General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: it will take 29 years for college grads to save 20% down on SF home, study shows [View all]CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)Definitely, expect to be cut off from services for days and days. They are, I will say, pretty obsessed with fire containment in SF. In a moderately large event similar to Loma Prieta, I think they can contain fires pretty well (although I wouldn't want to find out the hard way). SF is a very well prepared city (modeled after Japan) and I think that makes a big difference. In a very large quake like 1906, however, I imagine all bets are off.
Now I tend to think in terms of likely scenarios. Supposedly the 1906 quake was a 200-year event (meaning according to models it would take 200 years or more for enough energy to build up for it to happen again) so it's unlikely that size of earthquake will hit the Bay Area in our lifetime. Definitely possible, but unlikely.
There are, of course, several other earthquake scenarios in the Bay Area that are worrisome enough to keep you up at night. By far the most frightening is the Hayward Fault, because it's overdue, so many structures are built right on top of it (unlike the San Andreas) and the northern section is thought to be capable of a 7.5. That would devastate the whole Bay Area, and I don't even like to think about what it would do to the East Bay. I don't think many of the smaller cities are as well-prepared.
So that is why I say if I had to be anywhere in the Bay Area during an earthquake, it would be on a hill in the city of SF, because of the bedrock foundation and the high level of preparedness by the city. Of course I hope I never have to go through another major quake because it is a truly horrible experience, no matter how prepared you think you are.