Why isn’t public transport used more for evacuations?

892 viewsOther

I know the easy answer is politics but it has to be more complicated that that because evacuations tend to involve other things that go against certain politics (like free food and open shelters). And even though somewhere like Florida doesn’t have tons of public buses, it would be logistically relatively easy to redirect the ones they do have plus school buses and private buses that are currently in disuse. Or for Amtrak to send extra trains down there, like cities do for sporting events. I’m seeing a lot of people online who seem like they’d be willing to jump on the first train/bus/plane to literally anywhere. What’s the logic in not making that more available as an option?

I’m using the US but I do feel like it’s not something you see even in general, at least not as much as expected.

Are there more complex reasons that I’m not considering?

In: Other

33 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

What public transportation? IF, and that’s a big IF, a city has public transportation. It’s very local with light rail, CNG buses, trollies, or rarely local only trains.
None of these have the range to transport masses anywhere. There is nothing between towns and states other than the highway.
Which means you’d have to hire buses with range to transport people. That takes time and money that no one has budgeted for.

In American capitalism (read poorly regulated capitalism) no one can afford to plan for contingencies. That is considered waste and govt mismanagement.

You are viewing 1 out of 33 answers, click here to view all answers.