Damage at K

Post by **Bubba** » Sep 8th, '11, 12:35

Stormchaser wrote:

I think that map grossly understates the amount of r*in that fell in the mountains.

Stormchaser · Post by **Stormchaser** » Sep 8th, '11, 12:36

Bubba wrote:
Stormchaser wrote:
I think that map grossly understates the amount of r*in that fell in the mountains.

I checked the NWS data centers for rainfall totals. Most were between 5 and 8 inches. Nothing in K proper, but Cavendish just outside Okemo was one of the higher ones (7.6 inches). Woodstock reported 7.34 inches.

http://mi.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=btv

Stormchaser · Post by **Stormchaser** » Sep 8th, '11, 12:45

Stormchaser wrote:
Bubba wrote:
Stormchaser wrote:
I think that map grossly understates the amount of r*in that fell in the mountains.

I checked the NWS data centers for rainfall totals. Most were between 5 and 8 inches. Nothing in K proper, but Cavendish just outside Okemo was one of the higher ones (7.6 inches). Woodstock reported 7.34 inches.

http://mi.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=btv

Upon further review...

Rutland reported about 3" less r*in than towns this side of the divide. I bet the mountains drained that extra 3", and localized amounts could have been closer to 11 inches.

Post by **Bubba** » Sep 8th, '11, 12:50

Stormchaser wrote:
Stormchaser wrote:
Bubba wrote:
Stormchaser wrote:
I think that map grossly understates the amount of r*in that fell in the mountains.

I checked the NWS data centers for rainfall totals. Most were between 5 and 8 inches. Nothing in K proper, but Cavendish just outside Okemo was one of the higher ones (7.6 inches). Woodstock reported 7.34 inches.

http://mi.nws.noaa.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=btv

Upon further review...

Rutland reported about 3" less r*in than towns this side of the divide. I bet the mountains drained that extra 3", and localized amounts could have been closer to 11 inches.

My guess, judging by the rate of rainfall all day, was that we got around 12", maybe more. It started r*ining heavily during the night and kept on at a pretty heavy (and consistently heavy) rate all day until around 3:00 - 4:00 PM. If we received an inch an hour for much of that period, your estimate would come close to my guess so we can't be too far off one way or the other. Whatever we got, it did a hell of a lot of damage.

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Sep 8th, '11, 13:12

Bubba wrote:My guess, judging by the rate of rainfall all day, was that we got around 12", maybe more. It started r*ining heavily during the night and kept on at a pretty heavy (and consistently heavy) rate all day until around 3:00 - 4:00 PM. If we received an inch an hour for much of that period, your estimate would come close to my guess so we can't be too far off one way or the other. Whatever we got, it did a hell of a lot of damage.

It's the same orographic lift that gives the spine of the greens 250" of snow every year. The warm-moist air in the flats was pushed uphill where it cooled and came down as a downpour. Looking at rainfall in Rutland is pretty much useless information.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Sep 8th, '11, 13:14

they got a lot of r*in...who cares what the charts say.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Sep 8th, '11, 16:05

7" to 20" of r*in up on the mountains has to come down and that is raging overflowing rivers. Not much r*in and local damage in the big valley area, but where the rivers come down, Mill, Cold Creek etc., the damage was very prevalent. Reminds me of 76 or 77 when the r*in hit Estes Park and the flood took water, cars, homes and bodies all the way to Greeley, Colorado.

Looked it up, was 76. We sent choppers down to help and then crews to clean up from Cheyenne.

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Sep 9th, '11, 09:42

Geoff wrote:
madhatter wrote:
Geoff wrote:
Bubba wrote:
madhatter wrote: Having met you once in the past I know you really aren;t the know it all dick you come off as here.
"Know it all dick" is Geoff's on-line personna. In person, he's just strongly opinionated.
With the caveat that I always offer up what I know as fact and what I don't know and is conjecture or opinion. That's what Engineers do. I'm paid a lot of money to be able to recognise the difference.

so we can take it as FACT that 4 will be paved woodstock to rutland by oct 1? How much coin ya wanna lay on that?
The traditional bet is a 750 ml of Wild Turkey 101.

Bump for Wild Turkey 101 bet.

madhatter · Post by **madhatter** » Sep 9th, '11, 10:14

Bump for Wild Turkey 101 bet.

[/quote]

doubt it'll be PAVED, don;t drink wild turkey, will buy you a beer regardless next time I see you at SS's office. Though its gonna be a while before I can get there. Maybe snowmobile season? ha

VTtrans statement from 18 hours ago:

Barring unforeseen setbacks, the closed segments of Route 9 will reopen this weekend, while the closed segments of Route 4 will reopen next weekend. There still will be work zones and delays, and there will be patches of road that are dirt instead of asphalt. So both patience and caution need to be exercised. If you plan to use these roads when they open, leave plenty of extra time to reach your destination.

rogman · Post by **rogman** » Sep 9th, '11, 10:36

Don't know if anyone has posted this, a friend sent me this youtube of Woodstock. Lots of footage of Otttaquechee. Amazing how high the river got.

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Sep 9th, '11, 15:29

madhatter wrote:Bump for Wild Turkey 101 bet.

doubt it'll be PAVED, don;t drink wild turkey, will buy you a beer regardless next time I see you at SS's office. Though its gonna be a while before I can get there. Maybe snowmobile season? ha

VTtrans statement from 18 hours ago:

Barring unforeseen setbacks, the closed segments of Route 9 will reopen this weekend, while the closed segments of Route 4 will reopen next weekend. There still will be work zones and delays, and there will be patches of road that are dirt instead of asphalt. So both patience and caution need to be exercised. If you plan to use these roads when they open, leave plenty of extra time to reach your destination.[/quote]

OK. Revised bet:

Help the homeless: Loser pays Shortski's bar tab for the day.

madhatter · Post by **madhatter** » Sep 9th, '11, 15:59

Geoff wrote:
madhatter wrote:Bump for Wild Turkey 101 bet.

doubt it'll be PAVED, don;t drink wild turkey, will buy you a beer regardless next time I see you at SS's office. Though its gonna be a while before I can get there. Maybe snowmobile season? ha

VTtrans statement from 18 hours ago:

Barring unforeseen setbacks, the closed segments of Route 9 will reopen this weekend, while the closed segments of Route 4 will reopen next weekend. There still will be work zones and delays, and there will be patches of road that are dirt instead of asphalt. So both patience and caution need to be exercised. If you plan to use these roads when they open, leave plenty of extra time to reach your destination.

OK. Revised bet:

Help the homeless: Loser pays Shortski's bar tab for the day.[/quote]

not sure I can get a second mortgage right now... but I suppose a beer for SS was already a given anyway.

madhatter · Post by **madhatter** » Aug 29th, '16, 06:02

brownman · Post by **brownman** » Aug 29th, '16, 08:39

Bubba wrote:People...stop with the supposition. We'll have passable roads within a few days, even if the fixes are temporary. There will be inconvenient detours and rough driving in spots but the state and feds are not going to spend the next month helicoptering food and other goods into currently isolated towns. Ski season will occur as scheduled and skiers will be able to get here. We have power on the access road and at least my part of East Mountain Rd got juice back an hour and a half ago. The world isn't coming to an end and things will be back to relative normal within a week or two.

.. 5 years later, many people's lives will never be the same

KillingtonZone.com

Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K

Re: Damage at K