Questions for our American friends

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Thanks for the info. It seems to me this would be a huge engineering project far surpassing what you guys have done in London (especially if you're going to include Staten Island and the Jersey Shore.

Originally Posted by scoundrel

But how much will it cost to repair the damage done to New York and New Jersey by Hurricane Sandy?

I think I put this in the Sandy thread yesterday but the first estimates are now out. Repair costs just for New York are between $33 billion to $50 billion (New Jersey and Connecticut are not included). There was also something in the article about needing to separate power lines from subways and other underground installations. Thats probably going to be a huge project.

And something you guys in London are probably going to have to look at.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

...I think I put this in the Sandy thread yesterday but the first estimates are now out. Repair costs just for New York are between $33 billion to $50 billion (New Jersey and Connecticut are not included). There was also something in the article about needing to separate power lines from subways and other underground installations. Thats probably going to be a huge project...

I heard some "expert" on CNBC talking about the cost, and he said that actual costs in such cases are usually half the estimated cost. Could he be right?

Anyway, it looks like work for a lot of people, which is good. Pity the circumstances are so negative, but you know...

[9876543210]

palo5,

Originally Posted by palo5

I heard some "expert" on CNBC talking about the cost, and he said that actual costs in such cases are usually half the estimated cost. Could he be right?

Well, I guess it would make some sense for politicians to blow initial estimates way out of proportion so that when actual costs come in they are significantly less. The politician can then crow about saving money. So sure, the CNBC person could be right.

But this idea of separating the power lines from subways and other underground areas actually could keep the estimates in that $33 b to $50 b range, or exceed it. There is going to be a lot of engineering needed for this as well as new lines. Will water and sewage also be affected? Do you have to make sure the electrical lines stay dry? I don't think you can put those electrical lines back aboveground. At least in NYC.

I don't know. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

[mizlaplan]

Perhaps a better idea, in the long term, would be to "transfer" Central Park to any part of New York prone to flooding and use the existing park to re-locate any displaced businesses/homes.
Probably prohibitively expensive and controversial, but like London, if climatologists are to be believed, everyone living near sea level in New York will have to re-locate to higher ground at some point.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scoundrel,

Thanks for the info. It seems to me this would be a huge engineering project far surpassing what you guys have done in London (especially if you're going to include Staten Island and the Jersey Shore.

And something you guys in London are probably going to have to look at.

I have no doubt that somebody in Whitehall is studying the problem and that nothing at all will be done about it until a serious incident happens. It isn't really London which is most at risk. Natural cliffs are falling into the sea along the Yorkshire north of Spurn Point. The coast of Lincolnshire and East Anglia is very low-lying; these areas were gravely affected in the great North Sea flood of 1953, and many lives were lost. There was a warning shot from nature in 2010, when a similar conjunction of maximum high tides combined with prolonged rain (meaning that the rivers were full) demonstrated that the sea defences of several major towns are vulnerable. At Great Yarmouth in Norfolk, there was an organised evacuation by the police, who weren't taking "no" for an answer. If people said "no", thats what truncheons and dogs are for. In fact there were very few refuseniks because everyone could see the danger; the sea came up to within less han a foot of the sea wall at the top of the tide. The only reason why the anticipated flooding didn't happen was that sea conditions were abnormally calm. A storm like January 1953 would have had those walls down for certain. The only clearcut improvement is that we can forecast confidently up to 5 days ahead, and our communications network is far better, so the complete surprise of 1953 shouldn't happen now; and in Gt Yarmouth at least, the police were decisive, clearly wanting no one to defy an evacuation order.

However, our sea defences nationally are badly in arrears for basic maintenance and in the current financial climate that's how they'll stay. Such work as has been going on seems to be on improving river courses, dredging and straightening them and building bypass channels. After the widespread and repeated flood events of 2000, which wenton from September and into the early spring of 2001 (caused by exceptional rainfall) the insurance industry made public their concerns about government inaction on flood defences; there is informal agreement between government and the insurance industry that flood insurance premiums are controlled, but in exchange, government minimises the rish burden by looking after the river courses. This is harder since silly bitch Margaret Thatcher sold off the water boards into private ownership in 1989; but the arrangement still stands, and makes river flood defences and drainage systems a higher priority.

I think one day sooner or later we'll have a "perfect storm" such as 1953 again. London will be defended by the Thames Barrier; it was designed to resist exactly such an event. Elsewhere, we'll be just as damaged as we were in 1953. Hopefully people will evacuate when they are told; otherwise, they might not be rescued.

[9876543210]

mizlaplan,

Originally Posted by mizlaplan

Perhaps a better idea, in the long term, would be to "transfer" Central Park to any part of New York prone to flooding and use the existing park to re-locate any displaced businesses/homes.

Hoo boy, now there's an idea. Not being a New Yorker I don't know but I can imagine that Idea would probably go over like a lead balloon.

Probably prohibitively expensive and controversial, but like London, if climatologists are to be believed, everyone living near sea level in New York will have to re-locate to higher ground at some point.

I had quite a few classes in climatology and environmental sciences 30 years ago at University. Virtually everything we talked about back then is now happening. The only difference I can remember is they figured this stuff would really get going around 2050. Not this soon. So I have a tendency to think they had things predicted correctly.

[9876543210]

Scoundrel,

I don't think I quite got my point across about this problem of separating the power lines from other underground utilities and the subways. It seems to me that every city close to an ocean with a subway system is now going to have to rethink how they run their electrical utilities. I think that may be one of the most important lessons from Sandy (at least for big cities). Running them next to each other seems to be extremely problematic if those areas are flooded.

[mizlaplan]

You can't make an omelette without beating a few eggs to smithereens
But seriously, you have to think of land near sea level as being transitory.
In a century or more it might be permanently underwater, a tidal beach/mud flat, or even higher than it currently is (look up "isostatic adjustment").
If it's treated as park land, it will have great recreational/social value which won't be affected that much if it occasionally floods.
A few plants killed by salt water/waterlogging, sculptures overturned,etc. Docks damaged.
At most, a few million in damages.
A heavily built up area which floods as badly as lower New York appears to be prone to?
Billions, every time.

[9876543210]

mizlaplan,

Originally Posted by mizlaplan

You can't make an omelette without beating a few eggs to smithereens
But seriously, you have to think of land near sea level as being transitory.
In a century or more it might be permanently underwater, a tidal beach/mud flat, or even higher than it currently is (look up "isostatic adjustment").
If it's treated as park land, it will have great recreational/social value which won't be affected that much if it occasionally floods.
A few plants killed by salt water/waterlogging, sculptures overturned,etc. Docks damaged.
At most, a few million in damages.
A heavily built up area which floods as badly as lower New York appears to be prone to?
Billions, every time.

I agree with you completely and, if it were up to me, I'd be happy to tell everyone who was just flooded out to get the heck out and go elsewhere. Trade Central Park for new parklands in the flooded areas. Makes complete sense to me.

But something tells me I'd be in the minority and stomped straight into the ground if I even suggested it. But what do I know? It would take a really strong leader to get that one through some people's thick skulls. Good luck, I hope it works.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Scoundrel,

I don't think I quite got my point across about this problem of separating the power lines from other underground utilities and the subways. It seems to me that every city close to an ocean with a subway system is now going to have to rethink how they run their electrical utilities. I think that may be one of the most important lessons from Sandy (at least for big cities). Running them next to each other seems to be extremely problematic if those areas are flooded.

Most of our national grid runs through overground power lines like these.


They are a familiar sight in the UK. Don't even think of flying a kite anywhere near one of these things. Most of our largest power stations are remote from London and other major cities and so these powerlines are the cost effective method of transmission, though they are obviously vulnerable to weather events. Future solutions may well require an evolution of the technology instead of a redesign of the network; for example:

• Wireless transmission
• Distributed generation

It took decades to build the UK's national grid. The Weir Report of 1925, which led to such vital reforms as a UK-wide stadard 240volts for home and busness electricity, and later a three-point-plug which was introduced for new buildings in 1947 (British Standard BS 1363, still widely regarded as one of the best in the developed world) also led to a decades long construction project to build those 400kV transmission masts all over the UK. There are hundreds of thousands of them in all, and they were still being built in the 1970s, fulfilling a commitment made in 1925. So when it comes to replacing them, we have time to rethink our technical approach and it might be quicker and cheaper to move over to smaller scale local generation and to wireless transmission than to build a different national grid based on underground cables, which will be safer from damage but harder to fix if they get damaged. Another approach might be to concede to nature and accept that stuff will get trashed now and again, and design it to be replaced more quickly, cheaply and easily, to reduce the inevitable down-time after incidents like Sandy.


It isn't my professional field so I don't know if the UK national grid uses London Underground tunnels. I stand to be corrected but I don't think they do, actually. I am aware that LU once had their own dedicated power station in Chelsea, but this was decommissioned in the 1980s and the network now depends on the national grid; which I personally think is foolish and should change. The national grid are replacing overhead powerlines in the London metropolitan area with dedicated service tunnels:http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-dept...010600.article


However, this is not a case of wave-a-magic-wand. Stuff like this takes a very long time unless you want to throw money at it like Niagara Falls and don't mind the traffic chaos you will cause by doing all of it at once.