- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Yeah this seems like needless hype for something that isn't actually a problem. Now everything outside of the Charles River Dam IS subject to sea level rise and should be a priority.
Crazy Transit Pitches
- Thread starter BostonUrbEx
- Start date
Apparently the storm surges could top the dam, although I don't understand why we couldn't just raise it. Even if not, this is like they tried to find the hardest possible solution to a problem.
I can't even begin to imagine the economic and societal impacts of loosing the Pike, Storrow Drive, and then entire esplanade all at once.
A dutch style storm barrier connecting Winthrop to either Long Island or Hull is the obvious solution to rising sea levels. Honestly I don't even know why everyone is talking about anything else. Boston's not going to abandon half the city along the harbor, or flood the back bay and some of the best parkland in the world with canals. It just doesn't make sense.
I can't even begin to imagine the economic and societal impacts of loosing the Pike, Storrow Drive, and then entire esplanade all at once.
A dutch style storm barrier connecting Winthrop to either Long Island or Hull is the obvious solution to rising sea levels. Honestly I don't even know why everyone is talking about anything else. Boston's not going to abandon half the city along the harbor, or flood the back bay and some of the best parkland in the world with canals. It just doesn't make sense.
bobthebuilder
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2013
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 158
Agreed, it feels like the best option both in the terms of feasibility & effectiveness. I really don't believe a canal system would do much in a sandy-like storm surge.
I came across the image below, which illustrates what davem mentioned. It seems like an attractive option that would open up a lot of new land. The land wouldn't necessarily be for development, but for travel & recreation. It definitely won't be cheap, but it's not unprecedented.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/defending_boston_from_the_sea/
This sounds whacky, but seriously, I have to imagine that when this really starts being a problem the solution will be removal of water, not barriers against it. I have no idea what is being worked on in the recesses of scientific research but something that sends water to space, freezes it in giant warehouses or dumps it in giant interior lakes seems ultimately far more logical than massive public works projects to defend every coastal city in the world. Shit - they could just dump it all into the Aral Sea.
C
cozzyd
Guest
FK4, I don't think you realize how large a volume this is.
Let's assume the world's oceans uniformly rise 10 cm. This represents approximately an excess of 36,000 km^3, a volume nearly twice that of all of the great lakes combined. The weight is 36 QUADRILLION kilograms.
Sending into space is absolutely insane in terms of energy cost (cost per kilogram to send to low earth orbit is something like $25k, and this would presumably need to go farther) and freezing and active transport are also (albeit, comparatively less) crazy. Cooling that much water from 25 C to 0 C would require, assuming perfect efficiency, about 4x10^21 Joules, about the 10 times the total power consumption of everyone on Earth in 2008. Gravity-assisted transport (i.e. canals and dams) are basically all we can do.
Let's assume the world's oceans uniformly rise 10 cm. This represents approximately an excess of 36,000 km^3, a volume nearly twice that of all of the great lakes combined. The weight is 36 QUADRILLION kilograms.
Sending into space is absolutely insane in terms of energy cost (cost per kilogram to send to low earth orbit is something like $25k, and this would presumably need to go farther) and freezing and active transport are also (albeit, comparatively less) crazy. Cooling that much water from 25 C to 0 C would require, assuming perfect efficiency, about 4x10^21 Joules, about the 10 times the total power consumption of everyone on Earth in 2008. Gravity-assisted transport (i.e. canals and dams) are basically all we can do.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I came across the image below, which illustrates what davem mentioned. It seems like an attractive option that would open up a lot of new land. The land wouldn't necessarily be for development, but for travel & recreation. It definitely won't be cheap, but it's not unprecedented.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/defending_boston_from_the_sea/
I note that for about the same amount of concrete, they could have the southern terminus at Hull instead, and thereby protect much more of the metro area for the same $.
Well, I figured it was a huge volume, but thanks for the numbers. Nonetheless, we aren't talking about a one time, sudden scenario where the level rises so abruptly. Walling off entire coastlines around the world sounds pretty extraordinary as well - I have no idea what the projected cost would be - maybe nowhere near comparable - but what about all the coastal towns and cities and villages that wont get their concrete barriers and have to relocate? You're talking about the most massive translocation of people, ever. THAT is another cost, and one that is unfathomably expensive. So it would seem to be that some other solution - removal in some way - is worth considering. Maybe not - but I would have to see some detailed analysis of price comparisons before jumping to any conclusions. The space idea seems least likely, of course... but I still wonder about some form of diversion.
I agree with your theory. At some point it will become cost prohibitive to continually wall in existing coastal cities in if the oceans are predicted to rise indefinitely.. At some point, action to reduce/maintain the sea level may become more cost adventagious and benefit a wider group of people but will require a wider degree of coordination than we are thinking about the problem now. I think shooting frozen ice into space is somewhat fanciful, but not as far fetched given the timescale you are referring to.
In the interim we may be wise to not build as much on the coastline, but it seems to be all systems go in Boston and across the U.S.
One of many possible places for storage: the Aral Sea has lost about 870 quadrillion kg of water. If we filled that sucker back up (and that would take is pumping and pipelines), we'd be covered for 7 ft of sea level rise. That doesn't even seem very far fetched.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
So is sea level rise actually (partly) the product of the Russians putting what was essentially "fossil" water back into circulation?
In keeping with Crazy Transit Pitches, I would like our seawall to include some sort of circumferential transit, like maybe it takes a NS rail link from South Station to the eastern route to Maine
C
cozzyd
Guest
The Aral Sea has a historical volume (in 1960) of 1100 km^3 (according to Wikipedia), which corresponds to 1.1 quadrillion kg, or less than half a centimeter of global ocean rise.
To combat rising sea levels, we are much better off affecting feedback loops, which will have exponential rather than linear response. Disclaimer: I am no climate scientist (but I am a physicist).
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
How do you get the rail through Winthrop and Hull/Quincy? The connection points for a barrier don't seem to lend themselves to mass transit or a high volume road.
C
cozzyd
Guest
The water was diverted to agriculture. Being in an endorheic basin, I doubt there was much global effect purely from the diversion. Maybe the amount of evaporation has changed or some other effect (and the albedo has also been affected, both negatively by desert land becoming green and positively by water becoming desrt land) Locally, the lack of a big sea has of course changed the climate.
C
cozzyd
Guest
Make the new main station be at Logan.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
Nope. Because the transportation network was laid out when Eastie was still a set of harbor islands. The Eastern Route terminated at Marginal St. and Sumner St. exactly 1 block east of the Maverick T stop when it was built in 1836. The open east-facing waters of the Harbor were 4 blocks east at Jeffries St. Now it's 2-3/4 miles away at the tips of the eastern Logan runways. Your "circumferential" outer harbor transit of 1836--train and a ferry transfer to Long Wharf--is already replicated by the Blue Line. And, actually, a N-S Link across the harbor to a reanimated Eastie Eastern Route would only shave 1.5 miles off the trip on the current Chelsea jog that the real N-S Link main portal will allow thru-running to. So...not much compelling reason to do it when thru-running to South Station or LRT Urban Ring out of North Station is a transfer away for all commuter and intercity traffic.
There did used to be a BRB&L (pre-Blue Line) branch out of Orient Heights heading due east into Winthrop that did a complete loop around the town...but that too got landfilled infland (notice how Beach Rd. is not on a beach and all the side streets east of 145 down to Winthrop Head are angled differently from the downtown grid).
Roads aren't much better. Tafts Ave. is the only access point onto Deer Island. Everything at Shirley Point was just a densely-packed settlement connected by series of sandbars to downtown. The roads grew up narrow for a reason.
Pretty much the easternmost circumferential road you can build capable of handling any substantial traffic volumes is...The Ted. Unless you somehow feel like landfilling a crapload more acreage onto Logan so it's somehow possible to bend a road back sharply west off Deer Island to interchange with the Pike and 1A. But...that's pretty much what the Ted does.
You might as well just make the seawall service road a Harbor Islands National Park scenic drive. The high-traffic highway, thoroughfare, and transit routes are already as east as they can physically get thanks to the crazy quilt of landfilling that continued for close to 75 years after all the major trunkline routes were laid. So meandering low-volume scenic drive from East Squantum St. in Quincy to Shirley St. in Winthrop is probably the best you're going to get given the capacity of what it has to hook into (ditto if you ever tried to do something out of Hull). And that wouldn't be a bad thing to enjoy the scenery at a leisurely 25 MPH with a couple scenic view parking turnouts. I think that's much preferable than building another Route 6 in Province Lands highway anachronism staring out at the opposite end of the Bay.
And I am no mathematician. I was three orders of magnitude off in my conversion. Dammit.
I still say: there HAS to be a better way. But I definitely am not the guy who will figure that way out.
Last edited:
C
cozzyd
Guest
Being a mathematician would be the perfect excuse for being three orders of magnitude off. Anyway I just used Google... volumetric conversions are hard.
I'm not sure, building flood barriers is relatively straightforward, but obviously it's not going to be feasible everywhere. This seems to have cost significantly less than the Big Dig:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Dam
Agreed. Clearly the stars just aren't aligned for any kind of circumfrential or through-routing here.
However. If this thing has to happen soon (and it does, imho), then does adding some improved / expanded port infrastructure to the mix help it happen? Or does it just make the process longer and more complicated?
Just for the sake of argument...is there any part of the existing Massport maritime cargo mix that could / should be relocated to a re-formed Long Island (and / or Deer Island?)
i.e. if you moved the autoport from the mystic pier in Charlestown, how attractive would the 'lobster claw' be for residential development (assuming everyone's patio faced away from the NStar plant)? Or relocated the salt piles from Chelsea creek? Or moved the Coast Guard from the head of Hanover Street (I know there's a romantic appeal to a working waterfront on the shawmut penninsula - but thats some high value land there!)?
Those seem like the three prime candidates to me, because the alternatives are moving the container port (what else are you going to put under those flightpaths, other than a parking garage?), moved the chelsea creek fuel tanks (fugeddaboutit), or moved the bulk / scrap facility in everett (which likes being next to the train tracks, I believe)
And in any of these cases you are going to want to have some high quality road access (maybe less so for the coast guard, but certainly for the others). I don't think you can put a haul road through squantum and onto 3a. Are you left with the inevitability of a new bridge over dorchester bay from Columbia point (can just touch the corner of it if you split from morrissey where that little boatyard is on the water side of Savin Hill) to thompson island, and then 'around the horn' to moon island and long island?
So - do these possibilities help or hinder the prospect of putting a barrier in the harbor before the next 3-day Nor'Easter puts 1.7b gigaliters of water into the Tip and the Ted? (thats a rough estimate - I'm not a mathemagician...)
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Building facilities on a damn that is meant to hold back storm surge seems like tempting fate. Also what people need to understand is that the harbor islands themselves are natures way of reducing the impact of storm surge. It's why Boston harbor would fare pretty well from a hurricane (though the south shore, cape and the islands would be massively fucked). Building them out will be expensive but a worthwhile investment.