I was astonished to see the University of Massachusetts Boston study of sea-level rise state that a barrier across the harbor is not cost-effective (“Study says harbor wall would’t pay off,” Page A1, May 30). How can it not be worthwhile to spend $11 billion to preserve well over $80 billion in major real estate alone, not to mention other resources, from a situation that unfortunately appears to be unavoidable? This is tantamount to saying Boston should start retreating inland.
I prepared the first public study of sea-level rise inundation for the Massachusetts Port Authority in 1987. The data were used for Antonio DiMambro’s 1988 Boston Visions competition first-prize winner proposing a “safety belt” around Boston Harbor.
People still think of sea-level rise as a temporary storm-related event, when it actually means standing water on the streets and in all our underground infrastructure. I had hoped UMass would at least acknowledge the need to prepare for dealing with the problem in a comprehensive way.
Mayor Bloomberg pooh-poohed the idea of sea barriers for New York City until Hurricane Sandy. Two weeks later, he was in favor. Does Boston have to wait for a similar event?
Adel Foz
Newton
The writer was director of planning and programming at Massport from 1984 to 1991.