• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 days ago

    I assume that area hotels are completely booked up, as they aren’t really going to be there in numbers sufficient to deal with a large number of evacuees. Hmm. I guess that this is probably a common problem in disasters. And you don’t want to have lots of liveable properties just sitting there idle most of the time, as it’d be expensive.

    Hmm.

    I wonder if it’d make sense to have some kind of “mobile hotel” service that uses RV-style trailers or something? Like, when there’s some kind of event that produces massive demand for hotels in a particular spot, they just start hauling trailers into place. In cases where people lose their homes, they might be able to arrange for a longer-run stay.

    • @Brkdncr
      link
      32 days ago

      It’s easier to move the people away. The infrastructure needed to have a mobile housing would be incredibly costly, especially to maintain it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 days ago

        If the people continue to be employed in the area – and in some disasters, they might not – putting them somewhere a long ways away may not be an option.

        • @Brkdncr
          link
          32 days ago

          Moving apartments into areas surrounding evacuation zones seems like a good way to cause traffic and logistical issues.

          If it’s so bad that they don’t have shelter within a reasonable area you start airdropping tents into nearby stadiums.