Sounds like a good range of cheap to expensive, hard to soft, manmade to natural solutions to pick from. The next step is going to be doing a cost-benefit analysis, identifying funding sources & then prioritizing / selecting action items based off of that information. That is, not all of these are going to be the final ideas, and not all of these are going to be rated the same when it comes to picking which project gets funding. Naturally people who aren't familiar with this sort of planning aren't going to be aware of that, so I hope somebody makes that clear to the media.
I love the answer to 'we didn't make a plan to sandbag the tunnel entrance because of funding'. Writing plans aren't that expensive compared to the damages, and can pay themselves back with avoiding even minor damage from common storms or other events. Sandbagging the tunnel surely would have been cheaper than closing it down, draining it, then replacing all the damaged interiors & infrastructure, but of course that's a hard argument to make when the sun is shining and the budget is tight. Concentrating on the numbers and bringing up what happens to politicians when they let their city flounder in a disaster should be the first and last bullet points when making presentations to decision makers. Still, you can lead a horse to floodwater...
New York State Storm Panel Recommends Major Changes - NYTimes.com:
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment