Can Roads Double as Shelters During Evacuations?

  • Thread starter anorlunda
  • Start date
  • Featured
In summary: If one accepts the premise that there is no safe way to evacuate 10 million people, then one must also accept that people should not live in the Caribbean in the first place.
  • #1
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
11,308
8,730
The Miami Herald posted this story. Built for bottleneck: Is Florida growing too fast to evacuate ...

The article made a good point that I hadn't considered. A good evacuation plan does not require 10 million people to drive 600-1000 miles away. It means driving 10-20 miles inland to a shelter. In south Florida, 10-20 miles inland puts you in the Everglades or Big Cypress Swamp. Those are really bad places to build 10000 shelter buildings, holding 1000 people each.

But then I thought of I75. It is an elevated roadway that crosses south Florida east-west. Suppose we told people to drive onto I75 and park on the highway. Just that one highway could park 250000 passenger cars (200 miles * 6 lanes * 5280 / 25 feet per car). Alligator Alley and the Florida Turnpike Could also be used.

Perhaps Quonset-hut-like shelters could deploy to shelter the parked cars and to provide services. Maybe not. I'm short on details other than the following two thoughts.
  1. A good plan would make use of our highways and private vehicles as resources to help provide the shelter, rather than being part of the problems to overcome.
  2. The engineering challenges to make such a plan practical and affordable would be enormous. I suspect that many of my fellow engineers would relish being assigned to the project to think such a plan through, complete the design, then implement it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
This would basically mean to build a 100 mile long tunnel with many junctions for its regular use, which must be wind shielded somehow. With it we would buy the severe danger of fires in the tunnel, which means separated escape tunnels would be needed and a complicated system of smoke handling. Again additional openings would follow, which are especially vulnerable to hurricanes: smoke out means hurricane in. And then there is the math. Let us assume four lanes on 150 km length with 5 m long cars, four persons in each car. That is roughly half a million people, and only if all behave according to the plans. I suspect that the chaos in case of an evacuation will be even higher than the one the tunnel is expected to avoid. And we would need a system to get rid of all the exhausts, which again results in additional openings. And then there is still the problem with the rising sea levels ...
 
  • #3
fresh_42 said:
This would basically mean to build a 100 mile long tunnel with many junctions for its regular use, which must be wind shielded somehow. With it we would buy the severe danger of fires in the tunnel, which means separated escape tunnels would be needed and a complicated system of smoke handling. Again additional openings would follow, which are especially vulnerable to hurricanes: smoke out means hurricane in. And then there is the math. Let us assume four lanes on 150 km length with 5 m long cars, four persons in each car. That is roughly half a million people, and only if all behave according to the plans. I suspect that the chaos in case of an evacuation will be even higher than the one the tunnel is expected to avoid. And we would need a system to get rid of all the exhausts, which again results in additional openings. And then there is still the problem with the rising sea levels ...
That may all be true. Engineering obstacles to overcome. But is more plausible to move 10 million people 600 miles in 24 hours? (Actually, the herald article said 21 million people, meaning evacuation of the entire state.)

The worst case scenario is the conclusion that there is no safe way to evacuate, and we must not allow people to live there in the first place.
 
  • #4
An alternative would be buildings that can withstand hurricanes. I assume it would still be cheaper than the damage of say ten events. Of course there is still the sinkhole problem and I don't know how heavier buildings affect this problem. Another difficulty with the tunnel solution is eventually the pressure differences in a hurricane which directly affect partially closed buildings.
 
  • Like
Likes scottdave and russ_watters
  • #5
I think it is good to have brainstorming ideas such as this, in hope that a workable idea will arise.
 
  • #6
anorlunda said:
we must not allow people to live there in the first place.
So nobody should live in the Caribbean? Countries should be completely erased, because no one should be allowed to live there?

Don't you think this is an overreaction? There are way worst catastrophes happening in other (less developed) parts of the world, yet no one say such statements. These kind of things have happened for as long as humanity has existed and people adapt and live with it. Welcome to planet Earth.

If one doesn't want to live there, fine. If one wants to share his/her concerns with others, fine. If one doesn't want to help them, fine by me as well. But if one wants to force someone to do something because he/she wants to calm his/her fears, or doesn't want to help if something goes wrong and doesn't want to feel the guilt that may come with it, I think nobody has that right.
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G
  • #7
jack action said:
So nobody should live in the Caribbean? Countries should be completely erased, because no one should be allowed to live there?

Don't you think this is an overreaction? There are way worst catastrophes happening in other (less developed) parts of the world, yet no one say such statements.
For perspective, Puerto Rico has a population of 3.4 million and last I heard a death toll of 10 from Maria. This pales in comparison to Katrina's death toll of 1800.

We can build houses to withstand hurricanes. If they do it in in a charitably described "developing" territory, it isn't that hard. It just goes back to some of the same issues from the blackouts thread; getting people to care enough to put it into the building codes(see also: tornado alley). In Puerto Rico, that's not an issue: you know your home's construction will be tested, so you construct it accordingly.

As you describe, evacuations themselves can be risky.

So I agree; evacuations should be a laaaast resort.
 
  • #8
Something else regarding hurricane evacuations and this one specifically: max winds occur over a small region and hurricanes typically rapidly lose strength after making landfall. This storm evac was complicated by the fact that the storm ran parallel to the state and initially looked like it would run up through the middle, but that should not call for evacuating the whole state (we don't know where it will hit so evacuate everyone). There is no hurricane scenario that would call for evacuating the whole state.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
fresh_42 said:
An alternative would be buildings that can withstand hurricanes.
russ_watters said:
We can build houses to withstand hurricanes.

It's wrong to take a too narrow view of natural disasters. It is not just buildings and wind damage. For example, if too many people remain in flooded areas, dysentery, cholera, and typhoid can be the biggest killers in the long term. Public officials are forced to consider things like that when making evacuation decisions.

It is also hard to make a general rule about the evacuation area. The flooding from Hurricane Harvey extended 150 miles (250 km) from the sea. Hurricane Irene's severe impacts extended more than 300 miles (500 km) from the sea.

jack action said:
So nobody should live in the Caribbean? Countries should be completely erased, because no one should be allowed to live there?

Don't you think this is an overreaction?

This if off topic. Clearly you think it's an overreaction. I think it's an overreaction. But I'm not so sure that society does. Society can use the same arguments about health care costs to discourage smokers, or to discourage people from living in risky areas. I consider that a result of the pressure of too much population. As population density increases, we are forced to entangle everyone's private business and the public's business. MYOB (Mind your own business) goes out the window. IMO, that is why the ACA is so offensive to many people; they don't want public involvement in their health, but the majority's will forces itself upon everyone.

But please, lets' not let this thread get too far off topic. The subject is how to best accomplish evacuations, not whether to evacuate or whether to choose to live near the sea.

Even if we think public officials should never order evacuations, we can still work to make evacuations as effective and affordable as possible when they are ordered. I think I can state the two principles of a good plan more clearly.
  1. Keep evacuation distances as short as possible.
  2. Make use of whatever you already have as a resource when possible.
A good evacuation engineering team would demand requirements as step 1. Must we plan to evacuate 1 mile from the coast? or 5? or 20 miles (30 km)? or more? or in Europe, think of emergency evacuation of Italy or Greece? How far away, must the people move? 5km? or 1500 km? For how long? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? How much time do we have to accomplish the evacuation? Those are basic requirement specifications.
 
  • #10
anorlunda said:
Must we plan to evacuate 1 mile from the coast? or 5? or 20 miles (30 km)? or more? or in Europe, think of emergency evacuation of Italy or Greece? How far away, must the people move? 5km? or 1500 km? For how long? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? How much time do we have to accomplish the evacuation?
You are kind of answering your questions by suggesting too many options: For what type of disaster should we be prepared for? It becomes a probability problem. So, no matter for what level of disaster you will be prepared for, there is always a chance that one bigger will happen.

We lived something like that in 98 around here with an ice storm. One of the big problem was that in the area that was hit hard (the «black triangle»), there was a main electrical line that was destroyed, putting the most populous part of the province into darkness. They quickly add another one after the storm, such that «it would never happen again».

How can anyone prepare for that? IIRC, it is considered an event that happens once every 100 years. Nobody knows where it will hit exactly. When do «prevention» becomes «waste of money»?

anorlunda said:
It is not just buildings and wind damage. For example, if too many people remain in flooded areas, dysentery, cholera, and typhoid can be the biggest killers in the long term. Public officials are forced to consider things like that when making evacuation decisions.
Once an area is flooded, it is relatively «easy» to evacuate only the people concerned, which is kind of the traditional scenario we are used to. So it really is just a «buildings and wind damage» problem.

What we are discussing here is evacuating an entire region - even an entire state - «just in case», because we don't know IF something will happen and WHERE it will happen.

If I may add something positive for the «evacuation plan» concept is the addition of small independent roads to let the emergency vehicles and supplies go in & out of the urban areas, such that it solves the problem mentioned in the article you linked:
Highways backed up for hours as people fled north. And state transit authorities were unwilling to change the direction of lanes because emergency vehicles and supplies needed to keep heading south toward the storm.
 
  • Like
Likes krater
  • #11
We gave all these issues careful consideration when we moved back to the south a few years ago. Our household basically decided that the only way we would locate south of I-10 was to evacuate 72-96 hours ahead of any possible hurricane strike on our location. It's not enough to beat the storm, we wanted to be well ahead of all the other evacuees. Even with a solid evacuation plan, some family members were not comfortable living further south than Gainesville, FL. My wife interviewed for a job there and there are plenty of routes out not only to safety, but to locations not flooded with other evacuees creating a need for massive governmental assistance.

I grew up in New Orleans which (in spite of limited population) can be an evacuation nightmare due to limitations on the evacuation routes.

We're in the 8th year of a 10 year fisheries study in SW LA. We intentionally scheduled it for sample collection each year just before hurricane season, because we wanted to ensure a continuous annual sampling without needing an asterisk or two for sampling interrupted by hurricanes. The fishing is so good down there that my brother just bought a beach house in SW LA and a second property where he plans to build a second home. He understands that such accommodations are temporary, with the only question of when (NOT IF) a hurricane will destroy the homes and possibly even the very land they are built on. It goes without saying that he has all the evacuation routes well rehearsed with multiple contingencies and back up plans. Fortunately, this area is sparsely populated.

Likewise, we always have our evacuation routes planned when we visit the Gulf coast during hurricane season. Our family ended up settling north of I-10, which (except for parts of New Orleans) greatly reduces the likelihood of needing to evacuate and also greatly increases the available routes relative to the number of people likely to be on them.

But for those who have actually been down here in the aftermath of a storm, a lot of the ideas above are just silly. It is so hot and humid down here in the summer, that sheltering in a motor vehicle for more than 24 hours is untenable. Being trapped on a bridge in a motor vehicle with hundreds of other evacuees is about the last place on Earth I want to be in the summer heat. Even sheltering in place in a residence for more than about a week requires careful planning and coordination if electricity and water and sewer services are interrupted. The shelter in place plans I recommend for friends and family includes 2-4 weeks of food and water, plans for known prescription medications for 4 weeks, plans to not have functioning toilets, and plans for possible dosages of anticipated medications for the most common disease outbreaks in these situations. We do not want to depend on government to solve a disaster caused by a hurricane. Hurricanes are foreseeable events. Steps of household planning are straightforward.
 
  • Like
Likes .Scott, Ophiolite and donpacino
  • #12
russ_watters said:
For perspective, Puerto Rico has a population of 3.4 million and last I heard a death toll of 10 from Maria. This pales in comparison to Katrina's death toll of 1800.

While this is correct, many more deaths are expected to result from the aftermath of the storm (which knocked out 80% of the territory's power lines), where some areas are expected to be without electricity for 6-8 months.

The storm has claimed at least 16 lives in Puerto Rico so far, according to the AP. But John Mutter, a Columbia University professor who specializes in natural disasters and studied the death toll from Hurricane Katrina, expects in the coming days it could reach into the hundreds.

“Being without power is huge,” he says. “Just how quickly they can get it back is still an unknown thing. But it’s extremely important they get it going to suppress the chances of illness following the storm.”
https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...tarian-disaster-electricty-fuel-flights-facts

The fact that an order of magnitude more deaths will come in the aftermath of the storm points to the huge flaw in the OP's plan of using highways as areas to shelter people during disasters. Parking hundreds of thousands of cars on main travel routes will impede emergency workers from rescuing those in need and slow efforts to repair critical infrastructure and deliver essential supplies in the aftermath of the storm.
 
  • #13
Evacuation might be wildly unpopular. Libertarians might hate that the governor has authority to order mandatory evacuation. Nevertheless, that's what we have. Acting constructively means doing our best to make evacuation plans that work rather than fail.

(I'm not remote from this problem. I have a friend who refused to evacuate from his boat in the Keys. His body was found in the rubble. It appears that he made it to shore, but then died before walking 4 meters away. Of 450 boats in the harbor in Marathon, only 52 survived. Yet 100% of the boats that evacuated to the mangrove forest 1 km away survived. Likewise 100% of those who evacuated to the mangroves in the Everglades survived. Boat-based strategies differ from land-based strategies, but those survivors moved a minimal distance away and they made use of resources they already had.)

Ygggdrasil said:
Parking hundreds of thousands of cars on main travel routes will impede emergency workers from rescuing those in need and slow efforts to repair critical infrastructure and deliver essential supplies in the aftermath of the storm.

That's true. In fact, the Miami Herald article linked in the OP said that authorities refused to close southbound lanes to allow for emergency vehicles. That cut the evacuation capacity of highways in half. That is part of what triggered the article's premise that S. Florida's evacuation plans are inadequate.

Dr. Courtney said:
The shelter in place plans I recommend
When the governor orders mandatory evacuation, you must go. So you may not be allowed to use your shelter in place plans.

Personal vehicles offer imperfect shelter from wind and rain. They also provide AC as long as we keep them fueled. That is what I meant by using resources that you already have. The massive engineering challenges include providing food, water, fuel, and sanitation to evacuees. Even if they evacuate to buildings rather than cars, those services must be provided anyhow.

Also, don't neglect the devastation of The Everglades and Big Cyprus Swamp if we are forced to build 10000 shelter buildings and parking lots there or alternatively to build enough highway lanes (including rest stops and gas stations) to make long-distance evacuations practical.

Sadly, the aftermath problem is playing out right now in Puerto Rico and Caribbean Islands. They are not 100% directly comparable to South Florida, but surely painful lessons learned there should be applied to the mainland.
 
  • #14
When the governor orders mandatory evacuation, you must go. So you may not be allowed to use your shelter in place plans.
directly comparable to South Florida, but surely painful lessons learned there should be applied to the mainland.

If a residence is under a serious enough threat for a mandatory evac, most of my family are inclined to be out of dodge long before the order comes down. Waiting for the order is begging to be stuck in the traffic jam of poorly prepared evacuees.

"Shelter in place" arrangements are for near misses and lighter hits that do not warrant evacuation. Still, friends and family with generations of hurricane experience regard preparations for 2-4 weeks without reliable power, water, new food, fuel, or medical assistance as a minimum preparation for sheltering in place. Infrastructure and service disruptions can last a long time even in areas not under sufficient threat for mandatory evacuations.
 
  • #15
I may be missing something here, but how about developing buildings to be hurricane proof and put that in the building codes?
Then evacuation can consist of going to the nearest hurricane proof building if your own building is not hurricane proof yet.
As for the flooding, how about developing and building mechanisms that can handle the excess water?
This could be expensive, but whenever something is in place in a particular region, that region can becomes an evacuation point.
And over time, it can cover more of Florida.
As for the power lines that tend to go down, how about putting them under ground?
Am I missing something? Is there a reason not do to it like this?
 
  • Like
Likes jack action
  • #16
anorlunda said:
But then I thought of I75. It is an elevated roadway that crosses south Florida east-west. Suppose we told people to drive onto I75 and park on the highway. Just that one highway could park 250000 passenger cars (200 miles * 6 lanes * 5280 / 25 feet per car). Alligator Alley and the Florida Turnpike Could also be used.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. I would echo a concern brought up earlier that intentionally choking off a major artery is a recipe for a disaster in and of itself. People can survive in their vehicles for several hours, but before long they need to relieve themselves, drink, eat, and sleep, wash, etc. On top of that, there is an issue of coordination, and the fact that in an emergency other roads make be taken out, severely limiting access/escape. This just sounds like a nightmare scenario to me.

I like Serena said:
I may be missing something here, but how about developing buildings to be hurricane proof and put that in the building codes?
Then evacuation can consist of going to the nearest hurricane proof building if your own building is not hurricane proof yet.
As for the flooding, how about developing and building mechanisms that can handle the excess water?
This could be expensive, but whenever something is in place in a particular region, that region can becomes an evacuation point.
And over time, it can cover more of Florida.
As for the power lines that tend to go down, how about putting them under ground?
Am I missing something? Is there a reason not do to it like this?

I suspect a lot of this comes down to cost. A hurricane-proof house is more expensive than one that isn't. And despite the damage inflicted by the recent events, the relative probability of any given house being destroyed by a hurricane is probably still very small. So for the average homeowner or home builder, the added cost of "hurricane proofing" a house may not be worth the risk.

And remember, you can have a hurricane proof house, but you also need hurricane proof infrastructure too. Your fine house may not seem all the great with the water cut off, or no electricity, etc. Burying those cables costs money. In the next election, one guy will run on a platform that raises taxes to pay for the extra cost. How viable will that platform be if people aren't immediately worried about hurricanes during the election?
 
  • Like
Likes Ygggdrasil
  • #17
One of the things that always puzzles me is why people choose to move to a location which consistently experience hurricanes year upon year. Obviously people who are born and raised in those regions, such as those living in the Caribbean, have no choice but to live there (unless economic or other conditions force these to move), similar to people who live in countries like Japan (a nation that experiences earthquakes, live volcanoes, tsunamis, and typhoons). But I'm thinking more specifically of people who specifically move to areas like Florida from further north in the US.
 
  • Like
Likes Dr. Courtney
  • #18
I like Serena said:
As for the power lines that tend to go down, how about putting them under ground?

ever been to the Caribbean, the islands are rocks, burying power lines would nearly be impossible...
 
  • #19
StatGuy2000 said:
One of the things that always puzzles me is why people choose to move to a location which consistently experience hurricanes year upon year. Obviously people who are born and raised in those regions, such as those living in the Caribbean, have no choice but to live there (unless economic or other conditions force these to move), similar to people who live in countries like Japan (a nation that experiences earthquakes, live volcanoes, tsunamis, and typhoons). But I'm thinking more specifically of people who specifically move to areas like Florida from further north in the US.

Sometimes you're just trading one type of risk for another. For example, you could ask the same thing of people who knowingly risk the dangers of winter in northern areas (falling on ice - a major issue for elderly people, increased traffic accidents from freezing rain, heart attacks from shovelling snow, etc.). I don't know what the relative risks are, and I suspect the detailed evaluations of such things are not high on people's list of priorities when considering a move.

If one does choose to live in a location that is more prone to natural disasters, for the most part, the risk of death or massive property damage is still quite low compared to other risks. This map suggests that the relative risk of a natural disaster across the US varies by roughly a factor of 4. But it doesn't give any absolute probabilities. Maybe someone else can dig up some actual numbers, but I strongly suspect that for most people the absolute probabilities (or at least the perception of them) is low enough that it's noise. These aren't actual numbers, but my point is that the difference between 0.000001 and 0.000004 is probably not as important to most people as the fact that they get to live near a beach, or that they'll have a job.
 
  • #20
Choppy said:
I suspect a lot of this comes down to cost. A hurricane-proof house is more expensive than one that isn't. And despite the damage inflicted by the recent events, the relative probability of any given house being destroyed by a hurricane is probably still very small. So for the average homeowner or home builder, the added cost of "hurricane proofing" a house may not be worth the risk.

And remember, you can have a hurricane proof house, but you also need hurricane proof infrastructure too. Your fine house may not seem all the great with the water cut off, or no electricity, etc. Burying those cables costs money. In the next election, one guy will run on a platform that raises taxes to pay for the extra cost. How viable will that platform be if people aren't immediately worried about hurricanes during the election?
StatGuy2000 said:
One of the things that always puzzles me is why people choose to move to a location which consistently experience hurricanes year upon year. Obviously people who are born and raised in those regions, such as those living in the Caribbean, have no choice but to live there (unless economic or other conditions force these to move), similar to people who live in countries like Japan (a nation that experiences earthquakes, live volcanoes, tsunamis, and typhoons). But I'm thinking more specifically of people who specifically move to areas like Florida from further north in the US.
Suppose a new residential area was built with only houses that have the new label 'hurricane proof', endorsed by the government, and exempting them from evacuation.
With a mechanism in place to handle flooding, easing building requirements for the houses.
With underground power lines.
And with emergency power for the whole area.

I imagine that people that are currently deterred from moving to Florida would happily buy these houses.
Many people would want to have such a house that is deemed safe, and that they won't be chased from no matter what happens.
Prices might even soar due to high demand...
As for elections, suppose a candidate promotes and supports something like this... it seems to me that it would speak to the people.

Dr Transport said:
ever been to the Caribbean, the islands are rocks, burying power lines would nearly be impossible...
Every place would need a solution that fits the circumstances.
In cases like this a local emergency aggregate might be a better solution, perhaps together with an instruction (or power limit per house) to reduce power usage to a minimum.
Or we might just accept that power could be out for a while, which should be okay since it's usually not life threatening - just inconvenient.
 
  • #21
I like Serena said:
Or we might just accept that power could be out for a while, which should be okay since it's usually not life threatening - just inconvenient.

After Hurricanes Hugo and Marilyn, parts of St Thomas and St John were out of power for 6 months. That is what some of the people there are saying now after 2 hurricanes in 2 weeks.

As an aside, I feel for Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico, but I have not heard once on TV or radio for donations for the USVI, they are US citizens and deserve to get help from the Red Cross and other NGO's.
 
  • #22
The hurricane proof house is like the unsinkable ship.

I've looked upon the ruins of several of them.

Some hurricanes have the power to remove vast swaths of land itself, creating open water in its place. How can anyone expect to build a hurricane proof house?
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
  • #23
Choppy said:
People can survive in their vehicles for several hours, but before long they need to relieve themselves, drink, eat, and sleep, wash, etc.
You missed this from post #13
anorlunda said:
Personal vehicles offer imperfect shelter from wind and rain. They also provide AC as long as we keep them fueled. That is what I meant by using resources that you already have. The massive engineering challenges include providing food, water, fuel, and sanitation to evacuees. Even if they evacuate to buildings rather than cars, those services must be provided anyhow.

Re hurricane proofing and avoiding risky regions of the world: See this recent thread.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ant-housing-can-we-do-it.924924/#post-5841546

Underground power is not a good option. Numbers vary a lot, but a very approximate number for underground is 700% more expensive. We can afford that for the last few hundred meters down your street, but putting the entire grid underground is not very practical. It is also not as secure as you think. Underground cables were the cause of one of the worst urban blackouts in history. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Auckland_power_crisis

But all this begs the question. When a mandatory evacuation is ordered, everyone must go. An evacuation plan will be needed for the foreseeable near future no matter what blue sky ideas we have for the future.
.
 
  • #24
Dr Transport said:
As an aside, I feel for Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico, but I have not heard once on TV or radio for donations for the USVI, they are US citizens and deserve to get help from the Red Cross and other NGO's.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...urricane-irma-aid-plea-draws-amazing-response

As of this posting, his donation site has raised $2.7 million.
https://www.youcaring.com/21usvirginislandrelieffund-942738

Other major fundraising efforts are helping the USVI, such as the One America Appeal campaign run by the five living former US presidents: https://www.oneamericaappeal.org/
 
  • #25
  • #26
The pic below is about as close to "hurricane proof" as it gets. This building is comparable in size to an average residence in the area and cost the taxpayer over $750,000. This building will most likely withstand most hits from Cat 1-3 hurricanes, but a Cat 4-5 hurricane passing just to the west will likely destroy it. The parking lot is about 6' above sea level, and the Gulf of Mexico is about 250 yards to the south of it. In the worst case of a Cat 4-5 passing just to the west, the storm surge will bring the average water level up to the floor of the building, and the hurricane winds will produce 20-30 ft waves coming in directly from the Gulf of Mexico and smashing into it. There will also be debris from all the beach houses between it and the Gulf.

Most residential construction in the area is rated for top end winds anywhere from 80-120 mph and newer construction (since hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005) sit at the same level above sea level. They can likely withstand the winds they are rated for, but the combination of storm surge and waves hitting from the open Gulf can destroy them at much lower wind levels. In addition, when the storm surge goes back out, there tends to be intensive scouring of the foundations that can erode the very land they are sitting on. These homes cost about 20% more than "normal" construction, which in this location comes in at $150k-$250k for a 1500-2000 sq ft residence. They are all in significant danger of destruction from ANY hurricane hitting within 30 miles, but especially those hitting to the west.

I had to chuckle at the FEMA description of this building as "permanent." When my wife taught at West Point we lived in a home that was built before the revolutionary war (1700s). There are no homes this close to the Gulf of Mexico that predate the Civil War (1860s). Nothing is really permanent down here. Even if it manages to avoid a hit from a cat 4-5 that will destroy it, in a few hundred years (at most) the land it is sitting on will be gone through a combination of land subsistence, sea level rise, erosion, and scouring in storm events.

Most of the land S of I-10 in Louisiana has disappeared in the last 100 years. Most of what remains is likely to disappear in the next 100. The idea of hurricane proof is silly. Not a question of if, but when.

Cameron Parish Library.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #27
Dr. Courtney said:
The pic below is about as close to "hurricane proof" as it gets
I've wondered what 'hurricane proof' does actually mean.
The building is still standing, but the interior contents are ruined from water damage? Perhaps either from the surge as you mentioned, or parts of the roof or cladding being ripped off from the wind, allowing water to enter.
I noticed that the frame, or parts thereof, of building seems to be of steel construction. With bolted and/or welded joints, it looks solid enough.
Interesting assessment of the coastal land it sits on.
 
  • #29
anorlunda said:
There's another thread to discuss hurricane proof housing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ant-housing-can-we-do-it.924924/#post-5841546

The topic here is evacuation.

Since the only two available options with an incoming hurricane are shelter in place (in a hurricane proof building) and evacuation, it is hard to discuss one without the other. Evacuation (or death or great bodily harm) is the only option for the population who are unable to shelter in place in a hurricane proof building. Evacuation schemes should recognize that hurricane proof buildings of the size of a residence cost upwards of $750k to have a good chance of surviving a Cat 3.

These facts should make it clear that earlier evacuations are needed to avoid clogging the routes when storms threaten. When Irma and Harvey were inbound with fairly accurate predictions 5-7 days before their landfall. Yet, serious consideration was not given to large scale evacuations until 48-72 hours - which is too late to evacuate large segments of the population in urban centers like Miami, Houston, and New Orleans, given the bottlenecks.

My closest family and friends get out of dodge once the chance of a strike stronger than their residence can withstand rises to 20%. This is 5-7 days before landfall with current predicting technologies. We're well out in front of the crowds. But someone needs to do the math on how long it will really take to evacuate the coastal areas and make the decisions on how early to evacuate based on that. This will of course, lead to evacuating areas that don't end up being damaged to life threatening levels most of the time. But for me an mine, a 20% chance of having our lives threatened is more than enough to find somewhere else to be.
 
  • #30
Dr. Courtney said:
When Irma and Harvey were inbound with fairly accurate predictions 5-7 days before their landfall. Yet, serious consideration was not given to large scale evacuations until 48-72 hours - which is too late to evacuate large segments of the population in urban centers like Miami, Houston, and New Orleans, given the bottlenecks.
Good point. Evacuation is less of a problem if we have time to do it.

On the same point, wouldn't it be appropriate to have «down time» planned ahead during hurricane season for those regions? Something like having schools closed or having some legal state-wide holidays, which would encourage people taking vacations during those critical weeks. The easiest people to evacuate are the ones who are not there!
 
  • #31
jack action said:
Good point. Evacuation is less of a problem if we have time to do it.

On the same point, wouldn't it be appropriate to have «down time» planned ahead during hurricane season for those regions? Something like having schools closed or having some legal state-wide holidays, which would encourage people taking vacations during those critical weeks. The easiest people to evacuate are the ones who are not there!

Hurricanes and other natural disasters are random events. Hurricane season runs from June to end of November, but this year was worse than the previous years. When there is one coming, just get out of town as soon as possible is the only feasible solution, waiting until the very last minute results in exactly what happened in Florida a couple of weeks ago. As for the islands, the best way to prepare is to prepare and have a spot to go and wait it out, think about it, Puerto Rico, 1.3 million people, to get them off of the island takes between 5000 and 5500 flights, at best that could be accomplished in maybe two weeks time for multiple airports. They didn't have two week prep time. hurricanes don't work that way, at best you get a week.
 
  • #32
anorlunda said:
...
The topic here is evacuation.

From my experience with the recent national traffic jam drill, commonly referred to as "The Great American Eclipse", I have a couple of recommendations:

#1! Stage national guardsmen in Podunk[1] towns to keep traffic flowing.
There was only ONE bottleneck on my 230 mile trip back: ONE small town, with ONE stop sign, and ONE sheriff, who pulled over the person in front of me, for performing a "California stop"[2].

2. Regional database: Have people inform the authorities where the plan on going. (77% of Americans have smart phones. [ref])
Allows authorities to plan where to put the above guardsmen.
And perhaps a small survey:
Do you have friends to stay with? And if so, where?
If not, how far can you drive on a half a tank of gas?​

I'm curious, does anyone know if the "115 ... emergency shelter schools throughout Florida" [ref] were fully utilized? All with emergency solar power. Seems like they could have housed a lot of poor people, who with their poor-people cars, would have made the evacuation worse.

------------
[1] Podunk: a hypothetical small town regarded as typically dull or insignificant.
noun US informal

[2]California Stop: An automobile driving maneuver in which a driver slows down, but does not stop, at a stop sign.
Noun
Synonym: rolling stop
 
  • #33
Sure, police and planning can help. Some evacuations go more smoothly than others.

School shelters tend to get used first by the local homeless, then by residents of low-lying areas second. There are also countless mobile home parks in Florida, and those people are directed to shelters all the time. Still, 115 schools can't shelter a large percentage of 10 million people.

Below is an account of a 2005 evacuation of Houston that went very badly. In 2017, they chose to not evacuate because of fear of a repeat. A main point in post #1 in this thread is that good plans only move people 10-20 miles. Houston TX to Dallas TX is about 250 miles (400km), not short.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/8-years-ago-seemingly-all-of-Houston-evacuated-4839142.php said:
In late September 2005, many of us remember seeing weather reports that showed a mean swirl of clouds about the size of Brazil headed straight at Galveston.

Hurricane Rita, a Category 5 monster, was moving toward the Texas Gulf Coast with frightening speed, causing evacuation orders for low-lying areas.

Unfortunately, more than a million of us hit the road, producing gridlock for miles and miles toward the north and west.

The worst day was probably Thursday, Sept. 22, as every conceivable evacuation route was clogged well past capacity.

For example, Texas 146, which travels through Liberty County, dumped 600,000 people into a county with only 70,000 residents, Liberty County Sheriff's Sgt. Ronnie Alexander told the Chronicle at the time.

"We saw everything from road rage to medical emergencies," Alexander said.

On other major freeways, frustrated drivers took things into their own hands and drove on the wrong side of the road before authorities designated "contra-flow" lanes to speed things along.

Thousands of people ran out of gas, or their cars overheated from all the inching along, causing many to stop and sleep along the highway.

Perhaps the most tragic incident of the monumental evacuation was the death of 24 Bellaire nursing home residents who died when their chartered bus caught fire and exploded about 6:45 a.m. Sept. 23, 2005, on traffic-clogged Interstate 45 near Dallas.
Florida route I95, 9/7/2017. Only barrier islands and the keys were ordered evacuated, perhaps 1 million of the 10 million people in the area.
DJI3Ud7XoAAz01q.jpg
 
  • #34
This is interesting:

"...Florida statutes require educational facilities to meet public shelter design criteria." [ref]​
Mentor corrected link: https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/52969/17Mar_Dela Cruz_Donalyn.pdf
and

"...Florida’s 4,200 public schools" [ref]​

That's a lot of shelters.

Is it a good assumption that most Floridians abhor the thought of being cooped up with their neighbors for a few days?

Guessing the classroom capacity of Florida schools is 3,000,000. [ref: "3,000,000 children between the ages of 5 and 17"]
and
"The state of Florida ordered more than 6.5 million residents to evacuate" [ref]​

Which implies that half of the residents could have just driven to their local school, rather than traveling to, um, New Orleans, as one of my Tampa Floridian acquaintances did. (700 miles!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
anorlunda said:
...

Florida route I95, 9/7/2017. Only barrier islands and the keys were ordered evacuated, perhaps 1 million of the 10 million people in the area.
View attachment 212041

:oldsurprised:

I think that kind of problem requires the "homework" template.


Homework Statement


:oldsurprised:[/B]

Homework Equations


:oldsurprised:[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


:oldsurprised:[/B]​
 
<h2>1. How can roads be used as shelters during evacuations?</h2><p>Roads can be used as shelters during evacuations by setting up temporary structures such as tents or mobile homes on the side of the road. This provides a safe and easily accessible location for evacuees to take shelter until they can reach a more permanent shelter.</p><h2>2. What are the advantages of using roads as shelters during evacuations?</h2><p>The main advantage of using roads as shelters during evacuations is their accessibility. Roads are typically well-maintained and easily accessible by vehicles, making it easier for people to reach the shelter. Additionally, roads are usually located in more open areas, providing more space for larger groups of evacuees.</p><h2>3. Are there any disadvantages to using roads as shelters during evacuations?</h2><p>One potential disadvantage of using roads as shelters during evacuations is the lack of amenities. Unlike traditional shelters, roads do not have access to plumbing, electricity, or other necessary facilities. This may make it more difficult to provide for the basic needs of evacuees.</p><h2>4. How can roads be prepared to serve as shelters during evacuations?</h2><p>To prepare roads for use as shelters during evacuations, it is important to have a plan in place and to communicate that plan to the public. This may include setting up designated areas for shelters, providing necessary supplies such as tents and cots, and ensuring that roads are clear and accessible for evacuees.</p><h2>5. What are some alternative options for shelters during evacuations?</h2><p>While roads can serve as shelters during evacuations, there are other options available as well. These may include traditional shelters such as schools or community centers, as well as private homes of friends or family. It is important to have a variety of options available to accommodate different needs and situations during evacuations.</p>

1. How can roads be used as shelters during evacuations?

Roads can be used as shelters during evacuations by setting up temporary structures such as tents or mobile homes on the side of the road. This provides a safe and easily accessible location for evacuees to take shelter until they can reach a more permanent shelter.

2. What are the advantages of using roads as shelters during evacuations?

The main advantage of using roads as shelters during evacuations is their accessibility. Roads are typically well-maintained and easily accessible by vehicles, making it easier for people to reach the shelter. Additionally, roads are usually located in more open areas, providing more space for larger groups of evacuees.

3. Are there any disadvantages to using roads as shelters during evacuations?

One potential disadvantage of using roads as shelters during evacuations is the lack of amenities. Unlike traditional shelters, roads do not have access to plumbing, electricity, or other necessary facilities. This may make it more difficult to provide for the basic needs of evacuees.

4. How can roads be prepared to serve as shelters during evacuations?

To prepare roads for use as shelters during evacuations, it is important to have a plan in place and to communicate that plan to the public. This may include setting up designated areas for shelters, providing necessary supplies such as tents and cots, and ensuring that roads are clear and accessible for evacuees.

5. What are some alternative options for shelters during evacuations?

While roads can serve as shelters during evacuations, there are other options available as well. These may include traditional shelters such as schools or community centers, as well as private homes of friends or family. It is important to have a variety of options available to accommodate different needs and situations during evacuations.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
13K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top