Long Wharf Submerged 1/23/23Submitted by TuggieBoi420 t3_10jsosq in boston
Ordie100 t1_j5mz0dq wrote
We see these pictures every time there's a storm, and I've heard of approximately 18,000 waterfront planning studies, but does the city have any real, funded capital plan to fix long wharf? Like it clearly needs it's elevation raising a few feet, ideally it needed it about 50 years ago, so why haven't we done anything? If we can't fix things that already regularly flood what hope do we have for the future?
swap_catz t1_j5nfgj0 wrote
Not sure what happened to it but we need to lock the bay. There was a proposal to lock the harbor islands using dredged sand from the bay and expand the main shopping channel to also allow modern cargo ships. The problem is the Dredging Act currently prevents this and requires congress or executive order to repeal it.
McFlyParadox t1_j5oj0df wrote
The main issue with this is that it would severely impede water changes in the bay. It would effectively be a sewer in fairly short order, if you tried to build sea walls between the harbor islands. You could maybe build a lock system between Castle Island and the Airport, and that would be small enough that you could submerge the whole system except during storms (like the Thames River, and the Venice Lagoon) and it would protect the waterfront in downtown, but you couldn't do that to the entire bay.
swap_catz t1_j5othpq wrote
Not exactly. The Nederlands is mostly locked and without it, Amsterdam would be underwater. Humans have done this before and it's not a huge issue. No one is swimming in Boston Bay anyways. Note this proposal was supposed to be for Long Island to Deer Island, then Deer to Moon if I'm not mistaken. It could've been all the way to Hull too. The body of water would be so large it would likely be fine.
Also, the alternative is we just let South Boston, Charlestown, and chunks of downtown sink over the next 30 years. As much as I totally think most of South Boston is a scam and just yuppie fast luxury homes for dumb transplants that dont know any better, I doubt we'll just let it become an intertidal zone. We're between a rock and a hard place here. Keep in mind this has been done before the Dredging Act. Back Bay was a Bay. We've rerouted and moved large bodies of water with no issues just making them artificial lakes.
swap_catz t1_j5piny3 wrote
Just found it. So they wanted to do the whole bay, with gated sea walls. Look I know you believe it would be gross but this has been done before. The Dutch seriously do this all the time. We're kind of at the point where if we don't we'll be almost assured the yuppie folks in South Boston waterfront will be taking water taxis to work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comments/p7rg01/175mile_seawall_sea_gates_proposed_to_protect/
eaglessoar t1_j5oe4bz wrote
> main shopping channel
my wife got very excited for a bit there
BasilExposition75 t1_j5ot33m wrote
We need to bring back Dredging under local control. Towns should be able to regulate it.
swap_catz t1_j5ovfxt wrote
It's a Congress issue. The Dredging Act of 1906 means modern Dredging Ships can't even operate in the US. Its a weird catch 22 because you needed deeper channels to make the modern ships, but you need modern ships to make deeper channels. European ships have been dredging deep for 50 years and would easily just come over and do projects, but because of a weird law, the ships must be built and operated in the US. Right now, there are only 2 real dredging ships that are mostly designed for rivers, and they're already booked and overworked trying to deepen the Mississippi, which is currently so low ships are getting stuck every season. I definitely predict Biden and this congress has to repeal it within the next few years because its an obvious bottleneck in shipping capacity thats just dumb. On the East Coast, Manhattan also need locks yesterday. Word on the street is the Navy frequently works in knee deep water down south there. It would also open up more jobs modernizing Boston and Philadephia's shipping lanes and allowing modern ships to dock there. More shipping equals more work and less dependence on inefficient trucks shipping from Bayonne, NJ or Savanna, GA.
Thanks Teddy Roosevelt for ruining this for us.
2tuna2furious t1_j5pfulz wrote
This and the Jones Act or some of the most harmful regulations the USA has
lucida t1_j5r3yke wrote
Isn't dredging terrible for the environment?
swap_catz t1_j5r82l7 wrote
As one of those Libertarian types, I not only believe humans involvement in climate change is real, but I also believe we're past the point of no return and probably need to make some unwanted adjustments to save lower socio-economic classes from a social upheaval weather event that will only affect poor people. Many of the already low lying land is practically a ghetto (East Boston, Southie, Dorchester, Quincy). Remember what happened when the levies broke in Louisiana? I'm not even going to discuss how gas energy is extremely efficient and rug-pulling poor people who's next gallon of gas is getting them to the grocery store or picking up their kids from school. Imagine telling India their poor people can't have their first gas scooter and stunting their growth.
Look we're going to have to do a few dirty things to make things better for everyone.
If we really cared about the environment we would rapidly move to nuclear energy to stop carbon emissions, since that has the most effect. I kind of hate the issue with arguing over small change when the big issues are right there, and I'm willing to compromise to make that 80% cleanup while sacrificing 20%. Some crabs may have to be sacrificed here.
lucida t1_j5r8bx9 wrote
TIL there are ghettos in Boston
swap_catz t1_j5ra8be wrote
It's a loose statement. I know our ghettos are miles ahead of ghettos in every place in the world and even in this country. I also know if there's a hurricane event like Ira or Sandy that hits Boston, you're going to have a lot of Black and Brown people displaced or underwater with no ability or finances to move without waiting for FEMA for years, and a humanitarian crisis in the short term.
R_Morley t1_j5uuny4 wrote
Why cannot we simply eat the poor? It is such a modest proposal and would save me from all this, gas nonsense.
FrankySobotka t1_j5xzxyc wrote
What are these "unwanted adjustments" you speak of
Also kind of curious how your last paragraph meshes with your libertarian worldview
swap_catz t1_j5ytrki wrote
The unwanted adjustments are these seawall and levie structures, and the fact that were going to have to do geoengineering at this point, or otherwise the cities will sink within our lifetimes.
Technolibertarian also. Classical libertarianism is wildly useless at this point. We cant simply go live in the mountains anymore in a globalized high tech society. You just wouldn't have things like MRNA vaccines, bone mesh, and sushi. I'm somewhere between corpo-libertarian and digital democracy. https://www.radicalxchange.org/media/blog/political-ideologies-for-the-21st-century/
A good example of this is this exact situation where I think if the government doesn't step in here and remove this stupid law, the cities will sink and the government will continue to lose what little credibility they have. I'm giving them a chance here at least.
scottieducati t1_j5n5sn7 wrote
The only real plan is to relocate the capital inland. There is no saving Boston in the long term. 30-50 years maybe before flooding is a serious problem.
Yanksuck73 t1_j5n6ckc wrote
Sea levels are predicted to rise 10 inches by 2100. I don’t think that is “there is no saving Boston”
Brinner t1_j5n7ymp wrote
Nope, more like 4 feet by 2070
Most of Boston is saveable
Ordie100 t1_j5nblsp wrote
4 feet is a very worst case prediction but yeah looking at the cities maps it's still very far from "the entire city is doomed" even in a worst case 1% flood 2070 scenario. https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=77e5ead45a664676b7d404d6df3d7f05&extent=-71.0996,42.3244,-70.9606,42.3940 from https://www.boston.gov/departments/environment/preparing-climate-change
Pedromac t1_j5nc8h4 wrote
Tô be fair, if even %15 of the city goes underwater, what does that mean for the T and surrounding infrastructure?
The city would be doomed.
Squish_the_android t1_j5o35h5 wrote
>what does that mean for the T
Just more slow zones.
They'll buy those submarine cars from Disney.
[deleted] t1_j5nhsoc wrote
Unpopular truths are still truths, but people don’t want to think about them.
wickedblight t1_j5o4mns wrote
Long wharf is underwater from a mild storm before the ocean rises 4ft... Not a good sign
[deleted] t1_j5nhqq1 wrote
10 feet is the worst case prediction, assuming continued CO2 pollution at 2020 levels. In that case, Boston is a goner.
All it will take is the end of the Thwaites glacier, which is collapsing at a rate about 15x faster than expected.
guisar t1_j5nncxt wrote
It's like the Midwest, instead of recognizing our existential threats, we ignore them until our irrelevance leaves us feeling like we're not missing anything anyway.
People are just waiting until (and after, look at FL) insurance isn't available to cover them. Then there will be a HUGE and subsidized movement to higher ground. We are, overall, neither that smart nor comfortable with change, no matter how inevitable.
[deleted] t1_j5nnfdx wrote
Yep. It’s easier to downvote in 2023 and say “don’t say ‘I told you so’” in 2033 than to recognize reality.
moj85 t1_j5om441 wrote
im excited for when my property 20 miles inland becomes waterfront property!!
[deleted] t1_j5oy4ox wrote
100 year old Cape, 800 square feet, great shape, near Natick Beach. Only $940K!
jrice39 t1_j5ocbx5 wrote
Isn't there a guy up in gardner who lifts concrete and foundations? He could probably do it.
N8710 t1_j5osxjk wrote
Yeah, someone should give him a call for an estimate.
wickedblight t1_j5o4hag wrote
Ffs we're underwater now and weather patterns are just gonna get worse and worse while the ocean creeps higher and higher, humanity is losing all of our coastal cities to climate change.
Yanksuck73 t1_j5pi3q3 wrote
I'm not disagreeing that we need to address climate change and prepare. I'm just saying this guy who thinks Boston will be gone in 30-50 years is off his rocker.
wickedblight t1_j5rii5c wrote
How many Katrina level "surge incidents" will it take before living on the coast is no longer viable?
Or are you defining "Boston gone" to mean if one hill survived then the city preservers?
R_Morley t1_j5uv012 wrote
If we still have bunker hill, we still have Boston. We will fight the brits and their climate change, by land or by sea!
parrano357 t1_j5oda6x wrote
reddit upvotes for being dramatic are needed
Curious_Buffalo_1206 t1_j5n9zf8 wrote
By capital, do you mean Beacon Hill? We’ll all be long dead before Beacon Hill is underwater. The Seaport will be an early casualty of managed retreat, and nothing of value will be lost. Most of Boston can be saved on a reasonable timeframe.
I mean, unless by long term, you mean when all the glaciers melt and Concord, NH is also underwater. But even in the most doomer scenario imaginable, that’s not going to happen for centuries.
itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_j5ohf8u wrote
Ahhh yes.
All of our subways, highways, and low lying neighborhoods will be flooded, underground utilities like gas, sewer, and water mains will be submerged at high tide and unable to be accessed/repaired, but as long as the literal steps to the State House are dry, “everything is fine.”
thewhaler t1_j5oiryt wrote
It's not even just when there is a storm, this happens with king tides
Mickey_Malthus t1_j5oygk0 wrote
Thanks for spurring me to finally look up the origin of King Tide. -- It was coined in 2009 in order to describe the boring dystopia of being slowly swallowed by the rising ocean as a "nuisance."
" a king tide is an exceptionally high and naturally occurring tide that causes nuisance flooding (also known as, 'sunny day tidal flooding')"
thewhaler t1_j5p0x2a wrote
wow! I didn't know it was such a recent term
winter-14 t1_j5qk52q wrote
>king tide
>
>Another explanation
Soul-Food-2000 t1_j5oczec wrote
Not a long term fix, should expand city toward higher elevation. If water level rises by even 10 ft Boston is screwed. During the last global warming period water rose by 400ft…
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments