Public officials have been ignoring or downplaying questions about the Washington region’s ability to quickly evacuate in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, and now we know why. When it comes to evacuation, a new study gives D.C. a failing grade.
In fact, according to the “Emergency Evacuation Report Card 2006,” commissioned by the American Highway Users Alliance and the American Bus Association, Washington is one of 25 urban areas that “could face greater challenges than New Orleans experienced after Hurricane Katrina.” Andwe all know how bad that was.
The study by transportation expert Wendell Cox rated the evacuation capability of 37 urban areas with a population of more than 1 million people. Each city received a score from zero to 100 based on how well they could clear out if all available highway lanes were used as evacuation routes. Kansas City scored 90, making it the only urban area to earn an “A” on the Overall Evacuation Index. But 20 other cities got an “F” — including Washington, which scored 44.9, even worse than New Orleans’ 67.3.
If it’s any comfort, New York, Chicago, Miami and Los Angeles are in even worse shape, evacuation-wise, than we are. But coming in 29 out of 37 is certainly nothing to brag about.
Washington also got failing grades in two of the three specific areas the study considered essential for successful evacuation: exit capacity and internal traffic flow. D.C. did get an “A” in the third key metric — automobile accessibility — because private cars remain the principal means of getting out of Dodge in a hurry. But a lot of good a car will do us if all the streets are gridlocked during an emergency.
Emergency preparedness officials here already know this, which is why they continue to parrot the “shelter in place” mantra whenever they’re asked about regional evacuation plans. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security’s final report on the Nationwide Plan Review came to a similar conclusion: 90 percent of the nation’s urban areas are simply unprepared to deal with a large-scale catastrophe of any sort. Most have convinced themselves “it won’t happen here” — a dubious assumption, especially in Washington.
How many people would be willing to stay put if the city were contaminated by a lethal chemical release or nuclear fallout? Would you, considering the fact that only a tenth of all urban areas have adequate provisions on hand to assist those who shelter in place?
Itdoesn’t take a genius to figure out that mobility should be of paramount importance in homeland security planning. But our public officials, still mired in the past, refuse to take any steps to facilitate evacuation, such as building a new bridge over the Potomac River or expanding the region’s already below-average highway system. In a separate study, the Reason Foundation estimates that D.C. needs 1,800 new lane miles by 2030 — or 17 percent of the $93.3 billion the Metropolitan Planning Organization already plans to spend primarily on mass transit and road maintenance.
By not adding sufficient road capacity now, they’re gambling that a mass evacuation from Washington will never be necessary. But a lot of innocent people will die — needlessly — if they’re wrong.
