Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution suggests a Swiftian solution to gridlocked evacuations, such as the recent one from Houston:
Pay people who stay behind. By the day, of course. And only if they own cars.
Just in case his tongue wasn't firmly planted in his cheek, I've got to post disagreement. In last week's evacuation, most people thought it was worth the cost to evacuate. Staying behind is almost always cheaper (barring loss of life).
The truly Swiftian way to handle it would be to make evacuation even more expensive. The gridlock sort of did that, didn't it? Next time a hurricane is headed toward Houston, that will be remembered and more people will choose to stay behind.
It's more a pendulum of experience. New Orleans is primed to over-react to the next hurricane threat and Houston is primed to under-react. Enough experiences (like Florida has had) will eventually lead to a moderate, more efficient response.
On a slightly different tangent to the cost of evacuating, those who end up in shelters need to be treated just a little less like victim royalty. While I've heard (all my life) of the Red Cross not accounting for how it uses its funds well enough, what I've not heard about is an evaluation of its theories on how shelter residents are treated.
While residents are relegated to waiting and hours of boredom, volunteers (or paid staff) rush around making coffee, serving food, and cleaning up. Wouldn't the residents be happier and less demoralized if they were doing more of these things for themselves?
I understand that some things (food preparation and storage involving raw ingredients, for example) must be more closely controlled than others. I do not understand what appears to be an encouragement of helplessness, resulting in a more demoralizing experience than necessary.
