Need help with low-budget commuter survival kit
I am looking to build a general purpose low-budget commuter survival kit for my Subaru Forester.
My commute will soon changing from around 20 miles a day to more than 100. I will be traveling from the Philadelphia suburbs to New Jersey and back every day.
I don't want to depend just on the contents of my shoulder bag for this. Or should I?
I have a new 2006 Subaru Forester 2.5 X Premium and a hefty monthly car payment to go with it. I just paid off a credit card. Also, our annual per capita and occupational school taxes will be sent out in July. Hence, my available cash is on the low side.
Any hints, tips, or suggestions in putting together this kit would be appreciated.
-- Craig
Well, I don't trust the 72-hour rule. I just don't.
Of course, if space is an issue, and if you want something you can carry without it getting too heavy, a 74-hour size one would be the size to shoot for.
My one for a family of 4 for a month isn't all that big. Just the size of a large Rubbermaid container. It could fit in the backseat of my New Beetle so it's not huge. It's not full of enough water but there is a back-packer style water filter in it. Our major problem is going to be a tsunami. There won't be a lack of water, just a lack of clean water.
Of course, my house may not withstand the tsunami so I realize chances are slim we'll be able to get to that container. That's why we all carry a large fannypack with enough stuff for a week. Again, not enough water but those water-filters that look like a regular water bottle to clean the dirty water that should be readily available and one container of fresh water to start with. The food rations won't be plentiful for a week but would be enough to keep you from getting too-too hungry. Everyone in my family could stand to lose a few anyway. LOL
BTW, it's a fanny pack so it's still light enough to carry and run with. It's likely there will be no driveable roads. I do have a second small bag with a bit more food in it in case I'm close enough to high ground to get there in time without having to run. In that case, I'd grab both bags and be fairly well set.
I really think people should plan for a week. I can't emphasize that enough. Unless it's a small, localized disaster, there is no way you can plan on help getting to you in 72 hours. In fact, in my area, we've been told it might be as long as 2-3 weeks before aide would get to us in a tsunami. That is, if it's a tsunami caused by a quake in the Cascadia Fault off the Pacific Coast. The reason for the long timeframe is because the quake that precedes it will devestate all the major population areas near us (Portland, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Vancouver, BC, etc.) and those areas will likely get help first becuase there's more people there needing the help. Also, since most help would normally mobilize from those areas, it would be hard to find a mobilization point for rescue teams to get to us in the outlying areas. Considering this event would effect people from Northern CA to Alaska, that's a lot of people who should be prepared. And, of course, we saw what happened with Katrina. It took over a week for many people to get assistance.
I'm not trying to scare people....really, I'm not. But I just always think being prepared is a far better idea than being unprepared. In fact, being prepared takes a lot of the fear out of a disaster situation, imho. So, I say, plan for a week, or even more if you have room for more stuff.
Well, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :-)
72 Hours is just wishful thinking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Brad
However, 72 hours is the generally accepted minimum for most disaster kits. I say this because within 72 hours State and Local disaster aid should (and I repeat, should) reach you, or you to reach it (walking, driving, etc.).
As a former DAT (Red Cross) coordinator and one who has been in scores of "disaster" events, 72 hours*** is an unrealistic pipe dream for the normal American family. The minimum standard should be one week for self-sufficiency, in my view and it is far more likely to be multiple weeks in the case of a large, national or regional event.
I should add that it*** isn't because public sector and private individuals won't try their dardnest to provide assistance -- but in true non-typical serious event -- like Judy has said, every public agency will already be taxed to the limit providing basic service to their immediate area.
There is also the "school's-out-for-summer" syndrome. I have seen it at virtually every "disaster" I worked. Efforts on the part of the affected individuals to get everything back to normal will be delayed for 2-3 days. Partly this is due to shock, partly it is due to desire to "be different" for a while. Which is why I think the 72 hours is way, way too short.
Mark
Katrina and Rita response
Most people that left south Louisiana in vehicles before the storm or even before the flooding were able to reach shelter, food and clothing within a few hours. It was people without cars or those that decided to stay and protect their property that had to wait so long. The biggest problem was finding gas along the way. You should always have cash handy for emergencies because without electricity that quickly became the only acceptable currency throughout much of the Gulf South.
My sister has enough food, water etc to last at least a few days in her car if she ever gets trapped in South Louisiana (she goes to college in Lake Charles).
However, as Judy said the problem is time. Where I live in North Louisiana, the problem is tornadoes. All that I can do in that situation is hide in a closet or the bathtub and pray. I've survived three tornados already. I keep jugs of water, nonperishable foods such as cereal, crackers and canned foods, candles and lighters at handy reach. We are also prone to ice storms, so I will never live in a place that doesn't have a gas stove so that I can at least have some heat.
I think that everyone's emergency preparedeness is going to depend on where they live. If a tsunami hits Shreveport, then we're all in trouble. However, for many years, we were at the head of the list for a nuclear attack from the USSR due to Barksdale airforce base. We probably are still near the top of the list.