Passenger Trains > NJ flood maps, rail impact

The state of NJ and FEMA have begun to roll out a revised (much broader) flood map based in part on recent activities. Most railroads in the region will be affected.

Among the changes are an expansion of the "flood impact zone" to a much wider area of South Hackensack, Hackensack, and related areas. This adds much of the Pascack Valley line of NJ Transit and the Conrail industrial park abutting Teterboro airport. This area flooded in the recent storm. Other expansions include a widening of the Hackensack River flood plain along the PVL north of River Edge (duly noted). The Bergen County line sees an expansion of flood risks into its line north of Garfield, and the NYSW looks like it adds some territory at risk to flooding. The Bergen County and PVL have seen some river flooding back into Erie days, this adds more locations.

The CSX River Line is likely to see some additional areas marked for risk. Many existing locations, starting with the "swamp switch" regularly see flooding at high tide + severe rainfall events.

The current (2009) Hudson County flood map includes all of the NJ Transit Meadows facility on its hundred year flood map. On the linked map, the MMC is south of the junction of route 7 and route 508. On that map, the light red rail line is the NEC, the dark red rail line is the Morristown line of NJ Transit, and the even darker red lines are the MMC tracks and the South Kearny yard. The MMC stretches west to the NEC, onto an area of higher ground as it approaches CAPE.

http://www.state.nj.us/njoem/plan/pdf/maps/hudson_slosh.pdf

New Bergen County draft map. Railroads aren't included on the surface of the map. This version includes more flash flooding information. In recent decades, flash flooding from localized storms has become a significant killer, and played a role in the huge washouts along the line from Suffern to Harriman last year.

http://www.state.nj.us/njoem/programs/pdf/mitigation2012/appendixi/mit2012_appendixi_bergen.pdf

So the current (pre-Sandy) Hudson County flood map shows MMC in the danger zone, but management at NJT insisted it wouldn't happen....?

Next time there's a hurricane or maybe a tropical event, have a look at the National Hurrican Center website of the National Weather Service.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Among the pages that you can access are detailed maps showing the predicted storm surge. Where I live those maps have been quite accurate. There's usually someone who says that no one ever said that the water would rise so high.

aclfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next time there's a hurricane or maybe a tropical
> event, have a look at the National Hurrican Center
> website of the National Weather Service.
>
> http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
>
> Among the pages that you can access are detailed
> maps showing the predicted storm surge. Where I
> live those maps have been quite accurate. There's
> usually someone who says that no one ever said
> that the water would rise so high.

Yes.

many private insurance companies maintain more detailed maps than governments of flood risk potential etc to limit their liabilities for their standard coverages in the event of floods / serious rain / wind etc events. That was one lesson of the company in Brooklyn which raised its construction platform four feet higher than the City of New York requirements. They were high and dry while their neighbors had a few feet of water.

When my town experienced Hurricane Floyd, the administrator hired a videographer to go up and photograph the high water marks. Homes, etc on ridges, etc exact high points of flood penetration into back yards, etc. Hundreds of still pictures, too.

That greatly simplifies future development discussions about where a high water marker was. Developers want the high water marker a little farther down the slope, long range planners would like it a little farther up the slope, etc.

I have seen a more detailed flood map of Hudson County which clearly shows that at MSL+8' MMC will start taking on water. Naturally for higher surges it only gets worse. It is of course possible that NJT had never seen those maps. Which raises the question about the efficacy of their contingency planning.

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen a more detailed flood map of Hudson
> County which clearly shows that at MSL+8' MMC will
> start taking on water. Naturally for higher surges
> it only gets worse. It is of course possible that
> NJT had never seen those maps. Which raises the
> question about the efficacy of their contingency
> planning.

Yes.

I asked about that contingency planning document before the storm actually hit. The report that NJ Transit was moving equipment to "safer locations" suggested there was an underlying doctrine of who does what, circumstances that trigger specific responses, etc.

I'm quite surprised that there wasn't a request for the actual document at last week's hearings. I wonder if the document doesn't actually exist?

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen a more detailed flood map of Hudson
> County which clearly shows that at MSL+8' MMC will
> start taking on water. Naturally for higher surges
> it only gets worse. It is of course possible that
> NJT had never seen those maps. Which raises the
> question about the efficacy of their contingency
> planning.

Are you saying that the county flood maps showed top of rail elevation? If not, then I can't agree with your conclusion. Not including Sandy, there have been six storms since 1984 that had floods exceeding elevation 8.0. Two were over elevation 9.0. Just last year, Irene was 9.51. Based on the map you saw, the yard should have flooded all six times. It did not flood once.

Flood maps typically are based on generalized grade elevations which may or may not reflect facility grade modifications, such as filled areas. Those maps almost never show the elevations of the equipment within the facility such as top of rail. Unless the actual yard and top of rail elevations are used in conjunction with area flood maps and the pre-storm surge predictions from NWS, it is difficult to conclude anything about what NJT should have known in the days prior to the storm. Simply looking at an area flood map is not typically conclusive of anything.

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jishnu Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have seen a more detailed flood map of Hudson
> > County which clearly shows that at MSL+8' MMC
> will
> > start taking on water. Naturally for higher
> surges
> > it only gets worse. It is of course possible
> that
> > NJT had never seen those maps. Which raises the
> > question about the efficacy of their
> contingency
> > planning.
>
> Are you saying that the county flood maps showed
> top of rail elevation? If not, then I can't agree
> with your conclusion. Not including Sandy, there
> have been six storms since 1984 that had floods
> exceeding elevation 8.0. Two were over elevation
> 9.0. Just last year, Irene was 9.51. Based on
> the map you saw, the yard should have flooded all
> six times. It did not flood once.

Rhetorical question eh? Of course it does not show top of rail elevation. But when the forecast is for 11', I suspect someone in an area that shows possibility of flooding at 8' would pay some attention? Then again maybe not. What do I know. I just think simplistically. The experts are always better heh :) But they should be able to explain themselves when the results are not aligned with their predictions.

Actually, if NJT simply produces the document that shows they had a contingency plan that actually took these factors into consideration, the whole issue would go away at least in my mind. But so far they have basically hemmed and hawed and simply gotten upset that someone would dare to ask them about such things. Which indicates that they probably did not have a plan and were just winging it. Just IMHO of course and no one need agree or disagree.

Jishnu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Rhetorical question eh? Of course it does not show
> top of rail elevation. But when the forecast is
> for 11', I suspect someone in an area that shows
> possibility of flooding at 8' would pay some
> attention? Then again maybe not. What do I know. I
> just think simplistically. The experts are always
> better heh :) But they should be able to explain
> themselves when the results are not aligned with
> their predictions.
>
> Actually, if NJT simply produces the document that
> shows they had a contingency plan that actually
> took these factors into consideration, the whole
> issue would go away at least in my mind. But so
> far they have basically hemmed and hawed and
> simply gotten upset that someone would dare to ask
> them about such things. Which indicates that they
> probably did not have a plan and were just winging
> it. Just IMHO of course and no one need agree or
> disagree.

One issue is that the NWS predicted a flood surge of 11 feet the morning before landfall (10/29). The actual flood surge was 13.88 feet, nearly 3 feet higher than predicted and over three feet higher than the prior record flood surge from Hurricane Donna in 1960.

All I am saying is that you can't look at a flood map alone and come to any conclusion about the risk of a particular facility flooding. You also need to know the details of that facility. Back in my prior life as a productive member of society (i.e.: pre-retirement), I had lots of facilities in areas susceptible to flooding. For some, a simple look at a county flood map would suggest that even a routine storm would flood the facility. I knew that was not true because the actual facility was constructed to be above the 100 year (1% reoccurrence) flood elevation. The flood map did not show that. Our plans did.

It is possible that, with the data known before the storm, prudent practice by NJT would have moved that equipment out of there. However, it is also possible that the storm surge was so much higher than predicted that they simply got caught like so many others. Flood maps alone are not enough to determine which is true.

prr60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> All I am saying is that you can't look at a flood
> map alone and come to any conclusion about the
> risk of a particular facility flooding. You also
> need to know the details of that facility. Back
> in my prior life as a productive member of society
> (i.e.: pre-retirement), I had lots of facilities
> in areas susceptible to flooding. For some, a
> simple look at a county flood map would suggest
> that even a routine storm would flood the
> facility. I knew that was not true because the
> actual facility was constructed to be above the
> 100 year (1% reoccurrence) flood elevation. The
> flood map did not show that. Our plans did.
>
> It is possible that, with the data known before
> the storm, prudent practice by NJT would have
> moved that equipment out of there. However, it is
> also possible that the storm surge was so much
> higher than predicted that they simply got caught
> like so many others. Flood maps alone are not
> enough to determine which is true.

Yep and this whole issue would be a non-issue if NJT simply shared with everyone what they knew and when they knew it. All that we are interested in is knowing that those that were entrusted with the responsibility did exercise due diligence. That is all one can ask for. Unfortunately somehow they have been incredibly resistant to taking this one simple step. Which leaves one wondering whether due diligence was actually exercised.

New Jersey maintains a state wide communications management site at the State Police HQ in Ewing. The site is activated for predicted major storms, or when a major blackout, etc happens. it's a big deal, with police agencies, the Transportation Department, the weather and river forecast center people, links to hospitals, federal agencies, county centers, etc.

I wonder what advance notices came out from this center, and who at NJ Transit received those notices? I understand that North Arlington, four miles UP RIVER from the MMC, received its notice of a high probability of Monday's 10-12 feet river surges on Sunday afternoon. That ties almost perfectly to NJ Transit's decision on Sunday afternoon to begin winding down service ahead of the storm.