> Then I thought: "What if the plan isn't to get as far away as possible?
> What if the plan is to get a little ways off then just wait out the 'storm'?".

There are several scenarios which have different likelihoods. I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area on a peninsula. If I can't go south, I'm stuck. There are two major roads to the south. The one nearest me (a block away in fact) is covered in overpasses, so if they drop in an earthquake, that road can't be used. The other major road is a long way off and may be inaccessible for a number of reasons, including overpasses and other structural damage. My plan is to survive in place in the event of a major earthquake. Earthquakes are not 'leaving fast' events. It happens and either you _can_ leave or you can't. It's after the fact, though.

The other major issue is fire, and we'd be stuck in serious traffic, given our geography, but evacuation would be a necessity if our town were on fire. We're downwind of downtown and the mountains where fires are likely. But we could go north, depending on wind conditions, in addition to south. Fire would be the 'leaving fast' event.

Flooding is possible, but not as big a problem as the mountains are in walking distance if we have time, biking distance if speed is necessary and cars are blocking the streets.

What else is there that's a likelihood. I don't live in an area that would be a reasonable target for terrorism. There is a possibility of a train wreck or truck wreck that would release chemicals with fumes, but shelter in place with duct tape might be workable, and such accidents are localized. Hazmat release could be 'leaving fast' events or shelter in place events, depending.

In my area there's no place to have a stash, no place to have a base camp other than our condo parking lot.

There's a lot to think about, but I'm not sure how generalized the various scenarios would be. I'm in an area where there is limited mobility, yet with limited space for stashes and the like.