Boston Harbor Flood Protection Projects

An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure. It’s important to understand human nature, specifically within our society.

The percent of adults aged 20 and over who are overweight, including obesity is 73.6%, myself included.

It’s easy on paper to say, “type II diabetes is common in my family and if I don’t mobilize to change now, I will face an early grave.” But continuing with the status quo is enticing. I’m healthy right now. I’m active. Most of my vitals are in or close to range. So why not eat the tasty burrito?

As long as everything looks fine, we Bostonians, Americans, and humans, are going to focus on other things. It’s something we “should” deal with “soon.”

Many of those who are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes and told to make lifestyle changes to slow the progression, don’t end up doing so, my dad included. This is why I think the best realistic thing to hope for is action after a devastating event, but even that is very far from guaranteed.
 
bigeman312 said:
An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure. It’s important to understand human nature, specifically within our society.

The percent of adults aged 20 and over who are overweight, including obesity is 73.6%, myself included.

It’s easy on paper to say, “type II diabetes is common in my family and if I don’t mobilize to change now, I will face an early grave.” But continuing with the status quo is enticing. I’m healthy right now. I’m active. Most of my vitals are in or close to range. So why not eat the tasty burrito?

As long as everything looks fine, we Bostonians, Americans, and humans, are going to focus on other things. It’s something we “should” deal with “soon.”

Many of those who are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes and told to make lifestyle changes to slow the progression, don’t end up doing so, my dad included. This is why I think the best realistic thing to hope for is action after a devastating event, but even that is very far from guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Humans are predictably irrational in our decision making process. It is statistically guaranteed that we are going to go for the short term gain over any much bigger, but somewhat uncertain long term reward. Even when the long term issue is existentially life threatening (like climate change) we (as a group) don't budge out of current comfort.
 
bigeman312 said:
An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure. It’s important to understand human nature, specifically within our society.

The percent of adults aged 20 and over who are overweight, including obesity is 73.6%, myself included.

It’s easy on paper to say, “type II diabetes is common in my family and if I don’t mobilize to change now, I will face an early grave.” But continuing with the status quo is enticing. I’m healthy right now. I’m active. Most of my vitals are in or close to range. So why not eat the tasty burrito?

As long as everything looks fine, we Bostonians, Americans, and humans, are going to focus on other things. It’s something we “should” deal with “soon.”

Many of those who are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes and told to make lifestyle changes to slow the progression, don’t end up doing so, my dad included. This is why I think the best realistic thing to hope for is action after a devastating event, but even that is very far from guaranteed.
Click to expand...
As I am also obese and likely pre-diabetic, I see a comparison.
Though I'd readily vote for a tax increase and an awesome public works project waaaaay before I gave up carbs, booze, and started a regular exercise regimen.
 
Highwayguy said:
Per Bigemans link; it really is a remarkably sharp cutoff at 5’ above MHHW. 4’ is almost unscathed and everyone would go into work the next day if some small scale defenses are implemented. But at 5’ the Charles and Mystic dams are overtopped and its Katrina level inundation. View attachment 26321View attachment 26322
(Green represents areas that are below sea level but are not inundated due to costal defenses / topography)
Click to expand...

Comparing the areas that are inundated if sea level rises gos to 5', it seems like a relatively (compared to a harbour sea barrier) small and less expensive set of changes would deliver many of the same benefits but at lower costs.

That is, fortify and modify the Charles River and Mystic River locks and build up seawalls at Fort Point and in Charlestown. Seemingly, add new height to walls on Island End Creek and most of Everett and Chelsea are protected.

the question is how to protect eastie and Chelsea from sea level rise on Chelsea Creek.

that all seems cheaper than an outer harbour sea level rise barrier
 
as02143 said:
Comparing the areas that are inundated if sea level rises gos to 5', it seems like a relatively (compared to a harbour sea barrier) small and less expensive set of changes would deliver many of the same benefits but at lower costs.

That is, fortify and modify the Charles River and Mystic River locks and build up seawalls at Fort Point and in Charlestown. Seemingly, add new height to walls on Island End Creek and most of Everett and Chelsea are protected.

the question is how to protect eastie and Chelsea from sea level rise on Chelsea Creek.

that all seems cheaper than an outer harbour sea level rise barrier
Click to expand...
Band-Aids won’t do.
The problem is much, much bigger than Chelsea and Eastie. Water will not only come from the Deer Island side into the inner harbor. It will push into every estuary, creek, swamp, marsh and river and everything that borders them. if we get a breach in any thin strip from Winthrop to Lynn we lose as well.
The Atlantic Ocean does not care.
 
One area where the Emerald Tutu should be given a try seasonally would be at Morrissey Boulevard. The stretch along Dorchester Bay has been occasionally flooding during the winter for about 10 years. This area is currently undergoing a design study on improvements and I don't think raising the grade has even been mentioned which surprises me. It has typically been storm surge over the Jersey barriers that has been the problem in this area.
 
Last edited:
I find the emerald tutu an interesting idea but it still has a ways to go before it is proven to work. However, the genesis of it is MIT so I doubt they would waste their time if they didn't think it has promise.
Also, yes, Morrissey Boulevard is being raised
 
BeyondRevenue said:
Band-Aids won’t do.
The problem is much, much bigger than Chelsea and Eastie. Water will not only come from the Deer Island side into the inner harbor. It will push into every estuary, creek, swamp, marsh and river and everything that borders them. if we get a breach in any thin strip from Winthrop to Lynn we lose as well.
The Atlantic Ocean does not care.
Click to expand...

Seems easy enough to fortify Revere Beach Parkway and then resolve much of the rest by fortifying the developments at Suffolk Downs. Then it's some Mass port Logan airport sea wall work and the inner core is sufficiently protected for 50 to 75 years.

I don't know if any of the areas north of Revere are designated as for "managed retreat" but i know that that's been a proposal for some areas globally that are similarly situated as the north shore areas.
 
as02143 said:
Seems easy enough to fortify Revere Beach Parkway and then resolve much of the rest by fortifying the developments at Suffolk Downs. Then it's some Mass port Logan airport sea wall work and the inner core is sufficiently protected for 50 to 75 years.

I don't know if any of the areas north of Revere are designated as for "managed retreat" but i know that that's been a proposal for some areas globally that are similarly situated as the north shore areas.
Click to expand...
I should be more specific in my concerns with a patchwork plan.

The protection of everything behind all those ad-hoc, largely uninspected, individually contracted, variably fortified positions will only be as good as a the weakest point of failure... and we are talking about a LOT of shoreline and a lot of likely failure points. Boston alone has an estimated 105 miles of shoreline. There are ~10 miles on the landside of Hull alone. There are MANY miles that would need to be fortified. I am asserting it's easier, cheaper, smarter and better for everyone in the Commonwealth to build a multi-use 3.5 mile barrier to protect all non-coastal 150+ miles of threatened harbor-front shoreline, interior properties bordering waterways and soon-to-be dramatically affected low-lying areas. The affected areas represent the taxpayer core and deserve this as much as someone in Pepperell deserves a state highway. And it'll be tough to pay for pavement in Peru, MA when the Boston Harbor tax base gets a gut-punch.

With augmentation of a few other spots that you mentioned above, a barrier project would save each coastal municipality from shouldering build expenses while some towns behind it who would benefit directly without paying. The coastal town expenses from Scituate to Lynn should be paid for by Boston, Malden, Melrose, Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Winthrop, Hingham, Quincy, Milton, Weymouth and Chelsea as direct beneficiaries. I foresee more delays in trying to figure out who has to pay for what, and what waste would come from lawsuits and liability across town lines.

I see a situation where after That First Big Flood, underwriters would not be able to compensate insured parties as they would not be able to cover the massive losses. It would be negligence to allow this to happen to the Commonwealth.

I would also hope we could design something to generate tidal power on normal days when we aren't defending against violently high tides.

If we are building this, we have an opportunity to augment existing land for parkland and recreation areas, and perhaps even make a causeway across the barrier. The Dutch have done this and it is a point of national pride. Where our barrier would go is much more narrow, shallow and an easier build than the Dutch version was.

If we do nothing we will all pay... much more. It's that easy.
I feel like I'm the nag saying "It's time to go to work" and there are a few who would rather quit working altogether. We need to get up, look in the mirror and get in the damn shower! We have slept through three snooze alarms and we will lose everything if we don't step it up tout suite!
 
Tonight’s high tide will be 2.5-3.0 ft above MHHW in Boston Harbor.

‘2 feet to midnight’
 
Last edited:
Once the first storm surge inundates Boston, more people will be ready to have a conversation about best protective measures.

The Blizzard of 2018 was inches away. You may remember that it flooded Aquarium Station and areas of the Financial District. Global sea level has risen about an inch since 2018, so the same event would see water roughly levels one inch higher today. NOAA projects a foot of sea level rise on the East Coast in the next 30 years, but recent revelations have noted that Thwaites is failing faster than expected and more Greenland glacial melted is locked in than previously understood.

So, the next event comparable to the Blizzard of 2018 has a decent chance of widespread inundation. Commuter Rail tracks at North Station under water. Sea water flowing down the ramps into the Central Artery Tunnel. The Mass Pike + rail trench completely submerged. Many of the streets of the South End, Back Bay, and Fenway under water. Will that happen this winter or in 2058? I don’t know. But it will happen and we’ll be lucky if it doesn’t happen within the next 20 years.
 
bigeman312 said:
Once the first storm surge inundates Boston, more people will be ready to have a conversation about best protective measures.

The Blizzard of 2018 was inches away. You may remember that it flooded Aquarium Station and areas of the Financial District. Global sea level has risen about an inch since 2018, so the same event would see water roughly levels one inch higher today. NOAA projects a foot of sea level rise on the East Coast in the next 30 years, but recent revelations have noted that Thwaites is failing faster than expected and more Greenland glacial melted is locked in than previously understood.

So, the next event comparable to the Blizzard of 2018 has a decent chance of widespread inundation. Commuter Rail tracks at North Station under water. Sea water flowing down the ramps into the Central Artery Tunnel. The Mass Pike + rail trench completely submerged. Many of the streets of the South End, Back Bay, and Fenway under water. Will that happen this winter or in 2058? I don’t know. But it will happen and we’ll be lucky if it doesn’t happen within the next 20 years.
Click to expand...
I predict if there is even a weak Nor’easter anywhere from December 22-26 of this year, we will see 2018 levels again.

Boats, Boating and Boaters In Massachusetts - Massachusetts Marine Trades Association - MMTA | Massachusetts Tides & Cape Cod Tide Tables | MA Boating Weather & Sea Conditions | MA Fishing Links | Boating Safety Education | Marine Jobs Available In M

BoatMa.com is the all-purpose boating site of the Massachusetts Marine Trades Association (MMTA), provider of Massachusetts Tide Tables, Cape Cod Tide Tables, North Shore Tide Tables, South Shore Tide tables, Boston Harbor Tide Table, Hingham Bay Tide Table, Cape Cod Tide Table, Marthas Vineyard...
www.boatma.com
 
I think it's been brought up before (I could easily be wrong), but New Bedford got their barrier done and, aside from being functional, it added a decent amount of public space. How often can it be said that Boston lags behind NB?
 
I fully support a sea wall in Boston and have detailed above how I’d like to see it done.

That being said, it’s important to note that New Bedford’s geography lends itself more readily to a functional seawall. For example, if a seawall were constructed to protect Boston’s inner harbor (from Seaport to Eastie/Logan), it would only be effective to five feet above MHHW. After that, we’d have inundation via the Chelsea Creek from Constitution Beach, Belle Isle Marsh, and Revere Beach.

So, an effective seawall in Boston needs to be a much more involved undertaking than New Bedford, just because of our geography.
 
bigeman312 said:
I fully support a sea wall in Boston and have detailed above how I’d like to see it done.

That being said, it’s important to note that New Bedford’s geography lends itself more readily to a functional seawall. For example, if a seawall were constructed to protect Boston’s inner harbor (from Seaport to Eastie/Logan), it would only be effective to five feet above MHHW. After that, we’d have inundation via the Chelsea Creek from Constitution Beach, Belle Isle Marsh, and Revere Beach.

So, an effective seawall in Boston needs to be a much more involved undertaking than New Bedford, just because of our geography.
Click to expand...

Figured that must at least be a part of the reason. Thanks for confirming!
 
Why couldn't the sea wall barrier experts agree will be necessary also be used as a transportation corridor? Killing two birds.
 
BostonBoy said:
Why couldn't the sea wall barrier experts agree will be necessary also be used as a transportation corridor? Killing two birds.
Click to expand...

Don’t think even a direct connection could manufacture much demand for Hull-Winthrop.
 
BostonBoy said:
Why couldn't the sea wall barrier experts agree will be necessary also be used as a transportation corridor? Killing two birds.
Click to expand...
Transportation corridor for who? Being a narrow causeway with water on either side, it has no catchment for public transportation. The only thing it could possibly be is a bypass highway around Boston. I suspect the economic cost/benefit is not going to come out favorably for that and the communities where it makes landfall will raise bloody hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top