New Madrid fault, its effect on cities, and on Kansas City?

[ShowMeKC]

I was watching TV last night, and I saw a rerun of a program on the history channel (which I saw many months ago) about the New Madrid fault line. They talked about the major effects it will have on St. Louis and Memphis, where the next big earthquake will destroy highways, bridges, many buildings (especially houses and older structures), etc... And could cause phenomena like geysers in and around Downtown St. Louis, massive fires, major flooding, etc... It even showed that a national icon, the Arch could be at risk. FEMA and other organizations and earthquake experts estimate casualties could reach 20,000, if not more (if levees break).

They also showed that cities like Chicago, and cities of the Northeast would also suffer from this, especially considering the transportation effects as well as the gas pipelines running through the region.

However they didn't address what this could do to other nearby cities like Kansas City. I know that the Ozarks lay between us and the New Madrid fault line, and I was told by someone that the Ozarks would act like a buffer area. Watching the simulations of the earthquake waves/tremors, they didn't travel through the Ozarks easily and hit Kansas City very late by traveling down the Missouri River floodplains.

So what does everyone think, what effect could this have on Missouri, the Midwest, and of course, Kansas City?


GRAAAH!! I can't take it anymore! Edited! -b

[KCMax]

I don't know, but I still remember that scientist that specifically a predicted the day it would rupture. We ran earthquake drills in school leading up to that date.

And it came and....nothing happened.

I would guess the effect on here would be pretty minimal. We're pretty far away to be that affected.

[DaveKCMO]

I would guess the effect on here would be pretty minimal. We're pretty far away to be that affected.

except for the massive influx of homeless st. louisians... think houston.

[KCMax]

Maybe St. Louis will help us pay for a rolling roof if we promise to house their earthquake refugees.

[bbqboy]

maybe it will uplift the Qzarks to about 10,000 feet or so.
Mount Branson Ski Lodge, here we come.

[mean]

There is potential for serious devastation in St. Louis and particularly Memphis, depending on where the epicenter lies and how big of a quake we get. If the St. Louis metro were sufficiently damaged, Missouri's economy would be rocked hard. That would have a serious effect on KC (and, of course Missouri in general)--not to mention the effect on the national economy and the insurance industry--but I think the most dramatic and immediate changes locally would be the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees into the KC metro, many of whom are likely to prefer staying in Missouri.

In the short term KC would find itself the economic engine of Missouri. In the long term, it's hard to say whether it would stay that way. Depends on the extent of the destruction, the number and severity of aftershocks (assuming more and more severe aftershocks will keep people and businesses away from the region) and whether insurance companies would even pay for rebuilding.

Frankly, as terrible of a thought as it is, having StL utterly smashed by an earthquake would likely be great for KC in the long term, after the smoke cleared and the economy began to recover. KC would get a huge number of permanent business and residential transplants, the metro's demographics could swing heavily back toward the MO side, and the city would suddenly find itself the most economically and politically dominant city in Missouri by many orders of magnitude.

[dangerboy]

Yup, the biggest impact on KC would be the potential influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees from St. Louis and elsewhere - and a big economic hit for the entire Midwest.  We will certainly feel the earthquake and have a lot of broken dishes, but no significant damage to buildings or bridges.

[NDTeve]

Losing the Arch would not a big dea imo

[bahua]

it's != its

However...

Who's to say that STL couldn't rebuild, just like San Francisco did after 1906, and New Orleans did after 2005?

[KCLover]

STL would come back.

Only way to look at it... if that happened, it would be the only way KC would ever overcome STL population wise in the next 50 years.

[Spartan65]

Frisco, good example. Norlins, BAD example. I am confident that no place has as bad a Can't-Do Attitude as Norlinites however.

I don't believe that St. Louis will be devastated nearly as bad as Memphis. I think most of St. Louis' problems will be flooding if the Mississippi River alters again. Whereas most of Memphis' problems will be at least a trifecta of major issues, like the aforementioned flooding, obliteration of the wooden Queen-Anne-style homes in Memphis' inner city, fires all over the place, and of course ... evacuating the ravaged city when there will be only one way to go west in Memphis, and it's either I-55 or I-40, and it aint both because they aren't both retrofitted.

I think St. Louis will only get it as bad as perhaps Little Rock will as far as the actual tremors go. Kansas City may see structural damage as bad as Jackson, Tulsa, Nashville, and Knoxville, and it may be in the range of 5.0 or something like that, that far from New Madrid.

I think that we're woefully behind. We know that there is a fault that's building a lot of stress, and we know what happens next. We should be smarter than to believe an actual set date for a quake. The fact of the matter is that ten years from now, it could happen any day. There needs to be preparation that will cost billions of dollars for what WILL definitely occur, only no one knows WHEN. It's LIKE New Orleans, which is actually a very good example .... of what NOT to do.

[mykem]

Anybody remember that guy who was trying to predict an earthquake for Missouri back in 1990? Remember this formula,

            12/3  4:56  7.8  '90

[riebschlager]

as an aside, when did the history channel become the non stop war and natural disaster channel?

[KCMax]

I don't really get why anyone would think an earthquake would devastate St. Louis for years. San Fran had a pretty big one in 1989 and it didn't turn it into a third rate city at all.

as an aside, when did the history channel become the non stop war and natural disaster channel?

When they ran out of material for Hitler documentaries.

[dangerboy]

Many people predict that St. Louis would be badly damaged because of the soft soil in the Mississippi River valley - which is mainly under the city itself and the inner suburbs.  The outer suburban areas are supposedly on firmer soil and might fair better.

[Spartan65]

I don't really get why anyone would think an earthquake would devastate St. Louis for years. San Fran had a pretty big one in 1989 and it didn't turn it into a third rate city at all.

Well some, probably most on this forum, might say that St. Louis already is one. 

You forget what forum you're at.

[kard]

Many people predict that St. Louis would be badly damaged because of the soft soil in the Mississippi River valley - which is mainly under the city itself and the inner suburbs.  The outer suburban areas are supposedly on firmer soil and might fair better.

That, and brick homes crumble during a good 'quake.

[Spartan65]

Brick fares better than most other building materials my friend.

[KCLover]

Brick fares better than most other building materials my friend.

No. At least in San Fran that wasn't true. On bricks the mortor is the weakest link, and it will crack with any kind of halfway powerful force, once it cracks in a earthquake its done for. I lived through a tornado in my home town, the brick buildings were absolutely leveled as compared to metal or wood frame construction.

"The earthquake of April 18th which caused such havoc in San Francisco did not fail to visit Alameda County in its rounds. In Oakland particularly the destruction wrought by the temblor among the brick buildings and some of the weaker frame houses was large. Hardly a brick building escaped serious damage and throughout the city chimneys were thrown down. The water mains were broken and the city left without water"

http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906.2/oakland.html

[kard]

The bad thing about bricks is that they are heavy.  Make note of that when they are falling on you.