It would seem rational to me that OK would have some sort of implementation of community underground shelters. With as much vacant land as is around even our most densely developed areas, I would think it would be relatively easy and inexpensive to put in massive shelters where hundreds/thousands of people who don't have shelters could go in the case of an emergency. How difficult would it be to put one under the parking lot of every public school?

PER CH 9
Apparently, today there is a proposal to float a 400 million dollar state bond issue to help build storm shelters in Oklahoma schools…. Another 100 million would go toward helping business and home owners to buy storm shelters… Now if we can just strengthen state building codes I would feel better.

Without knowing the details I would generally favor such a bond issue.

PER CH 9
Apparently, today there is a proposal to float a 400 million dollar state bond issue to help build storm shelters in Oklahoma schools…. Another 100 million would go toward helping business and home owners to buy storm shelters… Now if we can just strengthen state building codes I would feel better.

Without knowing the details I would generally favor such a bond issue.


Link to above info.
Joe Dorman - Press Releases (http://www.joedorman.com/pressreleases.htm)

It would seem rational to me that OK would have some sort of implementation of community underground shelters. With as much vacant land as is around even our most densely developed areas, I would think it would be relatively easy and inexpensive to put in massive shelters where hundreds/thousands of people who don't have shelters could go in the case of an emergency. How difficult would it be to put one under the parking lot of every public school?

Some cities have closed previously used shelters to the public during severe weather because it was felt it was too dangerous to have people trying to get to them during situations like that.

Mustang Times, School no longer open as public shelters (http://www.mustangpaper.com/v2/content.aspx?module=contentitem&id=206939&memberid=1586)

This is why we need stronger NEW home build codes in Oklahoma!

Protecting Your House

At the conference on the Great Plains tornado of May 3, 1999 held in May 2000 in Oklahoma City, many engineers and meteorologists drew attention to the fact that there are many things the homeowner can do to make his/her home more wind-resistant.

Even in the Oklahoma City tornado, only limited areas experienced the most severe winds. Damage to most houses in the tornado path could have been greatly minimized with better construction.

It IS possible to make an existing home more wind-resistant from strong winds, hurricanes and even weaker tornadic winds, at reasonable cost

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/weweb/Shelt...tion.php#House

Things need to change. All hospitals, schools, apartments buildings, and high density residential should have storm shelters to accommodate it's people. Further more, I don't believe in general community storm shelters because it encourages people to drive out and try and beat the storm, who live in low density suburban neighborhoods.

*Homes and businesses should have stronger building codes.

*It should be mandatory for businesses to have reinforced bathrooms for shelter

*They should find a way or make a law the regulates profits made by storm shelter companies in an attempt to lower the cost of storm shelters

*Rebates should also be available in tornado prone areas like much of Oklahoma

*I also believe that parking garages should have a center storm shelter as well

ou48A - I disagree. This debate always ensues after severe weather, so here goes...

I don't want the government telling me that I should build to withstand a certain level of storm because as we have always known (and witnessed yesterday) you can die even in a well-constructed underground shelter. Also, I've lived here my entire life and have never even seen a tornado, so why should I have to build to that standard?

If you want to build to that standard, please go ahead. Underground shelter, be my guest. Underground house, that's your call. I merely ask that you don't impose those things on me. Because in the extraordinarily rare chance that they'll be tested, they may not work.

ou48A - I disagree. This debate always ensues after severe weather, so here goes...

I don't want the government telling me that I should build to withstand a certain level of storm because as we have always known (and witnessed yesterday) you can die even in a well-constructed underground shelter. Also, I've lived here my entire life and have never even seen a tornado, so why should I have to build to that standard?

If you want to build to that standard, please go ahead. Underground shelter, be my guest. Underground house, that's your call. I merely ask that you don't impose those things on me. Because in the extraordinarily rare chance that they'll be tested, they may not work.It's not really for you as for building a new standard for homebuilders.

Yeah, I don't view this as any different that plumbing and electrical codes. Things like strapping on rafters, etc. and an underground shelter don't really add that much to the cost of a new home's construction.

The fallacy of human supremacy tends to arise after moments like these.

All the technology in the world is not going to save you from a direct hit from an F5 tornado. New building standards are not going to help your home withstand 300+ mph winds.

Wind speeds at that level bend rebar. And I'm pretty sure I heard stories of safe rooms failing. Unless you plan on making everyone live underground, there really is little way to protect yourself in a tornado that size outside of a good ol storm cellar or, at the very lest, a certain level of weather awareness.

I wouldn't mind if the state brought back credits for building storm shelters.

ou48A - I disagree. This debate always ensues after severe weather, so here goes...

I don't want the government telling me that I should build to withstand a certain level of storm because as we have always known (and witnessed yesterday) you can die even in a well-constructed underground shelter. Also, I've lived here my entire life and have never even seen a tornado, so why should I have to build to that standard?

If you want to build to that standard, please go ahead. Underground shelter, be my guest. Underground house, that's your call. I merely ask that you don't impose those things on me. Because in the extraordinarily rare chance that they'll be tested, they may not work.


You may not want the government telling you anything and I really don’t either, but let me tell you why it’s in this case it’s in everyone best interest.
Fly debris that cause’s a great deal of the damage. The flying debris from your weak built home will be flying around hitting other homes that may be more strongly constructed. Once compromised a home can blow up much like a balloon blows up creating damage that may not otherwise occur.
While you and most others don’t discuss this topic very often I can assure you that this topic has been scientifically studied by the world’s leading experts and I have read some of their findings for years.
The studies have discovered that for very little additional cost home can be made far stronger.

Florida building codes are basically what we need for new construction IMHO in Oklahoma.
Similar building codes would reduce damage, death, and injuries and the associated cost for many generations. It would reduce the cost of lifelong lasting injures that the state is often force to pick up the cost for.

I think we have reached a point in our society that you shouldn’t have the right to construct something that would likely present an unnecessary hazard to your neighbor’s for many generations to come and likely for a very long time after you have died…

Stronger building codes are like very, very cheap insurance that will last for generations make our life’s more secure and over a very long period of time pay for them self’s

Always Remember
“Damage to most houses in the tornado path could have been greatly minimized with better construction. It IS possible to make an existing home more wind-resistant from strong winds, hurricanes, and even weaker tornado winds, at reasonable cost”
And that’s why we need stronger home build codes in Oklahoma… When other states do this it’s not difficult.

The fallacy of human supremacy tends to arise after moments like these.

All the technology in the world is not going to save you from a direct hit from an F5 tornado. New building standards are not going to help your home withstand 300+ mph winds.

Wind speeds at that level bend rebar. And I'm pretty sure I heard stories of safe rooms failing. Unless you plan on making everyone live underground, there really is little way to protect yourself in a tornado that size outside of a good ol storm cellar or, at the very lest, a certain level of weather awareness.

I wouldn't mind if the state brought back credits for building storm shelters.

Building a home that would survive a direct EF5 hit is not the goal.

Yeah, I don't view this as any different that plumbing and electrical codes. Things like strapping on rafters, etc. and an underground shelter don't really add that much to the cost of a new home's construction.

Exactly right
It’s pretty cheap to build a much stronger home

We'll probably see rebate checks for shelters come back, so hopefully we see enough money for that. Doing a quick search has Oklahoma Shelters quoting 4x6 safe rooms starting at $3800 and underground shelters at about $2500. So putting things into perspective, the $40 million the state is spending on the Indian museum no tribe seemed to want, would get over 26,000 underground shelters.

As we are seeing though. Safe rooms are great, but they aren't going to withstand the 200+ mph winds of an EF-5 tornado (noting that they've modified the wind speeds with the newer Enhanced Fujita scale. Jim Gardner on KWTV said he has yet to find a standing safe room in any house - if any even had them to begin with.

It reinforces Gary's line of "underground is always best."

Building a home that would survive a direct EF5 hit is not the goal.

Indeed. My family tested a newer home design a few years ago up north. The exterior walls are made with a new concrete with steel reinforcements, the roof is all hurricane compliant, and some other design improvements to where it can withstand winds of 130-150 mph. Many of those improvements and what OU48 is speaking of should all be basic requirements here. For no other reason to even protect against damaging wind events as well.

You may not want the government telling you anything and I really don’t either, but let me tell you why it’s in this case it’s in everyone best interest.
Fly debris that cause’s a great deal of the damage. The flying debris from your weak built home will be flying around hitting other homes that may be more strongly constructed. Once compromised a home can blow up much like a balloon blows up creating damage that may not otherwise occur.
While you and most others don’t discuss this topic very often I can assure you that this topic has been scientifically studied by the world’s leading experts and I have read some of their findings for years.
The studies have discovered that for very little additional cost home can be made far stronger.

Florida building codes are basically what we need for new construction IMHO in Oklahoma.
Similar building codes would reduce damage, death, and injuries and the associated cost for many generations. It would reduce the cost of lifelong lasting injures that the state is often force to pick up the cost for.

I think we have reached a point in our society that you shouldn’t have the right to construct something that would likely present an unnecessary hazard to your neighbor’s for many generations to come and likely for a very long time after you have died…

Stronger building codes are like very, very cheap insurance that will last for generations make our life’s more secure and over a very long period of time pay for them self’s

Always Remember
“Damage to most houses in the tornado path could have been greatly minimized with better construction. It IS possible to make an existing home more wind-resistant from strong winds, hurricanes, and even weaker tornado winds, at reasonable cost”
And that’s why we need stronger home build codes in Oklahoma… When other states do this it’s not difficult.+1

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/fxc/oun/graphicast/image6.jpg (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/fxc/oun/graphicast/image_full6.jpg)


As can be seen on this graphic not all the winds in EF - 5 tornados do EF-5 damage and while it would be costly to build homes that would substantially survive EF 4’s and EF’s 5, it’s not very costly to build homes that would substanually survive the EF2 and lower rated tornados. The Moore tornados, as with most other strong tornadoes, have done a great deal of damage with their weaker winds. Better building codes would in most cases make the serious damage path much smaller.

Homes and other buildings built with better building codes would likely have lowered insurance premiums that over a long period of time would probably save enough money to pay for most of the items that strengthen a home/ business building. Not to mention the added safety for people, pets and their belongings.

Eventually the insurance industry is likely going to require better building codes for new construction, rather we want it or not.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/fxc/oun/graphicast/image6.jpg (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/fxc/oun/graphicast/image_full6.jpg)


As can be seen on this graphic not all the winds in EF - 5 tornados do EF-5 damage and while it would be costly to build homes that would substantially survive EF 4’s and EF’s 5, it’s not very costly to build homes that would substanually survive the EF2 and lower rated tornados. The Moore tornados, as with most other strong tornadoes, have done a great deal of damage with their weaker winds. Better building codes would in most cases make the serious damage path much smaller.

Homes and other buildings built with better building codes would likely have lowered insurance premiums that over a long period of time would probably save enough money to pay for most of the items that strengthen a home/ business building. Not to mention the added safety for people, pets and their belongings.

Eventually the insurance industry is likely going to require better building codes for new construction, rather we want it or not.

In Oklahoma, this has to be the case. Insurance companies are getting demolished in this state, and it's only going to get worse as we continue to grow.

Even so, on some level, building stronger buildings is only going to go so far in limiting debris. There will still be vehicles, fences, large animals, old buildings, earth, loose rocks, grills, large hail, etc.

Something that occurred to me that I had almost totally forgotten is my early grade school. I attended the Pleasant Valley rural one room school just NW of Norman in the 50's. It had a storm cellar directly next to the school. We never used it while I was there except to play on the cement top, but having a safe place for school children is not a new concept.

I think those oil field shelters are really interesting. Red Dog Mobile Shelters.

Forgot the link: http://www.reddogmobileshelters.com/

Let's get some hard information into the discussion. Does anyone know how many Oklahoma structures - residential and commercial - exist in Oklahoma, and how many of those sustain structural damage or are destroyed in a year? Multiply by 40 or 50 to get the useful life of a "typical" structure and you'll determine the lifetime chances that a building is significantly affected. I'm not talking about a roof totalled by hail (property damage), this discussion is about constructing to a level above what we currently have in order to safely protect the occupants. My hunch is less than one percent.

Do we want to increase costs for everyone when only __ percent of the structures will be affected during their lifetimes?

And on the front page of today's NY Times Web edition: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/shelter-requirements-resisted-in-tornado-alley.html?hp&_r=0

- The city of Moore has no community shelter because a 15-minute warning is not enough time to get to safety and because, “overall, people face less risk by taking shelter in a reasonably well-constructed residence.”
- Since their 2011 tornado, the city of Joplin refused to require storm shelters in new homes because they were "cost prohibitive."
- A 2002 study indicated that construction quality in Moore is no better than in homes built before 1999: Few homes built since then had walls secured to foundations with bolts, and only six of 40 had safe rooms (15%).
- Legislation was considered 18 months ago to require shelters, but was rejected because of the cost.
- Homebuilder Mike Gilles, former president of the Oklahoma State Homebuilders Association, constructs shelters in all of his homes but says, "Most homebuilders would be against that because we think the market ought to drive what people are putting in the houses, not the government.”

So - even in the cities of Moore and Joplin, they neither offer community shelters, nor do they require them in new construction.

The beauty of the Red Dog shelters is that they're mobile and could be rented or deployed temporarily for high risk months.

Well...Moore doesn't - Yet.

Moore mayor: New law needed to keep people safe - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/us/oklahoma-tornado/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)


The mayor of tornado-ravaged Moore, Oklahoma, will push for a law requiring storm shelters or safe rooms in new homes, he told CNN Wednesday. "We'll try to get it passed as soon as I can," Glenn Lewis said. The ordinance would apply to single-family and multi-family homes.

This is definitely going to be a big political vs. emotional issue because your typical Oklahoma conservative wants government out of business and personal lives. However, the continued frequency of significant tornadoes - especially in Central Oklahoma with two EF-5s in back to back years, is going to be a driver to trump those typical views.

We'll see how this progresses. This is where your typical conservative viewpoints get tested to the max. Whether its for mandated shelters or accepting federal aid for disaster relief (which this state ranks #3 at accepting). The whole "keep Washington out of our lives" gets really muddied right about now.

My point of view on this.

- Community shelters are a no go unless they are in a mobile home park - then I feel they should be absolutely mandated.
- Safe rooms will need to be revisited on their effectiveness to take a battering of winds for extended periods of time. Yes EF-4/EF-5 winds are rare, but we need to make sure they are failing if a tornado is only moving at 10 mph and beat on it for 2 minutes. I don't think we've seen any video yet of a safe room surviving this tornado.
- Mandating storm shelters in new construction is something that seriously needs to be considered. The frequency of impacts we have here is just too high to ignore. No - not everyone gets hit, but we are in a much higher frequency here than say SE Oklahoma.

It'll be a lively debate I'm sure.

Well...Moore doesn't - Yet.

Moore mayor: New law needed to keep people safe - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/us/oklahoma-tornado/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)


This is definitely going to be a big political vs. emotional issue because your typical Oklahoma conservative wants government out of business and personal lives. However, the continued frequency of significant tornadoes - especially in Central Oklahoma with two EF-5s in back to back years, is going to be a driver to trump those typical views.

We'll see how this progresses. This is where your typical conservative viewpoints get tested to the max. Whether its for mandated shelters or accepting federal aid for disaster relief (which this state ranks #3 at accepting). The whole "keep Washington out of our lives" gets really muddied right about now.

My point of view on this.

- Community shelters are a no go unless they are in a mobile home park - then I feel they should be absolutely mandated.
- Safe rooms will need to be revisited on their effectiveness to take a battering of winds for extended periods of time. Yes EF-4/EF-5 winds are rare, but we need to make sure they are failing if a tornado is only moving at 10 mph and beat on it for 2 minutes. I don't think we've seen any video yet of a safe room surviving this tornado.
- Mandating storm shelters in new construction is something that seriously needs to be considered. The frequency of impacts we have here is just too high to ignore. No - not everyone gets hit, but we are in a much higher frequency here than say SE Oklahoma.

It'll be a lively debate I'm sure.

I wasn't too impressed with Moore's mayor when I saw him on Lawrence O'Donnell, but I'm impressed with this. It will not add much to the construction costs for new homes to add these, and they need to be BELOW GROUND, not safe rooms.

Let's get some hard information into the discussion. Does anyone know how many Oklahoma structures - residential and commercial - exist in Oklahoma, and how many of those sustain structural damage or are destroyed in a year? Multiply by 40 or 50 to get the useful life of a "typical" structure and you'll determine the lifetime chances that a building is significantly affected. I'm not talking about a roof totalled by hail (property damage), this discussion is about constructing to a level above what we currently have in order to safely protect the occupants. My hunch is less than one percent.

Do we want to increase costs for everyone when only __ percent of the structures will be affected during their lifetimes?

Your idea of a 40 or 50 year “useful life of a typical structure” is way off base. Most occupied structures will easily last twice that amount if not much more. As we continue our growth in central Oklahoma the impact from tornadoes will only grow bigger and more costly.
When we are only talking about a few thousand dollars to make an average home significantly stronger its silly to even think we don’t need stronger building codes that have been proven to work in other states.
Shelters are a different topic.

http://i.imgur.com/Hg3zegG.gif

Your idea of a 40 or 50 year “useful life of a typical structure” is way off base. Most occupied structures will easily last twice that amount if not much more. He is pretty close when you consider "Useful life" not ultimate life. 30-50 years is about the expected function lifespan of the average building constructed today without significant upgrades along the way.

He is pretty close when you consider "Useful life" not ultimate life. 30-50 years is about the expected function lifespan of the average building constructed today without significant upgrades along the way.


There is a big difference. What is most common is that most home owners will maintain their homes well enough for them to last for one hundred years or more….. Go to other older cities and there are all kinds of examples of very old structures that have been well maintained….
Are you trying to say that we would be any different here in Oklahoma?

Let's get some hard information into the discussion. Does anyone know how many Oklahoma structures - residential and commercial - exist in Oklahoma, and how many of those sustain structural damage or are destroyed in a year? Multiply by 40 or 50 to get the useful life of a "typical" structure and you'll determine the lifetime chances that a building is significantly affected. I'm not talking about a roof totalled by hail (property damage), this discussion is about constructing to a level above what we currently have in order to safely protect the occupants. My hunch is less than one percent.

Do we want to increase costs for everyone when only __ percent of the structures will be affected during their lifetimes?

While it only applies to commercial buildings, you might make that same argument about requirements for sprinkler systems.

While it only applies to commercial buildings, you might make that same argument about requirements for sprinkler systems.
The newer codes are pushing for residential sprinklers, I fully expect them to be implemented in the next set of codes issued in 2015. When cities adopt that code is another thing entirely, some cities are still under codes from the 90's. Many states have already mandated them, Maryland required them as of late last year. Most state fire marshals are pushing for adoption, of course home builders associations oppose any mandate.

When we build a house it is not going to be built like your typical builder standard stick frame construction, more than likely ICF with fire resistive materials and a sprinkler system especially since we are planning to build in the Foothills where the fire danger is higher.

When we did the Catholic youth camp up hear Luther we changed the restroom design to incorporate safe room principles, this was right after the May 3, 1999 tornado (and others that hit closer to the camp like Mulhall). We had to tear out three cabin slabs that were already poured to rebuild them to accommodate the safe rooms.

Trying to estimate the percentage of houses damaged/destroyed in Moore using the revised estimate of 1,200 homes released by authorities earlier today.

I didn't quickly find the number of housing units in the 2010 census, but in 2000 the number was 15,801. Between 2000 and 2010 the population increased by 33.9% (from 41,138 to 55,081), so an equal increase in housing units would take it to 21,158 in 2010, three years ago.

If 1,200 structures were damaged/destroyed out of 21,158 total housing units, then 5.7% were affected.

I'm not saying whether or not that's a large percentage for an extraordinary weather event, but just trying to bring some math into the discussion.

The thought of a sprinkler system inside my house makes me nervous. I don't know much about them. Is there a chance of them getting set off prematurely (like, with a grease fire on the stove that could be handled easily with a small extinguisher)?

I recent days I have seen national commentary saying that people shouldn’t be allow to rebuild in tornado prone areas such as Moore…..

But if the experts are correct we could greatly minimize damage with better new construction and do it at reasonable cost.
I think we owe it to future generations of Sooners to do what other states have already done and strengthen our building codes….. In the long run minimizing the damage is less costly and this doesn’t even address the emotional and physical trauma.

The thought of a sprinkler system inside my house makes me nervous. I don't know much about them. Is there a chance of them getting set off prematurely (like, with a grease fire on the stove that could be handled easily with a small extinguisher)?
If it makes you feel better, when the temperature reaches high enough and for long enough to pop a sprinkler head (130 degress or so), only the sprinkler head nearest the fire will activate. It's not like in the movies when the entire building's system activates over one head being set off. This is a common misconception.

The fallacy of human supremacy tends to arise after moments like these.

All the technology in the world is not going to save you from a direct hit from an F5 tornado. New building standards are not going to help your home withstand 300+ mph winds.

Wind speeds at that level bend rebar. And I'm pretty sure I heard stories of safe rooms failing. Unless you plan on making everyone live underground, there really is little way to protect yourself in a tornado that size outside of a good ol storm cellar or, at the very lest, a certain level of weather awareness.

I wouldn't mind if the state brought back credits for building storm shelters.

Agree.

Fortunately EF5s are not very common here.

I don't support a mandate of all new homes having to be steel structure or otherwise storm-ready behind the standard 90 mph wind withstanding.

Most homes just aren't hit by tornadoes. There's only a slight probability that your home will be directly hit by a tornado.

"For any given year, the chances of your house being hit by a violent tornado are about 10-5 X 0.01, or about one in 10 million (10-7). In 30 years of living in that house, there are roughly 3 chances in 1,000,000 of having that home flattened by the F4-F5 winds in a violent tornado." (Source: Violent Tornado Probability (http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/tor_probs/vtornado_prob.html))

I would imagine that fire, flood, car accident, falling down stairs, cancer, and other risks are a greater risk to your safety than your home being directly hit by a tornado.

We can't prepare for everything, and have to be reasonable with costs vs. risk.

A backyard underground storm shelter for a few thousand dollars yields a good return on investment for a relatively low risk threat.

With that said, people really should be weather conscious and seek the best shelter available when there is the risk. Mobile home residents must, must seek alternative shelter. People should take the best available shelter they can find, not watch the storm outside, not stay in a mobile home, not drive around, not ignore the storm, not stay by windows, etc. The odds of your house being completely leveled by a direct hit from a tornado are very, very low--- but trees falling, windows breaking, etc. are a real threat. Low risks of danger isn't an excuse to ignore tornado warnings. It's like wearing a car seatbeat. Usually you'll be ok without one, but the "cost" of wearing a car seat belt is low. The "cost" of getting under a mattress in the bathtub during a tornado warning, or getting in your backyard underground storm shelter, during a tornado warning is low. It's a worthwhile effort to protect yourself. Like I said, I think people should pay attention to the weather, seek shelter during warnings, and even consider an underground storm shelter in their backyard if they can easily afford it. I don't think it's necessary to build a new home that can withstand 300 mph winds with the very low odds of your house being completely wiped out by a tornado. Plus, the odds of an EF5 hitting are low. If you go stand outside or stay in a mobile home during even a weaker tornado, your odds of getting hurt are much greater. Cost vs. risk.

Oklahoma City metro-area cities oppose public storm shelters, say residents need to make their own storm plans | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-metro-area-cities-oppose-public-storm-shelters-say-residents-need-to-make-their-own-storm-plans/article/3840867)

What a horrible reality that article depicts.

The city has got to address what people who live in apartments, or are just passing through on the highway are to do when something like this hits. They have some liability in it in my opinion since they won't force apartment owners/builders to address the issue.

What a horrible reality that article depicts.

The city has got to address what people who live in apartments, or are just passing through on the highway are to do when something like this hits. They have some liability in it in my opinion since they won't force apartment owners/builders to address the issue.

But that is a reality, Questor. The city just can't protect everyone within it's city limits from everything.


Some rural towns have public shelters. With low populations and no traffic concerns, public shelters can be a viable solution, Moore Emergency Management Director Gayland Kitch said.
But that simply isn't the case with larger cities.
“We don't have anything that has got a big basement,” Kitch said. “We certainly don't have a basement that can hold 55,000 people.”

And people passing through would have little clue where to find public shelters even if they were available. They certainly couldn't force all existing homes or apartment complexes to build shelters.

The city needs to address it. Many people are relocating here because of growth in various business sectors... We don't want them terrified and second guessing their decision to come here. That is bad for business.

The city needs to address it. Many people are relocating here because of growth in various business sectors... We don't want them terrified and second guessing their decision to come here. That is bad for business.

I don't have a clue what you mean by addressing it. The city can only do so much and they obviously are not ignoring the issue. As mentioned in other threads, the storms are not going to be a serious deterrent to growth in business sectors just as it hasn't been in the past in the wake of serious storms. Moore has undergone the most explosive growth in businesses in it's history since the last devastating storm hit that city. They have had no changes in policies or regulations.

Yeah, I'm not sure what cities can really do. The big problem with May 31st and why the death toll was so high is that we had too many people out on the roads. NWS Norman was warning people continuously that morning, do not drive between 4 and 8PM. They got ODOT to put it on the signs across town. It's one of those things, if you are working until 5 or 6 and couldn't get out earlier, then you have a plan in place. Know where the storms are, what your route is - how congested it is, and decide if you should stay or go.

Community shelters only encourage people to leave their homes and get out in the weather which is worse than staying put. The only shelter mandates that should come down are for protecting those at highest risk - mobile home parks, camping sites, and apartment complexes. Those are really the only places where people aren't going to have an option to install a storm shelter. With apartments I'm also lumping in developments like lofts downtown and such for those buildings to at least have a saferoom of some sort on site.

May 31st 8 of 9 people killed were in their cars. Consider that when thinking about the homes that were hit by the EF3 (as it is rated right now) and other tornadoes. Let's also look back to May 20th. The ONLY EF5 damage was at Briarwood Elementary. It was not an EF5 back in Newcastle, the bulk of Moore, OKC, etc. So you are not going to see, in most cases, a wide swath of EF5 damage. I'm also pretty sure no one was killed at Briarwood.

We need to do better in getting people, who are ALREADY on the roads, out of the way of storms as they come through. Those that are in the path need to stay where they are in a safe spot. Perhaps the best investment going forward would be highway information signs every 20 miles on all the states major interstates/highways that carry significant amounts of traffic. That would be roughly 26 signs on I-35, 34 on I-44, and 34 on I-40 to start. The cost, from what I've found, is roughly around $140K per installation, but will vary on the sign obviously. So we are looking at a cost of roughly $13 million to do an initial install. The signs then are used to alert drivers to weather conditions (as well as your typical road advisories) in the county they are are in and also those in front of them.

We also need to see a better traffic management system put in place to divert people earlier and close on-ramps so we aren't further packing highways that are being used to evacuate those already on the road.

Better state traffic management would help but reducing traffic bottle necks would help too.
The proposed east side metro I-35 by pass and more bridges over the river in the south metro are both already needed.
There are many stick framed hotels that are no safer than apartments. We might need to look at those too.

Better state traffic management would help but reducing traffic bottle necks would help too.
The proposed east side metro I-35 by pass and more bridges over the river in the south metro are both already needed.
There are many stick framed hotels that are no safer than apartments. We might need to look at those too.

Pretty much any new highway is going to have to be a turnpike, but let's not pull that discussion in here. There are already 4 threads, give or take, that have been hitting on it. That's plenty cross pollination of the subject. :)

I agree hotels should also be looked at as well for requiring some form of storm shelter. We saw what can happen with these lower end 2-3 story hotels after May 3rd tore through a couple at Shields and 35.

Community shelters are a bad idea purely from the get there standpoint.

If govt. ever decides to require shelter protection, any mandate ought to be directed to the individual property owner level only, residential or commercial. If the owner is leasing the property out, the required compliance costs, like most all costs, would be factored into lease rates and passed along to the tenants over an appropriate period.

Can we turn this over to some engineer grad students to design concepts for cost effective publicly accessible storm shelters that can be added to many areas around the metro...

Can we turn this over to some engineer grad students to design concepts for cost effective publicly accessible storm shelters that can be added to many areas around the metro...

Again this would go against the "stay put and take shelter" that people need to be following. Now if we put in community shelters at the places we've discussed above (apartments, hotels, mobile home parks)...that's different.

The government already has the right to regulate business in the interest of public safety. It has every right to require apartment complex builders to build to higher standards or require tornado shelters on site. The only question is if the public will is there to support it.

We have snow route signs on all city roads. In the south there are hurricane evacuation route signs. If there were public shelters, it would be a no brainer to put up signs pointing travelers to them.

I don't see how any grad student is going to come up with a solution cheaper than digging a ditch and filling it with concrete. That probably sounds like I'm trying to be smart, but I'm being serious.

There are always possibilities.

I have to think that the illusion of safety is something the government would also be interested in. In the 50's fallout shelters wouldn't have helped much if the Russians had decided to nuke us. But the thought of them being there kept people from losing it like they did last Friday....

Here ya go...https://jcbunkerbeds.com/