doing those barriers. GLX was never as existential (economically, environmentally) as these barriers. And I LOVE mass transit projects.

But help me with this one sentence: "The NIMBY blowback on a Winthrop-Hull barrier would likely be huge ." Wouldn't the citizens of Hulls-Winthrop be the biggest proponents of "anything possible" to save their property? I would assume the taxpayer opposition would come from inland folks inland in the Berkshires, etc.
Click to expand...
You have a point about the NIMBY factor for the Winthrop-Hull barrier. There could be some support. I was thinking more that the introduction of a very sizeable structure changing in a big way the natural look of the coastline in these quant New England-y towns would raise alarm. I think the Airport-Seaport barrier is more doable politically and fiscally. The Seaport area is new and urban with mid-rise buildings that would be a better visual fit for a barrier structure than the old pristine towns of Hull and Winthrop.
 
shmessy said:
The costs of not doing the GLX is far less than the costs of not doing those barriers. GLX was never as existential (economically, environmentally) as these barriers. And I LOVE mass transit projects.

But help me with this one sentence: "The NIMBY blowback on a Winthrop-Hull barrier would likely be huge ." Wouldn't the citizens of Hulls-Winthrop be the biggest proponents of "anything possible" to save their property? I would assume the taxpayer opposition would come from inland folks inland in the Berkshires, etc.
Click to expand...

They’ll be ardent NIMBYs up until it is actually too late. Guaranteed. Then they’ll flip or be overridden by a court via eminent domain. Of course the tragedy will be that it was actually too late and those communities end up completely destroyed instead of just altered.
 
fattony said:
They’ll be ardent NIMBYs up until it is actually too late. Guaranteed. Then they’ll flip or be overridden by a court via eminent domain. Of course the tragedy will be that it was actually too late and those communities end up completely destroyed instead of just altered.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the meaning of NIMBY.

The people's whose "backyards" are being affected are most certainly going to be IN FAVOR of the barriers protecting their properties from rising sea levels.

Yes, others who are not in the risk areas who will also be paying the taxes to erect such barriers will be the bigger opponents. In this situation they are NIYBY's.
 
shmessy said:
I think you are missing the meaning of NIMBY.

The people's whose "backyards" are being affected are most certainly going to be IN FAVOR of the barriers protecting their properties from rising sea levels.

Yes, others who are not in the risk areas who will also be paying the taxes to erect such barriers will be the bigger opponents. In this situation they are NIYBY's.
Click to expand...
A big political advantage of an Airport-Seaport barrier (compared to Winthrop-Hull) is that it would be entirely within the city of Boston, making it way more doable politically. On the other hand, Winthrop and Hull are classic New England towns with all the provincialism that goes with that. I do find it hard to believe the majority in Winthrop and Hull would favor a barrier. It would be a lot of change, which is typically DOA in towns such as those. But who knows, maybe they would finally see the bigger picture and put aside their provincialism.
 
Charlie_mta said:
A big political advantage of an Airport-Seaport barrier (compared to Winthrop-Hull) is that it would be entirely within the city of Boston, making it way more doable politically. On the other hand, Winthrop and Hull are classic New England towns with all the provincialism that goes with that. I do find it hard to believe the majority in Winthrop and Hull would favor a barrier. It would be a lot of change, which is typically DOA in towns such as those. But who knows, maybe they would finally see the bigger picture and put aside their provincialism.
Click to expand...

Charlie - - Hull and Winthrop are ON THE WATER. The vast majority there are homeowners. You don't think flooding is a property-existential concern to them????????

I can understand if it is someone who is a transient renter or a person in Lennox or Worcester bitching about their tax dollars going to saving the coasts. But we are talking about Winthrop and Hull HOMEOWNERS.

If I read your posts correctly, you believe the Hull and Winthrop property owners would rather their homes float away rather than put up unsightly barriers?????

Thee fundamental is - - those people are NOT renters. These are rich LAND-OWNERS. A barrier would save their property. It's sort of a basic thing. You seem to be confusing this with Teddy Kennedy bitching about windmills off of Hyannis. You DO understand there is a difference to this? This case is actually property-existential. Like it or hate it, it's Capitalism 101.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Charlie - - those homeowners are ON THE WATER. You don't think flooding is a property-existential concern to them????????

I can understand if it is someone who is a transient renter or a person in Lennox or Worcester bitching about their tax dollars going to saving the coasts. But we are talking about people who own their homes in Hull or Winthrop.

So, if I read your posts correctly, you believe the Hull and Winthrop property owners would rather their homes float away rather than put up barriers?????

There's a fundamental at work here- - those people are NOT renters. These are rich LAND-OWNERS. A barrier would save their property. It's sort of a basic thing. You seem to be confusing this with Teddy Kennedy bitching about windmills off of Hyannis. You don't seem to be understanding the difference from the eyes of a property owner. This case is actually property-existential.
Click to expand...

The time dimension is always what messes with "rational economics"
As fattony discusses, many many people will misjudge time here. They want the status quo so badly, and are holding out for the glorious possibility that they'll outlive all of this
People will judge timing here about as well as people are skilled at judging buy/sell timing on the stock market. Sad, since loss of play money is so minor compared to this
 
bigpicture7 said:
The time dimension is always what messes with "rational economics"
As fattony discusses, many many people will misjudge time here. They want the status quo so badly, and are holding out for the glorious possibility that they'll outlive all of this
People will judge timing here about as well as people are skilled at judging buy/sell timing on the stock market. Sad, since loss of play money is so minor compared to this
Click to expand...

Agreed. But that plays true for people who are not landowners within 40 blocks of the Atlantic Ocean. The point I was replying to was whether homeowners in Hull or Winthrop would be against it. I contend that the type of Hull/Winthrop homeowner that would be against even unsightly coastal barriers to stave of climate change flooding are people who don't give a care about their largest investment. I guess there do exist some inept Capitalists, but at that level, they are few and far between. I think some folks here are looking at this throught the eyes of an inlander.

Anyone with a $1 million+ home within 1/2 a mile of the ocean - I CAN ASSURE YOU - is ready yesterday for the Commonwealth, Feds, UNICEF, The Space Force, etc. to put up massive barriers to stave off coastal climate change flooding.

It's simple Capitalism/personal greed/ fear of losing everything.

But I agree with you regarding how most people who live in Longmeadow or Hopkinton think about this.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Agreed. But that plays true for people who are not landowners within 40 blocks of the Atlantic Ocean. The point I was replying to was whether homeowners in Hull or Winthrop would be against it. I contend that the type of Hull/Winthrop homeowner that would be against even unsightly coastal barriers to stave of climate change flooding are people who don't give a care about their largest investment. I guess there do exist some inept Capitalists, but at that level, they are few and far between. I think some folks here are looking at this throught the eyes of an inlander.

Anyone with a $1 million+ home within 1/2 a mile of the ocean - I CAN ASSURE YOU - is ready yesterday for the Commonwealth, Feds, UNICEF, The Space Force, etc. to put up massive barriers to stave off coastal climate change flooding.

It's simple Capitalism/personal greed/ fear of losing everything.

Bit I agree with you regarding how most people who live in Longmeadow or Hopkinton think about this.
Click to expand...

I do agree there are lots of coastal landowners dreaming of the gov swooping in and saving their property value by footing the bill for major flood mitigation infrastructure. But I agree with others that it's not that simple, since there are sub-groups within the coastal landowner category. There are those whose views are affected, and those whose aren't. There are those who believe this threat is real and imminent, and those who think it could be centuries off. I am not sure that coastal landowners are a unified front the way you describe. I wish they were. Back to my point: there are those willing to role the dice when it comes to economics here, unfortunately, and the risk appetite and/assessment of those 3 subcategories I just described is not the same.
 
As an ex-Jerseyan - A big hurricane or two does have a way of changing minds and removing political opposition to protection projects, though. I'm sure there will be someone that requires eminent domain in court, but that's the case for every project.
 
Charlie_mta said:
A big political advantage of an Airport-Seaport barrier (compared to Winthrop-Hull) is that it would be entirely within the city of Boston, making it way more doable politically. On the other hand, Winthrop and Hull are classic New England towns with all the provincialism that goes with that. I do find it hard to believe the majority in Winthrop and Hull would favor a barrier. It would be a lot of change, which is typically DOA in towns such as those. But who knows, maybe they would finally see the bigger picture and put aside their provincialism.
Click to expand...
The Atlantic Ocean doesn't care about politics, or districts, or political will. It will flood right in and spit us out... unless we play some Dutch level defense right quick.
An Airport Seaport barrier was a half-effort from a quaint time when we actually could have done something to prevent the now inevitable massive inundation to come. Boston's flood plan and everything in it is woefully out of date. Higher sidewalks? Berms? Individual building barriers? Adorable.

How much do you think all the seawater abutting and adjacent vulnerable property on these waterways is worth?
Obviously, Boston Harbor
Lower Charles
Mystic River
Chelsea Creek
Island End River
Malden River
Short Beach Creek
Belle Isle Marsh
Weir River
Straits Pond
Weymouth Fore River
Beal Cove
Weymouth Back River
Mill Cove
Town River
Black's Creek
Squantum
Neponset River
Fort Point Channel

And if we want to control backfill from the north side, a phase 2 might have to involve the Rumney Marsh and the Saugus River borders, too.

Now, how much is all that worth after repeated flood damage and replacement? How about after losing all the unprotected infrastructure to rapid erosion? How would would the Conley Terminal's bonds get paid back if it ends up underwater? How many planes would take off from a submerged Logan International?

I need a governor with a brain and a spine -- tout suite! Eminent domain it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top