41–50 of 181 posts
I was on a road trip throughout a lot of different parts of America last month. A park ranger in Big Bend told me that a tributary creek of the Rio Grande was a hundred feet wide, when normally you can just jump over it. A lakeside highway rest area in North Carolina was flooded up to a permanently mounted bench and trash can.
> 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.
If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.
> Water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. That reflects the median of possible warming scenarios 2 feet is the median!? And things continue to accelerate? I thought I followed climate change issues but somehow did not know that in most people's lifetimes sea levels will rise multiple feet. I would've thought folks would be more... concerned? The maps of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut look lik…
A shallow bay in the tropics that is right in the way of ocean currents, for example, can see an order of magnitude more change in high tide than the global sea level, let alone during surges and swells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Who is right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It's a few pages before it becomes California-specific.
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…
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), some…
As for the view, the California Zephyr is indeed breathtaking between Denver and Reno, but prepare to spend a night sleeping in your seat or on the floor of a rattling traincar (sleeper cabins exist, sure... for ten times the price of flying).
As a very frequent Amtrak rider, I’m pretty conflicted here. On one hand, climate change is bad. On the other hand, giving the Amtrak fleet a bath, or altogether destroying it sounds pretty good to me.
On the NE Regional, I'm delayed 1/3 trips at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is astounding how spot on it has all been. The data is so crystal clear.
I keep seeing charts that say otherwise: https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG . This suggests the models are not accurate. Who is right?
Blessing in disguise here for Amtrack and a great opportunity to do an overhaul of a subset of the one of the oldest railroad infrastructure in the USA. Many lessons we can learn from European counterparts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
