• OmegaMouse@pawb.socialEnglish
    581·
    5 days ago

    Isn’t this statement kinda backwards though? Surely the big cities developed along that line due to the natural geography (flat land, near bodies of water and with protection from the mountains) and then once trains first came along, it made sense to connect those cities. It’s not that people happen to live within 5km of the trainline, but that the trainline was built there because that’s where people lived.

    • Blaze@reddthat.comOPEnglish
      165·
      5 days ago

      I see where you come from, but I guess it’s still uncommon to have a third of a country living on a line

      Also, the data looks quite good, which is the main objective of this community

      • OmegaMouse@pawb.socialEnglish
        17·
        5 days ago

        Yeah it’s pretty data for sure. Just the conclusion that has been drawn from it is a bit odd! Correlation/causation etc etc

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        4 days ago

        but I guess it’s still uncommon to have a third of a country living on a line

        mmm… no, it’s exactly what you’d expect in a country chock fulla mountains. terrain dictates where roads, rails AND TOWNS grow.

        • lengau@midwest.socialEnglish
          3·
          5 days ago

          Not as big a portion of the country, but yeah coastal areas will often have a large population living in roughly a line.

          In North America I believe the line connecting the most people would go from Quebec City through Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis (though maybe not within just 5 km of it). This is the most populous part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis and into the St. Lawrence.

    • telllos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      5 days ago

      But train lines develops cities. I know that when a train line that connects big cities extends to smaller town they boom.