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.
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.
B. Dawe's map of routes and urban populations
https://brendandawe.carto.com/viz/80b9d ... /embed_map" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; NOW updated with 2016 Canadian Populations