Sandy and Amtrak - were allowing flooding made sense

Interesting post on WNYC's "Transportation Nation":

"Amtrak might have been able to avoid the flooding in at least one of its Hudson River tunnels during Sandy, but it is probably best that it didn't."

http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportatio ... ing-sandy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hmm, first I've heard there were barriers that they could have used.

But yes, they probably made the right call in the long run.

But overall, the bigger point is an important one, you can't "fix" stuff in one area without impacting others.

This is a lesson well learned, but quickly forgotten on the Mississippi as each town builds levees to protect THEIR down.. which only moves the problem down river and raises the overall river height during flooding.

While the flood doors would have worked in theory, when they were built one variable did not exist.....the ramp down from LIRR's West Side Yard. I'm pretty sure river water flooding was not an issue with the original design. Of course the tunnels could flood (and they did) from the NJ and LI side, and in the past they probably would have kept TUNNEL water out of the station, but I'm sure no one expected the deluge that came down that ramp.

What is Amtrak planning on doing in the future to prevent massive floods on their infrastructure?

Thomas wrote:What is Amtrak planning on doing in the future to prevent massive floods on their infrastructure?

Gateway tunnels for one. Till then hey will be stuck with sand bags or not much better. They just don't have the time to do much down there due to how busy they are.

PATH's flood gates worked.....

Rises in sea level will continue for decades, even if the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere stops (possible with worldwide concerted action). I think the railway supervisors need a serious plan about this rise.

george matthews wrote:Rises in sea level will continue for decades, even if the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere stops (possible with worldwide concerted action). I think the railway supervisors need a serious plan about this rise.

Agree. Fan plants moved and fortified against flooding, flood doors in tunnels, pumped drains, flood walls along waterfront areas... This is reality, and any place that doesn't follow suit will face another round of flooding.

The article makes the assumption that having the Penn Station track area flood would have been worse or at least less likely to be worse. As we have seen with the NYCTA Montague Street Tunnel, allowing a tunnel to flood can be bad news especially since the tunnel cannot be easily pumped out or repaired after the flood. Penn Station on the other hand has 24 tracks which can be worked on in parallel or at least prioritized to allow faster resumption of some service compared with flooded tunnels.

Jersey_Mike wrote:The article makes the assumption that having the Penn Station track area flood would have been worse or at least less likely to be worse. As we have seen with the NYCTA Montague Street Tunnel, allowing a tunnel to flood can be bad news especially since the tunnel cannot be easily pumped out or repaired after the flood. Penn Station on the other hand has 24 tracks which can be worked on in parallel or at least prioritized to allow faster resumption of some service compared with flooded tunnels.

But now you have 12x as much equipment to replace.

The work was move involved than simply pumping out. Salt water is horrible on electronics and the like.

Greg Moore wrote: But now you have 12x as much equipment to replace.

Just because the Penn Station area has more equipment to replace doesn't mean it needs more protection. Needing to even partly shut down the North or East River tunnels for 1-2 years would be disastrous. The station area, while having more stuff, is far easier to repair because you don't have to stuff all the men and equipment in and out of the tunnel. There is also more redundancy in the station area than the tunnels to allow for degraded operations. Lastly the question right now is being presented as "either or". A sufficiently large flood could wind up swamping both the station AND the tunnels. Closing the gates ahead of time could guarantee that at least the tunnels stay dry.

The best contingency can only be determined by a thoughtful study and also what Amtrak's priorities are in terms of budget and service availability. Tunnels might cost half as much to fix, but take 4 times as long which would disrupt service more than a station flood. When you get to assume Federal disaster relief cost goes out the window and time can be the focus priority. Also a flooded Penn Station can mean a lot of "free" interlocking components. Do you really think the MTA sustained $4 billion worth of damage from Sandy? They just identified $4 billion worth of needed repairs in Hurricane affected areas even if those repairs were needed before the Hurricane showed up.

The overall best solution of course are floodgates covering the west side tracks.

Jersey_Mike wrote:

Greg Moore wrote: But now you have 12x as much equipment to replace.

Just because the Penn Station area has more equipment to replace doesn't mean it needs more protection. Needing to even partly shut down the North or East River tunnels for 1-2 years would be disastrous. The station area, while having more stuff, is far easier to repair because you don't have to stuff all the men and equipment in and out of the tunnel. There is also more redundancy in the station area than the tunnels to allow for degraded operations. Lastly the question right now is being presented as "either or". A sufficiently large flood could wind up swamping both the station AND the tunnels. Closing the gates ahead of time could guarantee that at least the tunnels stay dry.

This isn't remotely true. It would take a tsunami of epic proportions to flood tunnels and the station if the flood gates remain open since the water will seek its lowest level....which are the tunnels. The deluge sent water cascading towards the over build but arrived largely in a trickle since the water flowed towards the grades in the tunnels. Additionally, it is easier to replace the components in the tunnel than 21 tracks and it is also easier to pump the water out of a confined location that has its own pumps (although they needed help) than try to drain a giant lake on the X's and under the overbuild.

Jersey_Mike wrote:
The overall best solution of course are floodgates covering the west side tracks.

That is the bottom line. Additionally, it would hurt to establish a gate for the Empire tunnel as well.

Seeing as how the NYCTA ended up having to shut down the Montague Street Tunnels for 14 months despite all efforts to avoid it made me reevaluate the idea that its better to allow tunnels to flood in all cases.

ThirdRail7 wrote: That is the bottom line. Additionally, it would hurt to establish a gate for the Empire tunnel as well.

I suspect you mean it wouldn't hurt?