Statewide Rail for California

[tomj]

This was an idea that I have had kicking around, which is what would a "useful" rail network be in California. California already has a "good" set of Amtrak lines, but I have thought up what could be a better map. Then I put it off cause I didn't have the time or photoshop skills to do it. Then I figured out I could do it using google maps and here it is. As for what the service would be, I only imagine upgrades of the current service. Maybe some areas electrified to have trains going 125 mph, but I didn't get into that. I'm just posting this to see what others think. Its mostly just changes to the existing Amtrak routes. [

[lensovet]

This all looks good but i would say the reasons it hasn't happened yet all fall into…

–geographic constraints
–capacity constraints (sometimes in combination with the previous)
-nonexistent populations (e.g. northern part of the state)

[tomj]

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/

[bdawe]

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.

[mtuandrew]

I'm not clear on how trains would reach the North Coast, short of $X billions in new build and a massive repair of the Northwestern Pacific. Definitely would be all for San Francisco - Monterey corridor service, SFO-LAX daylight coast service, a second daily OAK-Shasta and OAK-Reno, and LAX-Yuma service. Also, the more you can link north and south California, the better you'll do with reducing the tension between your halves.

[lensovet]

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.

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.

[bdawe]

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.

California is the most urbanized state in the country. Per the 2010 Census, 95.2% of Californians lived in urban areas (vs 94.7% in New Jersey and 80.7% for the US as a whole). California also has a lot of undeveloped and rural area, but very few people live there, so for the purposes of rail transportation they are not relevant.

California's urban areas are denser than New York and also comparable cities in the US. While if you define "New York" as the arbitrary bounds of city limits, it's more dense than the arbitrary city limits of Los Angeles, taken as an overall built up area, New York is only the fifth densest US urban area, coming after Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and wee Delano, CA due to the great sprawl of New York's suburban area. Taken from the standpoint of urbanized areas, Los Angeles was nearly a third more dense than New York in 2010, with 7,000 people per square mile vs New York's 5,300. It's further worth noting that California urban areas occupy spots 6, 7 & 9 on the list of densest US urban areas.

[electricron]

Most dense cities arguments really don’t mean much when the 74th most dense city in America, and the only one in Texas with more than 10,000 per square mile, has just 188 residents. Check out Mobile City, Texas statistics at;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_City,_Texas
Originally a mobile home park outside of city limits, it was incorporated on January 25, 1990 so that a beer/wine/liquor store could open. It is still that way today. After opening the stores the roads through the park were paved for the first time and full-time security was provided to the residents at no charge to them. Until Fall of 2007 it was the only city within Rockwall County that allowed alcohol sales (excluding restaurants).
The population was 188 at the 2010 census. It currently has the highest population density for any city in Texas, and is the only Texas city that is on the highest population densities of American cities list. It currently ranks 74th on the list, and has the lowest population for any city on that list. It is tied with Poplar Hills, Kentucky as the smallest city by total area on the list.

[bdawe]

Which would be fine if the densest cities being discussed weren't...Los Angeles

[lensovet]

sorry but having lived in both LA and NY metro areas in the past, and currently living in the SF Bay area, calling LA more urbanized than NY is just laughable.

there's a reason why the highest proportion of trips made in the US on transit is made in the NY area. hint: it's not because it's suburban.

btw i didn't take city limits, i took MSA limits.

[tomj]

Sorry I have neglected this post, but I am doing a more complete write up with a different map. But I do have some cents to kick in to this.
1) "San Francisco" if we are only taking the city proper and the upper part of the inner East Bay are the only parts of the "region" that is comparable to New York City.
2) The 9 counties that make up the Bay Area is approximately 75% of the land area of New Jersey with 2 million fewer people. Also the CSA includes 3 extra counties that aren't generally considered the Bay Area so generally speaking aren't always included in Bay Area transit discussions.
My point is comparing any of California's urban regions to the East Coast isn't as clear cut as some think. Comparing transit improvement to New York is asinine considering the population differences, the geography and infrastructure. We would have to deal with whatever we already have or spend billions building something comparable who's cost may not even be justifiable.

[lensovet]

it might not be clearcut, but the claim that was made was that it's somehow "dense" and even "more" dense than NJ.

that is objectively false (as shown by your own numbers). what impact that has on transportation planning decisions is another matter.

[bdawe]

The claim was that the state is the most urbanized state and that it is home to the densest urban areas. The claim was not that the whole state was denser than New Jersey. These are, rather than "objectively false," "documented by the census bureau to be true"

[tomj]

The Bay Area is comparable to New Jersey, but that's about it. It's still not a great comparison considering most of California is more mountainous than the areas on the East Coast where cities are.

[andrewjw]

Yes, California is top by urban statistical area but New York is top by city borders (and all four boroughs but Staten Island are above San Francisco), then two New Jersey cities come before the next from California, etc... and if you list cities by population density 10 of the top 11 are in the NYC area.
My point is not to fight NYC vs SF but to illustrate that census statistics can be found to argue any point for density, that density thresholds for urban statistical area are just as arbitrary as city limits, and that bdawe and lensovet should stop bickering. Statewide rail for California is a worthwhile prospect because there are high-population areas within a close distance with high travel demand and no overwhelming geographical obstacles, and the rail should connect where the people want to go. This is true in the New York area as well. It is true everywhere. But since every urban area has a different density profile, some with a larger area which is classified as 'urban' and less dense of a core, and some with a dense core and a more distant metropolitan reach, different solutions will often be necessary.