Excerpts:
When the president talks about security in the Arctic, he’s talking about climate change.
Their aim, the vice president said in a video on X, is to check up on Greenland’s security, because unnamed other countries could “use its territories and its waterways to threaten the United States.” And these are real concerns for the United States, rooted in climate change: As polar ice melts away, superpowers are vying for newly open shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean and largely unexplored mineral and fossil-fuel reserves. Arctic warming could pose a direct threat to America’s security interests too: Alaska could have new vulnerabilities to both China and Russia; changes in ocean salinity and temperature might interfere with submarine detection systems; the extremes of climate change, including permafrost thaw in Russia, could drive economic instability, social unrest, and territorial claims.
So far this term, Trump has acted as if climate change does not matter: He has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, announced plans to reopen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas drilling, and paused new offshore-wind development and Inflation Reduction Act clean-energy funding. But if the president’s bid for Greenland—or the U.S. military’s quiet cooperation with Canada to boost Arctic defenses—is any indication, the U.S. is weighing its options for a warmer future. “We live in the real world,” Evan Bloom, a global fellow at the Wilson Center’s Polar Institute and former State Department official, told me. “The military and other agencies will continue to take climate change into account, because they have to.” When he hears Trump talk about Greenland, he hears the president speaking about the geopolitics of climate change—“whether he’s willing to call it that or not.”
We're a relatively poor city with an underfunded transportation system. If the city / state invested more money, there would be fewer system failures, cleaner transportation, on time transportation, safer transportation. But that's not to say it's entirely up to the municipality to improve the system. It's to say that there's a lack of enticement for a lot of people. If more people rode the system, we would see improvements.
There needs to be a huge revamp of the system with the key card being just the start of it. Perhaps the new signage will help too. The larger issue is PR. You're not going to get people from outside the city to ride in (ie: 76ers place) when all the news reports they see are about the bad things that happen on the subway.
SEPTA needs to be branded as the life blood of the city and marketed to everyone regardless of your financial situation. Philly's also a small city so you're more likely than in larger cities to rub elbows with people from a variety of personal situations, for better or worse.
What's frustrating to me is that I have family who live outside the city but close to a rail line (Trenton / East Trenton). They're hesitant to drive into the city because of a lack of parking. I have tried to get them to park at their local station and to ride the train in. I was doing it for a solid four years for family events when I didn't have a car. It's fantastic and I prefer it over driving.
I also have a friend who lives outside the city but near a regional rail station. He and his wife both work in the city just blocks from a subway station. They choose to sit in traffic over sharing public transportation. Part of it is convenience, some of it is the shared company, some of it is the unreliability. It blows my mind that someone would go out of their way and choose to drive the Schuylkill twice a day over having a leisurely pre and post work day experience.
The main thing that prevents me from riding SEPTA more often is the schedule. I work from home so 99% of the time I'm taking the train it's on the weekend. The weekend frequency is prohibitive enough that I bought a car.