Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 181 posts

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#31

Post by Retric »

cabaalis wrote: post #21
jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

> based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. I'm curious. I've been hearing about the expected effects of climate change for many years. At least since ~2005 or 2006. Are there any predictions of conditions in 2000, or 2020, which have panned out as predicted?

Sea level rises is currently only 8cm in the last 20 years, but it has happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File%3...

PS: It’s all’s up 18 cm from 1897 but recent rise has been much more obvious.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#33

Post by freehunter »

jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already!

The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#34

Post by cagenut »

koops wrote: post #27
cabaalis wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. I'm curious. I've been hearing about the expected effects of climate change for many years. At least since ~2005 or 2006. Are there any predictions of conditions in 2000, or 2020, which have panned out as predicted?

I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy, but temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...

It is astounding how spot on it has all been. The data is so crystal clear.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#35

Post by taude »

13of40 wrote: post #17
ams6110 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak is hands-down the worst passenger rail service I've ever used, out of services in four different countries. I will say I've never used Amtrak in the Northeast which I understand is somewhat better than the rest of the country, but that's not saying much.

I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take…

Don't forget to add airport overhead and potentially the time it takes to get to airport over train station (if you live in the city), getting through security, boarding the plane, waiting to depart, etc. Might not even be a time savings when it's all said and done.

For me, living in Boston, going to NYC on the NEC a lot, I still prefer the train, even though it's expensive (I just went to NYC for thanksgiving), sometimes more than flying.

Some benefits to me (especially because I live 10 minutes from Back Bay Station): 1) Not paying expensive cab fees from La Guardia/JFK airport into city 2) Not sitting in car for the hour it takes to get from the airport, even worse in times of traffic 3) Transport to the airport outbound, waiting in security, checking bags, boarding via sections, fighting to place bag in overhead, waiting while plane loads, waiting to taxi on runway, etc.

And then, once on the train, it's really relaxing. And I love the costal views. Try to sit on the coast side to/from NYC. Trains are clean, too.

It's true, they aren't as NICE or speedy as the Asian trains (I was in Shanghai recently and totally blown away by their train systems there -- most of which was built in last 20 years), but over all trip simplicity, effeciency, etc. are still better than flying for these short trips, IMHO.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#36

Post by 300bps »

cabaalis wrote: post #21
jonas21 wrote: post #8

> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project. Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how…

> based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. I'm curious. I've been hearing about the expected effects of climate change for many years. At least since ~2005 or 2006. Are there any predictions of conditions in 2000, or 2020, which have panned out as predicted?

My favorite article on this topic was from The Independent in 2000 that stated snowfalls in England were a thing of the past and children would not know what snow is within a few years.

The Independent finally deleted the article but here’s a summary of it:

http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/12/27/headline-2000-snowfa...

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#37

Post by mikey_p »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #28
13of40 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take…

Why is that a no-brainer? In Seattle, first you have to get to the airport. Sea-Tac isn't exactly in Seattle. Depending on where you're coming from, King Street may be easier to reach. Then there's the bit about arriving at the airport 2 hours before, in order to pass through security. Yeah, you can probably cheat on the two hours, depending on how long security lines tend to be at Sea-Tac. Still, it's a chunk of tim…

One major downside is that the schedule is very unpredictable between Portland and Seattle, due to right of way being preempted by freight traffic. It's not uncommon to have to pull into a siding and sit for 10-20 minutes several times.

That said the comfort between train and air travel is night and day, you get much more space, plenty of outlets, room to get up and move around, purchase food and drinks, even if the food is worse than airline food.

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#38

Post by mistrial9 »

peterhj wrote: post #26
hprotagonist wrote: post #4

Even a decade ago, some long stretches through connecticut reminded me a lot of the tramway sequence in Spirited Away : https://vimeo.com/91985775

In the Bay Area today, a section of Amtrak's Capital Corridor passes through the salt ponds and the Baylands marshes which is also quite reminiscent.

the California reference document on this topic might be .. a 71 page April 2017 pdf .. "Rising Seas in California -- an Update on Sea-Level Rise Science" through California OPC_SAT

Re: Rising Waters Are Drowning Amtrak's Northeast Corridor

#39

Post by geerlingguy »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #23
13of40 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've only used it on the west coast, but it seems like the service, cleanliness, etc. are comparable to European and Asian trains, but because the Amtrak trains are super slow and the distances here are so much greater, riding anywhere on it is a terrible experience. Not to mention the fact that it's almost as expensive as flying. (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take…

> (Just checked and it would cost me $79 to fly to Portland from Seattle and $53 to take the train. Kind of a no-brainer.) I agree, but as someone who hates flying, and is very bothered by TSA's production, I would hands-down take the train over the plane in almost every circumstance.

It is nice to just walk up to the train and board at your leisure. And having a power outlet and legroom is also nice too.
Post reply on HN