Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

$66 billion for rail in the Brandon crime family infrastructure law, a law that only 13, 13 house Repubs, 13, voted for.

gift article.

https://wapo.st/3rlrAys

I wish rail was a viable option in the states. As I mentioned to Brian, I just don’t see it as realistic in the states although here in NY we do have an extensive rail network.

back in august I considered traveling to a Friday night show from NY to DC. Commuter rail to Penn and then Amtrak to within a ten minute walk to venue/hotel.

Problem is? Amtrak wanted $400 round trip, nearly double the per night hotel cost and almost eight times the cost of the concert ticket. If that were in Japan or Europe, the train ticket would be at least half less. It’s just not a realistic option, unless we’re willing to buy the tickets far in advance. The American way? Gouge the consumer if they want to travel without far in advance planning, even by a quasi govt run railroad.

brianlux said:

Zod said:

I had no idea what rail could be like until I went to Europe 10+ years ago.   It felt insane.   You could get almost anywhere by train, there wasn't a big need to drive.  We started with car rentals, but it's awful driving in some of the big cities over there.  Once we figured out the trains were a thing, we did the 2nd half of the trip all by train.   It is a shame in North America it lacks so much (especially here in Canada).

That sounds wonderful, Zod.  I've heard similar stories from others who have been to Europe.  It frustrates me that we, the great old USA, can't (or won't) match that wonder and smart kind of travel experience.

HughFreakingDillon said:

and it's more freaking expensive than flying. which means it will never be adopted. I know it's very difficult to institute that when so many of our cities are so far apart, but man, would it be awesome to be able to hit a train and see the country rather than just the clouds. 

Years ago, I lived in western NY state for a year and came back via Amtrak.  Went from Buffalo, NY to Chicago, the Chicago to Oakland.  It was a terrific experience!  If Amtrak (or a competitor) got their shit together and enticed riders with excellent service and reasonable prices, many people would find this a great way to travel- better than flying!

I'm told the train ride across southern Canada is a great experience.  My pop wanted very badly to do that but never got around to it.

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

Zod said:

I had no idea what rail could be like until I went to Europe 10+ years ago.   It felt insane.   You could get almost anywhere by train, there wasn't a big need to drive.  We started with car rentals, but it's awful driving in some of the big cities over there.  Once we figured out the trains were a thing, we did the 2nd half of the trip all by train.   It is a shame in North America it lacks so much (especially here in Canada).

That sounds wonderful, Zod.  I've heard similar stories from others who have been to Europe.  It frustrates me that we, the great old USA, can't (or won't) match that wonder and smart kind of travel experience.

HughFreakingDillon said:

and it's more freaking expensive than flying. which means it will never be adopted. I know it's very difficult to institute that when so many of our cities are so far apart, but man, would it be awesome to be able to hit a train and see the country rather than just the clouds. 

Years ago, I lived in western NY state for a year and came back via Amtrak.  Went from Buffalo, NY to Chicago, the Chicago to Oakland.  It was a terrific experience!  If Amtrak (or a competitor) got their shit together and enticed riders with excellent service and reasonable prices, many people would find this a great way to travel- better than flying!

I'm told the train ride across southern Canada is a great experience.  My pop wanted very badly to do that but never got around to it.

taking the train from coast to coast is a bucket list item for my wife and I. But it's super expensive. hopefully one day. 

Officials are scrambling in an effort to hold back the encroaching sea and prevent the saltwater wedge from heading toward New Orleans.

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Hey, screw climate change. All a big hoax, no problem. It’s normal weather.

A saltwater wedge climbing the Mississippi River threatens drinking water

Officials are scrambling in an effort to hold back the encroaching sea and prevent the saltwater wedge from heading toward New Orleans.

For six generations, Ricky Becnel’s family has run the massive tree nursery on the banks of the Mississippi River near Belle Chasse, La. Its 20 acres and half a million trees, most of them citrus, require pumping about 100,000 gallons a day of fresh water from the river during the warm season.

But in recent days, as salt water from the Gulf of Mexico has crept steadily up the drought-stricken river and within a mile of Saxon Becnel and Sons, he has scrambled to prepare for very real possibility that the farm’s lifeblood might soon be unusable.

“It’s been consuming me … I never thought I’d have to worry about this,” said Becnel, whose business supplies trees to large retailers around the country.

For the second year in a row, drought has severely weakened the flow of the Mississippi River, allowing a mass of saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico to force its way dozens of miles inland.

The steady creep of that saltwater wedge — which could threaten drinking water supplies in multiple Louisiana communities, undermine agriculture and prove corrosive to infrastructure — has left officials to scramble in an effort to slow down the encroaching sea.

“Based off the current forecast and projections, if no action is taken, we potentially could see the saltwater wedge all the way up to the French Quarter,” Col. Cullen Jones, commander of the New Orleans District office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said at a recent news conference. “But we have no intention of not taking any action.”

The most immediate action includes expanding an underwater barrier, known as a sill, that the Corps initially constructed in July in an effort to slow the progression of saltwater from the Gulf.

Ricky Boyett, a Corps spokesman, said work on the underwater levee is expected to begin early next week and continue for roughly two weeks. Ultimately, workers plan to create a barrier that rises 60 feet from the river bottom and stretches about 2,200 feet, in an effort to slow the march of saltwater up river and buy time.

“I want to be clear that if the current conditions persist, we will not be able to prevent overtopping of the sill by saltwater,” Jones said. “But we can delay it.”

Keeping that saltwater at bay is crucial.

Already this summer, Plaquemines Parish, where the Mississippi meets the Gulf of Mexico, has been forced to provide bottled water to thousands of residents, as the area struggles with boil water notices and a constant threat of saltwater intrusion.

“It’s been a trial beyond trials,” parish president Keith Hinkley told reporters at a recent news conference.

In a typical year, the flow of the Mississippi is generally sufficient to prevent salt water from intruding very far upstream. But several factors in recent months have allowed salt water to find its way at least 64 miles up the river so far.

In particular, the ongoing drought along the Mississippi means that without substantial rain further north, the river’s flow could soon reach as low as 130,000 cubic feet per second — close to its lowest recorded flow ever of 120,000 cubic feet per second in 1988.

That year, the saltwater wedge stretched as far as Kenner, La., on the outskirts of New Orleans.

The bottom of the river, which has been heavily dredged, is lower than sea level until it reaches Natchez, Miss. That topography also makes it easier for salt water to flow along the river bottom, underneath the less dense fresh water.

The underwater barrier that the Corps constructed in July is not unprecedented. It has undertaken similar work in 1988, 1999, 2012 and again in 2022, when a prolonged drought drove water levels on the Mississippi to historic lows.

But as the current drought persistsand the river’s flow weakens, Jones said, the Corps determined it had to do more to slow the influx of saltwater. Otherwise, he said, the saltwater wedge is on pace to continue upriver and expected to impact a freshwater intake facility at Belle Chase, La., in early October.

Beyond the perils it poses to drinking water supplies, saltwater intrusion can be corrosive to home appliances and to equipment in industrial facilities. It also can harm crops and complicate caring for livestock.

Even as it works to enlarge the current underwater levee, the Corps said it would leave a “notch” in the sill — 620 feet wide and 55 feet deep — to allow oceangoing vessels to continue to transport cargo up and down the river.

The latest predicament has numerous man-made and natural contributors, said Mark Davis, a professor at Tulane Law School and director of the university’s Center for Environmental Law. But the warming atmosphere is one unavoidable factor.

“This is just another example of what climate change, drought and sea level rise can look like,” Davis said.

He said while the issues posed by saltwater intrusion have happened in the past, the frequency and intensity of recent droughts are new. In consecutive years, he noted, drought has caused angst up and down the Mississippi, from barge operators to farmers to water managers. And those extremes have profound economic consequences.

“It doesn’t mean that every instance is climate, but when it happens repeatedly, the impacts are exactly what climate scientists and experts have been saying can happen,” Davis said.

As fights over water availability rage across the West and elsewhere, Davis said the past two drought-stricken years should serve as a reminder of the need to safeguard the Mississippi’s viability.

“The amount of river it takes to push the Gulf of Mexico back and keep economies going needs to be appreciated, not just along the river, but nationally,” he said. “This river does not have lots of water to share.”

Boyett said the little rain forecast for the Mississippi River valley in coming weeks isn’t nearly enough to change the current calculus. For the river to grow strong enough to once again force the saltwater wedge downstream, it needs to reach about 300,000 cubic feet per second.

“The power of the river is what keeps saltwater out,” he said.

In the meantime, the Corps is preparing for the possibility that it might need to bring water in on barges to help treatment plants reduce salinity and ensure safe drinking supplies. The agency is also working to acquire reverse osmosis systems that can help localities filter out harmful salt.

Becnel also has been watching the forecast closely. With little rain in sight, he knows it could be a matter of days until his once-reliable source of water turns salty. “Time is not on our side,” he said.

He has explored the possibility of digging a well, temporarily drawing from the municipal water supply or investing in his own reverse osmosis system. Every option has downsides. But hundreds of thousands of his trees need water; stores across the country want trees to sell, and generations of his family are counting on the business to press on.

“To say the least, we’re very concerned,” Becnel said. “We’ve got a lot of people counting on us.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/09/21/saltwater-wedge-mississippi-river-drought/

I'd bet anything most republicans, even a lot of the hard right know climate change is real and not a hoax.  But the will keep pretending to deny it because it all wrapped up in their warped sick scheme to burn the whole place down. It's like if they can't win, they will throw a fit and break everything they touch.  Rather twisted thinking.

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Well it's something.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67548961?at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=emails&at_objective=awareness&at_ptr_type=email&at_ptr_name=salesforce&at_campaign=newsbriefing&at_email_send_date=20231128&at_send_id=4010747&at_link_title=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67548961&at_bbc_team=crm

I would rate this as a tiny step forward.  The article mentioned "so-called sustainable aviation fuels" which I think sounds a bit like an oxymoron.  I would be more optimistic about this if it part of the push were to reduce air travel in general, and even more hopeful if railroad travel was being more encouraged.  Railroads are the most energy efficient of all forms of none ambulatory travel.

And I'm sorry, I don't mean to be a dour downing here.  Little steps forward are better than nothing.