Hey, there! Log in / Register
UMass professors study building a 20-foot-high seawall to protect Boston from rising seas
By adamg on Sat, 02/18/2017 - 9:30pm
The idea of a seawall with giant gates to let in ships - that would close in advance of a major storm - first came up in a list of possibilities in a city report on preparing Boston for rising seas. The Globe reports several professors are spending a year studying the practicalities and costs of what would be one of the world's largest seawalls.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Is this before or after they
Is this before or after they study building a really big clock to turn back time. Maybe a really big stop sign to stop glacier advance? I mammoth ice cube to cool the waters.
They do know that a rising ocean will just go around their wall, right?
Wow
We agree!
I think that the best option is to do what Seattle did in the early 20th century: raise the city up by filling in two stories from ground level.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/13/travel/la-...
NYC could build flood gates because the Hudson River is really not a river at all - it is a tidal fjord for the last 60 miles of its length. Fjords have steep sides and can be gated off.
You forgot a river
NYC would also have to build flood gates for the East River, which would be harder since it's not really a river - it's a strait to the Long Island Sound.
Thoughtful commentary.
How about we wait to see the results of the study before pissing all over an idea.
New Bedford's had one for 50 years
Why does this seem so far fetched when there are already operational systems like the ones in New Bedford and the Netherlands?
Whether it's feasible or not will depend on what is found in the study but there's a chance that by plotting predictive storm surge heights against the topography to the north and south of the harbor entrance it may be possible.
Do you know what flanking is?
Maybe you should check that out. Our coastline is very flat. Building a wall doesn't work when the water just goes around and comes in somewhere else. "Well, THIS CITY has RIVER GATES" doesn't mean crap - they also have a river to gate, not a large expanses of filled lands at low altitudes all along a coastline. The Netherlands has existing diking all along their coastlines, and their sea gates are on large deep rivers. We don't have those features.
My other issue: massive misdirection of funding for adaptation to wealthy coastal areas for a single climate hazard. Our biggest concerns right now are Heat, Vulnerable Populations, Inland flooding risks (including potential destruction of water supply systems and sewer systems), and the inexorable march both old mosquito borne diseases into previously clear areas and new mosquitoes with lovely plagues like Dengue. HEAT and adaptations for lowering temperatures in heavily populated areas and providing refuge for rural dwellers is actually the biggest concern of adaptation planners right now, even in Boston. Oh, but we gotta protect all the shiny office buildings first, of course. This is both a huge distraction and a huge diversion of state funds that should be spent in a much more distributed fashion across the entire Commonwealth.
That, and it ain't gonna work. Read a topo map sometime. Ride a bike from Rhode Island to New Hampshire. Or just go here: http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
Narrower scope
The stated goal is to protect the city of Boston from higher tides and storm surges.
I applaud the city for being proactive on this.
There are no state funds allocated for this and the state is not involved whatsoever at this point.
Regardless of other steps that may or may not be taken by other entities it will be imperative to protect infrastructure like the highways and subways as well as the airport. And the shiny buildings that house the economic engine that makes Boston prosperous. It'll be OK to prevent all the city residential areas from flooding as well.
And I'll wait for the scientists studying the options to determine if it's feasible.
Tell the scientists to stop the study!!!
You seem to know the conclusion of the report already so why don't you save us all some taxpayer money and pull the plug on it? I have biked plenty in the coastal areas of New England and I also know that changes of elevation of ten to twenty feet are not much but could be the height limit that they are looking at regarding a storm surge to study how feasible it is.
I'll get you a blank map of the coastline around the harbor and without looking it up you can draw the topo lines for 10' and 20' and I'll forward it to the team studying this to let them know that you already have all of the answers.
Maybe check out that web site yourself, Swirls?
I used the risk zone map tool at that site (which I haven't source checked, so I have to hold its accuracy as uncertain). It looks like a 20' barrier structure between Hull and Winthrop would not be flanked by 10 foot storm surges (the highest the tool will show).
(This tool at geology.com allows a bit more flexible visualization, and appears to show that a barrier between those points might even mitigate much of a 20 ft (6m) surge).
Not saying I think the idea of such a structure is workable, or even if it is, that it's economically practical.
But I think your opinion that it's neither is just not supported by the site you ref'ed.
It's funny
I was thinking some more about what Swirly said and things started to make sense. It was completely obvious to her that there's no way that this plan could work. Then I thought to myself, "tachometer, if there's no way that this would work then why would these scientists be studying it?"
Then it all clicked! These guys are getting paid to do this study based on the potential effects of climate change...they are scientists sucking up government money to look at something that could never work. OMG! These are some of the scientists who are defrauding us by pretending that global warming is real so that they can get rich! They are not actually sucking up government money for something that will never work, they are getting rich pretending to study something that will never be needed!! That's all the proof I need, I'm now 1,000% convinced that global warming is a complete fraud perpetuated by scientists in an effort to enrich themselves.
It really was in the nick of time too. I was about to donate my life's savings to the ACLU but instead I just gave it all to Trump's 2020 campaign.
Swirly, can you please clarify?
How could a storm surge or high tide flank a structure of this magnitude?
Where will the water go?
Why is it doomed, in your opinion?
Thanks.
How?
If the barrier is built between Hull and Deer Island, how is water supposed to go around it?
We're gonna buid the seawall!
And we'll make the ocean pay for it. Trust me, folks.
There are enough off shore
There are enough off shore minerals to make that feasible if sea mining is permitted.
Problem with a sea wall is that the water has to go somewhere. Saving Boston would flood the shore elsewhere and the coast is too densely settled, compared to other countries with seawall systems, to do it strategically.
Build the sea wall all the
Build the sea wall all the way down to South Carolina and stop it there. Let republicans learn that climate change is real the hard way.
Water Gates
Add London to the list
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26133660
Maybe...
They should work with Trump on some ideas
A sea wall will destroy the
A sea wall will destroy the character and scenery along the Boston Harbor, it's meant to be wide open for all to see. Maybe a high grade glass wall would be acceptable.
Nice Sentiment
But you don't want it to be "wide open for all the sea".
Barney Frank was right
When asked about the cost of the Big Dig which was underground Barney said "It would be cheaper to raise the city."
Why are
The comments on this website so mean?
Oh honey.
Oh honey.