I agree it’s not something that is particularly likely in the few years I’ll be living here, but it’s the sort of thing that’s relatively easy to prepare for. It’ll help feel me less nervous about those occasional 3.5’s right off the coast that make the windows rattle. Plus, after seeing how long it takes adequate government aid to arrive after some severe disasters, I’d want to feel I could survive on my own long enough.
Yeah. And each time the tide changes, the wind direction usually changes. The tidal current and wind chop is a real challenge, even for a motorized boat.
If you survived the initial disaster and you would like to remain alive, stay of the water.
No, it would not. True, it’d be very dangerous for a few minutes, and somewhat dangerous for a few hours, but after that, it’d only be annoying and inconvenient. 3 days of food, water and batteries and you’re fine.
Bets? That big a quake and SF turns into Bosnia. Drop or damage the bridges and the peninsula can only be supplied up the 280. You’d better be prepared for at least two weeks of no groceries or supplies of any sort, and another couple of weeks with very limited support. With widespread damage come the rats, four-legged and otherwise. How many in the city have been inoculated against cholera and typhoid?
If you aren’t ready to be totally self-sufficient for at least a month, and be able to defend yourself and family, then you need to move someplace more tectonically stable. Like Greenland.
After the 1906 earthquake there were no bridges over across the bay and yet plenty of people were still able to evacuate into the East Bay (it was a cause of not insignificant population growth in the East Bay suburbs).
I’d say that within a few days there’d be regular (if crowded) ferry service if both the Golden Gate Bridge or Bay and Richmond Bridges were out of commission using the existing fleet. Not to mention the business in private water taxis that would quickly build up. So money to pay someone is probably more valuable than trying to have your own transportation.
Or by air (helicopter) or by ship. And of course, no place is safe. Earthquakes are less dangerous than hurricanes, flooding wildfire and etc.
Even in the complete fuck-up that was Katrina, stuff was stabilized after only 5 days. Less than half dozen fatal cases of cholera, no typhoid, a few cases of e-coli. That was from drinking bad water, and I already said you needed food and water.
obfusciatrist has already pointed out how fast SF recovered from the 1906, at least in terms of food, water, restoring order and evacuations.
When my grandparents were faced with this very scenario in April 1906, after the initial camping in Golden Gate Park, they took a ferry to Oakland and a train to NYC and returned a few years later. So in modern times, take a friend to lunch in Oakland at a NY style deli and catch an A’s game. Problem solve. My other grandmother (much younger) was actually in a building that collapsed completely while she was in a folded up bed. But she was further south. They managed just fine. In short, get a grip. If you survive the initial onslaught of mother nature, the zombies won’t get you.
San Francisco isn’t an island. It might take a while, but you could travel by land around the south end of the bay before heading north. This seems a lot safer than trying to cross the bay in a small boat or raft when you have no boating experience at a time when, if you get into trouble, it’s unlikely that anyone would be available to save you.
That’s why I had my hypothetical ballon idea heading south and circling around SF Bay. What’s the fixation with going north? Wouldn’t you want to take the path of least resistance just to get out of there? Or are thier cutoff/choke points to the south that zombies could way lay people in like lambs to a slaughter? :eek:
If that’s the case then I’m going to propose tunneling under the bay.
The OP wanted to head north because that’s where relatives are.
DrDeth was contending that staying in the city would be ok if you had 3 days supplies. Leaving town wasn’t an option. So skipping over to Berkeley to have a few at Triple Rock is a non-starter.
Kyla, I don’t trust anybody if the lights go out and the food and water stop. Every big city is just a few hours away from turning into a war zone. Given SFs attitude towards civilian ownership of firearms, I don’t think there will be much to stop the animals.
So are we talking about Forest Gump here? You know, he gets a call that mama is dying so he points his head towards Greenbo Alabama and jumps off the boat and makes a beeline for her? :rolleyes: I thought that the point was that he wanted to live to see his relatives . . . so head south young man and circle around; give up on the rowboat. That’s why I was floating around the crazy ballon idea because there just as much chance of making it safe that way IMHO.
A boat seems like an unnecessary risk. I’d get a sturdy bike with a trailer of supplies and cycle south around the Bay. Someone beat me to it, but that’s what I came in to say.
Crossing the straits is another issue, so hopefully the bridge at Benicia is up.
As others have said, I would think establishing ferry service would be a high priority, so all that cycling may be unnecessary.
A bicycle and a trailer are part of my earthquake kit. In part because they give me mobility but mostly because I figure that’s how I get to and from the relief supplies after that 72 hours (or whatever) of having to manage on our own. It helps, perhaps, that I’m used to using them as my everyday transportation.