Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, 12 inches isn't that significant, but, that wasn't what was originally predicted. Up until late Monday before I went to sleep, according to NOAA forecasts and maps, the totals were still pretty on target for the entire region to be impacted with a significant amount of snow. The majority of snow that fell in the area fell from 2 AM on, when most sane folks are sleeping.
We are going in circles because you just refuse to get it. It doesn't matter what was predicted if you wait longer to make the decision to shut down the city. They can predict a million inches but if they see that that's not going to happen, then they wouldn't make the wrong decision. And who cares what folks are doing at 2AM. They are not making the decisions for the city. When they get up, they can check and find out if things are close or not. Argh, you are frustrating to talk with.
Quote:
No, but quite honestly I'm not exactly sure what sense you are referring to when you say hurt?
Hurt as in affected negatively and inconvenienced. Not hurt physically.
Quote:
If you were to open the subways in the boroughs, the LIRR, Metro North, etc., areas that hadn't been plowed by early morning, areas hit with a foot of snow or more during the early morning, commuters would have been the ones screwed. Why? Getting to these modes of public transportation would have been treacherous, at least where I am. The LIRR stops running after 10 inches of snow which fell throughout all of Queens and Long Island. Friends in Queens stayed home today, they weren't going to work either, their areas had not been plowed either in the morning. Plowing in the majority of Nassau didn't start and/or wasn't effective until late morning. So, I worked from home today. No biggie.
Wow, you can't be that naive, can you? If the LIRR can't run, then by all means shut it down but why does the subways serving Sunset Park in Brooklyn or Morrisania Bronx for example, have to be shut down, too?
Quote:
Logistically in areas outside of the City, it was impossible to open roads or means of public transportation until the morning. If DeBlasio had opened the subways sooner, both in Manhattan and the boroughs, I'm sure employers would have been more inclined to force people to come into Manhattan, and that's a commute that would have been quite difficult for everyone outside of the City. /rant
Now you're getting ridiculous. You are basically saying the city should shut down the subways to keep some employers from potentially making poor employee decisions. Wow!
You're twisting my words. Subways, the LIRR, and Metro North are three different modes of transportation that service different areas. Some that travel through areas that were severely impacted, some that weren't as much impacted although the original predictions as of early morning stated the entire area would be blanketed with a large amount of snow. i I stated opening public transportation in areas where it was treacherous (i.e., CT, LI, or the regions of Queens that saw a foot of snow), would have made commuting difficult and in cases, a moot point, you couldn't get to a series of stations as of this morning. I'm sure the City could have allowed for particular openings on a case by case basis in areas that weren't as hardest hit. But, that goes back to logistical planning and the intricacies involved in decisions of this sort that I don't think either of us are completely privy to at the moment.
I'm not stating the City should shut down public transportation based upon employers whims, I'm just being clear and candid with how much more difficult it would have been in the morning for individuals to commute into the City who rely on public transportation or roadways that were majority unplowed as of this morning outside of Manhattan.
Just riddle me this because we are going in circles, had the 2 feet of snow (that was falling at 2-4 inches per hour) actually hit Manhattan at 2 AM - 3 AM rather than hitting regions 10-20 miles west and North, how much longer would you have waited beyond what actuality occurred (11 PM), until closing most means of transportation throughout the area?
You're twisting my words. Subways, the LIRR, and Metro North are three different modes of transportation that service different areas. Some that travel through areas that were severely impacted, some that weren't as much impacted although the original predictions as of early morning stated the entire area would be blanketed with a large amount of snow. i I stated opening public transportation in areas where it was treacherous (i.e., CT, LI, or the regions of Queens that saw a foot of snow), would have made commuting difficult and in cases, a moot point, you couldn't get to a series of stations as of this morning.
OMG. You can't be serious. If the conditions were to become so bad that people couldn't get to the stations, then they would have shut down the subways anyway.
Quote:
I'm sure the City could have allowed for particular openings on a case by case basis in areas that weren't as hardest hit. But, that goes back to logistical planning and the intricacies involved in decisions of this sort that I don't think either of us are completely privy to at the moment.
There is no special logistical planning or intricacies they have to make now that they didn't have before in the past, when officials waited longer to make decisions. Blizzards are not a recent or new phenomenon. If they were able to deal with it in the past, then there's no reason they can't now.
Quote:
I'm not stating the City should shut down public transportation based upon employers whims, I'm just being clear and candid with how much more difficult it would have been in the morning for individuals to commute into the City who rely on public transportation or roadways that were majority unplowed as of this morning outside of Manhattan.
So then don't come in. Just because they are running the subways doesn't mean you have to come in if you aren't able to. Ridiculous.
Quote:
Just riddle me this because we are going in circles, had the 2 feet of snow (that was falling at 2-4 inches per hour) actually hit Manhattan at 2 AM - 3 AM rather than hitting regions 10-20 miles west and North, how much longer would you have waited beyond what actuality occurred (11 PM), until closing most means of transportation throughout the area?
Because if it actually did hit Manhattan at 2 or 3 and things are clearly looking bad, then they would have shut everything down and it would have been the right decision. The problem is that they didn't wait. They assumed that the forecast was going to be right and made the wrong decision too far in advance. Why is that so hard to understand?
Perfect example. I was just reading an article in the NYT about how subway and regular trains have to be stored at different facilities, and, the time required for them to be stored as well as placed back in service. This is an example of an intricacy that renders closure and reopening more complex.
This was predicted to be a 2' worth of snow storm, to hit Manhattan and the surrounding immediate region. Had the totals that are being reported in Nassau, Suffolk, CT, and New England had in fact hit NYC, this would have been the largest amount of snowfall to date in the history of NYC. While blizzards aren't a recent phenomena, blizzards of this scope and scare are rare and as a result, that would reasonably evoke a sense of preventative activity.
I was just thinking about what occurred in 2010, during the Bloomberg era, when the City undershot the amount of snow that in actuality fell (20 inches) and wasn't completely prepared, in advance. I was in Baltimore at the time, but I recall the stories of vehicles trapped, ambulances being stuck in the snow, a taxed 911/311 system, medical responders taking exorbitant amount of time to arrive at particular homes and destinations. People dying as a result. In 2013, Long Island officials didn't close the LIE early enough and as a result you had hundreds of vehicles stranded, and emergency personnel braving harsh conditions in situations that could have been avoided had earlier action been implemented.
Along these lines, from an NYT article just posted: "Mr. de Blasio turned the clock back to late December 2010, when the Bloomberg administration woefully underestimated the impact of a snowstorm and the city’s public advocate – a man named Bill de Blasio – was flooded with calls about unplowed streets. “2010 was clearly in my thoughts,” he said."
They made the decision in advance (to warn the public), to close at 11 PM. Waiting until 2-3 AM, imho, would have been too late and I'm not an OEM expert nor know the planning that has to go into closing major transportation systems and the time that it takes to do so. You're entitled to your opinion but as I said earlier before all of this back and forth, I personally would rather see the government act preventatively in isolated extreme weather incidents like this one.
Perfect example. I was just reading an article in the NYT about how subway and regular trains have to be stored at different facilities, and, the time required for them to be stored as well as placed back in service. This is an example of an intricacy that renders closure and reopening more complex.
And how is this different now than it was in the past?
Quote:
This was predicted to be a 2' worth of snow storm, to hit Manhattan and the surrounding immediate region. Had the totals that are being reported in Nassau, Suffolk, CT, and New England had in fact hit NYC, this would have been the largest amount of snowfall to date in the history of NYC. While blizzards aren't a recent phenomena, blizzards of this scope and scare are rare and as a result, that would reasonably evoke a sense of preventative activity.
You are mixing being prepared and making decisions to shut down the city in advance together when they are two different things. For example, you are on a ship and there is an explosion. You prepare for a possible emergency by putting on a life jacket but you are not preparing if you decide to jump ship because you assume the worst possible scenario, i.e. the ship will sink soon. What if you are wrong and the ship isn't going to sink? Then because you panicked, you made the wrong decision. Do you see the difference between the two?
Quote:
I was just thinking about what occurred in 2010, during the Bloomberg era, when the City undershot the amount of snow that in actuality fell (20 inches) and wasn't completely prepared, in advance. I was in Baltimore at the time, but I recall the stories of vehicles trapped, ambulances being stuck in the snow, a taxed 911/311 system, medical responders taking exorbitant amount of time to arrive at particular homes and destinations. People dying as a result. In 2013, Long Island officials didn't close the LIE early enough and as a result you had hundreds of vehicles stranded, and emergency personnel braving harsh conditions in situations that could have been avoided had earlier action been implemented.
Along these lines, from an NYT article just posted: "Mr. de Blasio turned the clock back to late December 2010, when the Bloomberg administration woefully underestimated the impact of a snowstorm and the city’s public advocate – a man named Bill de Blasio – was flooded with calls about unplowed streets. “2010 was clearly in my thoughts,” he said."
The reality wasn't that simple. The whole reason for that fiasco was not because of underestimation or lack of planning. There was clearly an intentional slow down of work by Sanitation employees (although obviously nobody would ever admit to it) at the time because of ongoing labor issues. If you remember, that was a particularly brutally snowy winter. We had several high snow events the weeks prior to that particular event and the city didn't face any problems. The streets were cleared with no problems so obviously the protocols didn't change.
Quote:
They made the decision in advance (to warn the public), to close at 11 PM. Waiting until 2-3 AM, imho, would have been too late and I'm not an OEM expert nor know the planning that has to go into closing major transportation systems and the time that it takes to do so. You're entitled to your opinion but as I said earlier before all of this back and forth, I personally would rather see the government act preventatively in isolated extreme weather incidents like this one.
I don't mean to be insulting but you are not very bright, are you? First of all, if they had at 11PM seen what the conditions were like, then deciding to close or not to close would not have been too late because they have a plan in place and city employees would have been aware of the plan and would have gone into action immediately.
Second, this was not an isolated extreme weather condition for the city. Central Park got 8 inches and the highest levels were in eastern Queens around a foot. Like I said, it's substantial but again, it is actually normal for this climate region we live in. Whether it was extreme elsewhere like eastern LI or New England is irrelevant to the city's operations.
This.
I love how all these people saying "better be safe than sorry." Are we now going to shut down the city every time there is a prediction of heavy snowfall, because we now have a precedent?
NYC shuts down these days during storms because most people that work in NYC don't live in city. If the transit system shuts down they can't get into NYC to work. Back in the 90s you don't see NYC shutdown often because people that work in NYC also live closer. Not anymore.
Most people that live in NYC these days are the lazy overpaid peeps that needs to be served.
Because if it actually did hit Manhattan at 2 or 3 and things are clearly looking bad, then they would have shut everything down and it would have been the right decision. The problem is that they didn't wait. They assumed that the forecast was going to be right and made the wrong decision too far in advance. Why is that so hard to understand?
You don't want to leave people hanging on such a decision if bad weather is really predicted. They didn't make the wrong decision. The metereologists were inaccurate in their prediction, but based on what was predicted the city and state did nothing wrong.
It looks like some people actually wanted 20+ inches of snow. LOL.
Like another poster stated, "damned if you do, damned if you don't." The city prepared based on the forecasted that was predicted by various weather programs. At the end of the day, if mother nature decides to change course then she will do so...
Exactly this. The storm shifted east at the last second. Most models didn't anticipate the shift, and while some did, the usually reliable models had us getting bombed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
