The Earthquake That Will Devastate Us

[soleri]

Bedtime reading. Enjoy

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...really-big-one

[Pacificoduck]

Great read! Really hits home. It's insane how unprepared our region is for 'the big one'

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Pacificoduck

Great read! Really hits home. It's insane how unprepared our region is for 'the big one'

How does one who lives in a studio apartment - or anywhere in a high rise, where storage space is minimal - even begin to prepare?

Remember the boil advisory last year? Most people didn't even have enough water for 24 hours.

[MarkDaMan]

^My mom had me keep a backpack of one week of supplies in my closet growing up. She would have water straw filters instead of heavy and space consuming bottled water, MREs, granola bars and such. Didn't take up but a small part of my closet.

[scleeb]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

How does one who lives in a studio apartment - or anywhere in a high rise, where storage space is minimal - even begin to prepare?

Remember the boil advisory last year? Most people didn't even have enough water for 24 hours.

Walk to Life: To survive this cataclysm, you will need to head east on foot. Good walking shoes and potable water are a must... initial destinations include Hood River, The Dalles, Bend and K. Falls. Everything west of the Cascades will be "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome."

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by scleeb

Walk to Life: To survive this cataclysm, you will need to head east on foot. Good walking shoes and potable water are a must... initial destinations include Hood River, The Dalles, Bend and K. Falls. Everything west of the Cascades will be "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome."

Hardly. Lucy Jones (noted quake expert) from Cal Tech was on NPR today. She said that the New Yorker article was scientifically accurate, but the damage estimate was overstated. The I5 corridor would experience the equivalent of a 7.0 quake if the Cascadia fault broke at a 9.0. Northridge in '94 was a 6.7. I was in So Cal for that one. The urban areas of the Willamette Valley would certainly sustain substantial damage, but it would certainly not be "Thunderdome" nor would "everything West of I5 be toast" as the article stated. The coast would be toast. Equivalent 8.0 quake followed by a tsunami between 30' and 100'. Yikes.

[2oh1]

Assuming a worst case scenario (the Cascadia fault breaks tomorrow at a 9.0), what's realistic for Portland? This article from Portland Monthly uses a lot of text without really saying much, and a lot of what it does say reads more like scare tactics:

The Big One: A Northwest Earthquake Survival Guide

There are a few interesting tidbits though:

All of the city’s road-clearing equipment is stored beneath the certain-to-collapse Fremont Bridge ramps. Seemed like a good idea at the time!

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Assuming a worst case scenario (the Cascadia fault breaks tomorrow at a 9.0), what's realistic for Portland?

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/f..._northwest.htm

Interesting coverage of the 7.0 that hit 35 miles from downtown Seattle a few years ago. Spread the worst damage from that quake across all the population centers along I5 from Vancouver, BC to Medford. It will be the most destructive quake in U.S. history.

[scleeb]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Hardly. Lucy Jones (noted quake expert) from Cal Tech was on NPR today. She said that the New Yorker article was scientifically accurate, but the damage estimate was overstated. The I5 corridor would experience the equivalent of a 7.0 quake if the Cascadia fault broke at a 9.0. Northridge in '94 was a 6.7. I was in So Cal for that one. The urban areas of the Willamette Valley would certainly sustain substantial damage, but it would certainly not be "Thunderdome" nor would "everything West of I5 be toast" as the article stated. The coast would be toast. Equivalent 8.0 quake followed by a tsunami between 30' and 100'. Yikes.

sorry if it wasn't obvious... my tongue was in my cheek. I thought thunderdome gave it away... ;-)

[Photogeric]

That early warning system described in the article that is in place throughout Japan should be priority number one, in my opinion. That 30-90 second warning, region wide, could literally save thousands of lives by making several last ditch moves to prepare and warn people. Shutting off utilities, opening up firehouse doors and dispatching police efforts, closing bridge gates, allowing people to try and get to a safe place or a safe position in time. It seems like a no brainer.

[maccoinnich]

I considered posting this in the N Portland thread, but I think it's more relevant here:

When an earthquake hits, this North Portland office building will get a heads up




Just after 6:25 a.m. on June 25, a sensor at a North Portland office building first detected a tiny tremor.

Ten seconds later came a slightly stiffer rattle — one which might have been impossible to notice later in the day, after traffic picked up on North Vancouver Avenue. The 3.2 magnitude earthquake with its epicenter near Yamhill, Oregon, wasn't strong enough to cause any damage.

But if it had been, the 10 seconds would have been enough time to bring the elevator at the Radiator building to the ground floor, protecting occupants inside, and to cut off the building's gas and electric lines, preventing a possible fire.

And the building could have sent a quick text-message warning to the people who work there.

...continues at the Oregonian.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Interesting coverage of the 7.0 that hit 35 miles from downtown Seattle a few years ago....

If you're talking about the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, Wikipedia lists it as a 6.8 --which is no small difference given the logarithm used to measure earthquakes. A 7.0 earthquake would be exactly 200% bigger than a 6.8 would be.

In any case, that was a very sobering read. Portland especially seems like it would face severe damage from a big earthquake since it didn't have strong seismic building codes until the 1970s.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by fflint

If you're talking about the 2001 Nisqually earthquake, Wikipedia lists it as a 6.8 --which is no small difference given the logarithm used to measure earthquakes. A 7.0 earthquake would be exactly 200% bigger than a 6.8 would be.

In any case, that was a very sobering read. Portland especially seems like it would face severe damage from a big earthquake since it didn't have strong seismic building codes until the 1970s.

Very true.

In all seriousness - I've starting planning my retirement, leaving Los Angeles and returning to Oregon. I want to be close enough to Portland to make frequent visits, but not live in the metro area. I was thinking Eugene might be a good mix of size, distance and demographics. I'm now thinking that Bend might be safer choice. A little conservative for my tastes, though. And I've crossed the coast off my list, which is sad because I really like Astoria.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Very true.

In all seriousness - I've starting planning my retirement, leaving Los Angeles and returning to Oregon. I want to be close enough to Portland to make frequent visits, but not live in the metro area. I was thinking Eugene might be a good mix of size, distance and demographics. I'm now thinking that Bend might be safer choice. A little conservative for my tastes, though. And I've crossed the coast off my list, which is sad because I really like Astoria.

Eugene is a great choice for retirement, or really any other reason. It's no Los Angeles (I notice we've both lived there and also in Boston), but it's one of the 'biggest' small cities I can think of--good public transit, great bicycling, great amenities, all of the substantial benefits of a major university. It's got character, and it has natural beauty right outside the front door. And because it's not adjacent to a big, hip metropolis it's not crazy expensive.

But I should note there's a downside (well, two actually): it is just as susceptible to earthquake damage as Portland is. They are equally proximate to the fault line. And this hits home for me personally, as I have a good friend who lives in Eugene and who--even more scarily--spends a great deal of time at his family vacation home just outside Florence, OR.

The other downside is the paucity of good Mexican food.

I figure there are risks no matter where one chooses to live. Different risks, obviously, but let's just say nobody gets out of this alive. I will probably avoid buying property on the Oregon coast, but I don't think people should avoid the Pacific Northwest as a whole just because there will someday be a massive earthquake. I feel the same way about Japan, Alaska, and other places equally challenged. I do feel we are required in such regions, however, to be as prepared as possible for the unique threats we face.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by fflint

Eugene is a great choice for retirement, or really any other reason. It's no Los Angeles (I notice we've both lived there and also in Boston), but it's one of the 'biggest' small cities I can think of--good public transit, great bicycling, great amenities, all of the substantial benefits of a major university. It's got character, and it has natural beauty right outside the front door. And because it's not adjacent to a big, hip metropolis it's not crazy expensive.

But I should note there's a downside (well, two actually): it is just as susceptible to earthquake damage as Portland is. They are equally proximate to the fault line. And this hits home for me personally, as I have a good friend who lives in Eugene and who--even more scarily--spends a great deal of time at his family vacation home just outside Florence, OR.

The other downside is the paucity of good Mexican food.

I figure there are risks no matter where one chooses to live. Different risks, obviously, but let's just say nobody gets out of this alive. I will probably avoid buying property on the Oregon coast, but I don't think people should avoid the Pacific Northwest as a whole just because there will someday be a massive earthquake. I feel the same way about Japan, Alaska, and other places equally challenged. I do feel we are required in such regions, however, to be as prepared as possible for the unique threats we face.

I lived in Eugene for six months back in 1987. I have good memories of that time. I like the mix the town has to offer, as you outlined.

Another option - Hood River. Not cheap, but it is only 65 miles from downtown Portland. One hour with no traffic. Currently takes me an hour to go 12 miles to work in LA! And named one of the top 10 small towns in the US (forgot the source). The Gorge is my favorite place on Earth, so that's a plus. I would hope the extra distance would diminish damage from a quake off the coast, too.

[maccoinnich]

Report [PDF] from the Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Seismic Retrofit Project Committee. It looks like the recommendation to City Council is going to be a mandatory seismic retrofit policy in Portland for URMs (right now we have a more or less voluntary system).

[Nunya]

This has been overdue for quite awhile as there are far too many ticking time bombs in URM buildings in Portland. The FAR bonus is a good idea as there are a ton of buildings that aren't going to pencil out to upgrade otherwise that are great old buildings (see tons of apartment buildings in NW) that likely would get demolished otherwise. There is still going to be a fair number that get demolished anyways, probably several that are historic structures and this will be used as the reason why in the future.

[RED_PDXer]

Bout time! California has had this in place for decades and the risk is not much less here. Aren't most of the older apartment buildings that are 3-4 stories in downtown and NW URMs?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

Bout time! California has had this in place for decades and the risk is not much less here. Aren't most of the older apartment buildings that are 3-4 stories in downtown and NW URMs?

There are a number of 6-10 story buildings downtown that are still URMs.

[maccoinnich]

Earthquake warning signs required in brittle Portland buildings starting next year



Portland buildings vulnerable to collapse in an earthquake will soon come with a warning.

The City Council on Wednesday approved a policy that would require owners of brick and similar buildings to prominently post signs with the disclosure: "This is an unreinforced masonry building. Unreinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of a major earthquake."

The same warning would be distributed to tenants of the buildings.

The city is believed to have more than 1,600 unreinforced masonry buildings that have stood, on average, almost 90 years. The brittle materials holding those buildings up are less likely to survive a major earthquake such as the Cascadia subduction zone quake that experts say will likely hit the West Coast in the coming decades.

...continues at the Oregonian.