Interesting sea level rise maps. How would transit cope?

[25Hz]

Stumbled upon this piece:

Maps show coastal and low-lying areas that would be permanently flooded, without engineered protection, in three levels of higher seas. Percentages are the portion of dry, habitable land within the city limits of places listed that would be permanently submerged.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... ef=opinion

What exactly are the ramifications of passenger transport here?

[mtuandrew]

Stumbled upon this piece:

Maps show coastal and low-lying areas that would be permanently flooded, without engineered protection, in three levels of higher seas. Percentages are the portion of dry, habitable land within the city limits of places listed that would be permanently submerged.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... ef=opinion

What exactly are the ramifications of passenger transport here?

I saw "LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy Airports are submerged" and got a huge grin on my face.

Transit would cope by adding pumps, adding seawalls, and being rebuilt where the people are. Not much use for the A to Rockaway Reef, is there?

[M&Eman]

The fact is, no one is ever completely sure what exactly could happen, and it is premature to speculate beyond how can we reduce our emissions our today and prepare for mitigation in the future, but to deride climate change as propaganda would be a mistake. There is consensus within the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. What is up for debate is the implications of such.

[lpetrich]

Sea-level rise will make coastal cities more vulnerable to storm surges, so we can expect to see more of these:
Storm surge barriers and closure dams | ClimateTechWiki
Flood barrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some cities, like London and some Dutch cities, already have them, and there's now talk of building some in New York City.

In the more distant future, expect cities to be moved to higher ground, and when they get moved, then a reasonable thing would be to construct transit networks for them as one goes.

[lpetrich]

I myself think that global warming is real, and potentially VERY disruptive. Just about everybody in the scientific community who's studied this issue agrees that it's real and likely caused by human activities. Naomi Oreskes has made a convincing case that global-warming denialism is a propaganda scam financed by the fossil-fuel industry in her book Merchants of Doubt - Home

Back to the main subject, I note that NYC's subway-train tunnels seem to be very leaky. Could that be a side effect of their age? Is it cheaper to pump out water leaking in than to try to rebuild the leakier tunnels? Cheaper in the sense that repairing the tunnels would cost as much as several decades of pumping.

Not only coastal cities would be vulnerable, but several inland ones as well. Some inland cities are on coastal plains, and thus don't have much elevation relative to the ocean. In the northeast US, Philly (12 m) and DC (0 to 125 m) are almost as vulnerable as NYC (10 m) and Boston (43 m) (numbers from Wikipedia).

If the cities became abandoned, the urban-rail systems would likely be abandoned with them, with the railcars moved elsewhere and the infrastructure stripped of anything salvageable. What usually happens to abandoned railroad lines?

[NE2]

"I don't wanna talk to a scientist, y'all MFers lying and gettin me pissed" - Insane Clown Posse, Miracles

[amtrakowitz]

I myself think that global warming is real, and potentially VERY disruptive. Just about everybody in the scientific community who's studied this issue agrees that it's real and likely caused by human activities. Naomi Oreskes has made a convincing case that global-warming denialism is a propaganda scam financed by the fossil-fuel industry in her book Merchants of Doubt - Home

Back to the main subject, I note that NYC's subway-train tunnels seem to be very leaky. Could that be a side effect of their age? Is it cheaper to pump out water leaking in than to try to rebuild the leakier tunnels? Cheaper in the sense that repairing the tunnels would cost as much as several decades of pumping.

Not only coastal cities would be vulnerable, but several inland ones as well. Some inland cities are on coastal plains, and thus don't have much elevation relative to the ocean. In the northeast US, Philly (12 m) and DC (0 to 125 m) are almost as vulnerable as NYC (10 m) and Boston (43 m) (numbers from Wikipedia).

If the cities became abandoned, the urban-rail systems would likely be abandoned with them, with the railcars moved elsewhere and the infrastructure stripped of anything salvageable. What usually happens to abandoned railroad lines?

Continuing to trust "numbers from Wikipedia" will lead to confusion. They claim a "neutral point of view" but justify many published viewpoints by argumentum ad verecundiam (one of the worst logical fallacies). Never mind continuing to (once more) cite biased websites, especially that of known conspiracy theorist Oreskes.

There will be no sea level rise. Der Spiegel is a center-left publication, but was unafraid to let the UN have it when they got egg on their faces. Carbon dioxide has zero effect on air temperature at current concentrations (average of 390 ppm or 0.039% of the atmosphere), and at the concentrations necessary to have some kind of effect, no life could exist, plant or animal, because the atmosphere would be too toxic and the oceans would be concentrated (corrosive) carbonic acid. (Venus' atmosphere is over 96% carbon dioxide.) Omitting the effect of water vapor is rejection of science, period.

[mtuandrew]

Hoo boy.

Moderator's Note: Temporarily locked.

[Jeff Smith]

Hoo boy.

Moderator's Note: Temporarily locked.

It's an interesting discussion to the point that if it happens, coastal and river railroads would have to move or take Holland like measures to keep the sea out. Other than that? I wouldn't mind a discussion on real-world solutions to what has actually happened to the East River tunnels, Hoboken Terminal, Gladstone Branch, Newark, MMC, the Hudson Line, etc.

What it turned into is a debate on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change". Not rail-related.

After reviewing the thread at the moderator's request, I'll unlock it for now, but don't tempt my wrath .

[lpetrich]

Most existing underwater rail tunnels would survive without much trouble, I think. All that would happen is that the surrounding pressure would increase somewhat. The extreme case mentioned in that NYT article is 25 ft / 8 m, and let's see how it compares to the depths of various urban-rail tunnels:

Boston MBTA (Blue Line: East Boston Tunnel): 80 ft / 24 m
NYC Subway System (depth of Hudson River): 30 ft / 9 m
Washington Metro (depth of Potomac River): 25 - 78 ft / 8 - 24 m
BART Transbay Tube: 135 ft / 41 m
London Underground (depth of Thames River estuary): 65 ft / 20 m
Paris Metro (depth of Seine River): 30 ft / 9.5 m
(numbers from various sources)
Does anyone have any better numbers for tunnel depths?

If sea-level rise gets much greater than the depths of these tunnels, the pressures may become too great for some of them. But if that happens, I think that there will be worse problems, like the drowning of the cities that those tunnels serve.

Bridges may be be more of a problem, however, since a higher sea level could produce clearance problems for the larger boats and ships. For movable bridges, that won't be a problem for bascule bridges and swing bridges, but that may be a problem for vertical-lift ones.


From Quick Facts on Ice Sheets, here are some numbers for the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Sea level would rise by:
Greenland - 6 m / 20 ft
Antarctica - 60 m / 200 ft

ETA: underwater pressure rise is about 1 bar for every 10 m / 30 ft -- 1 bar is the Earth's atmosphere's surface pressure.

[neroden]

Edited for ad hominem attack and other nonsense not allowed

Implications of a Greenland-melting (20 ft) sea level rise for railways:
(1) Miami is not a good place to spend money on transportation, since it's going to be (at best) like Venice, and (at worst) fully evacuated. The same is true of New Orleans, Norfolk VA, and much of the rest of the Southeast. Amtrak should not store its Viewliners in Hialeah.
(2) A bunch of the cities built on higher ground have to find new crossings for the enlarged basins; New Jersey needs to figure out how to get over or under the enlarged Hudson River and enlarged Passaic/Hackensack River basins, New York has to improve its East River crossings, while Portland, OR has issues crossing the Columbia River. But on the whole, most of them are OK, with relatively minor construction (a few billion dollars) needed.
(3) Philadelphia and Boston would simply need giant seawalls. They might actually get them, unlike Miami where the situation is hopeless. New York would need somewhat less extensive seawalls, and would probably get them.

Edited for ad hominem attack and other nonsense not allowed

[amtrakowitz]

edited for response to off-topic discussion of climate change related to above post no harm no foul

[domefoamer]

edited for response to off-topic discussion of climate change related to above post no harm no foul

What does it mean for transit? In the short term, expect more challenges like Sandy's attack on the subway system. In the long term, I'd hope, we get serious about energy efficiency and renewable resources. Rail transit could be a big part of that. edited for response to off-topic discussion of climate change related to above post no harm no foul

edited for response to off-topic discussion of climate change related to above post no harm no foul

[Jeff Smith]

You all were warned; this is not a topic on climate change. Suspensions to follow.

<LOCKED>

[Jeff Smith]

You all were warned; this is not a topic on climate change. Suspensions to follow.

<LOCKED>

I want to add; all opinions are respected here. Left, right, I don't care. What I don't want is someone calling someone a "doody head" because they don't reach the same conclusion (an opinion) based upon evidence.

Although any opinion on climate change is irrelevant in a railroad discusion, this thread was based on the premise on a what-if sea levels continued to rise and how it would affect railroads and what measures they could take. It was not a debate on the what-if; the what-if was assumed and the cause and nature of the cause were irrelevant. I.e. this was a theoritical exercise on what would happen to railroads.

In full disclosure and not out of any relevancy to the topic of railroads but so you know where I stand and can judge my intentions, I believe it is likely that sea levels will rise. My position is based on the condition of Greenland's topography BEFORE the most recent mini-ice age. If Greenland was not an ice wasteland some 600-1000 years ago and earlier and it now is, then it's entirely possible the earth is recovering from that ice age. This is in my opinion not because of man-made global warming, but yes because of natural climate change. My OPINION is based on what I've heard and read, and is not because I know what the he!! I'm talking about . It's an interesting argument. I value the environment and want solutions that will do less harm to it.

And I respect those that disagree with me, and won't call you a "dangerous idiot". If you want to PM me to discuss my moderation of the topic, that's fine. That's what I hope the above clarified. I'm not out to stifle dissent or assent on climate change or global warming; it just doesn't belong here. The topic only assumed sea-level rise. Please don't PM or email me your opinion on global warming or climate change. This is a railroad discussion.

Thanks.