# Climate change will make the subway 'dangerously hot'



## CHamilton (Sep 3, 2014)

Climate change will make the subway 'dangerously hot'



> Summer already turns New York’s subway platforms into fetid saunas. Climate change may make them dangerous. A draft report from a panel convened by Governor Andrew Cuomo, obtained by Capital New York, warns that climate change could make stations "dangerously hot for riders." This is in addition to the more obvious threat of flooding that climate change poses.
> 
> Heat from the trains, their brakes, and the air conditioners used to cool the cars combine to make platforms far hotter than the temperature above ground. "Just because the way the station is designed. It's a steamer," Richard Barone, the transportation director at New York’s Regional Plan Association, tells Capital. The problem can’t be solved by putting air conditioners on the platform — cool air just gets pushed into the tunnels by incoming trains and drifts out through the grates in the ceiling. London is facing a similar problem with its transit system, where temperatures already climb over 110 degrees and signs warn riders to bring water.


----------



## Blackwolf (Sep 3, 2014)

I see the claim that air conditioners would not work as being only a half-truth. It would be very costly to install, and also impart a change to the system that would have New Yorkers in arms over, but doors on the platform similar to how a lot of the people movers at airports function which separate the tracks would be one way. Similarly, doors to the outside would be needed.

Not perfect, but it would fix the issue.


----------



## afigg (Sep 4, 2014)

Blackwolf said:


> I see the claim that air conditioners would not work as being only a half-truth. It would be very costly to install, and also impart a change to the system that would have New Yorkers in arms over, but doors on the platform similar to how a lot of the people movers at airports function which separate the tracks would be one way. Similarly, doors to the outside would be needed.
> 
> Not perfect, but it would fix the issue.


The underground stations in the DC Metro system are all cooled. The stations don't have platform doors or doors blocking off airflow to the outside. Cool air sinks and hot air rises, so doors for the stairs and escalators leading up to the streets are not needed. Yes, cool air must escape through the open tunnels, but the system must have been designed to compensate for that.

BTW, there was a post several weeks ago on the DC Metro planning blog, PlanItMetro,com, about technology improvements to the chiller plants that will cut water usage and costs: Water Savings on Tap at Metro as part of Sustainability Lab.

As for the NYC subway system, retrofitting stations built many decades ago for cooling would likely be quite expensive and difficult. But it should be easier and less expensive to implement at some stations than others. Maybe start with the easier stations to cool and add a cooling system the next time the station gets a major rebuild? However, the MTA has a full plate of critical capital projects for the subway system, so retrofitting stations with cooling systems is going to take backseat in priority.

Aren't the new stations for the Second Ave Subway Phase 1 air cooled?


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Sep 5, 2014)

I think Asian subway systems often have AC Installed for their underground stations.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 5, 2014)

The "climate change" panic of the day. When (or if) it begins to become real and real enough to cause a problem it will be time to do somethig about it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of more pressing issues requiring work.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 5, 2014)

Actually the big problem is the air conditioned cars. The heat those a cubits produce is the main reason why it is so bloody hot.


----------



## NW cannonball (Sep 6, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Actually the big problem is the air conditioned cars. The heat those a cubits produce is the main reason why it is so bloody hot.


You mean the hot, but relatively clean outgasssing from the rail-cars that blows in our face on most platforms world-wide?

Or something else?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 6, 2014)

Well yes. When some 6000 cars all blow hot air all through the enclosed system...


----------



## neroden (Sep 12, 2014)

If brake heat is part of the issue, regenerative braking should help.

The older NYC subway cars don't do regenerative braking at all. The newest ones do, but unfortunately the trackside system isn't set up to receive it (it can't feed it back through the trackside inverters, can't store it, and can't feed it into other sections), and so wastes most of it in heat anyway.


----------



## sechs (Sep 12, 2014)

George Harris said:


> The "climate change" panic of the day. When (or if) it begins to become real and real enough to cause a problem it will be time to do somethig about it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of more pressing issues requiring work.


You mean, we should wait for the hurricane to flood the subway before designing the system to prevent that in the first place?


----------



## George Harris (Sep 17, 2014)

> You mean, we should wait for the hurricane to flood the subway before designing the system to prevent that in the first place?


No similarity at all. Hurricanes that are threats to the system occur at random intervals. Maybe one next year, maybe not one for 20 years, maybe two within the same year. Global warming, IF it occurs will occur over a longer time and its coming can be measured over a longer time interval. As it increases then mitigating measures can be constructed. Meanwhile there are more pressing items needing fixing.


----------



## neroden (Sep 24, 2014)

I realize you're a denier, but global warming is already happening, and it's already causing problems, right now. Mean sea level is already up. We need to start mitigations for many of the already-happening effects of global warming immediately.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 25, 2014)

neroden said:


> I realize you're a denier, but global warming is already happening, and it's already causing problems, right now. Mean sea level is already up. We need to start mitigations for many of the already-happening effects of global warming immediately.


Not a "denier". Just a skeptic. If the science and data is so solid, why not trot it out instead of reducing yourself to name calling? What are the problems, how much is the sea level rise, what is the rate? How does this match up with projections previously made? Plus, there is the major point overlooked: What part is the impact of mankind and what part is nature in action?


----------



## Paulus (Sep 25, 2014)

George Harris said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I realize you're a denier, but global warming is already happening, and it's already causing problems, right now. Mean sea level is already up. We need to start mitigations for many of the already-happening effects of global warming immediately.
> ...


That's all trotted out by the scientists and it's not overlooked. Just because you haven't read the studies and papers doesn't mean that they don't exist.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 25, 2014)

I won't argue the science, I just look @ the pictures and reports of all the melting glaciers and polar ice caps, rising sea levels and the extreme weather changes and ask " Who you gonna believe, some blowhard shill for the energy industries or know nothing on Hate Radio or Fixed Noise, or your own eyes?" Just asking!


----------



## jis (Sep 25, 2014)

As far as I can see the facts are pretty much solid on sea level rise. The projections are for 4 to 6 inches by the end of the century. The CO2 concentration numbers are going up. It is a reasonable assumption that reduction in rate of CO2 production wherever it is getting produced by whatever will reduce the rate of growth of CO2 concentration. So human beings can play a part in that, irrespective of whether they are or are not responsible for the current state.

In the face of this, those that insist that nothing needs to be done are playing some kind of a game possibly with themselves.

And as far as receding glaciers go, I have seen that personally in the Himalayas and the Alps over 4 decades. So I am pretty sure that the question is not "if" but it is "when", unless the trends change dramatically somehow.

Of course when someone insists on believing one or two outliers with some claimed scientific credentials instead of the massive majority in the profession, well, that is indicative of something too. Just IMHO of course.


----------



## MattW (Sep 25, 2014)

The climate has been cycling since long before humans were even here, much less here with the ability to have any effect on it. It is the height of hubris to assume that we need to stop a natural, global process because it is inconvenient for us. Now that said, I do agree that we should reduce our pollution emissions overall, but we shouldn't focus on just one small part when it is unlikely that that part is causing problems.


----------



## Paulus (Sep 25, 2014)

MattW said:


> The climate has been cycling since long before humans were even here, much less here with the ability to have any effect on it. It is the height of hubris to assume that we need to stop a natural, global process because it is inconvenient for us. Now that said, I do agree that we should reduce our pollution emissions overall, but we shouldn't focus on just one small part when it is unlikely that that part is causing problems.


And it's not the height of hubris to disagree with all of the experts in the relevant fields despite a lack of training or knowledge in said fields because...?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 25, 2014)

Oh, I get it, esteemed Scientists such as Dr. Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Sarah Palin have convinced me (with the help of the Koch Brothers Millions) that we don't have anything to worry about just because the Liberals with their Junk Science ( and people like Al Gore!)are trying to scare us into quit using fossil fuel and into cleaning up our enviroment before its too late!

"What, me worry? " Alfred E. Nueman,MAD Magazine


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 27, 2014)

George, whether it is naturally occurring or not, is it not wise to respond to it at least in the sense of making the temperature more livable and coping with rising sea levels?


----------



## neroden (Sep 28, 2014)

George Harris said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > I realize you're a denier, but global warming is already happening, and it's already causing problems, right now. Mean sea level is already up. We need to start mitigations for many of the already-happening effects of global warming immediately.
> ...


Because I'm not here as an alternative to using "Google". You're a competent man, you can find the papers yourself; there are lots of them, they're easy to find.

You could read realclimate.org. There's years of archived links to papers there. There are a few other websites I could point you to, but that's one of the more comprehensive. The Royal Society (UK) also has a good collection of freely available papers on the subject.

Yes, I've read a bunch of the papers myself.

For goodness sake, if you want the evidence on mean sea level rise, Google "mean sea level rise".

The *second result*:

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

The *third result*:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

Again, George, I am not here as an alternative to Google. When I say "mean sea level is rising", with no links, it is because it is *trivial* for you to verify this for yourself and get more detail.


----------



## jis (Sep 28, 2014)

However, if one is suffering from the _Flat Earth Society Syndrome_ then all this advice may be futile.  Not suggesting that George is suffering as such, but just making a general observation.

"If the science and data is so solid regarding the earth not being flat, why not trot it out instead of reducing yourself to name calling?" :excl: :hi:


----------



## George Harris (Sep 28, 2014)

The earth isn't flat? I am shocked, shocked!!!   

It is more that I am skeptical about how much we can do to stop/slow/reverse it and how far it will go. Also, has there been any serious look at natural constraints and limitations? Projections of statistical trends need to be taken with caution, particularly when potentially limiting factors are not considered.


----------



## Metra Electric Guest (Oct 8, 2014)

Interestingly, I believe that the London underground also has issues with overheating in their tunnels and stations (the deep level tubes primarily) and their trains don't have air conditioning which needs to dump excess heat into the tunnels.


----------



## neroden (Oct 10, 2014)

George Harris said:


> The earth isn't flat? I am shocked, shocked!!!
> 
> It is more that I am skeptical about how much we can do to stop/slow/reverse it and how far it will go. Also, has there been any serious look at natural constraints and limitations?


Yes. Study the geology literature. There are two quasi-stable states: hothouse earth and icehouse earth.
Yes, there's an unknown set of negative feedbacks (probably involving massive algae blooms) which stop global warming once earth reaches the "hothouse earth" state. Giant ferns and dinosaurs find hothouse earth mighty comfy. Last time there was a "hothouse earth", there were jungles and crocodile-like creatures at the South Pole. Life will go on.

It kind of sucks for humans. *All of human history has been in icehouse earth*. All of our major food crops are icehouse-earth crops and most of them will be pretty difficult to grow in hothouse earth.

I haven't even started discussing ocean acidification. The last time we had a huge CO2-induced ocean acidification event of this magnitude, it was the P-Tr extinction and killed 90% of all species in the ocean. So much for our ocean food chain.

The long climate record shows that the climate sits in one state or the other for millions of years. When destabilized enough, it will usually shift to the other state, and then sit there for millions of years.

We are pretty close to destabilizing the climate enough to kick it out of the quasi-stable "icehouse earth" state, and we may already have done so. There are positive feedback loops (such as methane clathrate releases) which mean that it's a hell of a lot of work to push it back into icehouse earth once it gets too warm. We can probably still do it, but we should start doing it now. Because if we do go all the way to hothouse earth, we are pretty much dead as a species. So it doesn't really matter how likely it is that we'll be able to fix it -- it's try to fix it, or give up and let humans die off.

Do your damn research, George. You're an engineer, you should understand the concept of two quasi-stable states, and being able to kick a material from one to the other by forcing it hard enough.

(For those who are curious about why it doesn't get hotter than hothouse earth: If global warming runs unchecked, you get Venus. We know historically that this doesn't happen on Earth. The main difference between Earth and Venus is, basically, that we have life. We know that photosynthetic life sucked the CO2 and methane out of the atmosphere back during the Pre-Cambrian. Therefore it's almost certain that some form of photosynthetic life -- plant growth -- is what prevents the earth from heating beyond 'hothouse earth'.)


----------



## chakk (Oct 10, 2014)

jis said:


> As far as I can see the facts are pretty much solid on sea level rise. The projections are for 4 to 6 inches by the end of the century. The CO2 concentration numbers are going up. It is a reasonable assumption that reduction in rate of CO2 production wherever it is getting produced by whatever will reduce the rate of growth of CO2 concentration. So human beings can play a part in that, irrespective of whether they are or are not responsible for the current state.
> 
> In the face of this, those that insist that nothing needs to be done are playing some kind of a game possibly with themselves.
> 
> ...


The key phrase in this statement is that reducing production of CO2 emissions will reduce the RATE OF GROWTH of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. NOTHING that has been proposed to date or is realistically being considered as feasible will reduce the GROWTH of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Modeling work that I have seen -- some of which my former employer financially sponsored and I managed before I retired 12 years ago -- indicates that reducing global annual emissions to the rate that existed in 1927 will be required to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration at 550 parts per million (twice the pre-Industrial level, with today's concentration being about 400 ppm on an annual average). 1927 emissions were about one-tenth of what they are today, globally. Achieving that would require all countries currently emitting more than 1% of the global total -- there's about 20 of those -- would have to reduce their annual emissions to zero, and all of the other countries would have to hold their emissions constant at current annual levels. To keep atmospheric concentrations at today's levels, those little countries would have to, in addition the 20 "zero emitters", reduce their emissions by about half of what they currently are.


----------



## jis (Oct 10, 2014)

So the conclusion is we should donothing? I guess at some level that might make sense. 

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## chakk (Oct 10, 2014)

jis said:


> So the conclusion is we should donothing? I guess at some level that might make sense.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


Who said anything about doing nothing? I am simply saying that one should not be surprised if modest efforts to reduce emissions do not produce detectable changes in either climate or the rate at which greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere.

But it also appears that much more effort needs to be made in preparing for what may well be inevitable changes in climate. And society should spend some significant efforts on identifying where those changes would produce really bad outcomes, and take substantial steps to attempt to mitigate those bad outcomes before they happen.

But to even suggest that ALL changes are preventable ("if only we all would just reduce our net emissions to zero") is, in my opinion, both naive and dangerous, and could well violate a few of the laws of thermodynamics. If that were the true plan of attack, then we might as well go back to burning all suspected witches and warlocks at the stake to save Mankind from the Evils of Satan.

In the meantime, I will continue to ride Amtrak when I can as an alternative to driving myself alone across country in my auto or flying in a half-empty jet plane. I do draw the line at riding on a bus for more than 4 hours at a stretch.


----------

