#landuse — Public Fediverse posts

Carving out 12 million cubic yards of rock for a toll road eyesore?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wants to eliminate the Allegheny Tunnels along the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstates 70/76) through Allegheny Mountain in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The tunnels would be replaced with a massive road cut (a.k.a. ‘the Gray Cut’) that would be 250 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide and would require the excavation of 12 million cubic yards of earth and rock. That is not an engineering accomplishment, that’s a plan for a future eyesore.

A recent calculation (confirmed by using Google’s gemini.ai) has shown that 12 million cubic yards of rock would fill an entire football field to the height of a bit more than 5,600 feet…more than a mile high and nearly four Empire State Buildings tall. It would also be the tallest mountain/structure in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Even a natural conical pile of this material would be approximately 1,100 feet high. Where exactly does the Turnpike Commission plan to dump all this material?

Reasons cited for the proposed Gray Cut

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has noted that the cost of upgrading the tunnels would be approximately double that of the Gray Cut. They indicate it is also needed due to anticipated future traffic, improved safety (particularly related to accidents within the tunnels), maintenance costs for the tunnels, and the current need for hazardous cargo loads to bypass the tunnels. According to the turnpike’s website, the preliminary design phase is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2028. If approved for construction, actual work would begin in 2033.

In regards to the cost comparison between the cut and tunnel improvements/upgrades, what never seems to be included in the calculations are the intangible benefits associated with the scenery, wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, culture, history, and lifestyles that would negatively impacted by this project.

“Look Doris, someday you’re going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn’t work. And when you do, don’t overlook those lovely intangibles. You’ll discover they’re the only things that are worthwhile.”

– Fred from Miracle on 34th Street per imdb.com

In addition, many other tunnels across the nation ban hazardous materials. Exactly why is this being used as a reason to build this project here? Maybe manufacturers should be transporting such dangerous stuff on trains instead of trucks on highways? Or perhaps, it should just be an accepted cost of doing business.

Lastly, “anticipated future traffic” can be a tricky calculation. All too often, past data is used to guesstimate futures trends. In reality, unforeseen events can alter those calculations. Unforeseen events like gas prices now hovering around $4.50+ per gallon, with diesel prices running even higher. There are a litany of other things that could change the traffic dynamics – migration patterns, birthrates, car ownership rates, inflation, cyclical economic changes, war, and climate change to name a few.

If this project is being proposed just so the PA Turnpike can better compete with I-80 to the north and I-68 to the south, then that is a very poor reason to cause the extent of anticipated negative impacts listed below. It should be noted that neither I-80 nor I-68 have tunnels nor tolls. The Sideling Hill Cut west of Hancock, Maryland on I-68 is 340 feet deep and 720 feet wide. The much ballyhooed geological display at the site was closed 18 years after completion due to budget cuts. – en.wikipedia.org and mgs.md.gov

In addition, rockfall fencing needed to be added along both sides of the highway in the Sideling Hill Cut in 2023.

Anticipated negative impacts

Not only would such a massive trench leave a permanent disfiguring scar across this scenic mountainous landscape, but it would also have the following negative impacts, as noted by Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain:

“The proposed Gray Cut would destroy critical wildlife habitats, disrupt migration patterns, and endanger species that rely on the unspoiled wilderness of the Allegheny Mountain.”

“The natural springs and deep wells that provide clean water to nearby communities and are at risk of being polluted or permanently altered by the construction.”

“The project will lead to the removal of forest stand and the displacement of massive amounts of soil and sediment that can never be reestablished or replaced.”

“This irreversible destruction…will also reduce recreational opportunities and threaten traditions such as hunting and fishing opportunities, which are vital to the region’s outdoor lifestyle.”

“The proposed construction will fragment these habitats, making it difficult for wildlife to find food, shelter, and mates.”

“The Gray Cut project jeopardizes these efforts [previous and current restoration efforts along the Stonycreek River Watershed].

“Beyond the Stonycreek River, other neighboring watersheds, including the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and the Indian Lake Watersheds, are also at risk due to the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel’s unique location at a triple watershed divide.”

“Construction activities associated with the turnpike expansion will significantly increase the risk of soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers.”

“The increased runoff from paved surfaces carries pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and other toxic substances into water bodies, further impacting the health of our waterways within the Stonycreek River watershed.”

“The noise, dust, and heavy machinery involved in this large-scale construction project would disrupt the lives of local residents and visitors who cherish the peace and quiet of the mountain.”

“The project will disrupt local communities by affecting the water supply for residents who rely on wells and natural springs. The potential contamination of these water sources poses serious health risks, particularly for those who rely on them for daily use.”

“The long-term environmental and social costs far outweigh any short-term economic gains.”

Other impacts not mentioned by Citizen to Save the Allegheny Mountain on their website, include, but are not limited to:

• Increased risk of animal vehicle collisions with the loss of the mountain’s natural wildlife crossing over the turnpike. This may lead to the future need of constructing a new wildlife crossing.

• “Drivers on the proposed highway would lose the tunnel’s protection from the worst of the weather near the turnpike’s highest point, 2,600 feet above sea level, where fog, icing and high winds are frequent hazards.” – penncapital-star.com

• The potential for microclimate changes in weather patterns as a result of the cut. According to google.gemini.ai, these could include: wind-channeling through the cut; alteration to the rain shadow on the east side of the mountain; creation of a cold air sink at the bottom of the cut increasing the likelihood of fog and frost; and disruption to wind patterns along the mountainside.

• The loss of the historic highway tunnels, first built in 1940 and expanded in 1965.

Steps one can take

If you feel this proposed project should go back to the drawing board, consider other alternatives, or be scrapped for upgrading the tunnels, please consider contacting Citizens to Save the Allegheny Mountain through the following links:

• https://savealleghenymountain.com

• https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565316543351

The organization’s website includes a petition one can sign along with space to provide comments.

Peace!

Carving out 12 million cubic yards of rock for a toll road eyesore?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wants to eliminate the Allegheny Tunnels along the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstates 70/76) through Allegheny Mountain in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The tunnels would be replaced with a massive road cut (a.k.a. ‘the Gray Cut’) that would be 250 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide and would require the excavation of 12 million cubic yards of earth and rock. That is not an engineering accomplishment, that’s a plan for a future eyesore.

A recent calculation (confirmed by using Google’s gemini.ai) has shown that 12 million cubic yards of rock would fill an entire football field to the height of a bit more than 5,600 feet…more than a mile high and nearly four Empire State Buildings tall. It would also be the tallest mountain/structure in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Even a natural conical pile of this material would be approximately 1,100 feet high. Where exactly does the Turnpike Commission plan to dump all this material?

Reasons cited for the proposed Gray Cut

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has noted that the cost of upgrading the tunnels would be approximately double that of the Gray Cut. They indicate it is also needed due to anticipated future traffic, improved safety (particularly related to accidents within the tunnels), maintenance costs for the tunnels, and the current need for hazardous cargo loads to bypass the tunnels. According to the turnpike’s website, the preliminary design phase is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2028. If approved for construction, actual work would begin in 2033.

In regards to the cost comparison between the cut and tunnel improvements/upgrades, what never seems to be included in the calculations are the intangible benefits associated with the scenery, wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, culture, history, and lifestyles that would negatively impacted by this project.

“Look Doris, someday you’re going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn’t work. And when you do, don’t overlook those lovely intangibles. You’ll discover they’re the only things that are worthwhile.”

– Fred from Miracle on 34th Street per imdb.com

In addition, many other tunnels across the nation ban hazardous materials. Exactly why is this being used as a reason to build this project here? Maybe manufacturers should be transporting such dangerous stuff on trains instead of trucks on highways? Or perhaps, it should just be an accepted cost of doing business.

Lastly, “anticipated future traffic” can be a tricky calculation. All too often, past data is used to guesstimate futures trends. In reality, unforeseen events can alter those calculations. Unforeseen events like gas prices now hovering around $4.50+ per gallon, with diesel prices running even higher. There are a litany of other things that could change the traffic dynamics – migration patterns, birthrates, car ownership rates, inflation, cyclical economic changes, war, and climate change to name a few.

If this project is being proposed just so the PA Turnpike can better compete with I-80 to the north and I-68 to the south, then that is a very poor reason to cause the extent of anticipated negative impacts listed below. It should be noted that neither I-80 nor I-68 have tunnels nor tolls. The Sideling Hill Cut west of Hancock, Maryland on I-68 is 340 feet deep and 720 feet wide. The much ballyhooed geological display at the site was closed 18 years after completion due to budget cuts. – en.wikipedia.org and mgs.md.gov

In addition, rockfall fencing needed to be added along both sides of the highway in the Sideling Hill Cut in 2023.

Anticipated negative impacts

Not only would such a massive trench leave a permanent disfiguring scar across this scenic mountainous landscape, but it would also have the following negative impacts, as noted by Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain:

“The proposed Gray Cut would destroy critical wildlife habitats, disrupt migration patterns, and endanger species that rely on the unspoiled wilderness of the Allegheny Mountain.”

“The natural springs and deep wells that provide clean water to nearby communities and are at risk of being polluted or permanently altered by the construction.”

“The project will lead to the removal of forest stand and the displacement of massive amounts of soil and sediment that can never be reestablished or replaced.”

“This irreversible destruction…will also reduce recreational opportunities and threaten traditions such as hunting and fishing opportunities, which are vital to the region’s outdoor lifestyle.”

“The proposed construction will fragment these habitats, making it difficult for wildlife to find food, shelter, and mates.”

“The Gray Cut project jeopardizes these efforts [previous and current restoration efforts along the Stonycreek River Watershed].

“Beyond the Stonycreek River, other neighboring watersheds, including the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and the Indian Lake Watersheds, are also at risk due to the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel’s unique location at a triple watershed divide.”

“Construction activities associated with the turnpike expansion will significantly increase the risk of soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers.”

“The increased runoff from paved surfaces carries pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and other toxic substances into water bodies, further impacting the health of our waterways within the Stonycreek River watershed.”

“The noise, dust, and heavy machinery involved in this large-scale construction project would disrupt the lives of local residents and visitors who cherish the peace and quiet of the mountain.”

“The project will disrupt local communities by affecting the water supply for residents who rely on wells and natural springs. The potential contamination of these water sources poses serious health risks, particularly for those who rely on them for daily use.”

“The long-term environmental and social costs far outweigh any short-term economic gains.”

Other impacts not mentioned by Citizen to Save the Allegheny Mountain on their website, include, but are not limited to:

• Increased risk of animal vehicle collisions with the loss of the mountain’s natural wildlife crossing over the turnpike. This may lead to the future need of constructing a new wildlife crossing.

• “Drivers on the proposed highway would lose the tunnel’s protection from the worst of the weather near the turnpike’s highest point, 2,600 feet above sea level, where fog, icing and high winds are frequent hazards.” – penncapital-star.com

• The potential for microclimate changes in weather patterns as a result of the cut. According to google.gemini.ai, these could include: wind-channeling through the cut; alteration to the rain shadow on the east side of the mountain; creation of a cold air sink at the bottom of the cut increasing the likelihood of fog and frost; and disruption to wind patterns along the mountainside.

• The loss of the historic highway tunnels, first built in 1940 and expanded in 1965.

Steps one can take

If you feel this proposed project should go back to the drawing board, consider other alternatives, or be scrapped for upgrading the tunnels, please consider contacting Citizens to Save the Allegheny Mountain through the following links:

• https://savealleghenymountain.com

• https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565316543351

The organization’s website includes a petition one can sign along with space to provide comments.

Peace!

Carving out 12 million cubic yards of rock for a toll road eyesore?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wants to eliminate the Allegheny Tunnels along the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstates 70/76) through Allegheny Mountain in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The tunnels would be replaced with a massive road cut (a.k.a. ‘the Gray Cut’) that would be 250 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide and would require the excavation of 12 million cubic yards of earth and rock. That is not an engineering accomplishment, that’s a plan for a future eyesore.

A recent calculation (confirmed by using Google’s gemini.ai) has shown that 12 million cubic yards of rock would fill an entire football field to the height of a bit more than 5,600 feet…more than a mile high and nearly four Empire State Buildings tall. It would also be the tallest mountain/structure in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Even a natural conical pile of this material would be approximately 1,100 feet high. Where exactly does the Turnpike Commission plan to dump all this material?

Reasons cited for the proposed Gray Cut

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has noted that the cost of upgrading the tunnels would be approximately double that of the Gray Cut. They indicate it is also needed due to anticipated future traffic, improved safety (particularly related to accidents within the tunnels), maintenance costs for the tunnels, and the current need for hazardous cargo loads to bypass the tunnels. According to the turnpike’s website, the preliminary design phase is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2028. If approved for construction, actual work would begin in 2033.

In regards to the cost comparison between the cut and tunnel improvements/upgrades, what never seems to be included in the calculations are the intangible benefits associated with the scenery, wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, culture, history, and lifestyles that would negatively impacted by this project.

“Look Doris, someday you’re going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn’t work. And when you do, don’t overlook those lovely intangibles. You’ll discover they’re the only things that are worthwhile.”

– Fred from Miracle on 34th Street per imdb.com

In addition, many other tunnels across the nation ban hazardous materials. Exactly why is this being used as a reason to build this project here? Maybe manufacturers should be transporting such dangerous stuff on trains instead of trucks on highways? Or perhaps, it should just be an accepted cost of doing business.

Lastly, “anticipated future traffic” can be a tricky calculation. All too often, past data is used to guesstimate futures trends. In reality, unforeseen events can alter those calculations. Unforeseen events like gas prices now hovering around $4.50+ per gallon, with diesel prices running even higher. There are a litany of other things that could change the traffic dynamics – migration patterns, birthrates, car ownership rates, inflation, cyclical economic changes, war, and climate change to name a few.

If this project is being proposed just so the PA Turnpike can better compete with I-80 to the north and I-68 to the south, then that is a very poor reason to cause the extent of anticipated negative impacts listed below. It should be noted that neither I-80 nor I-68 have tunnels nor tolls. The Sideling Hill Cut west of Hancock, Maryland on I-68 is 340 feet deep and 720 feet wide. The much ballyhooed geological display at the site was closed 18 years after completion due to budget cuts. – en.wikipedia.org and mgs.md.gov

In addition, rockfall fencing needed to be added along both sides of the highway in the Sideling Hill Cut in 2023.

Anticipated negative impacts

Not only would such a massive trench leave a permanent disfiguring scar across this scenic mountainous landscape, but it would also have the following negative impacts, as noted by Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain:

“The proposed Gray Cut would destroy critical wildlife habitats, disrupt migration patterns, and endanger species that rely on the unspoiled wilderness of the Allegheny Mountain.”

“The natural springs and deep wells that provide clean water to nearby communities and are at risk of being polluted or permanently altered by the construction.”

“The project will lead to the removal of forest stand and the displacement of massive amounts of soil and sediment that can never be reestablished or replaced.”

“This irreversible destruction…will also reduce recreational opportunities and threaten traditions such as hunting and fishing opportunities, which are vital to the region’s outdoor lifestyle.”

“The proposed construction will fragment these habitats, making it difficult for wildlife to find food, shelter, and mates.”

“The Gray Cut project jeopardizes these efforts [previous and current restoration efforts along the Stonycreek River Watershed].

“Beyond the Stonycreek River, other neighboring watersheds, including the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and the Indian Lake Watersheds, are also at risk due to the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel’s unique location at a triple watershed divide.”

“Construction activities associated with the turnpike expansion will significantly increase the risk of soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers.”

“The increased runoff from paved surfaces carries pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and other toxic substances into water bodies, further impacting the health of our waterways within the Stonycreek River watershed.”

“The noise, dust, and heavy machinery involved in this large-scale construction project would disrupt the lives of local residents and visitors who cherish the peace and quiet of the mountain.”

“The project will disrupt local communities by affecting the water supply for residents who rely on wells and natural springs. The potential contamination of these water sources poses serious health risks, particularly for those who rely on them for daily use.”

“The long-term environmental and social costs far outweigh any short-term economic gains.”

Other impacts not mentioned by Citizen to Save the Allegheny Mountain on their website, include, but are not limited to:

• Increased risk of animal vehicle collisions with the loss of the mountain’s natural wildlife crossing over the turnpike. This may lead to the future need of constructing a new wildlife crossing.

• “Drivers on the proposed highway would lose the tunnel’s protection from the worst of the weather near the turnpike’s highest point, 2,600 feet above sea level, where fog, icing and high winds are frequent hazards.” – penncapital-star.com

• The potential for microclimate changes in weather patterns as a result of the cut. According to google.gemini.ai, these could include: wind-channeling through the cut; alteration to the rain shadow on the east side of the mountain; creation of a cold air sink at the bottom of the cut increasing the likelihood of fog and frost; and disruption to wind patterns along the mountainside.

• The loss of the historic highway tunnels, first built in 1940 and expanded in 1965.

Steps one can take

If you feel this proposed project should go back to the drawing board, consider other alternatives, or be scrapped for upgrading the tunnels, please consider contacting Citizens to Save the Allegheny Mountain through the following links:

• https://savealleghenymountain.com

• https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565316543351

The organization’s website includes a petition one can sign along with space to provide comments.

Peace!

Carving out 12 million cubic yards of rock for a toll road eyesore?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wants to eliminate the Allegheny Tunnels along the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstates 70/76) through Allegheny Mountain in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The tunnels would be replaced with a massive road cut (a.k.a. ‘the Gray Cut’) that would be 250 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide and would require the excavation of 12 million cubic yards of earth and rock. That is not an engineering accomplishment, that’s a plan for a future eyesore.

A recent calculation (confirmed by using Google’s gemini.ai) has shown that 12 million cubic yards of rock would fill an entire football field to the height of a bit more than 5,600 feet…more than a mile high and nearly four Empire State Buildings tall. It would also be the tallest mountain/structure in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Even a natural conical pile of this material would be approximately 1,100 feet high. Where exactly does the Turnpike Commission plan to dump all this material?

Reasons cited for the proposed Gray Cut

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has noted that the cost of upgrading the tunnels would be approximately double that of the Gray Cut. They indicate it is also needed due to anticipated future traffic, improved safety (particularly related to accidents within the tunnels), maintenance costs for the tunnels, and the current need for hazardous cargo loads to bypass the tunnels. According to the turnpike’s website, the preliminary design phase is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2028. If approved for construction, actual work would begin in 2033.

In regards to the cost comparison between the cut and tunnel improvements/upgrades, what never seems to be included in the calculations are the intangible benefits associated with the scenery, wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, culture, history, and lifestyles that would negatively impacted by this project.

“Look Doris, someday you’re going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn’t work. And when you do, don’t overlook those lovely intangibles. You’ll discover they’re the only things that are worthwhile.”

– Fred from Miracle on 34th Street per imdb.com

In addition, many other tunnels across the nation ban hazardous materials. Exactly why is this being used as a reason to build this project here? Maybe manufacturers should be transporting such dangerous stuff on trains instead of trucks on highways? Or perhaps, it should just be an accepted cost of doing business.

Lastly, “anticipated future traffic” can be a tricky calculation. All too often, past data is used to guesstimate futures trends. In reality, unforeseen events can alter those calculations. Unforeseen events like gas prices now hovering around $4.50+ per gallon, with diesel prices running even higher. There are a litany of other things that could change the traffic dynamics – migration patterns, birthrates, car ownership rates, inflation, cyclical economic changes, war, and climate change to name a few.

If this project is being proposed just so the PA Turnpike can better compete with I-80 to the north and I-68 to the south, then that is a very poor reason to cause the extent of anticipated negative impacts listed below. It should be noted that neither I-80 nor I-68 have tunnels nor tolls. The Sideling Hill Cut west of Hancock, Maryland on I-68 is 340 feet deep and 720 feet wide. The much ballyhooed geological display at the site was closed 18 years after completion due to budget cuts. – en.wikipedia.org and mgs.md.gov

In addition, rockfall fencing needed to be added along both sides of the highway in the Sideling Hill Cut in 2023.

Anticipated negative impacts

Not only would such a massive trench leave a permanent disfiguring scar across this scenic mountainous landscape, but it would also have the following negative impacts, as noted by Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain:

“The proposed Gray Cut would destroy critical wildlife habitats, disrupt migration patterns, and endanger species that rely on the unspoiled wilderness of the Allegheny Mountain.”

“The natural springs and deep wells that provide clean water to nearby communities and are at risk of being polluted or permanently altered by the construction.”

“The project will lead to the removal of forest stand and the displacement of massive amounts of soil and sediment that can never be reestablished or replaced.”

“This irreversible destruction…will also reduce recreational opportunities and threaten traditions such as hunting and fishing opportunities, which are vital to the region’s outdoor lifestyle.”

“The proposed construction will fragment these habitats, making it difficult for wildlife to find food, shelter, and mates.”

“The Gray Cut project jeopardizes these efforts [previous and current restoration efforts along the Stonycreek River Watershed].

“Beyond the Stonycreek River, other neighboring watersheds, including the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and the Indian Lake Watersheds, are also at risk due to the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel’s unique location at a triple watershed divide.”

“Construction activities associated with the turnpike expansion will significantly increase the risk of soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers.”

“The increased runoff from paved surfaces carries pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and other toxic substances into water bodies, further impacting the health of our waterways within the Stonycreek River watershed.”

“The noise, dust, and heavy machinery involved in this large-scale construction project would disrupt the lives of local residents and visitors who cherish the peace and quiet of the mountain.”

“The project will disrupt local communities by affecting the water supply for residents who rely on wells and natural springs. The potential contamination of these water sources poses serious health risks, particularly for those who rely on them for daily use.”

“The long-term environmental and social costs far outweigh any short-term economic gains.”

Other impacts not mentioned by Citizen to Save the Allegheny Mountain on their website, include, but are not limited to:

• Increased risk of animal vehicle collisions with the loss of the mountain’s natural wildlife crossing over the turnpike. This may lead to the future need of constructing a new wildlife crossing.

• “Drivers on the proposed highway would lose the tunnel’s protection from the worst of the weather near the turnpike’s highest point, 2,600 feet above sea level, where fog, icing and high winds are frequent hazards.” – penncapital-star.com

• The potential for microclimate changes in weather patterns as a result of the cut. According to google.gemini.ai, these could include: wind-channeling through the cut; alteration to the rain shadow on the east side of the mountain; creation of a cold air sink at the bottom of the cut increasing the likelihood of fog and frost; and disruption to wind patterns along the mountainside.

• The loss of the historic highway tunnels, first built in 1940 and expanded in 1965.

Steps one can take

If you feel this proposed project should go back to the drawing board, consider other alternatives, or be scrapped for upgrading the tunnels, please consider contacting Citizens to Save the Allegheny Mountain through the following links:

• https://savealleghenymountain.com

• https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565316543351

The organization’s website includes a petition one can sign along with space to provide comments.

Peace!

Carving out 12 million cubic yards of rock for a toll road eyesore?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission wants to eliminate the Allegheny Tunnels along the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstates 70/76) through Allegheny Mountain in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The tunnels would be replaced with a massive road cut (a.k.a. ‘the Gray Cut’) that would be 250 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide and would require the excavation of 12 million cubic yards of earth and rock. That is not an engineering accomplishment, that’s a plan for a future eyesore.

A recent calculation (confirmed by using Google’s gemini.ai) has shown that 12 million cubic yards of rock would fill an entire football field to the height of a bit more than 5,600 feet…more than a mile high and nearly four Empire State Buildings tall. It would also be the tallest mountain/structure in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Even a natural conical pile of this material would be approximately 1,100 feet high. Where exactly does the Turnpike Commission plan to dump all this material?

Reasons cited for the proposed Gray Cut

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has noted that the cost of upgrading the tunnels would be approximately double that of the Gray Cut. They indicate it is also needed due to anticipated future traffic, improved safety (particularly related to accidents within the tunnels), maintenance costs for the tunnels, and the current need for hazardous cargo loads to bypass the tunnels. According to the turnpike’s website, the preliminary design phase is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2028. If approved for construction, actual work would begin in 2033.

In regards to the cost comparison between the cut and tunnel improvements/upgrades, what never seems to be included in the calculations are the intangible benefits associated with the scenery, wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, culture, history, and lifestyles that would negatively impacted by this project.

“Look Doris, someday you’re going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn’t work. And when you do, don’t overlook those lovely intangibles. You’ll discover they’re the only things that are worthwhile.”

– Fred from Miracle on 34th Street per imdb.com

In addition, many other tunnels across the nation ban hazardous materials. Exactly why is this being used as a reason to build this project here? Maybe manufacturers should be transporting such dangerous stuff on trains instead of trucks on highways? Or perhaps, it should just be an accepted cost of doing business.

Lastly, “anticipated future traffic” can be a tricky calculation. All too often, past data is used to guesstimate futures trends. In reality, unforeseen events can alter those calculations. Unforeseen events like gas prices now hovering around $4.50+ per gallon, with diesel prices running even higher. There are a litany of other things that could change the traffic dynamics – migration patterns, birthrates, car ownership rates, inflation, cyclical economic changes, war, and climate change to name a few.

If this project is being proposed just so the PA Turnpike can better compete with I-80 to the north and I-68 to the south, then that is a very poor reason to cause the extent of anticipated negative impacts listed below. It should be noted that neither I-80 nor I-68 have tunnels nor tolls. The Sideling Hill Cut west of Hancock, Maryland on I-68 is 340 feet deep and 720 feet wide. The much ballyhooed geological display at the site was closed 18 years after completion due to budget cuts. – en.wikipedia.org and mgs.md.gov

In addition, rockfall fencing needed to be added along both sides of the highway in the Sideling Hill Cut in 2023.

Anticipated negative impacts

Not only would such a massive trench leave a permanent disfiguring scar across this scenic mountainous landscape, but it would also have the following negative impacts, as noted by Citizens to Save Allegheny Mountain:

“The proposed Gray Cut would destroy critical wildlife habitats, disrupt migration patterns, and endanger species that rely on the unspoiled wilderness of the Allegheny Mountain.”

“The natural springs and deep wells that provide clean water to nearby communities and are at risk of being polluted or permanently altered by the construction.”

“The project will lead to the removal of forest stand and the displacement of massive amounts of soil and sediment that can never be reestablished or replaced.”

“This irreversible destruction…will also reduce recreational opportunities and threaten traditions such as hunting and fishing opportunities, which are vital to the region’s outdoor lifestyle.”

“The proposed construction will fragment these habitats, making it difficult for wildlife to find food, shelter, and mates.”

“The Gray Cut project jeopardizes these efforts [previous and current restoration efforts along the Stonycreek River Watershed].

“Beyond the Stonycreek River, other neighboring watersheds, including the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and the Indian Lake Watersheds, are also at risk due to the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel’s unique location at a triple watershed divide.”

“Construction activities associated with the turnpike expansion will significantly increase the risk of soil erosion and sedimentation in nearby streams and rivers.”

“The increased runoff from paved surfaces carries pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, and other toxic substances into water bodies, further impacting the health of our waterways within the Stonycreek River watershed.”

“The noise, dust, and heavy machinery involved in this large-scale construction project would disrupt the lives of local residents and visitors who cherish the peace and quiet of the mountain.”

“The project will disrupt local communities by affecting the water supply for residents who rely on wells and natural springs. The potential contamination of these water sources poses serious health risks, particularly for those who rely on them for daily use.”

“The long-term environmental and social costs far outweigh any short-term economic gains.”

Other impacts not mentioned by Citizen to Save the Allegheny Mountain on their website, include, but are not limited to:

• Increased risk of animal vehicle collisions with the loss of the mountain’s natural wildlife crossing over the turnpike. This may lead to the future need of constructing a new wildlife crossing.

• “Drivers on the proposed highway would lose the tunnel’s protection from the worst of the weather near the turnpike’s highest point, 2,600 feet above sea level, where fog, icing and high winds are frequent hazards.” – penncapital-star.com

• The potential for microclimate changes in weather patterns as a result of the cut. According to google.gemini.ai, these could include: wind-channeling through the cut; alteration to the rain shadow on the east side of the mountain; creation of a cold air sink at the bottom of the cut increasing the likelihood of fog and frost; and disruption to wind patterns along the mountainside.

• The loss of the historic highway tunnels, first built in 1940 and expanded in 1965.

Steps one can take

If you feel this proposed project should go back to the drawing board, consider other alternatives, or be scrapped for upgrading the tunnels, please consider contacting Citizens to Save the Allegheny Mountain through the following links:

• https://savealleghenymountain.com

• https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61565316543351

The organization’s website includes a petition one can sign along with space to provide comments.

Peace!

"Cascading transition risks towards degraded ecosystems in the #Amazon biome[:] The large majority of the simulated transitions is caused by spatial knock-on effects from increasing drought intensities, leading to long-ranging and self-propelling cascades on scales of hundreds to thousands of kilometres."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10456-0

#droughts #deforestation #landGrab #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forest #carbon #carbonSinks #carbonSink #footprint #Brazil #Mercosur #beef #cattle #Amazonia

"Cascading transition risks towards degraded ecosystems in the #Amazon biome[:] The large majority of the simulated transitions is caused by spatial knock-on effects from increasing drought intensities, leading to long-ranging and self-propelling cascades on scales of hundreds to thousands of kilometres."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10456-0

#droughts #deforestation #landGrab #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forest #carbon #carbonSinks #carbonSink #footprint #Brazil #Mercosur #beef #cattle #Amazonia

"Cascading transition risks towards degraded ecosystems in the #Amazon biome[:] The large majority of the simulated transitions is caused by spatial knock-on effects from increasing drought intensities, leading to long-ranging and self-propelling cascades on scales of hundreds to thousands of kilometres."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10456-0

#droughts #deforestation #landGrab #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forest #carbon #carbonSinks #carbonSink #footprint #Brazil #Mercosur #beef #cattle #Amazonia

"Cascading transition risks towards degraded ecosystems in the #Amazon biome[:] The large majority of the simulated transitions is caused by spatial knock-on effects from increasing drought intensities, leading to long-ranging and self-propelling cascades on scales of hundreds to thousands of kilometres."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10456-0

#droughts #deforestation #landGrab #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forest #carbon #carbonSinks #carbonSink #footprint #Brazil #Mercosur #beef #cattle #Amazonia

"Cascading transition risks towards degraded ecosystems in the #Amazon biome[:] The large majority of the simulated transitions is caused by spatial knock-on effects from increasing drought intensities, leading to long-ranging and self-propelling cascades on scales of hundreds to thousands of kilometres."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10456-0

#droughts #deforestation #landGrab #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forest #carbon #carbonSinks #carbonSink #footprint #Brazil #Mercosur #beef #cattle #Amazonia

Working list: Water towers of Bahrain, Kuwait & Qatar

While plenty of information on water towers is available online for the nation of Kuwait, very little has been found for either Bahrain and Qatar. Listed below is the data found to date for all three nations. If anyone has access to data on current/former water towers in Bahrain and Qatar, please feel free to pass the information along so these lists can be updated appropriately. Peace!

BAHRAIN

More Information needed:

• Al Hoora Water Towers x 2: Manama
• City Centre Mall Water Tower: Manama
• Diraz Water Tower: Manama ~ 40 m/131.2 feet
• ESR Water Tower: Manama
• Muharraq Water Towers x 6: Manama
• Sakhir Water Tower
• Salman City Water Tower: Salman City

KUWAIT

1. Kuwait Sphere Tower 1 (1979): Kuwait City = 187 m/613.5 feet

2. Kuwait Sphere Tower 2 (1979) : Kuwait City = 147 m/482.3 feet

3-33. Kuwait “Torres Mushroom” Water Towers x 31 (1976): Kuwait City = 35m-40m/114.8 feet – 131.2 feet

QATAR

More information needed:

• WT-1 (Airport)
• WT-15 (Asiri) – demolished in 2017
• WT-26 (Bani Hajr)
• WT-20 (Garrafa)
• WT-17 (Ghanim Jadeed)
• WT-19 (Hitmi)
• WT-21 (Khalifa Town)
• WT-3 (Luqta)
• WT-22 (Messai’eed Town)
• WT-23 (Muraykh)
• WT-14 (Museum)
• WT-12 (Naeeja)
• WT-18 (Rumaillah)
• WT-25 (Salwa Industrial)
• WT-24 (Wakrah)

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Water_Towers
• https://www.daftar.afikra.com/articles/kuwait-water-towers
• https://www.archnet.org/sites/135
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-water-towers/
• gemini.google.ai
• http://www.google.com
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-tower/
• https://www.behance.net/gallery/9866517/BAM-Water-Tower-Conversion
• https://www.instagram.com/p/C8CF62Gt5qa/
• https://www.data.gov.qa/explore/dataset/water-storage-in-towers-2023/information/

Working list: Water towers of Bahrain, Kuwait & Qatar

While plenty of information on water towers is available online for the nation of Kuwait, very little has been found for either Bahrain and Qatar. Listed below is the data found to date for all three nations. If anyone has access to data on current/former water towers in Bahrain and Qatar, please feel free to pass the information along so these lists can be updated appropriately. Peace!

BAHRAIN

More Information needed:

• Al Hoora Water Towers x 2: Manama
• City Centre Mall Water Tower: Manama
• Diraz Water Tower: Manama ~ 40 m/131.2 feet
• ESR Water Tower: Manama
• Muharraq Water Towers x 6: Manama
• Sakhir Water Tower
• Salman City Water Tower: Salman City

KUWAIT

1. Kuwait Sphere Tower 1 (1979): Kuwait City = 187 m/613.5 feet

2. Kuwait Sphere Tower 2 (1979) : Kuwait City = 147 m/482.3 feet

3-33. Kuwait “Torres Mushroom” Water Towers x 31 (1976): Kuwait City = 35m-40m/114.8 feet – 131.2 feet

QATAR

More information needed:

• WT-1 (Airport)
• WT-15 (Asiri) – demolished in 2017
• WT-26 (Bani Hajr)
• WT-20 (Garrafa)
• WT-17 (Ghanim Jadeed)
• WT-19 (Hitmi)
• WT-21 (Khalifa Town)
• WT-3 (Luqta)
• WT-22 (Messai’eed Town)
• WT-23 (Muraykh)
• WT-14 (Museum)
• WT-12 (Naeeja)
• WT-18 (Rumaillah)
• WT-25 (Salwa Industrial)
• WT-24 (Wakrah)

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Water_Towers
• https://www.daftar.afikra.com/articles/kuwait-water-towers
• https://www.archnet.org/sites/135
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-water-towers/
• gemini.google.ai
• http://www.google.com
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-tower/
• https://www.behance.net/gallery/9866517/BAM-Water-Tower-Conversion
• https://www.instagram.com/p/C8CF62Gt5qa/
• https://www.data.gov.qa/explore/dataset/water-storage-in-towers-2023/information/

Working list: Water towers of Bahrain, Kuwait & Qatar

While plenty of information on water towers is available online for the nation of Kuwait, very little has been found for either Bahrain and Qatar. Listed below is the data found to date for all three nations. If anyone has access to data on current/former water towers in Bahrain and Qatar, please feel free to pass the information along so these lists can be updated appropriately. Peace!

BAHRAIN

More Information needed:

• Al Hoora Water Towers x 2: Manama
• City Centre Mall Water Tower: Manama
• Diraz Water Tower: Manama ~ 40 m/131.2 feet
• ESR Water Tower: Manama
• Muharraq Water Towers x 6: Manama
• Sakhir Water Tower
• Salman City Water Tower: Salman City

KUWAIT

1. Kuwait Sphere Tower 1 (1979): Kuwait City = 187 m/613.5 feet

2. Kuwait Sphere Tower 2 (1979) : Kuwait City = 147 m/482.3 feet

3-33. Kuwait “Torres Mushroom” Water Towers x 31 (1976): Kuwait City = 35m-40m/114.8 feet – 131.2 feet

QATAR

More information needed:

• WT-1 (Airport)
• WT-15 (Asiri) – demolished in 2017
• WT-26 (Bani Hajr)
• WT-20 (Garrafa)
• WT-17 (Ghanim Jadeed)
• WT-19 (Hitmi)
• WT-21 (Khalifa Town)
• WT-3 (Luqta)
• WT-22 (Messai’eed Town)
• WT-23 (Muraykh)
• WT-14 (Museum)
• WT-12 (Naeeja)
• WT-18 (Rumaillah)
• WT-25 (Salwa Industrial)
• WT-24 (Wakrah)

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Water_Towers
• https://www.daftar.afikra.com/articles/kuwait-water-towers
• https://www.archnet.org/sites/135
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-water-towers/
• gemini.google.ai
• http://www.google.com
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-tower/
• https://www.behance.net/gallery/9866517/BAM-Water-Tower-Conversion
• https://www.instagram.com/p/C8CF62Gt5qa/
• https://www.data.gov.qa/explore/dataset/water-storage-in-towers-2023/information/

Working list: Water towers of Bahrain, Kuwait & Qatar

While plenty of information on water towers is available online for the nation of Kuwait, very little has been found for either Bahrain and Qatar. Listed below is the data found to date for all three nations. If anyone has access to data on current/former water towers in Bahrain and Qatar, please feel free to pass the information along so these lists can be updated appropriately. Peace!

BAHRAIN

More Information needed:

• Al Hoora Water Towers x 2: Manama
• City Centre Mall Water Tower: Manama
• Diraz Water Tower: Manama ~ 40 m/131.2 feet
• ESR Water Tower: Manama
• Muharraq Water Towers x 6: Manama
• Sakhir Water Tower
• Salman City Water Tower: Salman City

KUWAIT

1. Kuwait Sphere Tower 1 (1979): Kuwait City = 187 m/613.5 feet

2. Kuwait Sphere Tower 2 (1979) : Kuwait City = 147 m/482.3 feet

3-33. Kuwait “Torres Mushroom” Water Towers x 31 (1976): Kuwait City = 35m-40m/114.8 feet – 131.2 feet

QATAR

More information needed:

• WT-1 (Airport)
• WT-15 (Asiri) – demolished in 2017
• WT-26 (Bani Hajr)
• WT-20 (Garrafa)
• WT-17 (Ghanim Jadeed)
• WT-19 (Hitmi)
• WT-21 (Khalifa Town)
• WT-3 (Luqta)
• WT-22 (Messai’eed Town)
• WT-23 (Muraykh)
• WT-14 (Museum)
• WT-12 (Naeeja)
• WT-18 (Rumaillah)
• WT-25 (Salwa Industrial)
• WT-24 (Wakrah)

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Water_Towers
• https://www.daftar.afikra.com/articles/kuwait-water-towers
• https://www.archnet.org/sites/135
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-water-towers/
• gemini.google.ai
• http://www.google.com
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-tower/
• https://www.behance.net/gallery/9866517/BAM-Water-Tower-Conversion
• https://www.instagram.com/p/C8CF62Gt5qa/
• https://www.data.gov.qa/explore/dataset/water-storage-in-towers-2023/information/

Working list: Water towers of Bahrain, Kuwait & Qatar

While plenty of information on water towers is available online for the nation of Kuwait, very little has been found for either Bahrain and Qatar. Listed below is the data found to date for all three nations. If anyone has access to data on current/former water towers in Bahrain and Qatar, please feel free to pass the information along so these lists can be updated appropriately. Peace!

BAHRAIN

More Information needed:

• Al Hoora Water Towers x 2: Manama
• City Centre Mall Water Tower: Manama
• Diraz Water Tower: Manama ~ 40 m/131.2 feet
• ESR Water Tower: Manama
• Muharraq Water Towers x 6: Manama
• Sakhir Water Tower
• Salman City Water Tower: Salman City

KUWAIT

1. Kuwait Sphere Tower 1 (1979): Kuwait City = 187 m/613.5 feet

2. Kuwait Sphere Tower 2 (1979) : Kuwait City = 147 m/482.3 feet

3-33. Kuwait “Torres Mushroom” Water Towers x 31 (1976): Kuwait City = 35m-40m/114.8 feet – 131.2 feet

QATAR

More information needed:

• WT-1 (Airport)
• WT-15 (Asiri) – demolished in 2017
• WT-26 (Bani Hajr)
• WT-20 (Garrafa)
• WT-17 (Ghanim Jadeed)
• WT-19 (Hitmi)
• WT-21 (Khalifa Town)
• WT-3 (Luqta)
• WT-22 (Messai’eed Town)
• WT-23 (Muraykh)
• WT-14 (Museum)
• WT-12 (Naeeja)
• WT-18 (Rumaillah)
• WT-25 (Salwa Industrial)
• WT-24 (Wakrah)

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Water_Towers
• https://www.daftar.afikra.com/articles/kuwait-water-towers
• https://www.archnet.org/sites/135
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-water-towers/
• gemini.google.ai
• http://www.google.com
• https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/kuwait-tower/
• https://www.behance.net/gallery/9866517/BAM-Water-Tower-Conversion
• https://www.instagram.com/p/C8CF62Gt5qa/
• https://www.data.gov.qa/explore/dataset/water-storage-in-towers-2023/information/

One cannot be a patriot and hate upon national parks

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

– George Washington (via brainyquotes.com)

We recently drove the northern 120 miles of the Natchez Trace National Historic Parkway in Alabama and Tennessee. The corridor is typically a scenic and relaxing drive along an historic corridor that has been traverse by bison, Native American, and pioneers for centuries. The course includes access to historic sites, natural sites, and lovely view sheds.

Having been so impressed while driven a large chunk of the Trace in 2005 between Jackson and Tupelo in Mississippi, it was disconcerting to see the lack of simply routine maintenance along this northern segment. Fallen trees, broken branches, and damaged trees about to fall were common along our 2026 trip. All one could think of was…why is being allowed to deteriorate so sadly.

What is taking place along the Natchez Trace National Parkway is symbolic of the disgraceful and disrespectful treatment of our treasured national parks, national forests, national monuments, and other public lands across the United States. When an administration’s budget priorities underfund and underserve these awe-inspiring landscapes, they begin to fall apart right in front of our eyes. For the Natchez Trace National Historic Parkway, this becomes quite evident by the plethora of fallen, damaged, and dead trees.

“Patriot” is an overused and often misapplied term in modern America. Many of our national parks and public lands preserve and protect key locations representing the formation of the nation and its ongoing cultural development. What else could be more patriotic than protecting and preserving the natural, historical, and cultural features that made America in the first place!

“Those who hate upon our national parks and public lands with budget cuts, staff reductions, selling of development rights, and essentially promoting land abuse are anything but patriots. Instead, they are selfish, greedy souls who live solely for power and the love of money.” – panethos.wordpress.com

Frankly, the description above is the current administration in D.C. in a nutshell and it is oh, so tiresome and frustrating to observe their nefarious efforts to degrade, devalue, and dismiss our national treasures. Because, one thing is for sure…money, gold, diamonds, and other coveted valuables are not riches at all when compared to majestic snowcapped mountains, scenic vistas, pristine beaches, cascading waterfalls, death-defying rock formations, free-flowing rivers, enormous canyons, and other splendid natural features dotting the American landscape.

Nor are they riches when compared to the hallowed grounds where our ancestors and loved-ones lived, passed-though, fought, fell, died, and/or are buried. Nor are they riches compared to where our freedoms were won, strengthened, and sustained whether it be on the battlefield, in the courtroom, or on the streets. And lastly, those so-called riches cannot begin to compare to the richness of the American people…their diversity, their uniqueness and individuality, and their tenacity. It doesn’t matter if we came here by ship, by plane, on foot, or already lived upon this land, our strength is rooted in our diversity.

May we, as a nation, soon return to this paradigm and always remain committed to its welcoming principles.

Peace!

One cannot be a patriot and hate upon national parks

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

– George Washington (via brainyquotes.com)

We recently drove the northern 120 miles of the Natchez Trace National Historic Parkway in Alabama and Tennessee. The corridor is typically a scenic and relaxing drive along an historic corridor that has been traversed by bison, Native American, and pioneers for centuries. The course includes access to historic sites, natural sites, and lovely view sheds.

Having been so impressed while driving a large chunk of the Trace in 2005 between Jackson and Tupelo in Mississippi, it was disconcerting to see the lack of simply routine maintenance along this northern segment. Fallen trees, broken branches, and damaged trees about to fall were common along our 2026 trip. All one could think of was…why is this being allowed to deteriorate so sadly.

What is taking place along the Natchez Trace National Parkway is symbolic of the disgraceful and disrespectful treatment of our treasured national parks, national forests, national monuments, and other public lands across the United States. When an administration’s budget priorities underfund and underserve these awe-inspiring landscapes, they begin to fall apart right in front of our eyes. For the Natchez Trace National Historic Parkway, this becomes quite evident by the plethora of fallen, damaged, and dead trees.

“Patriot” is an overused and often misapplied term in modern America. Many of our national parks and public lands preserve and protect key locations representing the formation of the nation and its ongoing cultural development. What else could be more patriotic than protecting and preserving the natural, historical, and cultural features that made America in the first place!

“Those who hate upon our national parks and public lands with budget cuts, staff reductions, selling of development rights, and essentially promoting land abuse are anything but patriots. Instead, they are selfish, greedy souls who live solely for power and the love of money.” – panethos.wordpress.com

Frankly, the description above is the current administration in D.C. in a nutshell and it is oh, so tiresome and frustrating to observe their nefarious efforts to degrade, devalue, and dismiss our national treasures. Because, one thing is for sure…money, gold, diamonds, and other coveted valuables are not riches at all when compared to majestic snowcapped mountains, scenic vistas, pristine beaches, cascading waterfalls, death-defying rock formations, free-flowing rivers, enormous canyons, and other splendid natural features dotting the American landscape.

Nor are they riches when compared to the hallowed grounds where our ancestors and loved-ones lived, passed-though, fought, fell, died, and/or are buried. Nor are they riches compared to where our freedoms were won, strengthened, and sustained whether it be on the battlefield, in the courtroom, or on the streets. And lastly, those so-called riches cannot begin to compare to the richness of the American people…their diversity, their uniqueness and individuality, and their tenacity. It doesn’t matter if we came here by ship, by plane, on foot, or already lived upon this land, our strength is rooted in our diversity.

May we, as a nation, soon return to this paradigm and always remain committed to its welcoming principles.

Peace!

One cannot be a patriot and hate upon national parks

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

– George Washington (via brainyquotes.com)

We recently drove the northern 120 miles of the Natchez Trace National Historic Parkway in Alabama and Tennessee. The corridor is typically a scenic and relaxing drive along an historic corridor that has been traversed by bison, Native American, and pioneers for centuries. The course includes access to historic sites, natural sites, and lovely view sheds.

Having been so impressed while driving a large chunk of the Trace in 2005 between Jackson and Tupelo in Mississippi, it was disconcerting to see the lack of simply routine maintenance along this northern segment. Fallen trees, broken branches, and damaged trees about to fall were common along our 2026 trip. All one could think of was…why is this being allowed to deteriorate so sadly.

What is taking place along the Natchez Trace National Parkway is symbolic of the disgraceful and disrespectful treatment of our treasured national parks, national forests, national monuments, and other public lands across the United States. When an administration’s budget priorities underfund and underserve these awe-inspiring landscapes, they begin to fall apart right in front of our eyes. For the Natchez Trace National Historic Parkway, this becomes quite evident by the plethora of fallen, damaged, and dead trees.

“Patriot” is an overused and often misapplied term in modern America. Many of our national parks and public lands preserve and protect key locations representing the formation of the nation and its ongoing cultural development. What else could be more patriotic than protecting and preserving the natural, historical, and cultural features that made America in the first place!

“Those who hate upon our national parks and public lands with budget cuts, staff reductions, selling of development rights, and essentially promoting land abuse are anything but patriots. Instead, they are selfish, greedy souls who live solely for power and the love of money.” – panethos.wordpress.com

Frankly, the description above is the current administration in D.C. in a nutshell and it is oh, so tiresome and frustrating to observe their nefarious efforts to degrade, devalue, and dismiss our national treasures. Because, one thing is for sure…money, gold, diamonds, and other coveted valuables are not riches at all when compared to majestic snowcapped mountains, scenic vistas, pristine beaches, cascading waterfalls, death-defying rock formations, free-flowing rivers, enormous canyons, and other splendid natural features dotting the American landscape.

Nor are they riches when compared to the hallowed grounds where our ancestors and loved-ones lived, passed-though, fought, fell, died, and/or are buried. Nor are they riches compared to where our freedoms were won, strengthened, and sustained whether it be on the battlefield, in the courtroom, or on the streets. And lastly, those so-called riches cannot begin to compare to the richness of the American people…their diversity, their uniqueness and individuality, and their tenacity. It doesn’t matter if we came here by ship, by plane, on foot, or already lived upon this land, our strength is rooted in our diversity.

May we, as a nation, soon return to this paradigm and always remain committed to its welcoming principles.

Peace!

FORESTRY SLASH RISKS PERSIST POST-GABRIELLE AMID REGULATORY SHIFTS

New forestry rules after Cyclone Gabrielle are questioned for not stopping slash risks on steep land. Who is affected and what happens next?

#ForestrySlash, #CycloneGabrielle, #EnvironmentalRisk, #NewZealand, #LandUse

https://newsletter.tf/forestry-slash-risks-after-gabrielle-new-rules/

New forestry regulations are being questioned for their effectiveness in managing debris after Cyclone Gabrielle, with concerns that large-scale clear-felling on vulnerable slopes may continue.

#ForestrySlash, #CycloneGabrielle, #EnvironmentalRisk, #NewZealand, #LandUse
https://newsletter.tf/forestry-slash-risks-after-gabrielle-new-rules/

Longest international airport runways of North Africa

Provided below is a list of the longest international airport runways in North Africa. For purposes of this post, North Africa is defined as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.

Despite the reference to international airports in the post title, some of the airports listed do not have “international” in their name. Similarly, there are some airports with “international” in their name that do not offer flights outside their home nation. This list tries to identify those that actually offer international flights (regardless of their name), which have runway(s) a minimum of 10,000 feet in length.

Peace!

1. Runway 04/22: Taba International: Taba, Egypt = 4,118 m/13,513 feet

2-5. Runways 05C/23C and 05R/23L: Cairo International: Greater Cairo, Egypt and Runways 16L/34R and 16R/34L: Hurghada International: Hurghada, Egypt = 4,000 m/13,123 feet

6-7. Runways 17L/35R and 17R/35L: Mohammed V International: Casablanca, Morocco = 3,720 m/12,205 feet

8-9. Runways 01L/19R 11,980 and 01R/19L: Capital International: Greater Cairo, Egypt = 11,980 3,650

10. Runway 16R/34L: Sphinx International: Greater Cairo, Egypt = 3,650 m/11,975 feet

11-13. Runway 07L/25R: Ahmed Ben Bella Airport: Oran, Algeria and Runways 15R/33L and 15L/33R: Benina International: Bengazi, Libya = 3,600 m/ 11,811 feet

14. Runway 02/20: Aguenar – Hadj Bey Akhamok Airport: Tamanrasset, Algeria = 3,600 m/ 11,800 feet

15-16. Runway 03/21: Rabat–Salé Airport: Rabat, Morocco and Runway 10/28: Tangier Ibn Battouta Airport: Tangier, Morocco = 3,500 m/11,483 feet

17-18. Runways 05/23 and 09/27: Houari Boumediene Airport: Algiers, Algeria =2,500 m/11,482 feet

19. Runway 13/31: El Alamein International: El Alamein, Egypt = 3,499 m/11,479 feet

20. Runway 17/35: Aswan International: Aswan, Egypt = 3,402 m/11,161 feet

21-22. Runways 14L/32R and 14R/32L: Alexandria International: Alexandria, Egypt = 3,400 m/ 11,156 feet

23. Runway 15/33: Misrata Airport: Misrata, Libya = 3,400 m/11,155 feet

24. Runway 14/32: Taba Intentional: Taba, Egypt = 3,392 m/11,130 feet

25. Runway 11/29: Mitaka International: Tripoli, Libya = 3,376 m/11,076 feet

26-27. Runway 09/27: Enfidha–Hammamet International: Enfidha, Tunisia and Runway 05L/23R: Cairo International: Greater Cairo Egypt 3,300 10,827= 3,300 m/10,827 feet

28. Runway 07/25: Sania Ramel Airport: Tétouan, Morocco = 3,285 m/10,778 feet

29. Runway 09/27: Tozeur–Nefta International: Nefta, Tunisia = 3,167 m/10,581 feet

30-33. Runway 09/27: Agadir–Al Massira Airport : Temsia, Morocco; Runway 13/31: Moulay Ali Cherif Airport: Errachidia, Morocco; Runway 09/27: Fès–Saïss Airport: Fez, Morocco; and Runway 1/19: Tunis–Carthage International: Tunis, Tunisia = 3,200 m/10,499 feet

34. Runway 12/30: Ouarzazate Airport: Ouarzazate, Morocco 3,100 m/ 10,236 feet

35-36. Runway 12/30: Noumérat – Moufdi Zakaria Airport: Ghardaïa, Algeria and Runway 09/27: Djerba–Zarzis International: Djerba, Tunisia = 3,100 m/10,171 feet

37-38. Runway 10/28: Marrakesh Menara Airport: Marrakesh, Morocco and Runway 08/26: Aguenar – Hadj Bey Akhamok Airport: Tamanrasset, Algeria = 3,100 m/10,170 feet

39-40. Runways 04L/22R and 04R/22L: Sharm El Sheikh International: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt = 3,081 m/10,108 feet

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Morocco
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_V_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir%E2%80%93Al_Massira_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulay_Ali_Cherif_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A8s%E2%80%93Sa%C3%AFss_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_Menara_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabat%E2%80%93Sal%C3%A9_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangier_Ibn_Battouta_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sania_Ramel_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Algeria
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houari_Boumediene_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noum%C3%A9rat_%E2%80%93_Moufdi_Zakaria_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ben_Bella_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguenar_%E2%80%93_Hadj_Bey_Akhamok_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Tunisia
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djerba%E2%80%93Zarzis_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfidha%E2%80%93Hammamet_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozeur%E2%80%93Nefta_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis%E2%80%93Carthage_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Egypt
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_International_Airport_(Egypt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_International_Airport_(Egypt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Alamein_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurghada_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharm_El_Sheikh_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Western_Sahara
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Libya
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benina_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrata_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitiga_International_Airport

Longest international airport runways of North Africa

Provided below is a list of the longest international airport runways in North Africa. For purposes of this post, North Africa is defined as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.

Despite the reference to international airports in the post title, some of the airports listed do not have “international” in their name. Similarly, there are some airports with “international” in their name that do not offer flights outside their home nation. This list tries to identify those that actually offer international flights (regardless of their name), which have runway(s) a minimum of 10,000 feet in length.

Peace!

1. Runway 04/22: Taba International: Taba, Egypt = 4,118 m/13,513 feet

2-5. Runways 05C/23C and 05R/23L: Cairo International: Greater Cairo, Egypt and Runways 16L/34R and 16R/34L: Hurghada International: Hurghada, Egypt = 4,000 m/13,123 feet

6-7. Runways 17L/35R and 17R/35L: Mohammed V International: Casablanca, Morocco = 3,720 m/12,205 feet

8-9. Runways 01L/19R and 01R/19L: Capital International: Greater Cairo, Egypt = 3,640 m/ 11,980 feet

10. Runway 16R/34L: Sphinx International: Greater Cairo, Egypt = 3,650 m/11,975 feet

11-13. Runway 07L/25R: Ahmed Ben Bella Airport: Oran, Algeria and Runways 15R/33L and 15L/33R: Benina International: Bengazi, Libya = 3,600 m/ 11,811 feet

14. Runway 02/20: Aguenar – Hadj Bey Akhamok Airport: Tamanrasset, Algeria = 3,600 m/ 11,800 feet

15-16. Runway 03/21: Rabat–Salé Airport: Rabat, Morocco and Runway 10/28: Tangier Ibn Battouta Airport: Tangier, Morocco = 3,500 m/11,483 feet

17-18. Runways 05/23 and 09/27: Houari Boumediene Airport: Algiers, Algeria = 3,500 m/11,482 feet

19. Runway 13/31: El Alamein International: El Alamein, Egypt = 3,499 m/11,479 feet

20. Runway 17/35: Aswan International: Aswan, Egypt = 3,402 m/11,161 feet

21-22. Runways 14L/32R and 14R/32L: Alexandria International: Alexandria, Egypt = 3,400 m/ 11,156 feet

23. Runway 15/33: Misrata Airport: Misrata, Libya = 3,400 m/11,155 feet

24. Runway 14/32: Taba Intentional: Taba, Egypt = 3,392 m/11,130 feet

25. Runway 11/29: Mitaka International: Tripoli, Libya = 3,376 m/11,076 feet

26-27. Runway 09/27: Enfidha–Hammamet International: Enfidha, Tunisia and Runway 05L/23R: Cairo International: Greater Cairo Egypt = 3,300 m/10,827 feet

28. Runway 07/25: Sania Ramel Airport: Tétouan, Morocco = 3,285 m/10,778 feet

29. Runway 09/27: Tozeur–Nefta International: Nefta, Tunisia = 3,167 m/10,581 feet

30-33. Runway 09/27: Agadir–Al Massira Airport : Temsia, Morocco; Runway 13/31: Moulay Ali Cherif Airport: Errachidia, Morocco; Runway 09/27: Fès–Saïss Airport: Fez, Morocco; and Runway 1/19: Tunis–Carthage International: Tunis, Tunisia = 3,200 m/10,499 feet

34. Runway 12/30: Ouarzazate Airport: Ouarzazate, Morocco 3,100 m/ 10,236 feet

35-36. Runway 12/30: Noumérat – Moufdi Zakaria Airport: Ghardaïa, Algeria and Runway 09/27: Djerba–Zarzis International: Djerba, Tunisia = 3,100 m/10,171 feet

37-38. Runway 10/28: Marrakesh Menara Airport: Marrakesh, Morocco and Runway 08/26: Aguenar – Hadj Bey Akhamok Airport: Tamanrasset, Algeria = 3,100 m/10,170 feet

39-40. Runways 04L/22R and 04R/22L: Sharm El Sheikh International: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt = 3,081 m/10,108 feet

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Morocco
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_V_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir%E2%80%93Al_Massira_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulay_Ali_Cherif_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A8s%E2%80%93Sa%C3%AFss_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_Menara_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabat%E2%80%93Sal%C3%A9_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangier_Ibn_Battouta_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sania_Ramel_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Algeria
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houari_Boumediene_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noum%C3%A9rat_%E2%80%93_Moufdi_Zakaria_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ben_Bella_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguenar_%E2%80%93_Hadj_Bey_Akhamok_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Tunisia
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djerba%E2%80%93Zarzis_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfidha%E2%80%93Hammamet_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozeur%E2%80%93Nefta_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis%E2%80%93Carthage_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Egypt
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_International_Airport_(Egypt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_International_Airport_(Egypt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Alamein_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurghada_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharm_El_Sheikh_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Western_Sahara
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Libya
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benina_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrata_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitiga_International_Airport

Longest international airport runways of North Africa

Provided below is a list of the longest international airport runways in North Africa. For purposes of this post, North Africa is defined as Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.

Despite the reference to international airports in the post title, some of the airports listed do not have “international” in their name. Similarly, there are some airports with “international” in their name that do not offer flights outside their home nation. This list tries to identify those that actually offer international flights (regardless of their name), which have runway(s) a minimum of 10,000 feet in length.

Peace!

1. Runway 04/22: Taba International: Taba, Egypt = 4,118 m/13,513 feet

2-5. Runways 05C/23C and 05R/23L: Cairo International: Greater Cairo, Egypt and Runways 16L/34R and 16R/34L: Hurghada International: Hurghada, Egypt = 4,000 m/13,123 feet

6-7. Runways 17L/35R and 17R/35L: Mohammed V International: Casablanca, Morocco = 3,720 m/12,205 feet

8-9. Runways 01L/19R and 01R/19L: Capital International: Greater Cairo, Egypt = 3,640 m/ 11,980 feet

10. Runway 16R/34L: Sphinx International: Greater Cairo, Egypt = 3,650 m/11,975 feet

11-13. Runway 07L/25R: Ahmed Ben Bella Airport: Oran, Algeria and Runways 15R/33L and 15L/33R: Benina International: Bengazi, Libya = 3,600 m/ 11,811 feet

14. Runway 02/20: Aguenar – Hadj Bey Akhamok Airport: Tamanrasset, Algeria = 3,600 m/ 11,800 feet

15-16. Runway 03/21: Rabat–Salé Airport: Rabat, Morocco and Runway 10/28: Tangier Ibn Battouta Airport: Tangier, Morocco = 3,500 m/11,483 feet

17-18. Runways 05/23 and 09/27: Houari Boumediene Airport: Algiers, Algeria = 3,500 m/11,482 feet

19. Runway 13/31: El Alamein International: El Alamein, Egypt = 3,499 m/11,479 feet

20. Runway 17/35: Aswan International: Aswan, Egypt = 3,402 m/11,161 feet

21-22. Runways 14L/32R and 14R/32L: Alexandria International: Alexandria, Egypt = 3,400 m/ 11,156 feet

23. Runway 15/33: Misrata Airport: Misrata, Libya = 3,400 m/11,155 feet

24. Runway 14/32: Taba Intentional: Taba, Egypt = 3,392 m/11,130 feet

25. Runway 11/29: Mitaka International: Tripoli, Libya = 3,376 m/11,076 feet

26-27. Runway 09/27: Enfidha–Hammamet International: Enfidha, Tunisia and Runway 05L/23R: Cairo International: Greater Cairo Egypt = 3,300 m/10,827 feet

28. Runway 07/25: Sania Ramel Airport: Tétouan, Morocco = 3,285 m/10,778 feet

29. Runway 09/27: Tozeur–Nefta International: Nefta, Tunisia = 3,167 m/10,581 feet

30-33. Runway 09/27: Agadir–Al Massira Airport : Temsia, Morocco; Runway 13/31: Moulay Ali Cherif Airport: Errachidia, Morocco; Runway 09/27: Fès–Saïss Airport: Fez, Morocco; and Runway 1/19: Tunis–Carthage International: Tunis, Tunisia = 3,200 m/10,499 feet

34. Runway 12/30: Ouarzazate Airport: Ouarzazate, Morocco 3,100 m/ 10,236 feet

35-36. Runway 12/30: Noumérat – Moufdi Zakaria Airport: Ghardaïa, Algeria and Runway 09/27: Djerba–Zarzis International: Djerba, Tunisia = 3,100 m/10,171 feet

37-38. Runway 10/28: Marrakesh Menara Airport: Marrakesh, Morocco and Runway 08/26: Aguenar – Hadj Bey Akhamok Airport: Tamanrasset, Algeria = 3,100 m/10,170 feet

39-40. Runways 04L/22R and 04R/22L: Sharm El Sheikh International: Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt = 3,081 m/10,108 feet

SOURCES:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Morocco
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_V_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir%E2%80%93Al_Massira_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulay_Ali_Cherif_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A8s%E2%80%93Sa%C3%AFss_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrakesh_Menara_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabat%E2%80%93Sal%C3%A9_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangier_Ibn_Battouta_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sania_Ramel_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Algeria
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houari_Boumediene_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noum%C3%A9rat_%E2%80%93_Moufdi_Zakaria_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ben_Bella_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguenar_%E2%80%93_Hadj_Bey_Akhamok_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Tunisia
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djerba%E2%80%93Zarzis_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfidha%E2%80%93Hammamet_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tozeur%E2%80%93Nefta_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis%E2%80%93Carthage_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Egypt
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_International_Airport_(Egypt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswan_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_International_Airport_(Egypt)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Alamein_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurghada_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharm_El_Sheikh_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Western_Sahara
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Libya
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benina_International_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrata_Airport
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitiga_International_Airport

*Get back to us when computation has been around since the Neolithic. #agriculture #landuse #terrible #sacrosanct

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:kujygvp2rz4hyratlykzsqka/post/3mkyumdbdyc2u

*Get back to us when computation has been around since the Neolithic. #agriculture #landuse #terrible #sacrosanct

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:kujygvp2rz4hyratlykzsqka/post/3mkyumdbdyc2u

Marietta City Council unanimously approved a site plan and land swap that will allow Arthur Blank to build a headquarters for his professional women’s soccer team in the city.
The power and accountability angle is the part to watch.
#PublicImpact #LocalGovernment #LandUse
https://go.noligarchy.us/marietta-approves-land-swap-for-arthur-blank-s-w-mastodon

SCOTLAND'S COUNTRYSIDE SHIFTS, AND SO DO VOTES

How changing farming in Scotland affects rural votes. New concerns like land use and costs shape voter choices.

#ScotlandFarming, #RuralVote, #ScottishPolitics, #LandUse, #FarmEconomy

https://newsletter.tf/scotland-rural-vote-changes-farm-shifts/

Rural votes in Scotland are changing as farming practices evolve. This is different from previous elections where farming identity was the main driver.

#ScotlandFarming, #RuralVote, #ScottishPolitics, #LandUse, #FarmEconomy
https://newsletter.tf/scotland-rural-vote-changes-farm-shifts/

Meeting national utility-scale #solar targets would convert less than 0.3% of total agricultural land in Australia and result in annual #agriculture profit losses of $3-30 million, representing less than 0.03% of Australia's farm-gate output: doi.org/10.1111/1467... #LandUse #Renewable #Energy

Land Use and Economic Trade‐Of...

Meeting national utility-scale #solar targets would convert less than 0.3% of total agricultural land in Australia and result in annual #agriculture profit losses of $3-30 million, representing less than 0.03% of Australia's farm-gate output: doi.org/10.1111/1467... #LandUse #Renewable #Energy

Land Use and Economic Trade‐Of...

Meeting national utility-scale #solar targets would convert less than 0.3% of total agricultural land in Australia and result in annual #agriculture profit losses of $3-30 million, representing less than 0.03% of Australia's farm-gate output: doi.org/10.1111/1467... #LandUse #Renewable #Energy

Land Use and Economic Trade‐Of...

Diets in Sub-Saharan Africa have much lower #environment impacts than Western #diets in high-income countries (on #globalwarming, water & #landuse), which is largely due to lower quantities of food consumed, and much lower intake of animal-sourced foods… doi.org/10.1016/j.sp... #meat #dairy >>

Redirecting

Diets in Sub-Saharan Africa have much lower #environment impacts than Western #diets in high-income countries (on #globalwarming, water & #landuse), which is largely due to lower quantities of food consumed, and much lower intake of animal-sourced foods… doi.org/10.1016/j.sp... #meat #dairy >>

Redirecting

Diets in Sub-Saharan Africa have much lower #environment impacts than Western #diets in high-income countries (on #globalwarming, water & #landuse), which is largely due to lower quantities of food consumed, and much lower intake of animal-sourced foods… doi.org/10.1016/j.sp... #meat #dairy >>

Redirecting

new project blog "Uncovering 19th-Century Thuringian Ecology Through Generative AI — Part 1: Historical Context"

https://che.hypotheses.org/1779

#digitalhumanities #che #biodiversity #landuse #ecology

new project blog "Uncovering 19th-Century Thuringian Ecology Through Generative AI — Part 1: Historical Context"

https://che.hypotheses.org/1779

#digitalhumanities #che #biodiversity #landuse #ecology

new project blog "Uncovering 19th-Century Thuringian Ecology Through Generative AI — Part 1: Historical Context"

https://che.hypotheses.org/1779

#digitalhumanities #che #biodiversity #landuse #ecology

National-Scale Field Delineation In Mozambique Refines Our Understanding Of Cropland Distribution, Field Size, And Deforestation Actors.
--
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae5cb4 <-- shared paper
--
https://philipperufin.github.io/blog/mozfields-2023/ <-- shared associated technical article from one of the paper’s authors
--
#foodsecurity #subsistence #smallholder #farms #farming #agriculture #crops #Mozambique #subSaharan #Africa #GIS #spatial #mapping #remotesensing #earthobservation #policy #planning #cropland #spatialanalysis #spatiotemporal #field #deforestation #countrywide #landuse #sustainability #delineation #satellite #SPOT #model #modeling #deeplearning #AI #machinelearning #survey #GeoAI #spatialdata

National-Scale Field Delineation In Mozambique Refines Our Understanding Of Cropland Distribution, Field Size, And Deforestation Actors.
--
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae5cb4 <-- shared paper
--
https://philipperufin.github.io/blog/mozfields-2023/ <-- shared associated technical article from one of the paper’s authors
--
#foodsecurity #subsistence #smallholder #farms #farming #agriculture #crops #Mozambique #subSaharan #Africa #GIS #spatial #mapping #remotesensing #earthobservation #policy #planning #cropland #spatialanalysis #spatiotemporal #field #deforestation #countrywide #landuse #sustainability #delineation #satellite #SPOT #model #modeling #deeplearning #AI #machinelearning #survey #GeoAI #spatialdata

National-Scale Field Delineation In Mozambique Refines Our Understanding Of Cropland Distribution, Field Size, And Deforestation Actors.
--
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae5cb4 <-- shared paper
--
https://philipperufin.github.io/blog/mozfields-2023/ <-- shared associated technical article from one of the paper’s authors
--
#foodsecurity #subsistence #smallholder #farms #farming #agriculture #crops #Mozambique #subSaharan #Africa #GIS #spatial #mapping #remotesensing #earthobservation #policy #planning #cropland #spatialanalysis #spatiotemporal #field #deforestation #countrywide #landuse #sustainability #delineation #satellite #SPOT #model #modeling #deeplearning #AI #machinelearning #survey #GeoAI #spatialdata

National-Scale Field Delineation In Mozambique Refines Our Understanding Of Cropland Distribution, Field Size, And Deforestation Actors.
--
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae5cb4 <-- shared paper
--
https://philipperufin.github.io/blog/mozfields-2023/ <-- shared associated technical article from one of the paper’s authors
--
#foodsecurity #subsistence #smallholder #farms #farming #agriculture #crops #Mozambique #subSaharan #Africa #GIS #spatial #mapping #remotesensing #earthobservation #policy #planning #cropland #spatialanalysis #spatiotemporal #field #deforestation #countrywide #landuse #sustainability #delineation #satellite #SPOT #model #modeling #deeplearning #AI #machinelearning #survey #GeoAI #spatialdata

National-Scale Field Delineation In Mozambique Refines Our Understanding Of Cropland Distribution, Field Size, And Deforestation Actors.
--
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ae5cb4 <-- shared paper
--
https://philipperufin.github.io/blog/mozfields-2023/ <-- shared associated technical article from one of the paper’s authors
--
#foodsecurity #subsistence #smallholder #farms #farming #agriculture #crops #Mozambique #subSaharan #Africa #GIS #spatial #mapping #remotesensing #earthobservation #policy #planning #cropland #spatialanalysis #spatiotemporal #field #deforestation #countrywide #landuse #sustainability #delineation #satellite #SPOT #model #modeling #deeplearning #AI #machinelearning #survey #GeoAI #spatialdata

Splendid water towers (waassertierm) in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Well now. It appears that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a serious contender in the race to build the most impressive, remarkable, and awe-inspiring water towers in the world. Just a quick review of the images included within this post shows the incredible range of architectural styles that can be found in just 998 square miles.

While water towers in North America far too often appear to be carbon copies or rubber stamps of one another, Luxembourg clearly demonstrates how spirited inspiration can be beautifully melded into engineering function. Bravo!

While French and German are common languages in Luxembourg, this post “primarily” uses the national language, Luxembourgish, for local terms, such as:

• Waassertuerm = water tower
• Waassertierm = water towers

Though, readers will note the use of “Château d’eau” in francophone areas of the country.

The following list identifies the tallest of these amazing water towers. As information is found on the others (new and old), the list will be updated accordingly.

Peace/Fridden!

_______

1. Waassertuerm Ban de Gasperich “Lighthouse” (2018): Luxembourg City = 68.54 m/224.9 feet

2. Waassertuerm Leudelange (2008): Leudelange = 58.1 m/190.6 feet

3. Waassertuerm Dudelange (1928): Dudelange = 56 m/183.7 feet – now a museum

4. Aquatower: Bergdorf = 55 m/180.4 feet – now an interactive water museum

5. Waassertrueme und Zentralbehalter: Altrier = 54 m/177.2 feet

6. Waassertuerm Kirchberg “Nature” 1 (2024): Kirchberg = 53 m/173.9 feet

7. Waassertuerm Kirchberg “Nature” 2 (2024): Kirchberg = 46 m/150.9 feet

8. Waassertuerm Sandweiler (2000): Luxembourg Airport = 45.5 m/149.3 feet

9. Waassertuerm an Atelieren (2014): Käerjeng and Niederkerschen (2014)? = 44 m/144.4 feet

10. Waassertuerm Bonnevoie (1984): Luxembourg City = 40.1 m/131.6 feet

11. Waassertuerm Senningerberg (1914): Senningerberg = 40 m/131.2 feet – being converted to bicyclist’s hostel

12. Château d’eau Kinneksbierg: Steinfort = 38 m/

13. Waassertuerm Reimberg (1931): Reimberg = 34 m/124.7 feet – now used as an exhibition space

14. Waassertuerm Hivange “Cone” (2003): Hivange = 32 m/105 feet

15. Waassertuerm Limpertsberg (1903): Limpertsberg ~ 30 m/

16. Château d’eau de Dahl (1985): Dahl = 29 m/98.4 feet

17. Waassertuerm Dippach “L” (2017): Dippach = 27 m/88.6 feet

18. Waaassertuerm um Lampertsbierg (1903): Luxembourg City ~ 26.5 m/86.9 feet

19. Waassertuerm Luxembourg-Belair (1935): Luxembourg City = 21.45 m/70.4 feet

_______

More information needed:

• Château d’eau Derenbach: Derenbach
• Château d’eau Huldange see below
• Château d’eau Kleinbettingen (1953)
• Château d’eau, Louvroil
• Château d’eau Weiergewan
• Waassertuerm Altrier # 2
• Waassertuerm Asselborn
• Waassertuerm Bartringen
• Waassertuerm Beaufort
• Waassertuerm Berdorf #2
• Waassertuerm Capellan
• Waassertuerm Cessange: Luxembourg City
• Waassertuerm Contern: Contern
• Waassertuerm Dalhem
• Waassertuerm DuPont Teijin: Contern
• Waassertuerm Elvange
• Waasertuerm Fingig
• Waassertuerm Foetz (1986)
• Waassertuerm Frissange x 2
• Waassertuerm Goeblange
• Waassertuerm Heinerscheid
• Waassertuerm Hellingen
• Waassertuerm Hoscheid
• Waassertuerm Hosingen
• Waassertuerm Howald
• Waassertuerm Huldang
• Waassertuerm Industriezone Contern:
• Waassertuerm Leudelange #1
• Waassertuerm vu Mamer
• Waassertuerm Napoléonsgaard (1928)
• Waassertuerm Nidderaanwen x 2
• Waassertuerm Niederanven
• Waassertuerm Pärel
• Waassertuerm Perchesberg (1912)
• Waassertuerm Reckange-sur-Mess
• Waassertuerm Reckeng op der Mess
• Waassertuerm Réibierg
• Waaassertuerm Remerschen
• Waassertuerm Rippweiler
• Waassertuerm Rodange Pétange
• Waassertuerm Schrassig
• Waassertuerm Steinfort #2
• Waassertuerm Zessingen

SOURCES:

• https://www.luxtimes.lu/yourluxembourg/luxembourgguide/architectural-icons-water-towers/1322852.html
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Water_towers_in_Luxembourg
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Luxembourg_Dahl_Water_Tower_Plaque.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_tower_Belair_(2).JPG
• https://www.wortimmo.lu/en/news/architectural-icons-water-towers/289
• https://wanderlog.com/place/details/11100039/water-tower-leudelange-luxmap
• https://www.detail.de/de_en/wasserturm-in-luxemburg-von-temperaturas-extremas#:~:text=The%20water%20tower%20designed%20by%20the%20Spanish,intended%20to%20provide%20nesting%20sites%20for%20birds
• https://www.lichtkunstlicht.com/projects/water-tower/
• https://structurae.net/en/structures/bonnevoie-water-tower
• https://www.wallpaper.com/art/a-water-tower-in-luxembourg-hosts-an-iconic-photography-exhibition
• https://www.visitluxembourg.com/place/water-tower
• https://eumiesawards.com/heritageobject/water-tower-dudelange/
• https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/historic-water-tower-repurposed-as-unique-accommodation/51297270.html
• gemini.google.ai
• https://eumiesawards.com/heritageobject/the-water-tower-in-leudelange/
• https://www.paulbretz.com/en/architecture/project/13/
• https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographic-view-of-the-water-tower-taken-in-1935-vertical-and-plan-cross-section_fig1_284122545
• https://www.mywort.lu/de/mywort/reimberg/news/wasserturm-in-reimberg-im-neuen-look-einweihungsfeier-in-gegenwart-von-minister-marco-schank-58fe28d4a5e74263e13b5f98
• https://panethos.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/fdbce-0wassertuermbooklet_reducedquality.pdf
• https://ingsci.lu/davinci/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rt-hs-015-2018-s.pdf
• https://www.watertowers.de/wissenswertes/internationale-wassertuerme-alt/europa-3/luxemburg/
• https://www.oai.lu/files/Publications/Architecture_deLUX/text18_watertower.pdf
• https://www.perrard.lu/perrard-references/item/chateau-d-eau-sandweiler#:~:text=Ch%C3%A2teau%20d’Eau%20Sandweiler%20*%20Maitre%20d’ouvrage%20:,Dur%C3%A9e%20des%20travaux%20:%201998%20%2D%202000.
• https://www.industrie.lu/wasser.html
• https://www.archi-env.lu/details-projets/66#:~:text=Le%20ch%C3%A2teau%20d’eau%20Kinneksbierg%20%C3%A0%20Steinfort%2C%20d’une,l’ancien%20ch%C3%A2teau%20d’eau%20B%C3%ABchel%2C%20d’une%20capacit%C3%A9%20de

Splendid water towers (waassertierm) in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Well now. It appears that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a serious contender in the race to build the most impressive, remarkable, and awe-inspiring water towers in the world. Just a quick review of the images included within this post shows the incredible range of architectural styles that can be found in just 998 square miles.

While water towers in North America far too often appear to be carbon copies or rubber stamps of one another, Luxembourg clearly demonstrates how spirited inspiration can be beautifully melded into engineering function. Bravo!

While French and German are common languages in Luxembourg, this post “primarily” uses the national language, Luxembourgish, for local terms, such as:

• Waassertuerm = water tower
• Waassertierm = water towers

Though, readers will note the use of “Château d’eau” in francophone areas of the country.

The following list identifies the tallest of these amazing water towers. As information is found on the others (new and old), the list will be updated accordingly.

Peace/Fridden!

_______

1. Waassertuerm Ban de Gasperich “Lighthouse” (2018): Luxembourg City = 68.54 m/224.9 feet

2. Waassertuerm Leudelange (2008): Leudelange = 58.1 m/190.6 feet

3. Waassertuerm Dudelange (1928): Dudelange = 56 m/183.7 feet – now a museum

4. Aquatower: Bergdorf = 55 m/180.4 feet – now an interactive water museum

5. Waassertrueme und Zentralbehalter: Altrier = 54 m/177.2 feet

6. Waassertuerm Kirchberg “Nature” 1 (2024): Kirchberg = 53 m/173.9 feet

7. Waassertuerm Kirchberg “Nature” 2 (2024): Kirchberg = 46 m/150.9 feet

8. Waassertuerm Sandweiler (2000): Luxembourg Airport = 45.5 m/149.3 feet

9. Waassertuerm an Atelieren (2014): Käerjeng and Niederkerschen (2014)? = 44 m/144.4 feet

10. Waassertuerm Bonnevoie (1984): Luxembourg City = 40.1 m/131.6 feet

11. Waassertuerm Senningerberg (1914): Senningerberg = 40 m/131.2 feet – being converted to bicyclist’s hostel

12. Château d’eau Kinneksbierg: Steinfort = 38 m/

13. Waassertuerm Reimberg (1931): Reimberg = 34 m/124.7 feet – now used as an exhibition space

14. Waassertuerm Hivange “Cone” (2003): Hivange = 32 m/105 feet

15. Waassertuerm Limpertsberg (1903): Limpertsberg ~ 30 m/

16. Château d’eau de Dahl (1985): Dahl = 29 m/98.4 feet

17. Waassertuerm Dippach “L” (2017): Dippach = 27 m/88.6 feet

18. Waaassertuerm um Lampertsbierg (1903): Luxembourg City ~ 26.5 m/86.9 feet

19. Waassertuerm Luxembourg-Belair (1935): Luxembourg City = 21.45 m/70.4 feet

_______

More information needed:

• Château d’eau Derenbach: Derenbach
• Château d’eau Huldange see below
• Château d’eau Kleinbettingen (1953)
• Château d’eau, Louvroil
• Château d’eau Weiergewan
• Waassertuerm Altrier # 2
• Waassertuerm Asselborn
• Waassertuerm Bartringen
• Waassertuerm Beaufort
• Waassertuerm Berdorf #2
• Waassertuerm Capellan
• Waassertuerm Cessange: Luxembourg City
• Waassertuerm Contern: Contern
• Waassertuerm Dalhem
• Waassertuerm DuPont Teijin: Contern
• Waassertuerm Elvange
• Waasertuerm Fingig
• Waassertuerm Foetz (1986)
• Waassertuerm Frissange x 2
• Waassertuerm Goeblange
• Waassertuerm Heinerscheid
• Waassertuerm Hellingen
• Waassertuerm Hoscheid
• Waassertuerm Hosingen
• Waassertuerm Howald
• Waassertuerm Huldang
• Waassertuerm Industriezone Contern:
• Waassertuerm Leudelange #1
• Waassertuerm vu Mamer
• Waassertuerm Napoléonsgaard (1928)
• Waassertuerm Nidderaanwen x 2
• Waassertuerm Niederanven
• Waassertuerm Pärel
• Waassertuerm Perchesberg (1912)
• Waassertuerm Reckange-sur-Mess
• Waassertuerm Reckeng op der Mess
• Waassertuerm Réibierg
• Waaassertuerm Remerschen
• Waassertuerm Rippweiler
• Waassertuerm Rodange Pétange
• Waassertuerm Schrassig
• Waassertuerm Steinfort #2
• Waassertuerm Zessingen

SOURCES:

• https://www.luxtimes.lu/yourluxembourg/luxembourgguide/architectural-icons-water-towers/1322852.html
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Water_towers_in_Luxembourg
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Luxembourg_Dahl_Water_Tower_Plaque.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_tower_Belair_(2).JPG
• https://www.wortimmo.lu/en/news/architectural-icons-water-towers/289
• https://wanderlog.com/place/details/11100039/water-tower-leudelange-luxmap
• https://www.detail.de/de_en/wasserturm-in-luxemburg-von-temperaturas-extremas#:~:text=The%20water%20tower%20designed%20by%20the%20Spanish,intended%20to%20provide%20nesting%20sites%20for%20birds
• https://www.lichtkunstlicht.com/projects/water-tower/
• https://structurae.net/en/structures/bonnevoie-water-tower
• https://www.wallpaper.com/art/a-water-tower-in-luxembourg-hosts-an-iconic-photography-exhibition
• https://www.visitluxembourg.com/place/water-tower
• https://eumiesawards.com/heritageobject/water-tower-dudelange/
• https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/historic-water-tower-repurposed-as-unique-accommodation/51297270.html
• gemini.google.ai
• https://eumiesawards.com/heritageobject/the-water-tower-in-leudelange/
• https://www.paulbretz.com/en/architecture/project/13/
• https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographic-view-of-the-water-tower-taken-in-1935-vertical-and-plan-cross-section_fig1_284122545
• https://www.mywort.lu/de/mywort/reimberg/news/wasserturm-in-reimberg-im-neuen-look-einweihungsfeier-in-gegenwart-von-minister-marco-schank-58fe28d4a5e74263e13b5f98
• https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa121602487fde94702999e/t/5ca6063fe2c4836434def340/1554384510661/0+Wassertuerm+Booklet_reduced+quality.pdf
• https://ingsci.lu/davinci/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rt-hs-015-2018-s.pdf
• https://www.watertowers.de/wissenswertes/internationale-wassertuerme-alt/europa-3/luxemburg/
• https://www.oai.lu/files/Publications/Architecture_deLUX/text18_watertower.pdf
• https://www.perrard.lu/perrard-references/item/chateau-d-eau-sandweiler#:~:text=Ch%C3%A2teau%20d’Eau%20Sandweiler%20*%20Maitre%20d’ouvrage%20:,Dur%C3%A9e%20des%20travaux%20:%201998%20%2D%202000.
• https://www.industrie.lu/wasser.html
• https://www.archi-env.lu/details-projets/66#:~:text=Le%20ch%C3%A2teau%20d’eau%20Kinneksbierg%20%C3%A0%20Steinfort%2C%20d’une,l’ancien%20ch%C3%A2teau%20d’eau%20B%C3%ABchel%2C%20d’une%20capacit%C3%A9%20de

Splendid water towers (waassertierm) in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Well now. It appears that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a serious contender in the race to build the most impressive, remarkable, and awe-inspiring water towers in the world. Just a quick review of the images included within this post shows the incredible range of architectural styles that can be found in just 998 square miles.

While water towers in North America far too often appear to be carbon copies or rubber stamps of one another, Luxembourg clearly demonstrates how spirited inspiration can be beautifully melded into engineering function. Bravo!

While French and German are common languages in Luxembourg, this post “primarily” uses the national language, Luxembourgish, for local terms, such as:

• Waassertuerm = water tower
• Waassertierm = water towers

Though, readers will note the use of “Château d’eau” in francophone areas of the country.

The following list identifies the tallest of these amazing water towers. As information is found on the others (new and old), the list will be updated accordingly.

Peace/Fridden!

_______

1. Waassertuerm Ban de Gasperich “Lighthouse” (2018): Luxembourg City = 68.54 m/224.9 feet

2. Waassertuerm Leudelange (2008): Leudelange = 58.1 m/190.6 feet

3. Waassertuerm Dudelange (1928): Dudelange = 56 m/183.7 feet – now a museum

4. Aquatower: Bergdorf = 55 m/180.4 feet – now an interactive water museum

5. Waassertrueme und Zentralbehalter: Altrier = 54 m/177.2 feet

6. Waassertuerm Kirchberg “Nature” 1 (2024): Kirchberg = 53 m/173.9 feet

7. Waassertuerm Kirchberg “Nature” 2 (2024): Kirchberg = 46 m/150.9 feet

8. Waassertuerm Sandweiler (2000): Luxembourg Airport = 45.5 m/149.3 feet

9. Waassertuerm an Atelieren (2014): Käerjeng and Niederkerschen (2014)? = 44 m/144.4 feet

10. Waassertuerm Bonnevoie (1984): Luxembourg City = 40.1 m/131.6 feet

11. Waassertuerm Senningerberg (1914): Senningerberg = 40 m/131.2 feet – being converted to bicyclist’s hostel

12. Château d’eau Kinneksbierg: Steinfort = 38 m/

13. Waassertuerm Reimberg (1931): Reimberg = 34 m/124.7 feet – now used as an exhibition space

14. Waassertuerm Hivange “Cone” (2003): Hivange = 32 m/105 feet

15. Waassertuerm Limpertsberg (1903): Limpertsberg ~ 30 m/

16. Château d’eau de Dahl (1985): Dahl = 29 m/98.4 feet

17. Waassertuerm Dippach “L” (2017): Dippach = 27 m/88.6 feet

18. Waaassertuerm um Lampertsbierg (1903): Luxembourg City ~ 26.5 m/86.9 feet

19. Waassertuerm Luxembourg-Belair (1935): Luxembourg City = 21.45 m/70.4 feet

_______

More information needed:

• Château d’eau Derenbach: Derenbach
• Château d’eau Huldange see below
• Château d’eau Kleinbettingen (1953)
• Château d’eau, Louvroil
• Château d’eau Weiergewan
• Waassertuerm Altrier # 2
• Waassertuerm Asselborn
• Waassertuerm Bartringen
• Waassertuerm Beaufort
• Waassertuerm Berdorf #2
• Waassertuerm Capellan
• Waassertuerm Cessange: Luxembourg City
• Waassertuerm Contern: Contern
• Waassertuerm Dalhem
• Waassertuerm DuPont Teijin: Contern
• Waassertuerm Elvange
• Waasertuerm Fingig
• Waassertuerm Foetz (1986)
• Waassertuerm Frissange x 2
• Waassertuerm Goeblange
• Waassertuerm Heinerscheid
• Waassertuerm Hellingen
• Waassertuerm Hoscheid
• Waassertuerm Hosingen
• Waassertuerm Howald
• Waassertuerm Huldang
• Waassertuerm Industriezone Contern:
• Waassertuerm Leudelange #1
• Waassertuerm vu Mamer
• Waassertuerm Napoléonsgaard (1928)
• Waassertuerm Nidderaanwen x 2
• Waassertuerm Niederanven
• Waassertuerm Pärel
• Waassertuerm Perchesberg (1912)
• Waassertuerm Reckange-sur-Mess
• Waassertuerm Reckeng op der Mess
• Waassertuerm Réibierg
• Waaassertuerm Remerschen
• Waassertuerm Rippweiler
• Waassertuerm Rodange Pétange
• Waassertuerm Schrassig
• Waassertuerm Steinfort #2
• Waassertuerm Zessingen

SOURCES:

• https://www.luxtimes.lu/yourluxembourg/luxembourgguide/architectural-icons-water-towers/1322852.html
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Water_towers_in_Luxembourg
• https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Luxembourg_Dahl_Water_Tower_Plaque.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_tower_Belair_(2).JPG
• https://www.wortimmo.lu/en/news/architectural-icons-water-towers/289
• https://wanderlog.com/place/details/11100039/water-tower-leudelange-luxmap
• https://www.detail.de/de_en/wasserturm-in-luxemburg-von-temperaturas-extremas#:~:text=The%20water%20tower%20designed%20by%20the%20Spanish,intended%20to%20provide%20nesting%20sites%20for%20birds
• https://www.lichtkunstlicht.com/projects/water-tower/
• https://structurae.net/en/structures/bonnevoie-water-tower
• https://www.wallpaper.com/art/a-water-tower-in-luxembourg-hosts-an-iconic-photography-exhibition
• https://www.visitluxembourg.com/place/water-tower
• https://eumiesawards.com/heritageobject/water-tower-dudelange/
• https://www.luxtimes.lu/luxembourg/historic-water-tower-repurposed-as-unique-accommodation/51297270.html
• gemini.google.ai
• https://eumiesawards.com/heritageobject/the-water-tower-in-leudelange/
• https://www.paulbretz.com/en/architecture/project/13/
• https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Photographic-view-of-the-water-tower-taken-in-1935-vertical-and-plan-cross-section_fig1_284122545
• https://www.mywort.lu/de/mywort/reimberg/news/wasserturm-in-reimberg-im-neuen-look-einweihungsfeier-in-gegenwart-von-minister-marco-schank-58fe28d4a5e74263e13b5f98
• https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa121602487fde94702999e/t/5ca6063fe2c4836434def340/1554384510661/0+Wassertuerm+Booklet_reduced+quality.pdf
• https://ingsci.lu/davinci/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rt-hs-015-2018-s.pdf
• https://www.watertowers.de/wissenswertes/internationale-wassertuerme-alt/europa-3/luxemburg/
• https://www.oai.lu/files/Publications/Architecture_deLUX/text18_watertower.pdf
• https://www.perrard.lu/perrard-references/item/chateau-d-eau-sandweiler#:~:text=Ch%C3%A2teau%20d’Eau%20Sandweiler%20*%20Maitre%20d’ouvrage%20:,Dur%C3%A9e%20des%20travaux%20:%201998%20%2D%202000.
• https://www.industrie.lu/wasser.html
• https://www.archi-env.lu/details-projets/66#:~:text=Le%20ch%C3%A2teau%20d’eau%20Kinneksbierg%20%C3%A0%20Steinfort%2C%20d’une,l’ancien%20ch%C3%A2teau%20d’eau%20B%C3%ABchel%2C%20d’une%20capacit%C3%A9%20de

Wood harvesting and forest management are depleting carbon storage. Old-growth forests in Sweden store ~72% more carbon than the industrial tree plantations that are rapidly replacing them, with soil accounting for most of the difference.

The top meter of soils in lowland primary forests contained roughly 64% of total C on average.

Didac Pascual et al. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz8554

#carbon #carbonSinks #deforestation #timber #emissions #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forestry #offsets

Wood harvesting and forest management are depleting carbon storage. Old-growth forests in Sweden store ~72% more carbon than the industrial tree plantations that are rapidly replacing them, with soil accounting for most of the difference.

The top meter of soils in lowland primary forests contained roughly 64% of total C on average.

Didac Pascual et al. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz8554

#carbon #carbonSinks #deforestation #timber #emissions #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forestry #offsets

Wood harvesting and forest management are depleting carbon storage. Old-growth forests in Sweden store ~72% more carbon than the industrial tree plantations that are rapidly replacing them, with soil accounting for most of the difference.

The top meter of soils in lowland primary forests contained roughly 64% of total C on average.

Didac Pascual et al. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz8554

#carbon #carbonSinks #deforestation #timber #emissions #landUse #landUseChange #forests #forestry #offsets

Favorite outdoor stairway climbs completed to date

Identified below are this blog author’s favorite outdoor stairway climbs that have been completed to date. Each has its own individual attributes and aesthetics, whether it be the surrounding landscapes and scenery, a vast view at the top, or the narrowness of the climbing corridor. For purposes of this post, the terms stairs, stairways, and steps are used interchangeably. As more are completed, the post will be updated accordingly.

“A glorious vista is more enriching when it takes effort to get there.”

– panethos.wordpress.com

Peace!

Scalinata Salita Castello = 541 steps in Taormina, Italia (see the two images just below)

High Tower/Rockledge Stairs = 161 steps in Los Angeles (Hollywood Heights), California

Paramount Stairway = 220 steps in Los Angeles (Hollywood Heights), California

Sky Steps = 529 steps in Durango, Colorado

Scalinata di Trinità dei Monti a.k.a. “The Spanish Steps” (1725) = 135 steps in Roma, Italia

Scala dell’Arce Capitolina (1348) = 124 steps in Roma, Italia

Devil’s Head Lookout Station Stairway = 143 steps near Sedalia, Colorado

Seven Falls Stairway = 224 steps in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Ironman Stairs = 155 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

The Alcove House Climb ~ 220 wooden ladder and stone steps in Bandolier National Monument, New Mexico

Whitley Terrace Steps = 159 steps in Los Angeles (Whitley Heights), California

Washington Street Steps = 252 steps in Galena, Illinois

Rose Stairs = 151 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Mayfield Stairs = 181 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

La Presa Steps = 181 steps in Los Angeles (Hollywood Heights), California

Walnut Creek Canyon Stairway = 237 steps in Flagstaff, Arizona

Theatre Stairs = 127 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Laundry Stairs = 98 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Mount Tom Dune Stairs = 101 steps in Indiana Dunes National Park

First Avenue Steps = ? steps in Jerome, Arizona

Cardiff Hill/Twain Lighthouse Stairway = 244 steps in Hannibal, Missouri

Gila Cliff Dwellings Stairs = 288 in Glia Cliff Dwellings National Monument, New Mexico

Perley Stairs = 96 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Hurley Park Stairways = 152 steps in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Avalanche Hill Steps = 392 steps in Boyne City, Michigan

Baldwin Hills Stairs = 282 steps in Los Angeles (Baldwin Hills), California

Band Shell Stairs = 73 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Spalding Stairs = 78 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Walsh Stairs = 98 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Jetty Stairway = 55 steps in Redondo Beach, California

Challenge Hill Stair Climb = 200 steps in Denver (Castle Rock), Colorado

Monks Mound Stairway = 155 steps in Cahokia Mounds State Park, Illinois

Twain Avenue to N. Fifth Street Stairs ~ 35 steps in Hannibal, Missouri

Favorite outdoor stairway climbs completed to date

Identified below are this blog author’s favorite outdoor stairway climbs that have been completed to date. Each has its own individual attributes and aesthetics, whether it be the surrounding landscapes and scenery, a vast view at the top, or the narrowness of the climbing corridor. For purposes of this post, the terms stairs, stairways, and steps are used interchangeably. As more are completed, the post will be updated accordingly.

“A glorious vista is more enriching when it takes effort to get there.”

– panethos.wordpress.com

Peace!

Scalinata Salita Castello = 541 steps in Taormina, Italia (see the two images just below)

High Tower/Rockledge Stairs = 161 steps in Los Angeles (Hollywood Heights), California

Paramount Stairway = 220 steps in Los Angeles (Hollywood Heights), California

Sky Steps = 529 steps in Durango, Colorado

Scalinata di Trinità dei Monti a.k.a. “The Spanish Steps” (1725) = 135 steps in Roma, Italia

Scala dell’Arce Capitolina (1348) = 124 steps in Roma, Italia

Devil’s Head Lookout Station Stairway = 143 steps near Sedalia, Colorado

Seven Falls Stairway = 224 steps in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Ironman Stairs = 155 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

The Alcove House Climb ~ 220 wooden ladder and stone steps in Bandolier National Monument, New Mexico

Whitley Terrace Steps = 159 steps in Los Angeles (Whitley Heights), California

Washington Street Steps = 252 steps in Galena, Illinois

Rose Stairs = 151 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Mayfield Stairs = 181 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

La Presa Steps = 181 steps in Los Angeles (Hollywood Heights), California

Walnut Creek Canyon Stairway = 237 steps in Flagstaff, Arizona

Theatre Stairs = 127 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Laundry Stairs = 98 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Mount Tom Dune Stairs = 101 steps in Indiana Dunes National Park

First Avenue Steps = ? steps in Jerome, Arizona

Cardiff Hill/Twain Lighthouse Stairway = 244 steps in Hannibal, Missouri

Gila Cliff Dwellings Stairs = 288 in Glia Cliff Dwellings National Monument, New Mexico

Perley Stairs = 96 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Hurley Park Stairways = 152 steps in Albuquerque, New Mexico

Avalanche Hill Steps = 392 steps in Boyne City, Michigan

Baldwin Hills Stairs = 282 steps in Los Angeles (Baldwin Hills), California

Band Shell Stairs = 73 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Spalding Stairs = 78 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Walsh Stairs = 98 steps in Bisbee, Arizona

Jetty Stairway = 55 steps in Redondo Beach, California

Challenge Hill Stair Climb = 200 steps in Denver (Castle Rock), Colorado

Monks Mound Stairway = 155 steps in Cahokia Mounds State Park, Illinois

Twain Avenue to N. Fifth Street Stairs ~ 35 steps in Hannibal, Missouri