If q highway is overloaded, then the first thing to come to mind should be “do we need a rail line here?”. Between those two cities, I think the answer is obvious. One more lane doesn’t work. Reliable and fast rail does.
and they’re talking about a third. Can’t agree more. If traffic is that much of an issue it’s time to ramp up rail. Between London and Edinburgh you can catch a train every 10-20 minutes I believe, with some acting as locals with multiple stops and some acting as express with only key stops. Sounds like they need to increase service rather than trying to skirt laws and sneak more lanes in.
many people I met during my time in SF said they “hated Caltrain”, come to find out they’d never actually taken it. I took it all the time from SF to Palo Alto and it was always fast, easy, and reliable.
Objecting to highways should be a prerequisite for getting a transit planning job.
If q highway is overloaded, then the first thing to come to mind should be “do we need a rail line here?”. Between those two cities, I think the answer is obvious. One more lane doesn’t work. Reliable and fast rail does.
Just FYI, there are 2 rail lines between Davis and Sacramento running parallel to the highway.
It’s a 20 minute train ride, but they want to expand the highway to 4 lanes each direction.
It would be so much better to add more stops along the rail and more frequent trains.
and they’re talking about a third. Can’t agree more. If traffic is that much of an issue it’s time to ramp up rail. Between London and Edinburgh you can catch a train every 10-20 minutes I believe, with some acting as locals with multiple stops and some acting as express with only key stops. Sounds like they need to increase service rather than trying to skirt laws and sneak more lanes in.
many people I met during my time in SF said they “hated Caltrain”, come to find out they’d never actually taken it. I took it all the time from SF to Palo Alto and it was always fast, easy, and reliable.