Rural versus Urban

[Theunicornhunter 2]

As I watch the news (or disaster movies ) I notice how vulnerable people are when they live in a large metropolitan area. I've lived in DC for a while, the city became paralyzed every time it snowed; one accident could gridlock the entire city.

 

The question is do we make ourselves more vulnerable to natural disasters or attacks by concentrating ourselves in single geographical areas.

 

I don't know if that's an easy answer - I live in small city in a rural county - we live a long drive from medical care - it's particularly bad in an emergency - on the other hand - you may be closer to a hosptial in a large city but I've seen traffic congestion make it alwmost impossible for emergency vehicles to get through (those boneheads that block the emergency lanes)

 

If there was an outbreak of a contagion - you're probably better off in a rural community; in large communities you come into contact with so many people on the bus, subway etc.

 

On the other hand when you look at disasters like Katrina - the emphasis is always on New Orleans, not on the other communities. And while it was bad in NO - being centrally located made it easier to get supplies to a large number of people once the aid did start coming; but if you lived in one of those rural areas - there wasn't anyone who even knew where to look for you.

 

Personally, I don't want to be the only house for forty miles in any direction but I don't want to live in a major metropolitan area either.

[KIMIMELA 1]

Do you mean, which do you prefer or which do you live in? Edited February 26, 2006 by xXTrekkieCaraXx

[Data 0]

You can always be in between. The Suburbs

[Kor37 9]

You can always be in between. The Suburbs

 

 

Thats a good idea. Instead of living directly in DC, you could live in Prince Georges County. A lot more rural but still close to DC.

 

I live in Baltimore County. I have a lot more breathing room than in the city but I could also be in downtown Baltimore in 20 minutes if I need to be.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Kor37

[trekz 7]

As I watch the news (or disaster movies ) I notice how vulnerable people are when they live in a large metropolitan area. I've lived in DC for a while, the city became paralyzed every time it snowed; one accident could gridlock the entire city.

 

The question is do we make ourselves more vulnerable to natural disasters or attacks by concentrating ourselves in single geographical areas.

 

I don't know if that's an easy answer - I live in small city in a rural county - we live a long drive from medical care - it's particularly bad in an emergency - on the other hand - you may be closer to a hosptial in a large city but I've seen traffic congestion make it alwmost impossible for emergency vehicles to get through (those boneheads that block the emergency lanes)

 

Personally, I don't want to be the only house for forty miles in any direction but I don't want to live in a major metropolitan area either.

I agree that the congestion of a city can make problems worse. When I was stationed near San Diego, I was amazed at how a one inch rainstorm snarled up traffic as badly as a real blizard in the Midwest.

 

Suburbs sound better but many of the suburbs around Chicago are major cities themselves (Aurora and Naperville as examples) and can have gridlock too, made worse by boneheads who block intersections or keep trying to drive far forward and cut into long lines even though they can see the merge sign for blocks or half a mile ahead! &%$#!

 

I used to live in a rural area within twenty five miles of an uban area and that seemed ideal. The real test would be if the police and ambulance and fire personnel were all able to communicate with each other and the county and state police in case of emergencies to get help and equipment to areas in a hurry. Having a reasonable disaster plan which has been practiced would seem to be a sound training measure too.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

The question was mainly - which is safer?

 

I didn't actually live inside the DC city limits - I lived in the Northern Virginia suburbs but the traffic was a contiguous problem several miles outside the city. In there had ever been an evacuation - it would have been a disaster.

 

In 2004 when people were evacuating South Florida they drained all the gas in my county on their way

 

With the likelihood of more catastrophic hurricanes in the next few years I wonder if cities are safer or more dangerous.

[trekz 7]

As far as evacuating from a storm, I would say ciies could be less safe because of the congestion factor involved in evacuations, plus the problem of evacuating poorer people or any people without vehicles to drive away in. That is, if the rural areas are informed of mass evacuations in just as timely a manner as the urban areas are. There would still be the problem of being sure people in isolated areas are informed of the evacuation - but there should be evacuation plans in place, or being drawn up now, after the problems which showed up with Hurricane Katrina. Such plans should take into consideration reversing traffic on interstates to get people out of danger zones quickly. They should also address the problem of having extra gas supplies in areas along an evacuation route before evacuees run out of fuel.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

When it comes to nature's doings, rural people are more likely to own vehicles with four-wheel drive.

 

It doesn't really seem like you're asking which is safer though. Natural disasters hit all over. Just because there's less collateral damage in rural areas doesn't necessarily make it safer.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

 

It doesn't really seem like you're asking which is safer though. Natural disasters hit all over. Just because there's less collateral damage in rural areas doesn't necessarily make it safer.

 

Yes I am, because safety isn't a matter of whether or not a disaster will hit but rather what are your best chances for surviving it. There are characteristics of cities that make them both safer (more organization, more access to supplies) and at the same time more dangerous (congestion - less ability to evacuate, looters, snipers etc)

 

As for contagious diseases - I think rural definitely has an advantage.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

You can always be in between. The Suburbs

 

 

Thats a good idea. Instead of living directly in DC, you could live in Prince Georges County. A lot more rural but still close to DC.

 

I live in Baltimore County. I have a lot more breathing room than in the city but I could also be in downtown Baltimore in 20 minutes if I need to be.

 

I live in Lake County, IL, and the city I am in, if Traffic is good, I could be in Either Milwaukee or Chicago in about 45 minutes if I had to be. there is alot of rural areas in Lake County, perticularly the western part out by Fox Lake (I think something like 65% of the county is located within about 8 miles of Lake Michigan. My city is a Suburb, and actually the hospital is like 8 blocks east of my house, but because of the city plan (With a Church smack dead center), I have to go a block south, then down 8 blocks, then 2 blocks north, but the Hospital is still VERY close, and much easier to get to here than it would be if I lived in either Chicago or Milwaukee. This being a small town, too, other Emergency Services are faster to respond (The police station is, to put it precisely, a stone's throw from the front porch, and the Fire Department just has to shoot up 27th and over onto ********* Ave. I timed them when the neighbor's house caught fire. Took about 5 minutes.)

 

I love the 'Burbs, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Maybe move up to one of the bigger houses over in the new Subdivision, but I love it here.

[Odie 0]

Its not really how many people live in the area that matters its how the city prepares for the worst weather. If they don't prepare in advance the population will be adversely effected. In Buffalo they have plans to deal lake effect from Lake Erie. It is expected that the lake can produce over 1 to 3 ft of snow in 24-hour period. There is no way to ignore Lake Erie and hope that it won’t produce large amount of snow. When this happens the mayor will call a driving ban. That means NO private car traffic unless the vehicle is with police, fire department, and with the hospital. When there are no cars it is a lot easier to clean the roads. It can take up to 24 hours before main roads are drivable. No one really complains about having a snow day and not going into work for 1 day. When winter is over they review each plan to see if it was effective or not and update so it won’t repeat next years winter. After winter is over the start to prepare for winter at the end of the year.

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Ok, I see where you're driving now, but it just seems to me that a small town or big city can only do so much to prepare for natural disasters. A city cannot actually force someone to drive safely in inclement weather. A city cannot force people to buy extra rations for an emergency.

 

Also, as bad as weather can be, I would imagine safety pertains more to crime, especially violent crime.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

Its not really how many people live in the area that matters its how the city prepares for the worst weather. If they don't prepare in advance the population will be adversely effected. In Buffalo they have plans to deal lake effect from Lake Erie. It is expected that the lake can produce over 1 to 3 ft of snow in 24-hour period. There is no way to ignore Lake Erie and hope that it won’t produce large amount of snow. When this happens the mayor will call a driving ban. That means NO private car traffic unless the vehicle is with police, fire department, and with the hospital. When there are no cars it is a lot easier to clean the roads. It can take up to 24 hours before main roads are drivable. No one really complains about having a snow day and not going into work for 1 day. When winter is over they review each plan to see if it was effective or not and update so it won’t repeat next years winter. After winter is over the start to prepare for winter at the end of the year.

 

 

The driving ban ain't a bad idea. Here in Zion, we've got about 80 or so miles of roads within the City, but we've only got like 4 plows. When we got walloped back in January, there was no way for the plows to keep up. Another idea I had was contracting private companies or whatever that have plow-equipped trucks to help out. I see 'em all the time, but becuse they are on City streets outside of a subdivision, they can't just drop the plow. Pay the drivers 10 bucks an hour plus gas, hell, you might get 10 or 15 guys with trucks and plows out. that would help.