Moderator: lensovet
bdawe wrote:tomj wrote:Not to mention monetary. I would say it is largely that. There are plenty of lines that could be upgraded to deal with the capacity issues along the corridors outlined. (Short of building a crossing between Richmond and San Rafael and whenever the standard rail transbay tube gets built.) Given how the spread out people are in California, there are some areas where a train is more convenient than driving is thanks to traffic. Having a more useful rail system would get people out of their cars. I know I would for one. Also all of the lines follow existing rail lines except the two I mentioned before. Not to mention upgrading railways is generally far cheaper than getting our highways from really deficient to deficient.
Also this link shows railways all around the world. I based the rail map above on the lines show here.
https://www.openrailwaymap.org/
People aren't really all that spread out though in California. It is the most urbanized state in the Union with the densest urban areas.
lensovet wrote:huh? CA is the 17th most densely populated state in the US. the SF Bay area alone, an urbanized area, is less densely populated than the entire state of NJ and about on par with the entirety of PR and RI. The densest urban areas? LA is half as dense as NYC. SF is less dense than Boston and Miami.
Return to California Commuter & Transit
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests