The "Big One"

[swimmer_spe]

I lived in BC for a few years, and everyone talked about being prepared for the "Big One". They were referring to a massive earthquake. Everyone said they were ready for it.

They said they were ready for roads to crumble.

They said they were ready for water mains to break.

They said they were ready for widespread power outages.

They said they were ready for the lack of things to get in and out.

A historic storm, bringing more rain in one day than they sometimes see in a year did what an earthquake did, and more. After things calm down and life returns back to normal, I hope everyone there reexamines their preparedness. Across the country, we should also be looking at what it would take to cause chaos and prepare for it.

[Dengler Avenue]

Consider this an exercise, I suppose. Is it too early to hand out the grades? I don’t know.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Consider this an exercise, I suppose. Is it too early to hand out the grades? I don’t know.

Has it been 72 hours yet, as that is how long the governments say we should be prepared for.

[SpongeG]

the trans x pipeline has been shut down since monday, I haven't seen long lines yet, but every gas station I have passed has had many cars filling up which is sort of unusual, they say if it isn't started soon they will have to make arrangements to get gas from Washington state. In the stores I have been too, so far levels of everything seem normal, no panic buying in Coquitlam, Burnaby Surrey or Langley that I have seen yet.

I've heard people in the Sumas area in Abbotsford said they heard the sirens going off across the border in Washington state hours before they even got any kind of notice that they should start evacuating, sounds like our neighbours are far more prepared. Do we even have sirens for any situation.

[Architype]

WE humans have trouble envisioning the ultimate catastrophic event, even though we know it can happen intellectually, we still resort to our instincts which only kick in at the last minute with the flight or fight acute stress response. In regards to the changing environment, we are conditioned for gradual change, and we have a belief that we can adapt to changing or adverse conditions as they come.

When it comes to government response, failure to react quickly and expediently can be their downfall, while the electorate is also not very receptive to long term planning at a cost to them either. Both planning and lack of it can get a government thrown out of office.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Architype

WE humans have trouble envisioning the ultimate catastrophic event, even though we know it can happen intellectually, we still resort to our instincts which only kick in at the last minute with the flight or fight acute stress response. In regards to the changing environment, we are conditioned for gradual change, and we have a belief that we can adapt to changing or adverse conditions as they come.

When it comes to government response, failure to react quickly and expediently can be their downfall, while the electorate is also not very receptive to long term planning at a cost to them either. Both planning and lack of it can get a government thrown out of office.

On top of that, even if people see it coming, when it comes, the shock factor seems to be strongly at play still.

[SignalHillHiker]

The death toll appears to be surprisingly low so I think BC handled this as well as it could.

The main lessons I learned through Snowmageddon here were:

1. 72 hours is not enough. Any proper disaster will cause issues for weeks.
2. The greatest hardship was caused by government. Obviously with roads blocked they didn’t want people trying to get around so they forced everything to close, even in areas that had electricity. It was only public outrage once things were still closed after 72 hours (“This is how long you told us to prepare! FFS let a fucking grocery open!!!”) that we started seeing access to goods and services. Up until then everyone was just walking around the core chasing rumours of open superettes.
3. There was zero solidarity. Suburban municipalities fully opened for business while St. John’s was still shut down, causing thousands of frustrated people to climb into their cars to go get wants and needs at suburban groceries, liquor stores, etc. This significantly increased the amount of time it took to clear the streets and fully open St. John’s.

So… store enough for a couple weeks if you’re able, and encourage government to prepare a cohesive, regional response that allows people to walk to their fucking neighbourhood groceries if they don’t need to be closed.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

The death toll appears to be surprisingly low so I think BC handled this as well as it could.

The main lessons I learned through Snowmageddon here were:

Adequate supply of:

1. Cigarettes
2. Booze
3. Pepsi

One can barter for anything.

[Truenorth00]

There's a lot of folks who say adaptation to climate change would be cheaper than mitigation. They don't seem to be saying much now.....

Years ago, I worked with folks who procured the C17 for the RCAF. Some of the argument for strategic airlift capabilities for the CAF, was that we needed the ability to get over potential pinch points like washed out roads into the Lower Mainland. There was plenty of debate at the time whether $800M/aircraft (acquisition and 20 yr support) was worthwhile. While that decision won the day, there's still so many capability gaps that we have that would hinder any response to a truly large disaster.

I'm not even sure after this disaster, if we're mature enough to have a discussion on improving our military capabilities (that contribute to emergency preparedness) and infrastructure investments (that contribute to resiliency).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a lot of folks who say adaptation to climate change would be cheaper than mitigation. They don't seem to be saying much now.....

Years ago, I worked with folks who procured the C17 for the RCAF. Some of the argument for strategic airlift capabilities for the CAF, was that we needed the ability to get over potential pinch points like washed out roads into the Lower Mainland. There was plenty of debate at the time whether $800M/aircraft (acquisition and 20 yr support) was worthwhile. While that decision won the day, there's still so many capability gaps that we have that would hinder any response to a truly large disaster.

I'm not even sure after this disaster, if we're mature enough to have a discussion on improving our military capabilities (that contribute to emergency preparedness) and infrastructure investments (that contribute to resiliency).

“Mitigation that works” isn’t possible, so the cheapest available option for Canadians is indeed “adaptation to China and India and Africa cooking the planet in the next decades”.

[lio45]

Death toll isn’t a good metric at all, since the main factor is seeing the disaster coming or not. You can be super unprepared for a Cat 5 Hurricane and it’ll destroy everything if it comes, yet no one will die. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be in Vancouver or Seattle for the next Cascadia Megaquake; I’m not suicidal.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Years ago, I worked with folks who procured the C17 for the RCAF. Some of the argument for strategic airlift capabilities for the CAF, was that we needed the ability to get over potential pinch points like washed out roads into the Lower Mainland. There was plenty of debate at the time whether $800M/aircraft (acquisition and 20 yr support) was worthwhile. While that decision won the day, there's still so many capability gaps that we have that would hinder any response to a truly large disaster.

I'm not even sure after this disaster, if we're mature enough to have a discussion on improving our military capabilities (that contribute to emergency preparedness) and infrastructure investments (that contribute to resiliency).

Seems like a good idea would be cutting combat expenses to focus more on disaster readiness. A destroyer for a war we’re unlikely to ever fight (the US navy is so insanely bloated we don’t really matter next to them either way) or rescue helicopters for the ever increasing number of floods, fires, and similar disasters coming our way?

Easy choice to me.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Seems like a good idea would be cutting combat expenses to focus more on disaster readiness. A destroyer for a war we’re unlikely to ever fight (the US navy is so insanely bloated we don’t really matter next to them either way) or rescue helicopters for the ever increasing number of floods, fires, and similar disasters coming our way?

Easy choice to me.

Doesn't work like that. The same skill set and equiment is usually dual purpose.

An aircraft carrier that can launch jets into Iraq can also park off the coast Sri Lanka after a tsunami and become a hospital, desalination plant, logistics hub, and command post.

Likewise, good luck training regular pilots to do what our SAR crews do. That kind of skill and risk acceptance does substantially require a military mindset. I assure you that no regular pilot will willingly put himself in the Rockies 100 ft below mountaintops pinched in by cloud. At least not without soiling himself....

Also, as I pointed out earlier, we had this debate with the C17. There were plenty of folks who thought we were just blowing money, buying big honking airplanes to support the war in Afghanistan. Turns out that big honking airplanes are useful in many situations. And the crews who fly them, are willing to take risks landing equipment in disaster zones, just the same as taking risks to land in warzones.

[MolsonExport]

The problem is also that 1/100 (or 1/1000) year events related to extreme climate are becoming 1/10 year events (or worse).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The problem is also that 1/100 (or 1/1000) year events related to extreme climate are becoming 1/10 year events (or worse).

Think of large-scale infrastructure total rebuilds with those types of frequencies...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The problem is also that 1/100 (or 1/1000) year events related to extreme climate are becoming 1/10 year events (or worse).

Exactly. Our military now deploys domestically for disaster relief every few months. Add we're not talking routine SAR. We're talking actual mobilization with all that entails. And aside from an escalating operational tempo, we're facing increasing levels of commitment. There's now 4000 CAF personnel on alert just for BC, because of fears that this might be needed to assist with collapsing emergency response and supply chains for food, water, medical supplies. I don't think we're resourced to do this indefinitely. See Lieutenant General Eyre's comments last year. Something has to give.

Just imagine, if this was a larger disaster and we required multiple brigade sized responses, like the one we're not mounting for the Lower Mainland.

[MolsonExport]

^Indeed. Which is probably the most relevant argument for increasing the size, funding, and resources of our military.

[Airboy]

You can be prepared but when an event happens most people will forget what is required. Its human nature.

Some people can be calm in stressful situations. but most people freak out.

Our infrastructure will be looked at after this. I believe we will see alternate routes for rail and trucking planned in the future. the Coq will probably get a major redesign. the issues will be the cost to create those alternate routes.

After the Tornado in Edmonton, the Flooding in Calgary, Fires in McMurray and Slave lake. we saw quite a few changes after everything was repaired. After a major Gas line rupture in south Edmonton back in the 80s, moving traffic out of an area quickly was looked at and roads were redeveloped in some areas.

Noticed a berm is being built along the TCH to slow over road flooding. You will probably see the pumps in the prairie upgraded. Merrits WWTP will probably be flood proofed.

This event will cost billions just for repairs, there will be billions spent to try to stop future issues to the infrastructure.

[WhipperSnapper]

You can mitigate but, I don't think you can really prepare for massively scaled extreme weather occurrences that are happening at an unheard of frequency.

IIRC, Natural disasters cost the US about $300 billion a year for the past 5 to 10 years. The last two years are closer to double. I don't understand the denial. In Canada, I would understand it more since politics is so entwined with real estate development. There they also have healthcare, drugs, guns and, lawyers.

[Airboy]

Interesting to see how many buildings we are doing with basic seismic restraint being speced now, even here in Alberta.

our water and civil groups have been working the last few years on remediation and upgrades of critical infrastructure like WTP and WWTP. making them more flood resistant.