San Francisco, as well as L.A., are located on one of the most active fault lines in the USA.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;10&#x2F;five-us-earthqu&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;10&#x2F;five-us-earthqu&#x2F;</a><p>Even Tokyo has most of it&#x27;s trains above ground. See Yamanote line with 29 stations versus the 16 cumulative underground stations that both the Tokyo Waterfront Area Rapid Transit and Saitama Rapid Railway Line serve.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tokyo_subway" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tokyo_subway</a><p>Also of note, the New Oakland Bridge that took years to build, went seriously over budget, included a very disappointing design flaw. This bridge was mostly paid for by the State of California not San Francisco by itself.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfgate.com&#x2F;bayarea&#x2F;article&#x2F;Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-How-a-landmark-became-a-6021955.php" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sfgate.com&#x2F;bayarea&#x2F;article&#x2F;Bay-Bridge-s-troubles-...</a><p>If San Francisco wants to have dozens of miles dug beneath its surface ignoring the potential of a &quot;black swan&quot; earthquake event then perhaps San Francisco and not the state of California should pay for it. Or more accurately, San Diego county, Orange County and Los Angeles county should NOT have to pay for it.<p>We love you San Francisco but you&#x27;re not that awesome.