It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The realism of "getting out of town"

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:09 AM
link   
So this morning, early last night a small fire broke out around sepulveda at about Mulholland in the Los Angeles area, namely the 405 freeway. For you not familiar with the Greater Los Angeles area. That is the westside main thouroughfare that connects the San Fernando Valley with the basin...i.e Los Angeles proper, the eastern brother being the 101 freeway.

Scenario: In the event of a major emergency, people are asked to evacuate, forced to evacuate......what gives. Here's a scenario. "background info: I live in Venice CA, and currently work in Pacific Palisades, a swift 15 minute drive via Ocean drive, and through the back street of Santa Monica up to Palisades. 2 of my coworkers living in Sherman Oaks (at the very beginning of San Fernando Valley, left work this morning at a bout 6.00 AM. a commute that should not take more than 25-30 minutes, this morning due to a relative small fire took 3.5 hours. The distance is no more than 15 miles.

Lets say a major event takes place. How would a city like Los Angeles survive? Would half the population even make it out? I would guesstimate and im not kidding, it would take a full 24-48 hours to even get out of the city, considering the massive amount of people an traffic involved.

Conclusion: It does not even matter how well prepared we are, it still comes down to, beating and circumventing the masses. But in a city thats laid out like L.A...who knows?




posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
i think in larger cities it would possibly be a better idea to be prepared to ditch the vehicle and walk in a situation like that. granted the people would be all over the place but i think you'd have a better chance of actually getting somewhere if you weren't trapped inside your vehicle.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barathrum
i think in larger cities it would possibly be a better idea to be prepared to ditch the vehicle and walk in a situation like that.


Walking or using a basic bicycle would be a definite advantage over a motor vehicle for fleeing a populous city. I would think a bicycle would be the best of the two because, though it may be cumbersome, it would offer a much speedier way of travel in most areas. A good bike can handle even moderately rough off-road terrain and could be left or carried if the terrain becomes incompatible. A car or other vehicle would most likely prove to be a disadvantage, as I doubt most people would think to try any other mode of transportation, and (as the OP states) congest the roads leading out. Thank you for posting this, StefanO--this is a detail that I hadn't fully realized.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I'm not to hot on US geography but I'm pretty sure theres boat loads of railroad tracks, storm drains etc to cycle or walk out on, plus there a ratrher large lump of ocean there as well, you could get quite far on a jetski from a localised event.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by StefanO
Lets say a major event takes place. How would a city like Los Angeles survive?


Badly.



Originally posted by StefanO
Would half the population even make it out? I would guesstimate and im not kidding, it would take a full 24-48 hours to even get out of the city, considering the massive amount of people an traffic involved.


I'd say you are correct, as to the time needed to get out of the city BY CAR.
In a country where it's common to have two cars per family, when everybody needs to get out in a hurry at the same time, chaos is certain.


Originally posted by StefanO
Conclusion: It does not even matter how well prepared we are, it still comes down to, beating and circumventing the masses. But in a city thats laid out like L.A...who knows?


The thing is "what does it mean to be prepared?" I'd say that if you get stuck in traffic when you shouldn't be, that's not being prepared, right?

I would say that "beating and circumventing the masses" comes to the point where your plan should allow you to either:

a-) leaving the city BEFORE the SHTF. Before the masses are in the streets.
b-) finding alternative routes for the traffic and have a different kind of vehicle to make your run. For example: a small motorcycle or a bike. (you could also walk or ride a horse, but I'd think few people would be OK with that)
c-) go underground, on a secure place, a "shelter like" structure, prepared to take and protect people for some time (maybe few days), with food, water and fresh air, until the masses are gone so you can make your move.


Originally posted by StefanO
...It does not even matter how well prepared we are...


Sure it does... the problem is most people THINK they are prepared for something just to come to the realization that they are not when the timing could not be worst.


Peace



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Good posts...it's reasonable enough to suggest even moderately-sized cities wouldn't be able to suddenly evacuate quickly. Think about sports events and concerts, to get an idea how even a fraction of a city's population can tie up roads. (And this scenario only allows for people more or less commuting...it doesn't even take into account panic/terror/chaos.)

This is the reason you need to prepare both a bug-in kit and a bug-out kit. Even in a big city, the bug-out kit allows you to quickly get ahead of the mass exodus. If you're informed and ready to leave on short notice, you'll be on the road before others hear the new or are still figuring out what to pack. The bug-in is important when you can't get ahead of the mass movement and you're better off hunkering down. (Bugging-in also depends on the type of emergency, of course.)

Bottom line: the more prepared you are, the more advantages and options you have.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Big Cities suck.. and this is the reason I wouldn't move to one.

You are basically a rescue candidate if you wait for an 'event to happen'.
Always best to be up and moving beforehand.

Not always possible though eg,earthquake,'terrorist' attack.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Even though I dont live in a big city I live in the vincinity of one ( London). I don't know how London would evacuate and frankly I don't care. Yes I'm selfish - my plan involves a backpack, a bike and my two feet. My partner and I have already extensivley surveyed a route and have damn good plan to get out of dodge fast.

It's just not feasible to waste brain power on trying to figure out how to evacuate more then yourself and your loved ones - I'd suggest reading the survival forums, some really good tips on having an emergency kit, a route pre planned and a good pair of walking shoes or boots.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Im with Merigold here, personally, I made the decision to not live in a major city, so I really dont care. How would L.A. do in a major sit-x event? Having been to L.A., navigated your freeways, met the people, all I can say is L.A. would be doomed. The rioting, panic, and desire to get out would be amazing.

Agent T has a thread somewhere on here with a bike set up very well to get out of pretty much anywhere with an extended BOB, would be much better than a car. Hell, aside from a full blown tank anything with two wheels would be better than a car to try and get out of there.

Something Ive thought about before. If you have to ask questions like, how do I get out of here in an emergency?, why do you live there to start with? Anyone in a major metro area is just asking from problems in the end. If you are afraid of the masses if sit-x happens, maybe its time to reconsider what you do and where you are now. If you dont plan and make changes for the potential doom we all face, you have no one to blame but yourself. Personally, I would rather trade the congestion, chance at a fast buck, and convienance of a SoCal lifestyle for quiet, hardwork, and a great deal of confidence that when TSHTF I know I'll be okay.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Having taken the 101 to the 405 many a time in dreadfully slow traffic, I'd say LA is screwed in any major event. The majority of the people will have no chance of getting out of there. Since you're on the coast your best bet might be to get an extremely fast motorcycle and hit PCH early and go as fast as you can in either direction.

I always get bad vibes in LA and NY.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
Even though I dont live in a big city I live in the vincinity of one ( London). I don't know how London would evacuate and frankly I don't care. Yes I'm selfish - my plan involves a backpack, a bike and my two feet. My partner and I have already extensivley surveyed a route and have damn good plan to get out of dodge fast.

It's just not feasible to waste brain power on trying to figure out how to evacuate more then yourself and your loved ones - I'd suggest reading the survival forums, some really good tips on having an emergency kit, a route pre planned and a good pair of walking shoes or boots.


Think about it this way the UK govt estimates it would take nine days to fully evacuated the area within the M25 orbital, and that is providing every road is open, every train bus and plane runs perfectly, that there is no panic, rioting or looting just an orderly mass evacation ( as if ) as as another noted Uk survivalist from Northampton point out " Where do you put 7.5 million refugees and who is going to house and feed them?"



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I left the city 4 years ago, and won't even risk a 1/2 day to 2 day visit anymore. I am now staying putt. I am in no way a fearmonger, but I would leave any major city before it is too late. The writing is in bold black and white letters on the wall at this point.

Plus, city life is sooo stressful anyways! Me ande my neighbors allways have too much food and have a hard time trying to GIVE it alll away most of the time.....saftey is in numbers, but in SMALL numbers.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vault-D
Bottom line: the more prepared you are, the more advantages and options you have.


Certainly. Yo acn't hope that simply because you're a survivalist you're mmune to trafic or that whatever you do weill be succesful, you just have more options.

In a city the size of L.A., I honestly can't even imagine the circumstances. Entire roads would be full of cars packed like sardines, people could literally suffocate in come places, and in other places looting and rioting would reign. A bicycle or your feet is certainly the best transport.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by StefanO
 


As people have said, forget traffic, forget cars, forget transportation. The best way to evacuate is either on foot or as wisely suggested - by Bicyle. Maybe some sort of Scooter/small bike would also be useful as you could navigate the traffic a bit more skillfully.

I think the inherent problem with us survivalists is that we say and preach that we should plan and prepare for every eventuality although when it comes to it, the problem that we do actually face is something that we have never even contemplated - never mind planned for!

I would suggest that rather than planning for a specific scenario, plan slightly more generically. Any survival situation demands the need for adaptability, so lets all this in general a little bit more not specific.



[edit on 25/10/08 by Death_Kron]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
1.dont live in the city, live out side the city as close to woods, desert, wildreness as you can.

2.if you must be in the city make it for as breif a time as possible

3.keep a BOB on you at all times

4.GTFO before TSHTF



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by StefanO
So this morning, early last night a small fire broke out around sepulveda at about Mulholland in the Los Angeles area, namely the 405 freeway.

[...]

background info: I live in Venice CA, and currently work in Pacific Palisades, a swift 15 minute drive via Ocean drive, and through the back street of Santa Monica up to Palisades



Here's the truth:

WHEN and not if, you have total conflagration in LA, you can forget about the 405 at Getty. It's a major choke point but motorcyles would have no problem. Plan on gridlock and panic.

From where you are at, I would try to arrange a boat out of the marina in time of extreme trouble. Get off shore and move inland whereever you want up the coast.

If on land, get out early, and even make it a habit to GET OUT just for fun. How about camping north of LA up the 405 towards Palmdale? That side of the mountains could provide good cover if you plan ahead. Could also have nukes dropping on it also, so watch out. Keep going north up toward Tehachapi where it could be very nice. You should plan ahead to have a cache maybe in some self-service storage area with water and basic camping and living essentials, because then you have a place to flee to.

Everyone in your part of town has to use RT1 (would be shut down or gridlock) the 405 (gridlock) or the 10 across town toward Hollwood and parts East, which will not be fun. If you head east on the 10, maybe you could get to the 5 and head north/south but you'd have to have a plan. Without the roads, it's hard for anyone to go anywhere.

The 118 is IMO a major artery for Los Angeles survival, but can people get north to it and will it be open? The only obvious direction to head is out toward Simi and TO. 118 could be blocked at the Topanga Canyon pass (seems likely) so then 101 would be the only route north out of the SF Valley.

If you have the money or the means to jump on a boat and move out toward water, that provides you the maximum number of options, but on land, from your location, getting north means getting out early.

If you have to hunker down, there are good peeps in Venice and all around there, so survival is very possible. Ocean breezes might provide good fire defense? You might be able to dig in and ride out anything that hits, but the key word there is "dig" so have some shovels.

What is truly funny, is that if the US had civil defense anyhting like Russia, all Angelenos in your location would know that they could easily use palm tree trunks and shovels to provide fallout shelters on the beaches. It would be so simple to dig down and use a cement over the top, and everyone could ride out even a nuke.

Get out early, or be prepared to stay safe and hidden in place, for a week at least.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
If you are not prepared to shelter in place (or cannot at all, depending on the nature of the catastrophe), then I agree with the posts about just walking out (with a large backpack loaded with lightweight survival gear.

Bicycles are a good form of transport (I use one every day to commute to and from my job), but the only thing is with a bike you can't carry much at all. But if you do escape "the event" by bike, be sure to carry along spare tubes, water bottle with water filter, and a few other small, light essentials. But man, you can carry much more with a good backpack.

In a car, you are just going to sit there, overheat your engine, and have lots of road ragers going nuts around you. Not good.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join