Sandy outages shorter than from other big storms

Living through another night of possibly freezing temperatures, Michael Pineda, fifteen months old, stands bundled up near a battery-operated lantern in his home without power or heat in the Rockaway Park neighborhood in the Queens borough of New York, Thursday, Nov. 8, 2012, in the wake of Superstorm Sandy. / AP Photo/Craig Ruttle

NEW YORK As the number of nights without power stretched on for thousands left in the dark after Superstorm Sandy, patience understandably turned to anger and outrage.

But an Associated Press analysis of outage times from other big hurricanes and tropical storms suggests that, on the whole, the response to Sandy by utility companies, especially in hardest-hit New York and New Jersey, was typical — or even a little faster than elsewhere after other huge storms.

Energy Department records show that New York utilities restored power to at least 95 percent of customers 13 days after the peak number of outages was reported.

New Jersey reached that same level in 11 days and West Virginia in 10 days.

Power restorations above 95 percent took longer for Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Ike.

• N.J. mayor sorry he used city generator for ice cream shop
• Long Island utility COO resigns amid outrage
• Long Islanders: Now two weeks of power woes
• Veterans compare Sandy's damage to "war zone"
• Power outages on L.I. spur lawsuits, punches in Sandy's wake

[johnlockesghost]

"...an Associated Press analysis of outage times from other big hurricanes and tropical storms suggests that, on the whole, the response to Sandy by utility companies, especially in hardest-hit New York and New Jersey, was typical — or even a little faster than elsewhere after other huge storms."--=The difference is that the people in NY and NJ have mastered the art of complaining.

[lloydbest1]

To Yankee_43:
It's a good idea to vet sources but don't assume AP's analysis is B.S. simply because it presents data you don't agree with. Check other sources. I'm sure the AP wasn't the only one tracking this.

To inketolstoy:
I used to live in New York and am VERY familiar with the lay of the land, the interaction of tides with the landscape and the estuary that is the lower Hudson River. I may not be able to find my way around NYC without a street plan anymore but I do know the geography and geology.....
I also have relatives who are insurance adjusters who have worked the New York Metroplex since the 31st and almost the last person they all claim Sandy was bigger than Katrina. Way bigger.
Most of the flooding in the Big Easy resulted from a number of levee breaks. Katrina's storm surge didn't overtop more than one or two. Sandy's storm surge ran 13 feet over high "spring" tide and pushed the Atlantic as far as four miles inland in New Jersey and Long Island. I have pictures from one of my adjuster buddies that shows a 25 or so foot boat AND the dock it was attached to sitting on some homeowner's front lawn. This guy lived in a quiet residential area about three and a half miles from the water. And the b---h also overtopped or busted her share of levees, too.
Katrina covered a little over 180000 square miles at her greatest extent. That's a big hurricane, but Sandy lambasted as much as a million square miles at once. She was big on many levels.....
Death tolls aren't anywhere nearly as high as Katrina and it is highly unlikely there will be many more than the 115 or so they have pulled out of the rubble so far. Apart from that, though, every other superlative Katrina presented to a shocked world, Sandy "out performed" on every one of them. Even the maximum wind speeds were higher and the amount of time any particular region spent under tropical storm force winds or worse was longer. And her 27.75 core pressure just before landfall, was lower than any storm that has made landfall on America's or Canada's Atlantic coast since a storm blew through Charleston S.C. in the late eighteenth century.
There is still no firm number on dollar loss but I'll bet when all the shouting is done this one will beat the $105B that Katrina cost. Possibly by a substantial margin. I don't believe Sandy will match Japan's $200B pratfall a year ago March but it'll come close.
Katrina was a highly vicious storm and it killed more American's in one fell swoop than any natural catastrophe since the San Francisco Quake - and I thoroughly agree with your last sentence - but had your "angry cat" struck in 1938, the year of the great New England Hurricane, I would lay my mortgage on the line that thousands, perhaps as many as 10 of them, would have perished.
I mention this not as a rebuttal but to underscore how unusual this monster was. It is unlikely we'll see another one like this - even given our accelerating global warm-up - in my lifetime or that of my children. At least I hope not.

[inketolstoy]

Of course this wasn't as bad a Katrina. Sandy was a cat. 1 hurricane, Katrina a cat. 5 hurricane. While all hurricanes are powerful, comparing the two is like comparing the damage done by an angry cat with that of an angry tiger. The lesson from this is that when a hurricane is coming, you need to evacuate.

[nygurl1]

You are a dork who does not know what he is talking about!

It STARTED as a hurricane but grew tremendously after meeting a cold front!
It covered a dozen states!
And need we mention that most of that area wasn't even used to hurricanes?
I suggest you go into archives or Google and get the facts before you spout any more nonsense.
You also need to apologise for being dum!

[inketolstoy]

Your skilled rhetorical abilities and use of logic are underwhelming. CBS welcomes you to the fold. I bet you voted for Obama, didn't you?