Dear braintrust:

In recent conversations it was proposed that the best response to all disasters is to get out of town. This did not seem likely, especially for short-term non-lethal situations where bugging-in lets you enjoy the familiar comforts of your well-prepared current abode.

The proposition was then modified to assert getting out of the urban environment was the best solution for any disaster of indefinite duration, especially any TEOTWAWKI. I responded that as it is unlikely duration of a disaster is crystal clear, that getting out of town should be down the list and not a first response.

The rejoinder was that getting out of the urban environment as a first and immediate response was a better-safe-than-sorry tactic. I turn to the braintrust in contemplation of that thought.

If the disaster promises to disrupt travel and services -- but you don't have anywhere to go and can comfortably survive the duration without the grid, staying put is often the right move.

If the disaster is that a Hellmouth is opening and will swallow the city up entire, the earlier you get out, the better.

Most disasters fall somewhere in between. I advised my mother to evacuate in advance of Hurricane Irene. She scoffed and wouldn't be budged. Fortunately, the effects were much less than predicted where she lives. Based on what we knew at the time, I still think she should have spent the weekend with friends inland -- she had no way of knowing that there wouldn't be widespread flooding.

With regard to urban environments, the problem is that they're hard to leave. Public transportation is incapable of moving a large percentage of the population out of the city, and highways are unable to handle the day-to-day load of commuters without major delays. Hordes of frightened evacuees can and do increase those delays tremendously. Leaving early may let you avoid the worst congestion, and may also let you find the most commodious shelter outside of the disaster-struck area. Wait too long and you run the risk of being unable to leave in time.

I live in the suburbs and it's easier for me to clear out than it is for most city dwellers. I would not hesitate to leave early if we had warning of something that could make staying home untenable.

I would say it highly depends on the situation. In a large urban environment, everyone trying to get out of town at the same time is going to be 1) pandemonium and 2) total and absolute gridlock.

Here in the Seattle burbs, I spent 35 minutes to travel maybe a mile yesterday around 5:15pm. During some of our ice storms, it wasn't unusual for people to take 8-12 hours go get home.

In a *real* emergency, I would suspect the situation could get a lot worse. And in a real emergency, the panic level out there is going to be very high, and that induces danger in addition to the inability to actually leave.

Combine that with the fact that your stuff is near your home and bugging out you'll only have what you can/have loaded, I would agree with you that the default mode probably should be bugging in, not bugging out.

On the other hand, you need to be read/willing to go if the situation dictates. Think of a chemical spill/leak.

-john

Chaosmagnet has a good point. If you are going to leave the time to do it before everyone else clues in. In that respect, there is some aspect of wisdom in the suggestion that it is always safer to leave, but the reality is this only works if you decide to leave ahead of everyone else. And even that wouldn't work if everyone took the same strategy.

So if you do plan to bug out as a default the trick would be to do it at the first hint of trouble, rather than waiting for definitive signs.

-john

The best response to any disaster is to evaluate it individually, and to have a plan for each.

I really tend to wonder about the thought processes of all the people who think evacuation is the answer to everything. The people who advocate that seem to have a serious case of tunnel vision. I suspect they've watched the Rambo and Mad Max movies too many times.

Western WA has over 5 million people.
Portland metro area has over 2 million people.
SoCal metro area has over 22 million people.

Just where are all these people supposed to go? Moving the population of western WA and Portland into the Cascades just sounds like an incredibly bad idea. And SoCal, where to go? Into the desert???

Most people can't carry a tremendous amount of anything in their vehicles, and most people don't even store much food or water. If everyone runs to the mountains and picks a spot on semi-level ground, how long can they eat before what they brought runs out? Hunting? Don't make me laugh! All the animals would be dead and rotting in a week or two.

Water? If it's raining, they can catch it, if they have something to catch it with and something to put it in. If it been snowing, they've got water, but also a lot of other problems. Rivers and steams with lots of people camped nearby? Do they know how to spell POLLUTION? Sick people with diarrhea all over the place, cool! Oh, you're in SoCal? Sorry, you'll just die of dehydration in a few days.

Did everyone start with a full tank of gas? No, so many couldn't even get to where they were hoping to get, and have to park alongside the road with a lot of other people.

Shelter? Cold wind, blowing rain or snow, searing heat and blowing sand. One car, two adults and three kids? Kinda cramped, huh? Tempers getting a little short?

Forgot to bring matches? Oh-oh!

Your two teenage boys decided to engage in some horseplay and one now has a broken arm? That's too bad!

Everyone is searching the sky for signs of some double-rotor Chinook helicopters to deliver emergency supplies? We are counting on them! What do you mean they're not coming?

Meanwhile, my dog and I are trotting around the vacant neighborhood with the red Radio Flyer wagon collecting all kinds of useful stuff! Oh, Judy stayed, too! She's out with her wheelbarrow and we're trading stuff. Bill left a whole pile of dry, split firewood in his shed, must be about four cords. Here's all Doug's hand tools! It looks like Linda took a lot of food, but since she's Mormon, there's LOTS more!

Of course, this is assuming that the disaster wasn't an earthquake, because then, no one would be going anywhere due to the collapsed overpasses, and trees, poles, wires, and shattered buildings littering every single road and street.

I was just noticing the other day as I sat in traffic on the Alaskan Way Viaduct (what's left of it): if we only have 10-20 minutes to get to high ground after a mega-quake, a lot of people are going to die. The buildings are fairly tall (at least six stories), and they're all going to be in the narrow streets, blocking access to the nearest high ground.

Sue

Excellent response, Susan.

Unless I happen to be up at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. when the crisis occurs and can get the car packed and moving within minutes, "bugging out" by vehicle would be a slow slog. During which time even a full tank may run out before we reached the Beltway.

Everyday traffic here has become a nightmare for several hours of the day.

9/11/01 provided some hint of a crisis evacuation (many people gave up on cars and mass transportation and walked several miles to get home) but in that case most residents of DC stayed in DC, it was the Virginia and Maryland commuters evacuating. Add DC's population to that mix (and no or few gas stations in much of the city) and it gets exponentially more difficult.

One encouraging aspect of the 9/11 evacuation in DC is that it was remarkably civil. Everyone I know who experienced it in cars and on foot, spoke of widespread camaraderie and consideration that day. Without exception, I watched a river of vehicles in my neighborhood obeying traffic lights and stop signs in a lawful manner that you do not see on a normal day.

About 30% of DC adults don't have vehicles. A higher percentage than New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit.

What are those people going to do?

I keep my fuel tank topped off but the more thought I've given to evacuation these past few years, it seems like a very poor strategy in most conceivable situations. And futile in others.

Consider the situation in an earthquake event. Typically no advance warning, just a big bump and then varying amounts of damage and disruption, depending upon your position with respect to the epicenter and other factors. Generally it makes sense to bug in, and then a possible withdrawal depending upon the situation.

Interestingly enough, southern California has experienced wildfires which demand excavation. These have occurred with no significant disruption or turmoil. Typically the refuge centers are not fully utilized. This may have something to do with a fairly robust infrastructure and generally competent emergency services.

Whenever possible, my tendency is to remain at home. It's called home field advantage.

The notion that the "best" response is "always (fill in the blank)" is unbelievably simplistic and naive. One needs to acquire dependable information, and logically think through whatever options are available.

I really don't think that is what you meant to type, but it brings up another solution that permaculturist Bill Mollison suggested for remote homesteads in Australia, an insulated hole in the ground for escape from a fast-moving wildfire or firestorm.

It consists of a hole dug into the ground (or half under, half above ground), a roof, and the roof should be heavily insulated with a thick layer of soil and sown with grass or something to hold the soil in place. It should have a heavy fireproof door (at least metal-covered), with a protective dogleg of mortared stone, brick, adobe or soil in front of it to protect the door from radiant heat. IOW, an underground cellar type of structure.

Out in the wilds of Oz, they have a lot of eucalyptus trees in some areas, and they burn like tar barrels. Firestorms create their own wind, and it can be impossible to outrun them, even in a vehicle. And if Dad took the only vehicle to town to work, the people left at home have no escape.

Anyway, another method that might be useful for some people. If it were placed in the middle of a field with no trees nearby, the fire should pass over relatively quickly.

Sue

We would hope that they put the school buses and city buses to better use than they did in New Orleans!

Sue

Unfortunately,Firestorms need oxygen to breath just like we do,An insulated 1/2 hole in the ground will likely become an insulated 1/2 hole in the ground with a corpse,The ants will feast!

the 04/05 hurricane season down here added "run from the water, hide from the wind" and "hunker down" to public domain usage...feel free to use them... at least we get a couple of days warning

It had less to do with the refugee shelters and more to do with being able to sleep on friends couches. Despite what was being broadcast on the television, half a million people did not end up at the Q or Del Mar. Everybody I know that evacuated ended up at family or friends houses. Also, traffic was a problem in the hours following the evacuation orders. Not a bad the the recent power outage, but compatible to peak rush hour.

On a side note, there was the normal panic buying of gasoline and bottled water. I think that no matter what the emergency, do not expect to be able to obtain those once the public becomes aware of the problem.

IMHO, unless evacuation is required, it's best to stay put and wait it out. At the very least, you'll miss the worst of the traffic while using your stored supplies.

I wonder if it differs depending where you are in the city. My wife worked downtown and on 9/11 stop lights might as well have been non existent. Then there were a couple small parking lots where you hand the attendant your $ and keys and they park your car, those attendants must have left already because people had to break into the key shack then move cars that were blocking theirs. I saw one guy back a car up on to the sidewalk then get out and just leave it running with the door opened and they get in his car and drive away.

If it was some wide-spread disaster, I might try to get to the in-laws who live in the middle of no-place but have a farm and a ranch.

Failing that, bug-in-place seems to be the best option. Not in a flood zone. Neighbors are all retired/current/former military, I know two are as good a shot as I am, if not a little better. Water is not an issue. Food storage is ok. Support grp is close by. I can walk to the closest shelter.

I think I'm staying put.

No, your best bet is to stay where you are unless it involves short term evacuation. ESPECIALLY in a TEOTAWKI environment.

Depends on where you are. Before I moved staying put would be pointless, I was surrounded by people expecting handouts who were fine with taking what I had even during normal times.

From an Emergency Management perspective, staying put is the best option. Not because of some government conspiracy to control people, but just due to the sheer logistics of moving people. Each vehicle needs gasoline and each vehicle occupies lane space. Of course, with planned evacuations people like to fill up their camper, the 25 foot trailer, and their other two cars taking up space. I cannot blame them, but if you were hoping to get out quickly and this was "life or death", you'd probably be disappointed.

The only reason you would want to evacuate is if you or your shelter are physically in danger, or will be in danger within the amount of time it takes to evacuate.

I'd say double or triple any estimates you have for things. Your drive that normally takes 1 hour, assume it will take 4 - 6.

Thats one of the reasons I have tools such as CB, scanner, GPS, maps, and go out and explore the back roads, I don't want to have to be stuck in traffic because I did have to leave the house. I've been stuck in traffic before, for example PA will shut down a highway lane during rush hour to repaint the lines so you'll spend hours stop and go. I've learned to listen on the CB for traffic slow downs and get off and take side roads to bypass them.

So, perhaps looking at the downside can additionally illuminate the question.

If you immediately bug-out when a disaster of unclear proportions / unknown or unknowable variables looms, is it fair to assume you will generaly increase chances of survival and can return if and when said disaster ends or is determined to be something suitable for bugging-in?

If such a disaster threatens to be quickly lethal to those who bug-in and you do not immediately bug-out, are your chances for survival better or worse than those who immediately hit the road?

I would think for the unprepared,chances for survival would be pending on luck alone,Anyone here would quickly point out that luck is not enough!

I don't live in hurricane country, so I don't know, but how many folks go to a hotel/motel when they evacuate? Especially folks with kids, and with a busy hurricane season that could cause multiple evacuation warnings, that's a signficiant expense. And we're assuming car travel. Many folks may need air travel to get away (think of the mass exodus from Japan, particularly Tokyo, of mostly foreigners high tailing it out of the country due to radiation fears).

Let's not forget the psychological aspects of evacuating for many situations. There is a powerful need for folks to stay and "defend the homestead," especially if the disaster is not guaranteed to be deadly. Even with wildfires here in California, so many people who had ample lead time will not leave their homes until the flames are bearing down on their homes, even the ones who aren't actively fighting the fires. They have the car packed up and the keys in the ignition but they just need to wait until they absolutely have to leave.

I have also encountered the "cut'n run" desparaging attitude that some folks have regarding getting out of Dodge. Different culture, but to a large extent, that's basically why essentially only the foreigners were fleeing Tokyo, not the Japanese. It's a negative kind of peer pressure to abandoning their neighbors, friends, or fellow citizens.

Finally, there's also the "boy who cried wolf" aspect to repeatedly bugging out, which is going to happen when the practice is get-out-early-get-out-every-time. The vast majority of people tire of that very quickly and become even more resistant to bugging out in the future than if they had never done it the first time. Bugging out is often a hassle and an inconveniece even in the best of times so people don't want to do it, especially if you have children involved.

Just thinking about California where landslides and wildfires are typical reasons for needing to bug out. Just need to go a short distance to be safe and not usually for long, but even then, a lot of people don't want to.

The decision to stay or leave is not only--maybe not even primarily--a logical, rational choice for a great many people IMHO. Any arguments for or against early, speedy bugging out needs to take the psychological aspect into account, in addition to greater population-level limits and hazards to such a policy that ki4buc pointed out earlier.

This discussion seems extremely hypothetical. Who among us has actually packed up and left in the face of an impending situation? What was your experience? Was it the right move? Would you do it again? What words of wisdom do you have or the rest of us?

On two occasions, faced with wildfires, I had the car packed up, ready to drive away. Didn't pull the trigger, though, so I have little to offer.

Ditto. Two major wildfires, packed up the truck but was never required to evacuate -- evacuation was "optional". Regardless, the truck didn't leave the garage except to go to the gym. Evacuation go/no-go decisions are very situation driven. Cookie cutter approaches need not apply.

I evacuated to escape flooding. I left later than I should have and I had no kit at all in my car or otherwise.

We escaped unscathed. Leaving was the right thing to do, and I'd leave at least an hour earlier next time. I'd do much better now -- if I get to my car bare naked I'd still be better equipped than I was that day.

The area I'm in I don't have to worry so much about flood or wildfire or hurricanes, just smaller scale like tornados.
I have had to drop and run twice now though, both times its been a different kind of situation, one my father got hurt on the farm so we packed up thanksgiving and took it to their house and the second was when the hospital sent my grandmother home to pass away where she wanted to be.
So these were not large scale evacualtions but I have to keep myself ready to go for those kind of situations.
We have had a few small scale evacuations during bad stomrs where whole sections of the city would loose power for days. people would have to leave their homes and stay with others or in hotels to keep from freezing.

Arney... this is just a guess on my part, and don't have any hard data, but like NightHiker commented about specific locations, most of the long time Florida residents that do evacuate don't go very far... Hurricane Andrew in 92, caused most communities to upgrade their building codes, and as evidenced by Charley in 04 that came ashore in Charlotte county as a Cat 4 even "manufactured homes" withstood the 140-150 mph winds with good accounting of themselves.

after each of the storms in 04/05 I did a lessons learned with my students, and those that evacuated typically went to friends or relatives within 15 miles...I live on the central Gulf coast about 35miles north of Tampa, about 3 miles inland at 34' elevation...those living on the barrier islands (especially with access only by a single bridge) and coastal areas threatened by storm surge just move inland

those living in the storm surge areas and locations subject to fresh water flooding are pretty much aware of the problems..we have excellent hurricane wind velocity warnings and most of the spaghetti models of predicted tracks are pretty darn good when they get in the Gulf... 04/05 was unusual in that Polk county which is inland had all 4 cross through

I think that most share my bug out requirement...I plan to stay for a 3 and move to a more hardened structure (relatives place) for a 4 or 5, but not too far...

I am witness to an excellent example of this principle: my father-in-law's journey to the USA. In 1919, his mother to be was in training at the Russian Czarist court as a future lady in waiting. Events occurred and she and her husband decided to leave town, traveling across Siberia with the White Russian Army. Along the way, closely pursued by their PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. adversaries, they intentionally wrecked the sled containing the family jewels (literally), as they crossed a frozen lake; their pursuers halted to pick up the goodies, thereby allowing their escape. Sewing needles were invaluable as trade items for food in remote Siberian villages on numerous occasions.

My father-in-law was born in a small village near Ulan Bator, Mongolia in 1920, christened as Boris Bekaravich. In the next few years he traveled through Vladivostok, Singapore, and Seattle to arrive at Hollywood High, Los Angeles, where he double dated with soon-to-be movie stars and became a second lieutenant in WWII, now with a name now anglicized to Harry. Among other things in a long and eventful life, he was a sound engineer on the Ozzie and Harriet show. His mother sewed for MGM, notably working on the costumes for Gone With the Wind. Of course I feel his greatest achievement was raising the most beautiful and wonderful lady in the entire world, but I am not an impartial evaluator. We lost him a few years ago, and we still miss him...

Lessons to be learned. When bugging out, take items that will be useful for trade, and be prepared to take drastic action to secure your major objectives. Who knows how long the road will be?

Of course, traveling inland a few hundred miles to avoid a hurricane may not require effort of this magnitude...

talk about hitting the nail on the head.

... but pack and make preparations to leave at the earliest opportunity consistent with not overly disrupting your daily life. Getting the truck packed when a wildfire is still days away is consistent with this view. Don't wait until the flames are visible, and you're breathing smoke and embers.

On many forums the debate goes on weather to bug in or bug out, people will argue either way and I try to remind them that its situational and to be prepared you need to plan for either. Likewise some get caught up in making sure they have a PSK and a GHB and a BOB and INCH, and whatever other acronyms they can come up with.
I simply have varying layers of gear and depending on the situation I'm faced with may utilize it as one or more of the acronyms. My "go bag" for example I'll grab and take to the basement during a tornado alert because it has items such as lights that can help out in those situations.
Same with if we would need to bug out or evacuate, depending on the time or situation there are different layers of gear we may take. A suitcase may be our 'bug out bag' for a given situation.

All interesting.

Perhaps another angle: In the "fog" of uncertainty about a looming disaster which is more likely an unsurvivable error, bugging in or bugging out?

If your bugout location is well-selected and clear of the disaster area, and if you leave early enough, I'd think that in general mistakenly bugging in would be more likely to result in avoidable death.

If you leave early enough and get clear of the disaster area, the worst you have is an unplanned vacation.

If you don't leave early enough and get stuck in traffic on the road, you might not get clear of the disaster area. Then the question becomes would you have been better off at home or in a car, out of gas 50 miles up the highway.

I think I'd agree with that. Just look at how many millions have evacuated for hurricanes. How many have died evacuating from a hurricane versus those who stayed behind? However, these evacuations come at great cost, too.

Actually, if we use the logic of avoiding deaths, we should mass evacuate people for heat waves when they pop up in unexpected areas (e.g. Chicago) or are extreme. Over the years, heat is the number one killer of people, not hurricanes.

Right you are: http://io9.com/5803268/chart-reveals-what-natural-disaster-is-most-likely-to-kill-you-in-america . The most surprising thing I learned is that California is safer than the Midwest in terms of death from natural disasters.

Heat death is easily avoidable -- if you can afford air conditioning and you don't have to work outside. Evacuations for heat emergencies are (at least, in some areas) replaced with warnings and opening cooling centers.

What a great reference! The attached article is well worth reading as well. It is interesting to note that most of the hazard types are weather related and are generally forecast well ahead of time, allowing one the opportunity to carry out whatever strategy would best serve them. As many have observed here, the better course of action depends upon many situational and unique variables.

The chart reinforces my decision to forsake the Midwest and go west many years ago.

Note what a minor role earthquakes play in generating mortalities. That is about the only natural hazard that is not specifically predictable.

If there is a true SHTF type disaster, distance is indeed your best bet if you can manage it safely.

The problem is that it is difficult to know whether to go or not because there is just no way to know whether whatever warnings are being given by the authorities are meaningful.

At some point getting the heck out becomes dangerous in itself and it might be best to just hunker down.

I know that is not really an answer, but most of these kind of hypothetical questions don't have a real answer because the answer is highly dependent on circumstances that are unknown, and are often unknown when the decision to leave or stay has to be made.