LSU HURRICANE CENTER Addressing Hurricanes and Other Hazards and Their Impacts On the Natural, Built and Human Environments 2001 Survey of State Evacuation Practices Brian Wolshon, Ph.D., P.E. Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering Planning, Operations, and Needs

Who Are We? LSU Hurricane Center Multidisciplinary research and teaching program $500k NSF grant to establish the discipline of Hurricane Engineering Research All aspects of hurricane hazards Engineering, Meteorology, Coastal/Environmental, Sociology, Architecture, Planning, etc. Teaching Nation’s first u/g and graduate degree program in Disaster Science and Management (Fall 2001) Service LSU HURRICANE CENTER To learn more about Hurricane Engineering watch for the August/September 2001 ASCE CE Magazine

Discussion Topics Survey Objectives and Methods Comprehensive literature review “Unpublished” literature search State-by-state questionnaire survey LSU HURRICANE CENTER Responses and Findings Initial responses for discussion stimulation purposes, analysis and follow has just started Similarities and differences in practices between states Needs Information/Guidelines Future Research What’s New and What’s Next?

Methods and Objectives Goal: Conduct a review of evacuation practices in the U.S. from a transportation perspective LSU HURRICANE CENTER Review of Published Literature Library and Internet searches Included both transportation and non-transportation sources Review of “Unpublished” Literature Phone/mail/ survey Included state DOT and EMA reports and plans Questionnaire survey survey targeted at state DOT’s and EMA’s Identify needs, developing plans, fill in “gap” details

Survey Questions Identification of Practices Planning and command/control/decision structures Operations Contraflow details Traffic control and enforcement Information Exchange Data inflow, information outflow, ITS usage Public Transportation Services Mass transit use, low mobility evacuees Interstate Coordination Similarities/Differences “Best practices” LSU HURRICANE CENTER Identification of Needs and Problems Information, Practice Guidelines Research

Responses and Findings Survey included every state from Maine to Texas At this time we have received at least one response from every state, except Maine, Delaware, and Texas LSU HURRICANE CENTER General Findings Relatively little published literature in established transportation journals Relatively low levels of involvement from transportation agencies (pre-Floyd/Georges) Evacuation remains the responsibility of non- transportation professionals Many similarities and some differences in practices Most states appear confident in their plans and ability to react to evacuation needs (is it justified?) Amount of planning proportional to perceived level of threat

Responses and Findings Extensive use of the Internet Evacuation announcements Preparedness information Evacuation route maps Real-time information (travel time, incidents, weather, construction zones) LSU HURRICANE CENTER Limited plans for mass transit Buses, National Guard Vehicles “Special Needs” Evacuees (elderly, infirm, prisoners, tourists) Local Responsibility ITS Usage Primarily surveillance, VMS, HAR, r/t flow rates Evacuation Route Work Zones Contract Provisions to Open Lanes

Responses and Findings Contraflow Usage LSU HURRICANE CENTER All states south of NY have plans, except MS Only GA and SC have actually used it (Floyd 1999) Only SC is planning to use it for re-entry Southern (higher threat) states plan to use all lanes outbound, some northern states plan to maintain one inbound lane Most states have developed plans in conjunction with the state police agencies In most states, the Governor initiates it and the DOTs or State Police end it (in several states, the Governor does both) Initiation and termination criteria vary widely Contraflow “perspectives” also vary widely

Needs Interstate coordination of evacuations LSU HURRICANE CENTER Those that did, expressed the need for information related to: Overall, survey respondents did not express a great need for more information or research into problems** Better use of contraflow and contraflow for re-entry Guidelines for signing on evacuation routes Construction zones on evacuation routes More effective communication mediums for public information Including shelter availability, personal services, etc. **Is this because there are not any problems, or is it because evacuations are somewhat overlooked. Was contraflow perceived to be a need before Floyd and Georges?

What’s New and What’s Next? ITS for Evacuation Management and Control LSU HURRICANE CENTER Contraflow Measurement and Modeling Remote Monitoring for Evacuations Traffic/Weather/Flooding Effective Use of “Secondary” Evacuation Routes –Parallel Routes and Coordinated Traffic Control LSU Evacuation Research Other Activities TRB Subcommittee on Emergency Evacuation ASCE World Congress on Hazard Mitigation Future ITE Working Group on Evacuation Issues