Why don't the numbers add up?

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay, perhaps this is only a rhetorical question; but I tend to think too logically betimes; and something about the damage estimates just doesn't seem to be "adding up" in my estimation. Now here's why. First and foremost, this is about money/damage estimates, and decidedly NOT intended to compare storms!

*Disclaimer: Before I even begin, and before those just waiting to jump in and suggest this is in any way designed to trivialize Andrew, let me set the record straight: I am acutely aware that Andrew was an official 5, and had greater windspeeds at landfall than Katrina, and have nothing but sympathy for ANY of those in the hardest hit areas as they were truly decimated beyond imagination. I am simply trying to put up a comparative set of data (which has NOTHING to do with suggesting how much worse this one was than that--please finish before commenting) that bears closer scrutiny as in real terms the figures, as suggested, don't seem to add up.

1.) The area of devastation from Andrew was estimated by FEMA to be approx. 1,000 square miles... Katrina 90,000 square miles...

2.) Katrina created four times the debris of Andrew

3.) Katrina destroyed ten times the number of homes of Andrew...

Now that said, here is what I'm getting at, and believe me this is patently NOT being offered to argue about "my storm was worse than yours" so those of you inclined to that sort of juvenility please refrain. It's about the MONEY involved in damages.

Andrew's original estimated cost, was from 20-24 Billion (sources DO vary), and adjusted for inflation the figures rise within a range from 40 to as much as 50 Billion in 2006 USD. This still seems to put Andrew's damage in 2006 USD as nearly 2/3 that of Katrina's. (and some sources make it closer than that.)

Now that said, let me remind any who might have read a thread earlier wherein someone argued that the "area struck" isn't that much of a factor because wood, and building materials cost about the same everywhere. My disagreement with this is based on the fact that 1.) the homes involved in Florida are MUCH more expensive, and that the cost of building there is MUCH more expensive than in the areas stricken by Katrina. In other words... the $$ damage estimates, while accurate enough in terms of spent dollars and cents, because of the differential in land values and expense variations are NOT adequate indicators of true damage. When a storm destroys 90,000 square miles, as opposed to just over 1,000, and over 300,000 homes, as opposed to 30,000, and the cost differential in terms of current USD is that one is still pretty much 2/3 the same cost as the other... something about those numbers just doesn't seem to add up. I know the land values and cost of homes is different; but by this standard, they'd have to be over 10X as expensive. I dunno, maybe they are.

I have my own opinions on why, and with all that stated, and hopefully, the more mature individuals who can look at it strictly for what it was intended, and that is a statistical comparison and NOTHING MORE, I'd just like to hear if any of you have opinions on this matter.

A2K

[Dionne]

A2K.....the damage estimates are not "adding up" because alot of homes have had absolutely nothing done to them.......therefore there is nothing to add. You know as well as anyone else.....alot of homes have simply been searched (as evidence by the X's) and abandoned....... awaiting demolition. And then there are the homes and businesses that no longer exist.....nothing but a slab or a few pilings.

All things considered, I suspect it would be safe to say the damage losses are somewhere in the 11 to 12 digit range. And thats a big pile of money.

There is also the possibility that nobody is counting.......

[MGC]

Once it is all tallied up, Katrina will surpass the all the hurricanes in the top ten combined. When was the last time a hurricane destroyed the majority of a major American city? Sure, Andrew was a horrible hurricane. But, its destruction swath was tiny compared to Katrina. Last I recall reading the Federal Govt has budgeted nearly 90 Billion to Katrina relief. Yes, Katrina is the disaster of a lifetime. Nothing comes close. I think the only way the damage gets surpassed will be with a great California earthquake nearl LA, Frisco or San Diego.....MGC

[Audrey2Katrina]

The rules for flooding changed when Hurricane Floyd hit Eastern North Carolina. Major damage was a higher level on a house then it is now.

I understand that point; but in the light of the FAR greater damage to flooding that was well over 36", one would think that there would be a greater disparity than ever given most of Andrew's damage was wind damage.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

A2K.....the damage estimates are not "adding up" because alot of homes have had absolutely nothing done to them.......therefore there is nothing to add. You know as well as anyone else.....alot of homes have simply been searched (as evidence by the X's) and abandoned....... awaiting demolition. And then there are the homes and businesses that no longer exist.....nothing but a slab or a few pilings.

All things considered, I suspect it would be safe to say the damage losses are somewhere in the 11 to 12 digit range. And thats a big pile of money.

There is also the possibility that nobody is counting.......

Thoughts appreciated; but I believe that with minor adjustments, most of the money has been counted, which is why almost every place you listen to/read the damage that is cited, it's settled in at around $75-$90 Billion. Perhaps this will change, as this is the first time I've followed the economical impact of a storm in quite some time. I'm well familiar with all those homes with the big X on 'em, as my old homestead is one of 'em. But since these numbers are based on insurance claims, and in this particular case I think a LOT (if not well over half) won't have insurance to file, the resulting figure might be misleading.

On a sidebar, using the numbers cited above--which ARE provided from a US Governmental agency source (FEMA), that would place each house destroyed by Andrew at a value of $1,500,000; and each destroyed by Katrina at $250,000. I don't know the demographics of the area struck by Andrew, so perhaps it is this disparate, but it does seem quite a chasm.
And to those who might suggest that I don't know that the figures are based on a "doubling" of insurance claims--well, I do... the comparison still stands if you want to half it... $750,000 (and this was using the lower end--$45B of the "adjusted" figure) to $125,000. Doubtless this will go well beyond all this number crunching... statistics can be very misleading; but comments were appreciated.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Once it is all tallied up, Katrina will surpass the all the hurricanes in the top ten combined. When was the last time a hurricane destroyed the majority of a major American city? Sure, Andrew was a horrible hurricane. But, its destruction swath was tiny compared to Katrina. Last I recall reading the Federal Govt has budgeted nearly 90 Billion to Katrina relief. Yes, Katrina is the disaster of a lifetime. Nothing comes close. I think the only way the damage gets surpassed will be with a great California earthquake nearl LA, Frisco or San Diego.....MGC

You may be correct in the first part of your post; but I do believe there are a great many possible scenarios that could potentially surpass the damage Katrina did--cataclysmic as that would be. A fast moving major slamming into NYC would be one... and I really do think that Florida properties, and hence structural replacement on said properties is much more expensive (See my first post on why I feel this as potentially misleading)... that a major direct hit into the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale area could also wind up doing more if for no better reason than that the values of structures there simply will be almost prohibitively costlier than similar structures here in the La/Miss area.

A2K

[MGC]

A2K, wind event don't do as much damage as water/wind events. A major striking S. Fla will mostly be a wind event, thus not as much damage. Most of the really bad wind hurricanes have small swaths of Cat-3-4-5 winds. Katrina was a freak of nature. Had Katrina had a normal surge for a Cat-3 the damage would been way less. Yes, it is possible but I think a earthquake will top Katrina. A major in NYC is such a long shot that I discount it. The reason house prices are so much more in South Fla is because of land costs. I've been to Home Depot in Ft Lauerdale last year and the cost of building materials are about the same with labor cost being higher there......MGC

[Audrey2Katrina]

I've been to Home Depot in Ft Lauerdale last year and the cost of building materials are about the same with labor cost being higher there......MGC

This was the contention to which I referred in the other thread. And I know that the water tends to do more damage (especially when you're dealing with a 30+ foot surge) than most wind damage--which is not the issue. It's the disparity in damage estimates. What I was implying is not so much a disparity in costs of building materials (although there probably is some of that)... but it must be in the overall value of the structures themselves, as they simply do not add up that 30,000 homes could be as much as 70% the value of over 300,000 to half a million homes.... just seems like a very wide disparity there.

A2K

[stormcrow]

The most quoated figures are from the Inurance Bureau. Actual damage is often double (including uninsured losses). Andrew destroyed about 100,000 houses, mostly all wind claims. But the damages include another 900,000 or so dwellings that were damaged. Katrina destroys (I think) about 180,000 houses in NOLA, but many of these had no flood insurance. Flood figures are often not included in the Inurance figures. Also Katrina damaged far more of the non insured infastructure then Andrew did. It can be difficult to compare numbers, but insured losses in katrina were higher then the 20 million in Andrew, without flood.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Andrew destroyed about 100,000 houses,

Actually this is a "damaged" figure... the official government figures I cited above put it at 30,000... the "damaged" figures for Katrina are astronomically higher.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

The most quoated figures are from the Inurance Bureau. Actual damage is often double (including uninsured losses).

I addressed this earlier, and the damages of the "uncovered" is one of the reasons for the "doubling" of the insured claims... I've checked this with the III myself. This does nothing to detract from what I suggested when in some of the poorer areas you very well could have well over half that are uncovered. And a mere doubling also doesn't take in the VAST amounts insurance companies wriggle out of paying, and that's been so much down here there are lawsuits and investigations all over the place. I still say that an adjusted for inflation figure for Andrew putting it within a third of being as costly as Katrina is a highly skewed and misleading picture of damages done--but maybe that's just me.

A2K