Holding Boston hostage
Boston was in lockdown Friday. The machinery of a major metropolitan area in the richest nation on earth had come to a grinding halt. We know why this is happened – a terrorist manhunt – but how, exactly, does a modern bustling city come to a full stop?
In fact, much of ordinary life continues. Water still comes from the taps for a shower; you can telephone your family and friends; you can even work on your computer or read quietly in the backyard. But one key aspect of city life stopped: the movement of people. What matters most in a lockdown of this scale is the ability to halt the circulation of people.
Whether or not a lockdown works often depends on who – the citizens or the terrorist suspect – can stay still the longest.
The prevailing idea of the lockdown is “shelter in place” – an instruction to remain precisely where you are. The phrase came into general use in the 1970s, in response to planning for population protection in the event of nuclear attack – often with a specific concern that a chemical, biological or nuclear device might have contaminated an area.
Terrorism is our new nuclear threat and the phrase has recently been applied in planning scenarios similar to the reality that unfolded in Boston Friday. As with the operation of public transportation on a normal day, such directives require the cooperation and goodwill of the population at large.
A lockdown is a massive undertaking – but easy enough to initiate when it involves a centralized authority. Though Boston’s Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority is the country’s fifth largest mass transit system, serving a population of nearly 5,000,000 people across more than 175 municipalities, it is overseen by a small board answerable directly to the governor. If the governor says “stop,” then the system stops – leaving nearly one-third of the city’s labor force with no means of getting to or from work.
The simple notice appeared on the MBTA website on Friday, “ALL Service on ALL Modes Currently SUSPENDED,” demonstrating the central authority’s ability to halt the movement of trolleys, buses, subways and elevated trains and commuter trains over an area of more than 3,000 square miles.
The MBTA shutdown was necessary because there are so many points of entry and because, under normal circumstances, the security of commuters relies almost entirely on trust. At Logan Airport, however, with only a few points of entry and exit and a trained security staff in place, flights continued to operate.
Similarly, large institutions can be shut down with a single command – though making sure doors are locked and no one is inside takes the coordinated effort of hundreds, if not thousands, of staff members. Boston public schools as well as its colleges and universities were closed.
Municipalities can also be closed down relatively easily: A mayor or town manager issues the directive and doors shut, garbage trucks pull over, inspectors go home. Officials have also asked businesses to close and many, if not most, comply. Some small shops, especially convenience stores, may remain open. No tickets are issued if they do.
But businesses that rely on large groups of people – such as the Faneuil Hall marketplace – are less likely to remain open. They are motivated as much by legal concerns as by a sense of civic duty.
In an open society such as our own, the most difficult part of the lockdown is gaining the cooperation of citizens. All the authorities can do is to ask. Without diverting police to guard road checks, no one can stop you from driving. No one can stop tourists, who may have been planning this trip for months, from walking to see the sights.
It is no small credit to the people of metropolitan Boston that the vast majority had, in fact, hunkered down in their homes or in their offices – wherever they were when they heard the request to “shelter in place.”
With “why” and “how” sketched in, the question turned to whether or not it actually did any good. Certainly, if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had attempted to flee – instead of taking shelter in a boat – his movement across an otherwise stilled city would have registered. But the image carries with it a video-game sensibility: hunter and prey against the backdrop of a depopulated city.
We wanted to believe that Tsarnaev wanted to run – and the city’s voluntary immobility held him hostage. But it may well be that he was the one holding Boston hostage.
NOTE: This piece was updated when lockdown ended.
PHOTO (Top): The normally traffic-jammed Commonwealth Avenue appears deserted in Boston, Massachusetts April 19, 2013, during the manhunt for Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the remaining suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.REUTERS/Neal Hamberg
PHOTO (Insert A): A woman watches police as they search for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects in Watertown, Massachusetts April 19, 2013. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
PHOTO (Insert B): SWAT teams enter a suburban neighborhood to search an apartment for the remaining suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown, Massachusetts April 19, 2013. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi