- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What major US city (like top 50) would fare best?
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:54 pm to LSUSPARKY621
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:54 pm to LSUSPARKY621
NYC might be in a world of hurt if the subway system floods out.
2.27" of rain on May 5th, 2017 did this.
Subway Flooding NYC
2.27" of rain on May 5th, 2017 did this.
Subway Flooding NYC
1
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:57 pm to Dire Wolf
My vote would be Miami.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:59 pm to BRIllini07
Didn't think of the Subways... yeah, that could be a major problem.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 1:08 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Didn't think of the Subways... yeah, that could be a major problem.
Subways have pumps to take care of FRESH water. Salt water, from the ocean, is a different beast. There were multiple tunnels flooded from Sandy that were out for weeks, but that was because of the destroyed electrical equipment from the salt, not the water itself.
Most tunnels have built in pumps to remove rain and groundwater. They might get flooded, but assuming its not salt water, they will return to service after its pumped out.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 1:14 pm to AbuTheMonkey
Chicago has flooded once this year and that was only on liken5 inches over a couple of days
Posted on 8/31/17 at 1:17 pm to SwatMitchell
Anchorage. It would just turn to ice.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 1:17 pm to DarthRebel
People saying San Francisco are forgetting that the op said 50 mile radius. A ton of people live in that area and San Fran only makes up 7 sq miles of it.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 1:21 pm to SwatMitchell
Seattle? Could run off into the Sound
Posted on 8/31/17 at 1:35 pm to bee Rye
quote:
People saying San Francisco are forgetting that the op said 50 mile radius. A ton of people live in that area and San Fran only makes up 7 sq miles of it.
Ok, then I am sticking with my answer of San Fran.
#13 city by population and since we going in a 50 mile wide circle, it will be mostly ocean/bay. If you include the population areas to the North and South, they are even more elevated.
Mudslides will happen, however that would be much easier to deal with than mass flooding. The mudslides will not occur in the more heavy populated places as well.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 2:04 pm to OceanMan
quote:
The answer has to be one of the cities on the gulf coast that actually experience a lot of rain. The soil and plant life has as much to do with this as anything, so a region that experiences this type of rain would be more well suited.
This doesn't have as much of an effect when this much rain is in play. Soils become saturated after a few inches of rain and basically act the same as an impervious area with lower runoff velocities.
This is a tough question to answer. Cities with more gradient change would likely have less widespread flooding, but where there is flooding it would likely be more catastrophic. The water wouldn't be able to spread out so it would likely result in deeper areas of inundation. The flood flows would have a higher velocity as well and be more destructive and dangerous. The flooding would also happen more quickly. So while the flooding wouldn't be as widespread, I think there would be more deaths and lots of bridges/roads/houses washed away. The water wouldn't hang around as long either.
In flatter cities, like Houston, the flooding will touch more people, but not be as destructive.
The other potential huge hazard around cities with more gradient would be dam failures. If a dam fails on even a medium size lake, it can produce a huge floodwave. The head behind the dam is going to be greater than in a flat area.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 2:06 pm to SwatMitchell
While very few areas will be able to handle this type of rain and go unscathed, San Francisco itself would handle it better than most would expect. It's the west side of the surrounding counties of Sonoma, Marin, Santa Clara (San Jose last year) and San Mateo that would be under water. They are very prone to flooding and mudslides in years with above average rainfall (like last year). Petaluma (where I've lived for the past 30 years)-has some big time flooding when we get a storm that dumps 6-8 inches over the course of 2-3 days. 45-50 inches in 72 hours=toast.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News