Boston Harbor Flood Protection Projects

^True story - the entirety of bay village got a lift in the 19th century.

But seriously bros - barrier easily pays for itself via lower insurance premia. Should be straightforward.
 
tangent said:
Chicago did the same thing to mitigate their flooding problems. Raise the roads. Let private owners raise their buildings... or not. I believe there are still some historic buildings in Chicago where the street entrance is on what was originally the second floor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago

I think there are a few roads here and there in and around Boston that might need to be elevated a few feet eventually to deal with a few feet of sea level rise. Then private owners can decide if they want or need to raise their homes and buildings
Click to expand...

Many of the streets in Bay Village were raised 12-18 inches in the late 1800's to prevent flooding from runoff (and sewage) from the Back Bay district. (Back Bay was filled to a higher elevation than the original Bay Village landfill from the 1820's.) Many of the houses still exhibit the strange window placement below today's grade level.
 
CSTH said:
^True story - the entirety of bay village got a lift in the 19th century.

But seriously bros - barrier easily pays for itself via lower insurance premia. Should be straightforward.
Click to expand...

CSTH -- the only two cities in the US that need to seriously worry about chronic as opposed to rare episodic flooding are:
  • New Orleans -- avg land level is below sea level
  • Houston -- they keep pumping water out of the sponge that underlies the metropolitan area -- and the result is that the land close to the Gulf is slowly sinking into becoming part of the Gulf -- paradigm is Clear Lake [home of the Johnson Space Center]

The rest of the flood problems is episodic and dependent on the confluence of the tide and extreme storm surge -- to spend money on a flood barrier for Boston is silliness -- there are far more critical infrastructure projects upon which to spend our limited funds
 
whighlander said:
CSTH -- the only two cities in the US that need to seriously worry about chronic as opposed to rare episodic flooding are:
  • New Orleans -- avg land level is below sea level
  • Houston -- they keep pumping water out of the sponge that underlies the metropolitan area -- and the result is that the land close to the Gulf is slowly sinking into becoming part of the Gulf -- paradigm is Clear Lake [home of the Johnson Space Center]

The rest of the flood problems is episodic and dependent on the confluence of the tide and extreme storm surge -- to spend money on a flood barrier for Boston is silliness -- there are far more critical infrastructure projects upon which to spend our limited funds
Click to expand...

Miami's "episodic" flooding is becoming chronic as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oding-becomes-chronic-flooding-in-miami-area/
 
whighlander said:
The rest of the flood problems is episodic and dependent on the confluence of the tide and extreme storm surge -- to spend money on a flood barrier for Boston is silliness -- there are far more critical infrastructure projects upon which to spend our limited funds
Click to expand...

whighlander -- I have to agree on this assessment. There are a lot of US cities ahead of Boston in terms of coastal flooding threat. We seem to be a long way away from needing a flood barrier, unless projections are way off for future frequency of flooding here. (Data in that WaPo article link ^ as well; more than 25 East Coast locations ahead of Boston in terms of risk).
 
I may be late to the game, but I wonder why not build a barrier connecting Hull to Deer Island? It would protect a much larger area without much more length of barrier than shown in the configuration in the online graphic:

SEA__1275665801_6760.jpg


Of course I am only thinking of the horizontal extent of the flood barrier. If it is deeper ocean, than the barrier out there would be more expensive.
 
^ if they filled in a significant amount they could recoup a lot of money through selling waterfront/new property to build housing on.
 
TheBostonian said:
I may be late to the game, but I wonder why not build a barrier connecting Hull to Deer Island? It would protect a much larger area without much more length of barrier than shown in the configuration in the online graphic:

SEA__1275665801_6760.jpg


Of course I am only thinking of the horizontal extent of the flood barrier. If it is deeper ocean, than the barrier out there would be more expensive.
Click to expand...

Looking at the proposal, there's not a whole lot of barrier building other than the gates themselves. The islands are used as the main barriers. In a Hull Barrier there would be A LOT more engineering to be done. Much bigger gaps there.
 
Why not just a barrier and gate between Castle Island and Logan to protect the whole downtown?
 
JANAM said:
Why not just a barrier and gate between Castle Island and Logan to protect the whole downtown?
Click to expand...

This could be something like the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier that protects Providence. However, a Boston Harbor Barrier would need significantly larger gates, since our port facilities would all be inside the barrier (the Port of Providence is outside their barrier).
 
If is the graphic shows, new port facilities are put up on the barrier, then 1) you're talking about new highway or rail through either Squantum or Winthrop or both, and who knows how that's going to ever happen, and 2) Assuming port facilities can be built there, what does this mean for Southie and Charlestown?
 
Shepard said:
If is the graphic shows, new port facilities are put up on the barrier, then 1) you're talking about new highway or rail through either Squantum or Winthrop or both, and who knows how that's going to ever happen, and 2) Assuming port facilities can be built there, what does this mean for Southie and Charlestown?
Click to expand...

He said that the Southie and Charlestown locations would be redeveloped for higher value "close in" uses...both are prime locations for "easy" transit-network extensions, with both having existing rail ROWs (both active an dormant) that could be converted to Silver Line or passenger rail.
 
This all depends on the sea level rise anticipated. 3 feet, 9 feet or 30 feet... 3-6 feet is probably prudent to plan for in the next 80 years.
 
JANAM said:
Why not just a barrier and gate between Castle Island and Logan to protect the whole downtown?
Click to expand...

I like the economizing, but I doubt Logan works as an anchor for a barrier system because Logan itself is too low, and the container port behind Castle Island might be too.

Storm surges hitting a barrier don’t just pile straight up, they spread laterally. Any surge big enough to be worth the billions of $ for any barrier is a surge big enough to just wash right over Logan and get to downtown via the end run. Same dynamic on the other side, too, I think, with water surging through Pleasant Bay, across William Day Blvd, and swamping the container facility from the rear. It’s been awhile since I’ve been along there, maybe there’s more elevation there than I think.

So along with probably not protecting downtown, Logan itself gets left exposed.

This dynamic is an issue in all coastal flood protection systems: engineers from the Netherlands could go on for hours. Propose a barrier in any given spot, and maybe you've just diverted the water laterally to wipe out community B to save community A. The Deer Island - Hull idea: look how low Hull is: might need a massive dike along the Hull shoreline. And there are numerous connecting isthmuses (isthmi?) from Deer Island along to Winthrop that would likewise need dikes.

I am NOT arguing that there is no spot for a barrier that could deal with this okay. There might be. I think Logan – Castle Island won’t cut it. If momentum ever built for the Deer Island – Long Island path (which looks best to me as a non-engineer), you’d better believe the communities around Quincy and Hingham Bays will be hiring Dutch engineers to make sure they’re not being sacrificed for Boston. Ditto for every option proposed.
 
West said:
This dynamic is an issue in all coastal flood protection systems: engineers from the Netherlands could go on for hours. Propose a barrier in any given spot, and maybe you've just diverted the water laterally to wipe out community B to save community A. The Deer Island - Hull idea: look how low Hull is: might need a massive dike along the Hull shoreline. And there are numerous connecting isthmuses (isthmi?) from Deer Island along to Winthrop that would likewise need dikes.

I am NOT arguing that there is no spot for a barrier that could deal with this okay. There might be. I think Logan – Castle Island won’t cut it. If momentum ever built for the Deer Island – Long Island path (which looks best to me as a non-engineer), you’d better believe the communities around Quincy and Hingham Bays will be hiring Dutch engineers to make sure they’re not being sacrificed for Boston. Ditto for every option proposed.
Click to expand...

This is a political problem that all flood-gate systems inherently have. Someone's community gets left out of the system and is underwater. Whether those communities' interests are accommodated or not can greatly increase costs due to expanded scope, or greatly increase the insurance premiums, and decrease livability for people in the communities just outside the gate system. At a certain point though, that's a political calculus that has to be determined if a flood-gate system is decided to be a necessary project.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
This is a political problem that all flood-gate systems inherently have. Someone's community gets left out of the system and is underwater. Whether those communities' interests are accommodated or not can greatly increase costs due to expanded scope, or greatly increase the insurance premiums, and decrease livability for people in the communities just outside the gate system. At a certain point though, that's a political calculus that has to be determined if a flood-gate system is decided to be a necessary project.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though sometimes the people left out aren't just left out, their situation can be worsened by water being shunted laterally (not always the case).

I think the topography makes the problem vastly worse in some places than others, both in engineering and politics. If a tsunami barrier were built across the Golden Gate (imagine the cost, given the depths of that channel!) the huge hills on either side would minimize the problem. And the hills immediately north of the GG are unsettled, and there's only the very Outer Sunset and Outer Richmond in SF that are low enough to feel both excluded and at risk. Not a lot of people being sacrificed, and they're within the same political entity (City of SF) that is getting massive benefits.

A barrier to protect New York by contrast? Put barriers at Verrazano straight and entrance to Raritan River? Bye bye northern NJ. Stretch a barrier from Sandy Hook to Rockaway line (many $B), and anchor them anywhere you want, and the next two communities beyond the end anchors are not just left exposed, they're getting radically more water from the shunting aside effect. Move as far along the NJ or LI coasts as you choose: no fixing the problem (and $ skyrockets from an already high level).

Comparatively, the Boston Harbor barrier siting might not be as tough as a lot of places, as we do have some places where the topography would help us (the Harbor Islands most notably).
 
The big dig is over; time for the Boston Bypass Flood Barrier Seaport combo to begin! Maybe we can add a new airport to this as well.

mli81s.jpg



Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
 
This schematic seems to be the most commonly bandied about version of a surge barrier:

SEA__1275665801_6760.jpg



I agree with the speculation above that this is probably all a wild fantasy. But I think a barrier ought to be on the table even if just for speculative reasons.

However, this version has crazy extra costs thrown in, doesn't it?. It’s like three extra and unnecessary mega-projects have been piggybacked onto one mega-project storm surge barrier that maybe is justifiable (stress on maybe).

Extra mega-project #1: relocation of port facilities out to massive newly created land near the barrier. What the hell for? The barrier as drawn has gates big enough to allow shipping through, and is presumably big enough to stop surges. So the port facilities in their current locations would be protected. Why the hell spend mega billions to move them?

Extra mega-project #2: creation of new rail links to the new port. I can hear the Quincy and Winthrop NIMBYs now, good luck slamming a freight rail line in there. If the port doesn’t need to relocate, all these rail lines aren’t needed.

Extra mega-project #3: tunnel under the barrier with rail and (presumably) road connections under the barrier. Isn’t the vast % of I-93 traffic to and from downtown rather than through traffic? I think so. So it seems this tunnel would take very little pressure off of I-93. Will thru-truckers from south of Providence going to northern New England use this tunnel instead of 495? Only if they’re stupid. Are there some thru-truckers from south shore to north shore who’d use it? I suppose, but is that amount of traffic remotely worth this much tunnel cost?

That schematic concept looks like a classic case of “oooh, since we’re playing with pretend money, we could also do THIS, and then we could add THIS, and then….etc.”

I’d like to see a well-drawn schematic just doing the barrier. Skip all the transportation infrastructure and port relocation silliness. The port would be fine where it is if a simple barrier were built. We’ve already got a multi-billion dollar backlog of transportation infrastructure needs, and we do not need this road / rail connection across the bay. Spec out approximate costs of such a barrier. Between what the Dutch and Japanese and Brits have done by way of dikes / tsunami barriers / Thames surge barriers, we could get some dollar estimate. I’d like to have that out on the table, even if I then conclude it would be foolish. As it is drawn, it’s got complete idiocy layered on top.

The water is rising, getting flooded repeatedly would also be wildly expensive, as would non-barrier concepts. I’m curious to consider a barrier, but one without the silliness added on.

Someone's going to tell me I'm asking for too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top