U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2010, 04:29 PM
 
902 posts, read 2,439,817 times
Reputation: 357

Advertisements

I know both are hotbeds for earthquake activity and either one could be hit with a devastating earthquake at any time. I am not asking which one will get hit first, but which one is more prone to it happening and which one is more prepared for when it happens.

So which are is more proned to earthquakes? LA of SF Bay Area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2010, 04:54 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,452 posts, read 25,397,220 times
Reputation: 8919
I don't think either is any less or more prone to a big one occuring, they both seem to have about the same chances. One thing is I can see more liquefaction in the Bay Area considering all of the development close to the water, LA doesn't seem to have nearly as many areas prone to that. I think they're both prepared equally as well, don't really see how one has an advantage in that department. I think the Bay Area's layout might make it more difficult though after one with all the water and bridges. I remember it took friends and family 8 hours to get back to the East Bay from SF after the Loma Prieta Quake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:22 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 5,469,915 times
Reputation: 878
San Francisco sits almost directly on top of the infamous San Andreas Fault. Los Angeles is situated away from the fault, and even a major earthquake on San Andreas (7.5) would only cause minimal damage in LA proper. The real trouble spots down south are Lancaster, Palmdale, San Bernardino, and Palm Springs, at least one of these is likely to be wiped out when "the big one" hits.

In addition to San Andreas Fault, both LA and SF sit on top of a number of smaller faults, but those are less likely to produce devastating earthquakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:26 PM
 
Location: South Bay
7,115 posts, read 19,044,391 times
Reputation: 3366
if i had the choice to be in one city during 'the big one', it would be LA hands down. the concentration of high rises and older buildings is much greater in SF, not to mention the lack of escape routes that don't involve going over/under water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:30 PM
 
Location: GLAMA
16,584 posts, read 33,749,245 times
Reputation: 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
. One thing is I can see more liquefaction in the Bay Area considering all of the development close to the water, LA doesn't seem to have nearly as many areas prone to that.
The entire L.A. basin sits atop up to 30,000 feet of oceanic sediment. It's not as bad as filled in reclaimed land such as the Marina District in SF, but the bowl of Jell-O properties and liquefaction it will exhibit during a localized big one are of serious concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:32 PM
 
902 posts, read 2,439,817 times
Reputation: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by esmith143 View Post
San Francisco sits almost directly on top of the infamous San Andreas Fault. Los Angeles is situated away from the fault, and even a major earthquake on San Andreas (7.5) would only cause minimal damage in LA proper. The real trouble spots down south are Lancaster, Palmdale, San Bernardino, and Palm Springs, at least one of these is likely to be wiped out when "the big one" hits.

In addition to San Andreas Fault, both LA and SF sit on top of a number of smaller faults, but those are less likely to produce devastating earthquakes.
Thank you for responding. In reference to the bold, I am pretty sure that the Hayward Fault is actually suppose to be a bigger threat than the San Andreas when it comes to the Bay Area. The Loma Prieta Earthquake was on the Hayward Fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 05:55 PM
 
Location: GLAMA
16,584 posts, read 33,749,245 times
Reputation: 16832
Quote:
Originally Posted by esmith143 View Post

In addition to San Andreas Fault, both LA and SF sit on top of a number of smaller faults, but those are less likely to produce devastating earthquakes.
Due to their close proximity to high concentrations of population, commercial structures and infrastructure, the potential for catastrophic damage from a major rupture of the Puente Hills and/or Newport-Inglewood faults is expected to at least be on par with that of the San Andreas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Escondido, CA
1,504 posts, read 5,469,915 times
Reputation: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by gogetta View Post
Thank you for responding. In reference to the bold, I am pretty sure that the Hayward Fault is actually suppose to be a bigger threat than the San Andreas when it comes to the Bay Area. The Loma Prieta Earthquake was on the Hayward Fault.

No, Loma Prieta was on the San Andreas Fault. And the 1906 earthquake that destroyed 80% of San Francisco was on the San Andreas Fault too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 06:16 PM
 
Location: RSM
5,113 posts, read 17,453,576 times
Reputation: 1892
It just depends on where it hits and the population density in that area. Both are in pretty bad shape, but I think that San Fran probably has some greater higher population areas that would be more at risk for larger loss of life in a major quake, not to mention all the people on the bridges that will collapse, and those bridges are REALLY busy all day and most of the night.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2010, 06:38 PM
 
902 posts, read 2,439,817 times
Reputation: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by esmith143 View Post
No, Loma Prieta was on the San Andreas Fault. And the 1906 earthquake that destroyed 80% of San Francisco was on the San Andreas Fault too.
My bad you are right, I don't know why I thought that, but regardless I have still heard that the Hayward Fault is due for a catastrophic quake and that it could be of higher risk then the San Andreas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top