Subway May Not Re-open Until Tuesday

First of all it says "complete service" suggesting that partial service may be available tomorrow. Second, you are one Debbie-downer. Don't think I want you around in tough times.

Depends on the damage. If the signals don't work and the yards are still flooded, service will be virtually non existent.

This kind of ends the "debate" over whether Bloomberg "overreacted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/nyregion/new-york-expects-lengthy-recovery-of-transit-system.html?hp

I would not wanted to be on a train when a tree falls on the track or the third rail gets flooded.

Not really. There's no question parts of our transit system had to be shut down. The question remains whether we had to shut it all down.

So...just find an expert who can tell you in advance where the trees will fall?

Riversider, why so angry about the shutdown? Was your nurse not able to make it to your place this weekend to change your Depends?

You and MidtownerVirginEast - bunch of idiots with zero expertise in these matters doing Monday morning quarterbacking.

You are fucking annoying on this RS. no specifics, just second guessing. Endlessly.

OP, RS: you should get to know a first-responder or someone who has devoted his/her career to providing for the safety of other people. Then maybe you would appreciate what is at stake in getting these decisions wrong instead of bitching about a bus versus a train. Making the right call is tough as hell and the margin for error is zero sometimes. Try that for a change: making a decision that can save a life or kill a person. Then pipe up again. The city got it really wrong in the Christmas storm. They got it really right this time. But you just feel the need to be a contrarian and bitch no matter what. Its despicable.

Meanwhile, the City just announced subway service will be available starting at 6am tomorrow although less frequent service and some other limitations. It takes a fair amount to piss me off. This kind of selfishness and lack of appreciation of the service of others does it, though. Just appalling.

>It takes a fair amount to piss me off.

woah, hurricane Irene

I meant to say what kylewest did.

"...Parts of the underground system will remain closed due to flooding...."

I like how Riversider explains how exactly the subways would be closed in certain places, but not others, considering that all lines (almost all) go underground at some point...

>I like how Riversider explains how exactly the subways would be closed in certain places, but not others, considering that all lines (almost all) go underground at some point...

If your Depends were wet from the storm, you'd be cranky too.

I'm confused. Is Mayor Mike a first responder? If you are arguing that shutting down the subway puts fewer emergency workers at risk (or lessens the burden) because they don't have to rescue people trapped in the trains, I can definitely see the appeal of that argument. But, Kyle, it is not completely illegitimate to wonder if the subway should have been shut down, especially when it was. You can disagree, but it is odd thing to go on such a rant about. I expect something like that from Jason because he's got some major anger issues.

And before I am the subject of another rant, my point is that you should be able raise such issues without being accused of being anti-police, etc. (which is something that gets brought up way too much in the post 9/11 world). You can't stifle discourse in that way; it is like calling people who question the government anti-American. None of this, by the way, is a defense of RS because I don't agree with him on 99 percent of what he says, including his post above about the subways.

MTE: I don't understand what you are saying. I do nothing on here to interfere with substantive discussions. Anyone case raise anything on here regardless of how irrelevant it is to NYC RE or how corrosive it is to the usefulness of this forum. But saying you are "just asking the question," does not make every question magically intelligent or worth asking. The OP here does not raise a legitimate issue. The OP posts a snarky comment offering nothing essentially. RS doesn't offer any substantive support but pretends the raising of a question counts as discourse. Maybe I'm too close to the way certain things operate in the City; the complexity of keeping a city of 8 million people working while keeping NYC the safest of America's largest 100 cities. I have no idea what those offering criticism on the MTA shutdown are even suggesting. Gamble with safety? Take a guess that subway line 1 should run because risk is minimal in an unprecedented storm but trains N, L and the 4 and 6 should stop. There's no experience with the type of storm that's coming, but heck, give it your best guess and don't err on the side of caution--instead err on the side of inconveniencing people the least and if some die, so be it. Are you kidding me? Do you know how quickly the tunnels fill with water if the pumps stop? NYC without power for 3 days could see a subway system nearly completely submerged even without rain. Do you know how dangerous it is to rescue people from a flooded subway tunnel? From an elevated train on tracks that are collapsing? How unsafe it is to operate the trains without assurances of adequate staff being on hand? When you are a public servant charged with ensuring safety, you don't gamble. You assume the worst, not the likely. Because a few fatalities--among the public or rescue workers--are utterly unacceptable. Which brings us back to the asinine OP and stupid follow ups that cloak themselves in the "I'm just asking the question" b.s. but do nothing to further substantive discussion and are just more contrarian crap.

Didn't the buses shut down too? That one is a head scratcher.

>Didn't the buses shut down too? That one is a head scratcher.

Don't you walk to work?
Because why else would someone live in midtown east?

The busses shut for a number of reasons. The vehicles had to be moved to a place where floods wouldn't ruin them, but many depots were in flood-prone areas. That meant a lot of logistics. In addition, as the hurricane neared, any bus experiencing mechanical trouble would require towing/maintenance crews that weren't available in time to deal with the problem. Worse, if passengers on some lines were stranded by mechanical problems or blocked roadways, "rescue" would be a problem. The forecasts can only be relied upon to a point--when the decisions had to be made so that they could actually be put into place in time, the storm was still a distance away and precise timing for the arrival of winds and rain was not 100% certain. So caution dictated shutting it all down early enough to ensure that if the storm sped up, the assets and people were already in safe places. I'm sure there are other/more reasons. But these seem pretty darn sensible to me.

like how Riversider explains how exactly the subways would be closed in certain places, but not others

----
Like the city has never suspended service on some lines leaving others open. They know which ones are prone to flooding and can even reduce service on some lines(shortening the route). City was fortunate that this was done on a weekend where the economic hit was less.

Riversider, the responsible "experts" you mentioned in the other thread concluded that suspending only some of the lines was not the best option.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/27987-hurricane-preparedness?page=2

Was it a pain in the butt? Sure. But, insurance isn't a bad idea just because you didn't die that year.

650k people lost power in Jersey. Tons of the outer boroughs were flooded in major ways.

Ask yourself... what would a power outage have done with folks in a tunnel?