Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#11

Post by spikels »

Somewhat worrying that the people in charge of protecting Boston from flooding would waste their time on such an obviously impractical and pointless idea.

Even if Boston already had canals they would still need to build surrounding flood protection systems just like Venice and Amsterdam. So why build the canals?

Interior canals can actually make flooding more likely as New Orleans learned when breaks along canals were responsible for flooring the city after Katrina. The solution - as a everywhere else - was beefed up perimeter defenses not more canals. Canals just make the problem harder and the risks greater. Why build a system to deliver vast quantities of water to the center of a city?

The real problem with building reliable flood protection is that it is impossible to fully test and may not be tested by nature for a very long time. This requires sustained effort by level headed engineers and planners not politically motivated dreamers.

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#13

Post by akgerber »

Retric wrote: post #5
meddlepal wrote: post #3

Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic…

The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…

America has gotten pretty bad at tunneling, and it's much more expensive here than in Spain or France.

Madrid buried its M30 high for far less money: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ Note that the project included two contracts that included >4km highway tunnels, neither of which cost more than $1B USD.

There were differences, of course. But read up on American tunneling costs versus those in Asia or non-English-speaking Europe, if you want to better understand why we can't have nice things.

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#14

Post by astrieanna »

colanderman wrote: post #9
Retric wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…

I can't find the answer with Google, but maybe someone here knows. During the raising of Chicago, how did they get the jackscrews under the buildings in the first place? Especially those (presumably) positioned in the interiors (as opposed to edges) of the buildings?

I think they go into the basement, as they do when raising buildings today. I don't know what they'd do for buildings without basements.

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#15

Post by teisman »

spikels wrote: post #11

Somewhat worrying that the people in charge of protecting Boston from flooding would waste their time on such an obviously impractical and pointless idea. Even if Boston already had canals they would still need to build surrounding flood protection systems just like Venice and Amsterdam. So why build the canals? Interior canals can actually make flooding more likely as New Orleans learned when breaks along canals wer…

I share your skepticism, but there's one thing you might be overlooking.

Canals can act as a buffer in case of heavy rainfall. This requires the canals not to be connected to open water. In anticipation of heavy rainfall you would pump water out of the canals, into open water (sea). The canals can then act as a temporary buffer for excess rainwater. True, this wouldn't help against dike-breaks.

Related to this: in Holland there are many farmlands in the proximity of rivers that are designated as buffers like these. When necessary, they let these farmlands run full of water in a controlled way to prevent downriver cities from flooding.

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#16

Post by freyfogle »

Retric wrote: post #5
meddlepal wrote: post #3

Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic…

The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…

My impression was the big dig succeeded spectacularly at its goal: it was a machine to pump massive amounts of federal funds into Boston. As a nice side effect they also built some roads/tunnels/etc.

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#17

Post by vonmoltke »

teisman wrote: post #15
spikels wrote: post #11

Somewhat worrying that the people in charge of protecting Boston from flooding would waste their time on such an obviously impractical and pointless idea. Even if Boston already had canals they would still need to build surrounding flood protection systems just like Venice and Amsterdam. So why build the canals? Interior canals can actually make flooding more likely as New Orleans learned when breaks along canals wer…

I share your skepticism, but there's one thing you might be overlooking. Canals can act as a buffer in case of heavy rainfall. This requires the canals not to be connected to open water. In anticipation of heavy rainfall you would pump water out of the canals, into open water (sea). The canals can then act as a temporary buffer for excess rainwater. True, this wouldn't help against dike-breaks. Related to this: in Ho…

> This requires the canals not to be connected to open water. In anticipation of heavy rainfall you would pump water out of the canals, into open water (sea).

Not necessarily. The South Florida Water Management District canals ultimately drain directly into either the ocean or the Everglades. The canal network has a series of flood locks and pumps, though, which can be used to manipulate water levels and force water to flow faster or slower than it would naturally.

Municipal drainage along the coast in southern Florida is also connected directly to the ocean. In that case as well the drainage system is augmented by high-capacity pumps to force the water out of the system and into the ocean. The municipal green spaces act as the buffers if the pumps cannot keep up with the rainfall.

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#18

Post by zalzane »

freyfogle wrote: post #16
Retric wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…

My impression was the big dig succeeded spectacularly at its goal: it was a machine to pump massive amounts of federal funds into Boston. As a nice side effect they also built some roads/tunnels/etc.

now they just have to fix the damn green line

olympics bid when?

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#19

Post by mmanfrin »

akgerber wrote: post #13
Retric wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…

America has gotten pretty bad at tunneling, and it's much more expensive here than in Spain or France. Madrid buried its M30 high for far less money: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ Note that the project included two contracts that included >4km highway tunnels, neither of which cost more than $1B USD. There were differences, of course. But read up on American tunneling costs versus those i…

  But read up on American tunneling costs
Where? I'm kind of interested as to why it's so much more expensive here (other than the obvious labor cost and probably-more-stringent safety regulation)?

Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea

#20

Post by toomuchtodo »

mmanfrin wrote: post #19
akgerber wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has gotten pretty bad at tunneling, and it's much more expensive here than in Spain or France. Madrid buried its M30 high for far less money: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m30_madrid/ Note that the project included two contracts that included >4km highway tunnels, neither of which cost more than $1B USD. There were differences, of course. But read up on American tunneling costs versus those i…

But read up on American tunneling costs Where? I'm kind of interested as to why it's so much more expensive here (other than the obvious labor cost and probably-more-stringent safety regulation)?

Corruption.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/06/study-corrupt-states-s...

"According to research published in the journal Public Administration Review, states with higher levels of public corruption spend more money on highways and construction. The study found highway and construction projects and police programs provide the most opportunities for lawmakers to enrich themselves, according to Governing Magazine, and are positively correlated with state levels of corruption. Meanwhile, highly corrupt states also spend relatively less on health, education, and welfare — categories that were less susceptible to graft and bribery, the report found."

Post reply on HN