Christie responsible for NJ Transit Sandy equipment losses

[Peter T. Daniels]

It was a big day for transit on Brian Lehrer's program on WNYC this
morning.

First, Andrea Bernstein and Kate Hines of their
transportationnation.org site noted that one of Christie's first acts
upon taking office in 2010 was to abolish the Climate Change Office of
the Department of Environmental Protection, so he was ill disposed
toward preparations for predicted environmental problems, and the head
of NJT has hardly ever met him (unlike Cuomo and Lhoda working closely
together). A "10% chance" of catastrophic flooding was not high
enough, they found, to take measures against $175,000,000 of damage to
$billions of equipment stored in an inappropriate place.

Then, the head of the Municipal Arts Society discussed their call for
proposals for the future of Penn Station after MSG is removed. They
commissioned preliminary designs from four firms, and they will be
released on May 29.

Incidentally, Amtrak accounts for only 5% of the passengers at Penn
Station, 30,000 of 600,000+ per day, so when it moves to Moynihan
Station, little congestion will be alleviated but they will presumably
have a more pleasant experience. (And, I note, long-distance travelers
are less likely to be arriving by subway, so the extra block shouldn't
be much of an inconvenience.)

go to wnyc.org for audio and transcripts.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Their news report version (broadcast during All Things Considered,
before 5 pm) is very explicit in contrasting the MTA and NJT
preparations.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 13, 11:58 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Incidentally, Amtrak accounts for only 5% of the passengers at Penn
> Station, 30,000 of 600,000+ per day, so when it moves to Moynihan
> Station, little congestion will be alleviated but they will presumably
> have a more pleasant experience. (And, I note, long-distance travelers
> are less likely to be arriving by subway, so the extra block shouldn't
> be much of an inconvenience.)

The Moynihan plan is a giant boondoggle. Everybody has their own
selfish or foolish reasons for supporting it, except for the average
Joe Passenger for which it will be at best a zero benefit, and likely
a negative benefit.

People arriving at Penna Station want to go EAST. If anything, the
32nd concourse to Sixth Avenue ought to be reopened to facilitate that
travel. Or, a grade separate light rail line ought to be run on 34th
St to beat slow crosstown traffic.

Many of the Amtrak arrivals at Penn DO use the subway, as their coming
into the city for the day from relatively nearby points like
Philadelphia or Albany.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 13, 5:16 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Their news report version (broadcast during All Things Considered,
> before 5 pm) is very explicit in contrasting the MTA and NJT
> preparations.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Before the storm hit, everyone was bitching about the MTA's
"excessive" preparations and service cessations. It was only after
the fact the MTA got credit.

AFAIK, a storm never flooded downtown Manhattan or Hoboken to the
extent Sandy did, even the nasty hurricane of 1938. So, if a place
wasn't flooded in 100 years of storms, I think one has some measure of
confidence.

In contrast, in prior storms, SEPTA left equipment in Trenton where
the creek was known to flood often (for Sandy they at least knew to
get out).

Also, of far more import to daily NJT passengers is the continuing
lengthening of run time of trains. Everyone agrees converting from
MUs to locomotive hauled tanks was foolish. No questions why MU cars
sent out for overhaul came back with a slower speed rating.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 14, 1:29 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 13, 5:16 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Their news report version (broadcast during All Things Considered,
> > before 5 pm) is very explicit in contrasting the MTA and NJT
> > preparations.
>
> Hindsight is 20/20.

The MTA wasn't operating on "hindsight." They were operating on
science.

> Before the storm hit, everyone was bitching about the MTA's
> "excessive" preparations and service cessations.  It was only after
> the fact the MTA got credit.

Let's see the "everyone" who was bitching.

> AFAIK, a storm never flooded downtown Manhattan or Hoboken to the
> extent Sandy did, even the nasty hurricane of 1938.  So, if a place
> wasn't flooded in 100 years of storms, I think one has some measure of
> confidence.

The person who was responsible says in that radio report that there
was "only a 10% or 20% chance" that the storage yards would flood. As
the professor of transit engineering at Columbia said, Would you stay
on a plane if the pilot announced before takeoff that there was a
10-20% chance it would crash?

You think it was fine that Christie abolished the Climate Change
office, and you think it was fine that he never met with the head of
NJT over 2 1/2 years?

That kinda helps explain why he could simply axe the tunnel despite
all the resources that had already been put into it.

> In contrast, in prior storms, SEPTA left equipment in Trenton where
> the creek was known to flood often (for Sandy they at least knew to
> get out).

You mean ... they listened to _science_?

> Also, of far more import to daily NJT passengers is the continuing
> lengthening of run time of trains.  Everyone agrees converting from
> MUs to locomotive hauled tanks was foolish.  No questions why MU cars
> sent out for overhaul came back with a slower speed rating.

And that is somehow relevant to malfeasance due to the religious
beliefs in the Church of Reagan?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 14, 3:42 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:


> The MTA wasn't operating on "hindsight." They were operating on
> science.

Weather forecasting, especially with very nasty storms, is an art.
There have been innumerable times massive disaster was surely
predicted and only a modest storm appeared, and vice versa.

Also, past actual experience is part of science.

As to weather experts, well, they told our town several times of
devastating flooding that never came, yet failed to warn us several
times when it did come.

> > Before the storm hit, everyone was bitching about the MTA's
> > "excessive" preparations and service cessations.  It was only after
> > the fact the MTA got credit.

> Let's see the "everyone" who was bitching.

The same pundits and armchair quarterbacks bitching about NJT now.
MTA got hammered in criticism when it took similar precautions in the
past and the storms weren't so bad. Indeed, pundits reminded them
that in days of old, the railroads never stopped running.

> The person who was responsible says in that radio report that there
> was "only a 10% or 20% chance" that the storage yards would flood. As
> the professor of transit engineering at Columbia said, Would you stay
> on a plane if the pilot announced before takeoff that there was a
> 10-20% chance it would crash?

Apples and oranges B/S comparison.

Almost everybody would stay in their homes if told there was a 10-20%
chance their properties would be flooded, especially if it never
happened before.

Heck, during major storms, lots of people refuse to leave the barrier
storm islands, despite the very high probability of flooding and past
record of devastation.

> You think it was fine that Christie abolished the Climate Change
> office, and you think it was fine that he never met with the head of
> NJT over 2 1/2 years?

As mentioned, my big concerns on NJT are the slowdown in service
speeds and equipment choices, which have nothing to do with the storm.

> That kinda helps explain why he could simply axe the tunnel despite
> all the resources that had already been put into it.

The tunnel has nothing to do with the storm and is an entirely
separate issue out of scope here.

There are a great many things about Christie and NJT I don't agree
with. The storm handling is not one of them.

Indeed, given the devestation and unpredictability of Sandy, it's
entirely possible that they could've moved the trains to a spot that
got flooded or severe wind damage.

BTW, according to a book on the construction Penn Station, science
states that the Hudson tunnels should've broke apart from the weight
of the first train and flooded (the tunnels do not rest on solid
ground). The engineers sat around beating their heads on what to do
(not many options) on this.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 14, 8:47 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 14, 3:42 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > The MTA wasn't operating on "hindsight." They were operating on
> > science.
>
> Weather forecasting, especially with very nasty storms, is an art.
> There have been innumerable times massive disaster was surely
> predicted and only a modest storm appeared, and vice versa.
>
> Also, past actual experience is part of science.
>
> As to weather experts, well, they told our town several times of
> devastating flooding that never came, yet failed to warn us several
> times when it did come.

We're not talking about weather. We're talking about climate.

And the path of Sandy was in fact predicted accurately at least 4 days
in advance (that _is_ weather).

> > > Before the storm hit, everyone was bitching about the MTA's
> > > "excessive" preparations and service cessations.  It was only after
> > > the fact the MTA got credit.
> > Let's see the "everyone" who was bitching.
>
> The same pundits and armchair quarterbacks bitching about NJT now.
> MTA got hammered in criticism when it took similar precautions in the
> past and the storms weren't so bad.  Indeed, pundits reminded them
> that in days of old, the railroads never stopped running.

So. No names. You've been reading too much Sprunk. Or Conky.

I certainly don't recall Andrea Bernstein and Kate Hines bitching
about the MTA a few years ago -- "Transportation Nation" is only about
two years old.

> > The person who was responsible says in that radio report that there
> > was "only a 10% or 20% chance" that the storage yards would flood. As
> > the professor of transit engineering at Columbia said, Would you stay
> > on a plane if the pilot announced before takeoff that there was a
> > 10-20% chance it would crash?
>
> Apples and oranges B/S comparison.
>
> Almost everybody would stay in their homes if told there was a 10-20%
> chance their properties would be flooded, especially if it never
> happened before.
>
> Heck, during major storms, lots of people refuse to leave the barrier
> storm islands, despite the very high probability of flooding and past
> record of devastation.

That will probably be changing.

I recently read a book on fabulous summer homes (mansions, actually)
published in the 1880s reprinted with modern commentary. Almost all
the magnificent ones on the Jersey Shore are no longer there, so the
devastation of coastal storms is well known.

When I lived in Chicago, every spring I marveled that there were still
people living in the Fox River valley (not too far west of the city),
because it flooded whenever the northern snows melted.

> > You think it was fine that Christie abolished the Climate Change
> > office, and you think it was fine that he never met with the head of
> > NJT over 2 1/2 years?
>
> As mentioned, my big concerns on NJT are the slowdown in service
> speeds and equipment choices, which have nothing to do with the storm.

As mentioned, your personal concerns have nothing to do with the
topic, which is the unpreparedness of NJT for the inevitable event. It
may have come a little sooner than expected, but it was not
unexpected.

> > That kinda helps explain why he could simply axe the tunnel despite
> > all the resources that had already been put into it.
>
> The tunnel has nothing to do with the storm and is an entirely
> separate issue out of scope here.
>
> There are a great many things about Christie and NJT I don't agree
> with.   The storm handling is not one of them.

He gets points for his handing of the aftermath of the storm
(especially since it will damage his chances of being nominated for
president), but not for anything he did leading up to it. (He didn't
bother coming home from winter vacation during the previous weather
emergency, the tremendous snowfall.)

> Indeed, given the devestation and unpredictability of Sandy, it's
> entirely possible that they could've moved the trains to a spot that
> got flooded or severe wind damage.

They _did_. That is the _problem_.

[Jimmy]

hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > > Before the storm hit, everyone was bitching about the MTA's
> > > "excessive" preparations and service cessations.  It was only after
> > > the fact the MTA got credit.
> > Let's see the "everyone" who was bitching.
>
> The same pundits and armchair quarterbacks bitching about NJT now.
> MTA got hammered in criticism when it took similar precautions in the
> past and the storms weren't so bad.

Any theoretical complaints (which you have failed to provide evidence
of) would have been about the MTA cancelling service.

But NJT and the MTA shut down around the same time for Sandy. The
difference is that NJT left a lot of trains in a yard that was prone
to flooding. Once they're shut down anyway, nobody would have any
possible reason to complain about moving trains to high ground.

Jimmy

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 16, 7:31 pm, Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:

> The
> difference is that NJT left a lot of trains in a yard that was prone
> to flooding.

Whqt was the flooding record of the yard?

[John Levine]

>>�The difference is that NJT left a lot of trains in a yard that was prone
>> to flooding.
>
>What was the flooding record of the yard?

NJT claims nobody could have known the yard would flood. This public radio
story says that they had a report that, had they read and understood it, would
have told them about the flood risk.

I mean, really, the Meadowlands are a swamp about 3 inches above sea
level, and Sandy was forecast to be one of the biggest storms in
history. It wouldn't have required a lot of imagination to figure out
that it wasn't a great place to store rolling stock.

The MTA did much better. Read the story for details.

http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2013/may/13/njtransit-sandy/

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On May 16, 11:45 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >> The difference is that NJT left a lot of trains in a yard that was prone
> >> to flooding.
>
> >What was the flooding record of the yard?
>
> NJT claims nobody could have known the yard would flood.  This public radio
> story says that they had a report that, had they read and understood it, would
> have told them about the flood risk.

Once again, what was the flooding record of the yard?

[chris.li...@gmail.com]

The record is virtually immaterial. There was an accurate forecast of
an eleven-foot storm surge. The fact that it hadn't flooded in 100
years is meaningless- that's why Sandy was called a "100-year storm".

Chris

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 17, 3:35 pm, "chris.linthomp...@gmail.com"

What was unprecedented was something like 4 days' warning -- they
_knew_ it was going to turn due west at, coincidentally, the moment of
high tide. It's unlikely that NJT has no storage facilities more than
15' above sea level.

(Where did they keep the buses, BTW? The bus yard I know of is at the
south end of West Side Ave. just south of Paterson Plank Rd., which is
basically in the Meadow.)

[John Levine]

>What was unprecedented was something like 4 days' warning -- they
>_knew_ it was going to turn due west at, coincidentally, the moment of
>high tide. It's unlikely that NJT has no storage facilities more than
>15' above sea level.

Given that it was an emergency, I expect they could have just run
trains out to the west ends of some of the lines and parked them
there. They could park the electric equipment near Montclair Heights,
which is 365 feet above sea level.

[Michael Finfer]

I would also say that it is irrelevant. The National Weather Service
produced a map with its flood predictions,that turned out to be
accurate, four days in advance. It was ignored. Also, NJT paid a
consultant to assess its vulnerability to climate change. That report
contains a map that shows that the MMC is in a flood-prone area. James
Weinstein admitted later that he had never read it.

I have a copy on my hard drive. Anyone who wants a copy, e-mail me
privately, and I will send it on.

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ