It's not "if the roads are impassible", they WILL be impassible. That's an absolute guarantee. I lived in the Bay Area for six years and rode out a few 'inconsequential' shakes. I left on September 14, 1989 and a month later the Loma Prieta quake hit and, generally speaking, it was a minor quake, 6.9 and only 15 seconds long.

You can also count on the signposts being down, twisted or nonexistent, so if you have to go somewhere (like home) you'd best have a compass on your person, in addition to the maps, because the areas you know so well probably won't be all that recognizable.

Living off the land in that particular scenario will be impossible, no matter how you meant it, with so many unprepared people so close. Any store that is still accessible will be empty of useful items by the time you get there. You will be lucky to survive a foot trip, and the more you look like a homeless person, the better. The Brooks Brothers suit, Italian shoes, good haircut and laptop case will scream 'PREY!"

The Anchorage earthquake (1964) had a moment magnitude of 9.2 and registered 8.4 on the Richter scale. There were vertical land displacements of up to 38 feet, and tsunamis up to 70 feet high.

Can you imagine if anything similar hit the Bay area? There would probably be major quake liquification of all the areas that are built on fill (like Foster City), and maybe much of the shoreline, too. SF is 52'above sea level, San Mateo, 43', Burlingame, 25', E. Palo Alto, 24', Oakland, 42', Alameda, 30', San Leandro, 49', Hayward, 32'. Add a tidal wave to that...

I never loitered on the Golden Gate or the Bay/Oakland bridges, either.

Just the idea gives me the shudders.

Sue