Why isn’t public transport used more for evacuations?

236 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

They are, it’s just not seen as much because we really don’t have public transit in America.

Individual cities or regions have public transit, but that’s only going to get you from one location in a city to another. It’s potentially helpful, but it’s not getting you out of the state. The south is lacking in cities with good public transit.

You then have some states with decent enough public transit, i.e. New Jersey has Jersey Rail, New York and Connecticut have Metro North, but that’s mostly in the Northeast.

There is Amtrak which is nationwide, but it is expensive and lacking in many ways. For example Tampa is the only city on the gulf coast of Florida that has an Amtrak station.

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