Thursday, November 8, 2012

Are sea barriers the way to go?

From the NY Times:

The technology of movable sea barriers, from Stamford’s modest flap gate to London’s mighty 10-gate system in the River Thames, has long intrigued engineers and planners contemplating a solution for low-lying areas of New York City. The notion is that such a system could one day block surges from Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean into the East River and New York Harbor.

Now, in the aftermath of the devastating storm, one question is front and center: Should New York armor itself with steel and concrete at a cost of billions of dollars?

Experts whose barrier designs and studies from a conference in 2009 were issued on Monday in book form argue that anything short of sea gates would be a “Band-Aid” approach.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has expressed wariness about the barrier proposal, saying he is not sure the gates would work well enough. Yet, it is clear that his administration’s view is evolving.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Naw, we need another million hipsters and their immigrant servants to live on toxic brown fields in flood zones.

No transport? Bike to work or take a ferry.

No food coming in? Grow it on your roof.

blah blah blah blah bullshit.

Anonymous said...

For thousands of years people have had the sense not to live in a flood plain.
Food is grown in fertile bottom land soil.
The farmer builds his home on the high ground!
Capeesh, Mayor Dumberg?

Anonymous said...

Maspeth Mom....I can never beleive it when I see towns on Long Island and Rockaways, spending their tax dollars to build sand berms a few hours before the storm it. They get washed away with a few waves..too little too late....

Anonymous said...

Steve Anderson in NYC Roads has suggested three bridges: Sandy Hook to Breezy Point, Oyster Bay to Rye, and North Fork to Rhode Island. Could these projects be combined with flood protection --- something like the works in the Netherlands that turned the Zuider Zee into the ─▓sselmeer.

Missing Foundation said...

I really do think that it should be made clear that if you live next to an area that gets flooded on a regular basis you should be on your own.

There is no reason that you cannot accept reality.

You have no right to waste resources that need to be spent on improving our dilapidated infrastructure.

Anonymous said...

An effective barrier to future Sandy's (Category 1 Hurricanes with winds 74-95 MPH) in New York Harbor would be the first project where the environment impact statement alone would be $1 billion.

Joe in Richmond Hill said...

Water has to go somewhere and will always seek its level. This proved to be so this summer during a hurricane that hit Louisanna. The fortified levee system was higher and stronger and kept flood water out of New Orleans. However the levees at Plaquemines paris just to the south were over-topped and they got flooded. So if you put a flood gate around NY harbor somebody else will get more flooding.

Anonymous said...

Why should taxpayers have to pay for a homeowner's poor judgement. Like those rich folk on Fire Island...we shouldn't pay to rebuild their washed away beaches.

Anonymous said...

Think big: seagate, bridge, rail, and interstate highway connecting Sandy Hook to Breezy Point. I can hear them howling already.

Anonymous said...

My family members refer to my apartment in Central Queens as my "shit house in the slums". Every family get-together, I have to suffer the drive out to Nassau County and they treat me as if it's a privilege for me to get a day in the suburbs.

Meanwhile, I never lost power during Sandy, and my sister had 5 feet of water in her garage and basement. She has a town full of curbs loaded with garbage that hasn't gotten collected and inhabited by people who haven't had heat or hot water in a week. Now, who's living in the slums? hmmmmm.

Anonymous said...

Long Island "White" trailer trash...that's what these suburban snobs are....who keep putting down New York City.

Nature has taught us ALL a lesson!

Anonymous said...

No No & NO not on my little tax dollar! Let the developers or owners of existing buildings buy that solution for their existing proven problem and prevent new construction here there is a potential fo property exposure to water.