I remember taking a course on fluid mechanics which included water flow in channels. Namely rivers and the like. Narrow the channel and open yourself up for more problems.
Some economist writes in the NY Times about expanding Manhattan by some 160 acres into the inner harbor. That would dramatically narrow the Hudson River and the East River. Thus flow rates would increase and the buffer capacity of the inner harbor would decrease. This is a simple undergraduate problem for most engineers, or at least it was.
But alas not for any economist. You see economics is not a science. You cannot perform controlled experiments and there is no body of knowledge upon which one can design anything. Talk to 20 economists and you get at least 50 opinions.
Thus this recommendation states:
Creating land in the harbor would also help New York City fortify itself against climate change. The new community would push currently vulnerable places like Wall and Broad Streets further inland, and the peninsula can be designed with specific protections around its coastline to buffer itself and the rest of the city from flooding. In particular, wetlands ecologies around the shorelines would absorb surges. Building the land at a higher elevation would further improve its protective ability, and the new peninsula could recreate historic ecologies and erect environmental and ecological research centers dedicated to improving the quality of New York’s natural world.
Absolute nonsense. In fact it would increase surges. Please, let us just keep the economists in Government where the cause enough damage. Keep them out of New York Harbor.
Posts
