[a4a4a4a4]

> sparse population

> low population

These are not the same thing. Switzerland has a pretty dense population. The section with low population is the Alps, where you're not going to put trains anyway.

https://www.atlas.bfs.admin.ch/maps/13/de/12614_75_3501_70/2...

Most people that live in remote areas have cars anyway, since sometimes busses only run twice a day. It's a tricky problem to measure "access to public transit".

(The BFS is an amazing source for information, they publish all kinds of statistics)

[gernb]

Switzerland has a similar number of people the bay area, 7-8 million, and is twice as large. So it stands to reason the bay area could have a system as large, useful, and as efficient as Switzerland if not better given it has the amount of same people in a smaller less mountainous area.

[kortilla]

You just confused the Bay Area with “the western US”.

[gernb]

How so?

Population Bay Area 7.7 million

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+bay+area

Population of Switzerland: 8.6 million

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+swizterland

Size of Bay Area: 6900sq miles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_th...

Size of Switzerland: 15940sq miles

https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+swizterland

[kortilla]

You picked a tiny subsection of the western US to be representative of it.

See if your comparisons make any sense looking around Fresno and Bakersfield (which is still generous). Then do the area around Elko Nevada.

[gernb]

I'm still not sure what your point is. My point is the Bay Area has shitty transit and people claim it's because it's spread out. Switzerland is proof that's bullshit. That the same is not true for Fresno or Bakersfield has no relationship to my point.

I don't really know what your point is. That we can't have trains that cover the entire country? So what. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have more in highly populated areas.