Science and steely nerves spared Houston from a nightmare hurricane evacuation
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
I'm sure an exacerbating factor was 250k extra Katrina-evacuees[1] from New Orleans who had just arrived in Houston a few weeks before (I was one of those people), who had all just seen the TV coverage of people stuck on roofs after Katrina and heard all the victim-blaming that said it was their fault for staying. Previously I wouldn't have evacuated for a storm like Rita, but after living through Katrina a few weeks prior, I thought I'd better at least try to get out of town.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/25/new-orleans-...
Such an interesting contrast to this frontpage post yesterday:
"The highways themselves were specifically intended to facilitate the reasonable objective of Houstonians not to get annihilated by a nuclear blast...[In] case of atomic attack on our key cities, the road net must permit quick evacuation of target areas"
(Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24331698)
So one might ask, if all these highways don't even permit quick transit, what the heck are they doing?
FWIIW underutilized modern highways are amazingly efficient and pleasant to drive on. As far as I can tell they're limited to recent construction in Europe (Spain for example; it appears to have a 2005 era German highway system designed for 2-3x their population).
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23014/houston/population
LOL, so much bullshit propagated about a city with 9M residents you can actually visit or research.
The beltway didn’t open until the late 80’s. I-10 was widened twice since then, and the 99 “Grand Parkway” loop is ongoing.
The idea was that sprawled freeway-based cities such as Los Angeles were already sufficiently distributed such that risks of nuclear attack were minimised. Effectively they were "pre-evacuated".
Who said that Houston's highways don't permit quick transit? They do. They're just not equipped to easily facilitate a once-in-a-generation exodus of 8 million people all in one day.
No city is. Evacuations take planning, discipline and enforcement.
Identifying those most at risk, finding bottlenecks, rationing throughput, deploying support to those at the end of the line and enforcing rules (as well as messaging such enforcement) are key.
For a hurricane hitting Houston, this would start with regularly distributing evacuation maps to residents of low-lying areas. When a hurricane is to hit, the most at-risk neighbourhoods are ranked. Evacuation capacity is measured and schedules set (e.g. X neighbourhood to evacuation before Noon on Monday, Y neighbourhood after Noon). If the smallest easily-communicated neighbourhood would still overcome evacuation routes, ration by e.g. last number or letter of license plates. If the storm is likely to hit before the last group gets going, pre-position resources (e.g. sand bags, generators and fresh water) there. Since the high-risk were evacuated first, these areas should be both less-intensely and later impacted. Finally, police entry points to stop rule breakers. Police the routes themselves, and don’t be shy about arresting and shaming people who panicked or thought they were better than everyone else.
The Southwest cattle car style works better than anything else I've seen. Sure, it sucks to be one of the last boarders and be sentenced to a middle seat in the back, but that's something that can be fixed if you're better organized and more punctual next time you fly.
When you see the people checking seemingly all their worldly possessions, it's mostly families.
I don't doubt there's some effect at the margins but people mostly just prefer to carry-on if they can.
I partly blame roll-a-boards. They take up more space and are less flexible than soft luggage.
I also think that in the "old" days, carry-on garment bags notwithstanding, business travelers were far more inclined to check because they needed a lot more clothing to be properly dressed. I used to check luggage when I traveled on business. I haven't done so, barring unusual circumstances (gear for personal travel or commercial materials), in well over a decade.
Plane boarding is kinda fascinating.
The most organized boarding experiences I've had in the West have been in the UK, interestingly enough. It seems the British are innately aware of how to queue correctly and in an orderly fashion. Japan and Singapore were also incredibly orderly.
I've been to a lot of places around the world, and I'd say the US is on the upper side of the middle of the pack in boarding efficiency and order, and it's better than boarding the plane in some European countries even. Considering the US market alone accounts for a significant chunk of all air travel globally, efficient boarding isn't exactly something people ignored. There's actually a lot of research that's gone into it.
I'd say the US is capable of doing things organized with large groups of people, but only if there is a social standard set for that situation and environment. Right now we have no such standard for an evacuation situation.
Of course then Hurricane Harvey came through and illustrated the questionable unbounded development in a swamp, but not for very long.
I like Houston. It's a more cultured and vibrant city than its usually given credit, but it's already living on borrowed time. It's not going to take a whole lot of sea level rise to start inundating the east side and down towards Galveston, and it feels like it won't be long before flood insurance abandons the eastern half of Harris county back to its swampy past.
Yeah, I wouldn't have foreseen that effect either, but to the authorities specifically tasked with planning for that eventuality, it should have been obvious.
If, that is, there actually is such an authority?
FEMA is supposed to be the national authority, but has a ... marginal track record a its often headed by political appointees with minimal experience who can coast along just fine for years because nothing major happens -- five near-miss hurricanes mean getting some extra food and water down while the linemen put the power lines back, and it's all easy. Then Katrina or Harvey happens and you find out really quick who has any idea which way is up.
The complete impracticality of a large scale evacuation probably precludes any real effort finding its footing.
CalFire out in CA is probably one of the better organizations you could look to worldwide in terms of trying to get people out of harms way, it still seems to be mostly on individual communities to figure out how they're going to evacuate once the word comes down. There were some awful stories out of the Camp Fire of people caught by the fire as they were stuck on the limited roads out.
And most of those communities are small. I don't think it's possible to evacaute, say, the Bay Area in under a month if you had to do it. Too many people all on the same roads, and while the airports might be able to conceivably move a few hundred thousand passengers a day, you'd still have the problem of getting people TO the airports and coordinating fuel and crew and all that.
There probably is a way to get some kind of realistic planning capability in FEMA and the NRCC, but given the near-total failure of the US Congress in the last two decades the likelihood of a major reorganization that put enough real experts in long term positions with goals that weren't tied to immediate events seems like it's about zero.
This turned into a bit of rambling digression, but at least from an observer in a vaguely related field of critical infrastructure, it really feels like there has been a serious lack of meaningful leadership outside of the old DOD/NORAD planning for nuclear wars (for which rapid evacuations of populations were basically out of the question from the beginning).
Okay I got carried away a bit there. Just goes to show you though, you decide on the spin you want to put on it in advance, and the headlines all but write themselves.
However, I also found myself thinking, if there was really a 25% chance of a hurricane strike, was it really the right thing to not evacuate? Well, given that Houston is probably not able to evacuate anyway, I suppose it was.
Throwing numbers out: If you expect 1 death per 1,000 residents with a Cat 4 strike, and the city is 1,000,000 people, you'd get 1,000 deaths. If there is a 25% chance of a strike, then you expect 250 deaths. I know that math is a bit funky, but that's what seems to be done. You compare that to the added deaths due to an evacuation event, and then whatever the math says, you should then do.
I agree, it seems strange. But I'm at a loss as to how else you should calculate things.
I am very curious how detrimental 5G rollout will be to this accuracy.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/forecasters-fear-5g-...
Hurricanes are more frequent, and there’s a lot of drama and dread before their arrival. Earthquakes on the other hand are infrequent, and while they may strike unexpectedly, it’s usually “one-and-done” (plus aftershocks).
In both cases it is prudent to be ready (“prepped” as the kids are wont to say):
* https://www.getprepared.gc.ca
Does anyone have any experience with both? Are there "pros and cons"?
I distinctly remember as a third grader in Radcliff, Kentucky doing several science and writing assignments related to earthquakes in the United States because there was all this news and speculation about New Madrid.
It's probably just the natural attentuation towards chaos in every American boy, but there was a distinct flavor of "wouldn't it be cool if ...?" to it all.
Needless to say, it was an extemely disapponting summer that followed.
Also, most people don't want to live in daylight bunkers to mitigate a risk.
And when they do occur, the area they effect is very small.
You also don't get days of build-up like a hurricane, it's only around 10-15 minutes to go from "a storm that might make tornados (like many are)" to "one is likely to appear at X" to "hopefully you're already sheltered, it's here". Hunkering down has to be done rapidly, which is stressful and memorable, even if nothing happens to you.
In no particular order:
1. Expense
2. Flooding
3. Radon
4. No one aspires to be a basement dweller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811–1812_New_Madrid_earthquak...
"The 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes were a series of intense intraplate earthquakes beginning with an initial earthquake of moment magnitude 7.2–8.2 on December 16, 1811, followed by a moment magnitude 7.4 aftershock on the same day. Two additional earthquakes of similar magnitude followed in January and February 1812. They remain the most powerful earthquakes to hit the contiguous United States east of the Rocky Mountains in recorded history."
I live by the Great Lakes: we don’t have earthquakes or hurricanes or tornadoes.
Plus I don't have to worry about an aquifer running dry.
Since tornadoes are so localized, recovery happens quicker. Additionally, if your area was struck by a tornado, nearby areas likely weren't, which can provide you a place to buy supplies.
I'd rate them from worst to less worse as: * earthquake * hurricane * tornado
The warning a hurricane gives is invaluable. You can evacuate, you can gather up important documents, you can get a refill on any medications you take. An earthquake gives no warning. Even tornadoes give a lot of warning when compared with earthquakes. Not to mention the tsunamis that earthquakes can cause.
And proximity to water.
Effects can be widespread (as with Indian Ocean), though that was a ~50 year event. Awareness, warning, elevation, and robust construction mitigate risk.
Earthquakes are generally infrequent (Japan and Chile are notable exceptions). Up to mag 7 or so, most structures can be designed survivable, though with poor construction, even mag 5 (100 times weaker) can cause widespread death & destruction (unreinforced masonry, stone, brick, etc.).
Having lived in the Bay Area since 1995, I've lost more respect for quakes than is probably healthy.
So basically the area of effect they have is similar in size and shape to a roadway.
Yes, you don't want a tornado landing on you. But two blocks over it'll be nothing more than a windy day.
Perhaps you should lose some more respect for tornadoes as well :)
The maximum downside of an earthquake is tremendous, but the odds of a catastrophic earthquake occurring in your lifetime are also tremendously low. Earthquakes also have the distinct advantage of not being impacted by climate change. (AFAIK?)
If you have a storm shelter the risk of death is extremely low. Even without a storm shelter all but the largest tornado's are survivable, even if your house takes a direct hit, by following the recommended precautions the weatherman will tell you about every time there is one.
IMO, it's well-known that the media will hype up the danger for pretty much a whole state worth of area / coastline. But the really serious damage from a hurricane is mostly limited to a medium size town worth of area. Trouble is, nobody knows exactly what area that will be. Hurricanes can be very large, but most of the area of them doesn't amount to much more than a pretty hard rainstorm. Possibly a few tree limbs down and some power outages. Not likely to be much major damage to houses or cars outside of that small high-intensity zone.
Yes it's best to buy and/or check your hurricane supplies around the beginning of the season and avoid the buying panic in the days before a predicted strike. Having supplies for a few days to a week without power, water, or ability to buy food from stores is prudent.
I think the big lesson of Rita was that you really, really shouldn't evacuate if you don't need to, because too many people in low-risk neighborhoods evacuating will take up all of the highway capacity, gas, and regional hotels for all of the people in flood zones that really do need to evacuate. Like seriously, don't evacuate unless being in an out-of-gas car stuck on a highway somewhere is definitely better than being at home. This was put in place for hurricane Ike, to mostly good results.
I was poking fun at people who complain about the "race to the bottom"