You need a drink?

I live on said Pennisula. And to make matters worse I work at the primary trauma hospital for SF. if it hits the far I have to fight the mess of you poor souls going the other way.

Now where'd I leave that bottle of Oban....

Replace far with fan. (So I never actually misplaced the bottle...)

-E2

Also don't forget: any major roads leading into SF would necessarily be commandeered by heavy military and transport materials.

As another former Bay Area resident (Oakland, Berkeley, and then Mill Valley), with lifelong friends who still live in the city (Cow Hollow and Noe Valley), I think (and hope) you are overstating the potential for crisis.

First, because you under-count the number of bridges across the Bay on a technicality. It is true that only two bridges connect SF proper to the outside world, but just a bit further south there are the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges.

Second because you leave out Route 1 along the coast, which can also handle traffic, as well as a large number of surface streets that will take you parallel to the freeways for long distances. Think El Camino Real.

Third because SF, unlike NO, is mostly well elevated. A tsunami might temporarily inundate some low-lying areas on the coast like the Sunset and Ocean Beach, but the water would never touch higher ground and would quickly drain away. Waterfront on the Bay (the Marina, the Embarcadero, etc.) might see no more than a low level surge that would only affect the dock areas.

So there are plenty of routes out of town, and the city is unlikely to need complete immediate evacuation because the natural disasters that could befall it will not be as universal or persistent as a hurricane followed by total flooding. Also, they are to some extent mutually exclusive. An offshore quake might cause a tsunami but would leave the bridges alone, while a quake along the San Andreas fault might take out a bridge or two but wouldn't cause widespread inundation.

You could construct the same kind of disaster scenarios for many major metropolitan areas (LA, Seattle, San Diego, Manhattan, Long Island, Philadelphia), but none will ever face the kind of problems seen by New Orleans. And quite frankly, with the possible exception of Philadelphia, none would exhibit quite the same degree of feckless incompetence that has characterized the response of the City of New Orleans and hobbled the efforts of others to help it.

Not that I'm not keeping my emergency supply inventory well-stocked and the 4WD Jeeps gassed up and ready to go, though. That's been a given since 9/11.

Probably true, HT. I mean, the Bay Area survived a pretty horrific disaster in '89, and recovered fairly quickly.

Some people down here have said Houston could suffer the same fate as NO, but the situations are totally different. Some areas are below sea level, but they would be more susceptible to heavy rain like we got with Allison in '01 (man did that year suck).

Otherwise, Houston is well enough above sea level, it's protected from storm surge by Galveston Island, and it has numerous routes out of town to the North (I-45, US 59) and West (US 290, I-10). Biggest problems in a windy hurricane (as opposed to wet) would be in communities on Galveston Bay, Clear Lake/Clear Creek, and Baytown/Channelview.

Our obsessive car culture would be a boon in that situation. Also, I'd like to think our leaders have learned a lesson or two from Katrina. We're getting the results up close, after all.

Hey, I hope I'm long gone when the Cumbre Vieja volcano on La Palma, of the Canary Islands, really let's loose, and slides into the ocean the way it is feared it will. A 50 foot wall of water striking the U.S. mainland from Boston to Miami, with about five or six hours notice, isn't something I want to see.

Of course, when the Yellowstone caldera wakes up and blows again, a good chunk of the Northern Hemisphere is going to need a stiff drink.

I think people who desire immortality are nuts. Give me a good long run, but get me out before the apocalyptic stuff happens. Of course, if I saw settlement outside the bounds of this planet on the horizon, I'd change my mind.

Will, I think in the case of the Yellowstone Caldera, FEMA recommends eleventybillion gallons of water for each family member, three bags of Soylent Green, and a 4-wheel-drive vehicle.

Oh, and WiFi.

Well, at least a lot fewer people would be subjected to the sights and sounds of a Congressional investigaton. Gotta look at the bright side....

The Next Big Disaster we have to worry about is the New Madrid Fault.

A full-scale quake would be in the 8.0 range, and with non-earthquake resistant construction being the norm there, a lot of buildings would just sorta dissolve. Pretty much every levee in the middle and upper Mississippi Valley would break.

Have to agree with Cirby, New Madrid is about the scariest natural hazard in the US you've never heard of. Take a look at the risk map here and note the size of the historical quakes: www.geo.mtu.edu/UPSeis/area.html

"Non-earthquake resistant construction" is an understatement. I worked in a CA state agency for a few years that dealt with earthquake risk 24/7. At national conferences my counterparts from states in the NM region would look especially grim during presentations on increasing building code requirements for commercial and residential construction - most of their jurisdictions don't have *any* buidling codes to be strengthened.

Dude - I was there in 1989. Worse still, I was underwater on BART in mid-bay when the quake struck, the very place everyone says " I dont want to be there when the big one hits".

And where did BART let us out once everything was shut down? thats right, "west oakland", thats Huey P Newton, Capital of west coast heroin trade West Oakland. Its getting dark, the cypress is collapsed right there in front of the station and behind us were the fires of the mission district burning.

oh and the bridge collapse was visible. That was a hell of a thing to see.

What did I do? Simple, I hailed a cab, grabbed everyone that could fit who was going my way, and I was home with about an hour delay.

Now, "the missus" was one the train behind mine, so she didnt make it out of the city before the quake hit.

She got to see SF in the midsts of the disaster you describe. both bridges closed, no power, and fires burning.

What did she do? Well, City police and the populace maintained order well enough to keep everyone under control, by 11:00 the bridges had been recertified and the transit organizations began to run buses ferries over to Marin and over to the east bay ( the long way). She got home at 3:00 am. Shaken, but not stirred as they say.

The key to survival in an earthquake is to have a plan A and a plan B and a good pair of shoes and plenty of patience and stay the hell away from old buildings.

Quakes have their own issues, but for the most part all but the most catastrophic are nothing by comparison to Hurricane and Tornado damage. Unlike Hurricanes, organizations in earthquake country actually practice their earthquake emergency procedures at some point during each year, and with each earthquake building codes are improved.

Of course, all that goes out the window when you move even a basic quake like a 6.0 to a place that doesnt have the history of Quakes and building codes of SF or LA. Take the '89 loma preita quake and move it to seattle( or denver), and hundreds of people would have died. Heres a little test, next time you are in SF, walk on any elevated platform and bounce on it and see if you can detect any movement in the structure.
Now, try the same thing in seattle and you get a sickening little wave. Thats building codes in action. Since Seattle has never experienced a true "Big Quake", the local populace thinks "it could never happen to them" and as a result its a bitch to get the building codes to reflect what is known in the modern age about earthquakes. The result is that while seattle is just as susceptible to quakes as SF, seattle is in fact more dangerous even though its recent history has been quieter. Id rather face a quake in a place that gets alot of them than a place that never sees any.

As far as disasters go, the quake was nothing compared to the Oakland hills fires a year or so later. That was a much bigger disaster in the minds of most people in the bay area than loma preita(unless you lived in the mission district of course and for them it was the fire, not the quake that was the most devastating).

Now, try the same thing in seattle and you get a sickening little wave. Thats building codes in action. Since Seattle has never experienced a true "Big Quake", the local populace thinks "it could never happen to them" and as a result its a bitch to get the building codes to reflect what is known in the modern age about earthquakes. The result is that while seattle is just as susceptible to quakes as SF, seattle is in fact more dangerous even though its recent history has been quieter. Id rather face a quake in a place that gets alot of them than a place that never sees any.

Er, no, Frank. What you feel in Seattle when you do that depends on what you do it in- anything built in the last 20 years is done according to building codes almost as strict as San Francisco's. What you see on TV when there's a quake up here is a few century-old buildings down in the historic district losing a few bricks. They're all within walking distance of downtown, and are mostly bars and restaurants, so the reporters love to head down there when something happens. I know it looks like the entire place is falling apart, but that's not what's going on (altho if it deters some Californians from moving up here, it's worth it...).

But it is true that we don't worry about quakes much. What Seattleites worry about is Mount Ranier pulling a St. Helen's on us.

If you need a drink why not give this a try:

Save New Orleans Cocktail Hour!
Monday, September 12, 2005,
5:00 - 7:00 pm

On Monday, September 12th, between the hours of 5:00pm and 7:00pm, bar customers across the nation will raise their glasses for a “Save New Orleans Cocktail Hour” as bar and restaurant owners shake up New Orleans' classic cocktails to directly benefit New Orleans food and beverage industry workers who are out of work and sorely in need of funds for rebuilding their lives. During this special event New Orleans classics will be offered at participating bars for $10 per drink. Receipts from the Save New Orleans Cocktail Hour will be donated to a special tax-deductible relief fund established by the Museum of the American Cocktail.

Bars in Aspen, Boston, Cleveland, Las Vegas, New Jersey, New York, Seattle and Washington DC are already participating.

http://museumoftheamericancocktail.org/Cocktail200/

HT is right; tsunami inundation won't head very far inland given SF's topographic relief (Golden Gate Park is elevation 100 at South Lake), and will drain away quickly. Storm surge flooding persists in Lake Pontchartrain because the lake level is elevated by water entering constricted passes (The Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass, along US 90) for hours or days in advance of landfall. It takes awhile to drain back out to sea, and as the winds shift to northerly following landfall, the remaining elevated lake water is blown higher on the south shore than the north. Exactly what just happened.
SF Bay would exhibit this tendency much less, and that city is of course above sea level, and half on the open sea side. The constriction at the Golden Gate may even attenuate the INCOMING tsunami wave, unfortunately saving Berkely from much flooding. I honestly don't know about that...could make it worse too, but I suspect not. In any case, inundation will be limited, and will drain quickly, esp. compared to NO. Inland earthquake is the real danger, but have that drink anyway.

It's the Cumbre Vieja that scares me the most. I'm inland, but only a few miles.

I think more than the lack of roads, the problem is the lack of cars. The MSM may demonize cars because of their alleged ties to so-called global warming, but the fact of the matter is that without cars New Orleans could not have been evacuated as thoroughly as it was. You could not get enough buses, trains or planes there in time to evacuate the entire city. It is simply impossible.

THAT, I fear, is the real problem for San Francisco, and New York City, for that matter. The only way to evacuate a city quickly is for people to own their own individual transportation. A city completely dependent on public transportation is basically screwed.

Cirby is absolutely right, just as he/she was in a post on another blog about how this time last year, the feds were accused of responding "too quickly" to the hurricanes in Florida as merely an election ploy.

This year, the response was TWICE AS FAST to a disaster that was immeasurably worse, and the feds are accused of responding too slowly.

I've posted about the New Madrid fault as well. I'm also concerned about what will happen when Phoenix, Las Vegas and other desert cities run out of water. Rebuilding the major port city of New Orleans makes a whole lot more economic sense than continuing to build in the desert.

The Next Big Disaster we have to worry about is the New Madrid Fault.

Speaking of destroying St. Louis, the Hallmark Channel has what looks like a beautifully wretched disaster movie out, called Supernova. I haven't actually seen it yet; I recorded it to disk and fast forwarded to make sure I got it all (I didn't, on the first try).

Guess which city gets it about an hour and a half in? Guess which national monument is in picturesque ruins? Stephen, you might want to check that out. It'll be re-run on Saturday.

Cirby — But New Madrid runs through Red States, so scroom.

And Bush can't predict earthquakes? Fascist bastard let us down again!

I live in Belmont and I am now officially scared shitless. Thanks Stephen!

I live in the Mission district of SF and what stood out to me when looking at NO lose it's social order in a matter of hours was that I could see the same thing happening here. Both towns have a lawless aspect to them that doesn't require a lot of pressure for them to break.

Oh, and a terrorist attack on SF's infrastructure could end up causing the social order to disappear faster than a temblor. Guess how vulnerable the power structure that feeds SF is - and what players work to keep it that way year after year...

" dodging and weaving"? The nose is below knee level and pointed, the traction is good...there will be no dodging and weaving...

In other words, Mother Nature hates you. And this time it's personal.

Glad to see you're dealing with it like a man. (And make mine a double, bartender.)

Bush can't predict earthquakes for the simple reason that Karl Rove won't tell him.
Evacuating NYC would be a huge nightmare, that was one reason why the Seabrook (I think that's the name) nuclear plant on Long Island got shut down. Costing us NY taxpayers another couple billion.

That bouncing feeling one sometimes gets in buildings is due to the advent and use of high strength steel in the floor beams. It has shorter beams and is, well, bouncier. While annoying, its a good sign, basically.

There are few NATURAL disasters in SF that would require evacuation. BTW, I took the ferry home (not FAIRY!) during the Loma Prieta the next day. I stayed with a visiting friend at the Saint Francis that night and things were generally pretty cool - very little looting. I thought the fires were in the Marina, not the Mission.

What we SHOULD worry about is a terrorist or NoKo nuke. Besides the immediate death and distruction, the fallout from a ground (or water) burst WILL require selective and prompt evacuation downwind. Fortunately, the Feds are setup to give us directions within 15 minutes if that happens so LISTEN for instructions. It will be easy to run off in the wrong direction and make matters much worst for yourself. Most likely you'll be better off staying inside your house (remember the duct tape?)

hey dude- you know that you live about 500 yards from a real ugly 100 year fault line(you know the one that created the rocky mountains in the first place). the last time it moved was 110 years ago and was a 7.8. Guess its time!! Boy, wouldn't the front range look great with a new face lift.

Why not take advantage of this opportunity to rebuild the city in a BETTER LOCATION. better planning could then be done and existing issues could be taken care of. Seems like a total waste of resources to drain something AND rebuild it AND then rebuild the levees. when you look at the scale of repair efforts that will be needed the existing rubble/wet/everything seems that it might provide enough of an obstacle to make a fresh start worthwhile. I recall hearing that some towns which have been desroyed by floods have been relocated to areas where it was less likely to happen again. (usually with better facilities/power/infrastructure, et cetera too boot) Port of NO could still remain open for the duration since it is up and running (and would be a great recepticle for supplies for the project as well as keeping trade flowing)

Might as well have some good come out of this situation. I hate to troll but if you agree then do your best to get this plastered all over the internet as the quicker it gets a decision the less wasted effort there is on draining the sump.

CWS

I doubt it would be as bad. I live in the Bay Area now -- my wife is one of the few who grew up here and is still here. Like all the natives as far as I can tell, she's obsessive about keeping our "earthquake readiness kit" up to date. It'd be _bad_ mind you --- but people here are sort of prepared for it.

I'm more worried about an earthquake hitting my hometown of Boston...someday it will happen, and there, we _don't_ prepare for it.

If y'all don't have enough to fret about, read up on the overdue eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera.

The quake in '89 - wasn't that "dubya's" fault? (no pun intended).

Although it sounds like the Mayor screwed up big time, I remember not long after 9-11, listening to some talking head explain that no major US cities could be completely evacuated in the event of such a disaster. It was simply impossible.

I assume that all city governments are frantically reviewing their plans right now.

But I have to wonder if there isn't a point where you have to admit that there is only so much that can be physically done.

I don't know.

Uh, maybe I missed a reference to them , but there are boats and a big body of water to sail them on in San Francisco - I think in 1989 after the quake damaged the Bay Bridge ferries were used.

They can be used by people without cars, too, and will save a long hike down the Peninsula.