Passenger Trains > NJ Transit comes out swinging...

NJ.com:

>>The executive director of NJ Transit is defending the agency's decision to leave trains in rail yards that ended up under water during Hurricane Sandy, saying those locations had no history of flooding and that no one could have predicted the extent of the storm surges that left some stations with six feet of water.

"We stored it where it should be," Jim Weinstein, who was joined by some of his top brass at the statewide transit agency, said during an interview yesterday with The Star-Ledger. "Unfortunately, it’s the worst storm we’ve ever had in New Jersey."<<

Fire his butt out of there, and everybody who had a hand in the decision. There was no history of six to ten foot storm surges either, and NY authorities moved their equipment out of low lying areas. Anybody who watched TV in the week before the storm heard about six to ten foot surges. Moving equipment INTO low lying areas isn't defensible.

<http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/11/flooded_nj_transit_trains_defe.html#incart_river_default&gt;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/12 06:22 by Lackawanna484.

read that entire article in this morning's paper and it made for some interesting reading. Just doing some Monday morning quarterbacking about this but I had to wonder with all the forecasts why didn't NJT consider storing some of their equipment on the RVL west of Raritan. There would have been sufficient room to store at least some of the equipment out of harm's way. Granted, perhaps the logistics of such a move would have made this impossible but if they were able to do that the equipment losses would not have been as bad. Again, just speculating with my two cents on this issue.

Several days ago in a post on Hurricane Sandy, I questioned NJT's choice of the Meadowlands for the site of their control center. Wouldn't they have been better off on a high floor of a building in downtown Newark? They ended up with eight feet of water covering their emergency generator and flooding the control center.

As for storing equipment, they have a large storage yard on the NEC in Morrisville, PA, on high ground well beyond the reach of any conceivable flood. They could have moved everything from the MMC down there overnight on Sunday night/Monday morning. Since they didn't run a rush hour Monday morning, they would have had plenty of crews available.

The Bergen Record also covered the story, and adds a point of view from Senator Lautenburg. The powerful NJ Democrat is chairman of a key senate subcommittee and has a long and antagonistic history with both Governor Christie and Jim Weinstein.

>>Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat and longtime transit advocate for whom the Secaucus transfer station is named, is planning to hold hearings on that and other Sandy-related questions in a key subcommittee he heads. While details on the hearings are not yet set, testimony is expected to examine how state officials handled warnings that the historic storm could wreak unprecedented damage. State officials and transit staffers, meanwhile, are being told to hold onto their notes and emails from the pre-Sandy hours, officials said. All the notes could become part of inquiries looking into storm preparations, including questions from insurance companies where state officials said they plan to make damage claims.

(snip)

They declined to answer specific questions, including who made key decisions, what flood maps were used and if political appointees like Executive Director James Weinstein played a decisive role. Asked if anyone in NJ Transit proposed a full evacuation of the rail yards as Sandy approached, the officials declined to answer.

The officials also said they were uncertain if the agency put in place a hurricane “contingency plan” that had been developed in recent years, or if NJ Transit had developed any plans to deal with changing weather patterns that have increased the threats of flooding.

(snip)

(Although NJ Transit officials insisted that this storm was unprecedented, one old hand and former NJ Transportation official differs strongly with that opinion.)

[Former director Martin] Robins said it was common knowledge that the Hoboken yard was prone to heavy flooding. He said he recalled storms in the early 1990s that inundated the facility and crippled commuter stations there similar to what happened last month.

“There was water pouring into the station with ferocity and ease,” he recalled.<<

It sounds like many people with the institutional knowledge and experience at NJ Transit and PATH were off the payroll or not listened to. This could be an interesting set of hearings...

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Answers_sought_on_NJ_Transit_superstorm_damage.html

< but I had to wonder with all the forecasts why didn't NJT consider storing some of their equipment on the RVL west of Raritan. >

There is a long and heated discussion on Subchat about this. One is an NJT conductor from the Raritan Line.
He says NJT DELIBERATELY removed 6 of 10 train sets from Raritan Yard as they did not want them stranded there in case Bound Brook flooded. Had NJT been bright enough to read NOAA's various graphs, the North Branch River was not an issue.

So they responded to Sandy by responding to Floyd or Ierne. If their insurance carrier or FEMA determines they did not practice "Due Diligence", NJT has had it.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < but I had to wonder with all the forecasts why
> didn't NJT consider storing some of their
> equipment on the RVL west of Raritan. >
>
> There is a long and heated discussion on Subchat
> about this. One is an NJT conductor from the
> Raritan Line.
> He says NJT DELIBERATELY removed 6 of 10 train
> sets from Raritan Yard as they did not want them
> stranded there in case Bound Brook flooded. Had
> NJT been bright enough to read NOAA's various
> graphs, the North Branch River was not an issue.
>
> So they responded to Sandy by responding to Floyd
> or Ierne. If their insurance carrier or FEMA
> determines they did not practice "Due Diligence",
> NJT has had it.

The early forecasts called for significant flooding on the Raritan River basin, with moderate flooding at Bound Brook. You may recall "Pattenburg" and I had a discussion about whether the brand new flood gates at Bound Brook would be closed on NJ Transit.

Although they weren't closed, I'd would have had serious concerns about whether I wanted to keep seven or eight train sets on the far side of the gates. If the track was OK in Cranford, etc and trains were blocked by the gates, heads would have rolled on that, too.

A lot will depend on the process they used to make the determination, which will depend on the quality of the record keeping about what ideas were considered, what records were consulted, what alternatives were out there, etc.

I was looking at the Bound Brook NOAA forecast continually until I lost power that Monday night.

http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=phi&amp;gage=bdkn4&amp;view=1,1,1,1,1,1

It was to peak hit at 28' Tuesday morning and go back down. That would flood some basements and not much else. NJT right of way always makes out better than downtown Bound Brook anyway.

NJT clearly disregarded it. They also have flood walls to mitigate some of that, which worked like a charm for Irene even though they had not finished them.

If Cranford has flooded, there is the CSX option either via Aldene or out to Philly and back east to rescue equipment. But they have never resorted to that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/12 08:35 by joemvcnj.

As the saying goes, sometimes it is better to keep quiet lest one removes all doubts about ones cluelessness by opening ones mouth. :)

They are busy circling the wagons instead of doing some honest introspection. In the five stages of grief they are still stuck at Denial.

Eventually they will come to realize that this storm was like no other storm in more ways than they had imagined. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/12 08:28 by Jishnu.

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the saying goes, sometimes it is better to keep
> quiet lest one removes all doubts about ones
> cluelessness by opening ones mouth. :)
>
> They are busy circling the wagons instead of doing
> some honest introspection. In the five stages of
> grief they are still stuck at Denial.
>
> Eventually they will come to realize that this
> storm was like no other storm in more ways than
> they had imagined. :)

Yes.

The Record piece, more than the Star-Ledger, focuses on their intransigence. No, we won't show you the maps. No, we won't show you the plans. No, we won't let you ask questions. No, no, no...

This will end badly.

(And, the politicians are lining up on the critical side. Even several of the usually docile Republican legislators in the minority are calling for an independent investigation, etc. Not a good sign for Weinstein. Unless he's already decided he'll have to walk the plank.)

< In the five stages of grief they are still stuck at Denial.>

Oh, I disagree. We have gone to "Stage 2: Anger" from Weinstein. Do note:

"People say, ‘Oh, you just move the trains,’" he said. "This is not a toy train set, They’re not buses you buy at a Hess station for your kids at Christmas. This is real life. This is big machines that take a lot of people who are very well trained."

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < In the five stages of grief they are still
> stuck at Denial.>
>
> Oh, I disagree. We have gone to "Stage 2: Anger"
> from Weinstein. Do note:
>
> "People say, ‘Oh, you just move the trains,’"
> he said. "This is not a toy train set, They’re
> not buses you buy at a Hess station for your kids
> at Christmas. This is real life. This is big
> machines that take a lot of people who are very
> well trained."

Good point Joe! Good point. I had missed that one.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Record piece, more than the Star-Ledger,
> focuses on their intransigence. No, we won't show
> you the maps. No, we won't show you the plans. No,
> we won't let you ask questions. No, no, no...
>
> This will end badly.

Agreed. It will be interesting to see them trying to pull this no, no, no stunt when they have to testify under oath to various legislative committees at state and federal level. Afterall this is about what they did with many hundreds of million dollars worth of equipment funded by the feds and the state. To use Weinstein's own characterization, it is not their own pocket money that they were playing around with to decide what to do with their own HO sets.

At this point, they seem to resent an investigation and are behaving as though this was a another miserable result from a quarterly customer scorecard. I also liken this to a 15 year old brat who races home to tear up a deficiency notice in the mail from a teacher, but didn't make it in time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/12 10:29 by joemvcnj.

Even if it had cost $1-2 million in overtime finding crews and moving equipment out of harms way, just think of the total savings in time, money and energy would have been saved. Now, because of the ignorance of senior management, we (meaning all taxpayers in all 50 states) will help pay for the repairs.

In my former life as an Air Force officer, that would have been a chargeable, court-martial offense called dereliction of duty.

Marty Harrison
Knob Noster, MO

<In my former life as an Air Force officer, that would have been a chargeable, court-martial offense called dereliction of duty.>

Is that true if you simply weigh all the facts and make a bad decision ?

In NJT's case, I do not think they paid much attention to NOAA flood forecasts at all, ignoring the storm surges, yet reacting to inland river breaches that were not to happen.

livesteamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even if it had cost $1-2 million in overtime
> finding crews and moving equipment out of harms
> way, just think of the total savings in time,
> money and energy would have been saved. Now,
> because of the ignorance of senior management, we
> (meaning all taxpayers in all 50 states) will help
> pay for the repairs.
>
> In my former life as an Air Force officer, that
> would have been a chargeable, court-martial
> offense called dereliction of duty.

Yes.

Two weeks ago I mentioned the probability there's a business continuity / disaster planning manual at NJ Transit. It would list the steps that should be taken if X is expected, what to do if Y happens, etc. It's a cornerstone of the Department of Homeland Security process, so it exists. Whether it addressed issues like the rise in tides, surge tides, storing equipment less than ten feet above sea level, etc is another question.

NJ Transit announced before the storm that it was putting a storm contingency plan into effect, securing its fleet, moving equipment to higher ground. There seems to be some difference of information as to how much power was moved TO the Meadows and Hoboken, versus power just left there. There's also a difference of information as to whether power was moved to Waldwick yard, and if there was, whether it came from Suffern, or from Hoboken / MMC. If nothing else, moving equipment within the MMC "to a higher point, less likely to flood" suggests somebody knew something early in the game.

There will be answers, no question about it. Senator Lautenburg has been waiting for an opportunity to nail Governor Christie and Director Weinstein, and this is it. Even more than those two, the guy who should be very scared is Bill Baroni. He's deputy executive director at the Port Authority.

In an earlier, testy exchange, he angered the Senator and Senator Rockefeller by pointing out Mr Lautenburg had regularly used his free E-Z pass while he lambasted the Port Authority for benefits given to executives. Even for folks accustomed to rough and tumble Jersey politics and run of the mill corruption, this was noticed.

Port Authority's PATH recovered pretty quickly, although Hoboken, Exchange Place and World Trade Center continue to have problems. That won't save Baroni's butt, though...

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Is that true if you simply weigh all the facts and
> make a bad decision ?
>
> In NJT's case, I do not think they paid much
> attention to NOAA flood forecasts at all, ignoring
> the storm surges, yet reacting to inland river
> breaches that were not to happen.

Maybe.

I'm guessing (just guessing) that the recent experience of serious flooding in Bound Brook and single tracking there, as well as the new flood gates, scared the bejeebers out of the operating people. It's likely the flood control agency said that it would consider closing the gates and cutting the railroad if X happened. Nobody wanted all the Raritan Valley power restricted or cut off for days or weeks, which is what happened with single tracking the line in Bridgewater with Irene.

Combine that with the memory of Irene and the huge washouts above Suffern. Power cut off for weeks, etc. That brook / raging torrent runs adjacent to the layover yard at Suffern. So, let's move that equipment. And, the low lying (not as low as the MMC, though) Port Jervis layover yard. etc

When I worked at FEDEX the message was always the same: PLAN FOR EVERY CONTINGENCY ESPECIALLY WORST-CASE SCENARIO. During inclement
wx it was always a pain-in-the-butt: ice, snow, late arrivals, diverts.

But you never didn't do the above planning/execution because you thought it wouldn't happen, or it hadn't happened previously.

Gov. Christie has a sh_t-storm on his hands now. He is the efficient, no-nonsense, the buck-stops-here guy. Gross leadership failure is quite apparent here.

Don't be surprised if NJT's Sandy performance becomes the case study in OPS-101 manual: how-not-to-do-it

There are now 75 comments on the Star-Ledger article. Most of them are variations on three main topics:

--NYC's subways were moved from (equally) low lying areas at Coney Island, etc. What made NJT so sure they'd be spared?
--The storm of 1992 flooded Hoboken and the track area at the Terminal. How come nobody remembered that?
--The insurance maps for Hoboken and for the area around the MMC are listed as "highest risk" flood danger, and with the rising sea levels and a "never before" flood surge predicted for days, why did NJT ignore that?


Two people note that the Morrisville Yard doesn't flood, but equipment stored there was cut off for a week after Hurricane Irene flooded the Trenton station and nearby NEC track. In this view, moving the trains out of Morrisville was a good idea, moving them to the MMC was a bad idea. (I suspect nobody felt comfortable giving an order to call out Hoboken side crews to move these trains out to the viaduct through the Oranges, etc, but that's just a guess)

Another person asked who gave the order to move the Port Jervis equipment? Was that an MTA directive, or was somebody in NJT making that decision?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Another person asked who gave the order to move
> the Port Jervis equipment? Was that an MTA
> directive, or was somebody in NJT making that
> decision?


I'd be surprised if it was MNRR. NJT controls the operations at Port Jervis, not MNRR.