Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
One thing that might help would be a clearly defined way to calculate population density. For example, Colorado has an average of 16 per sq. km., compared to Spain's 93. So the chance of a Spanish-style railroad network seems slim.

However, the front range of the state, extending from Cheyenne, Wyoming in the north to Pueblo in the south (or even to Santa Fe, New Mexico), is where all of the people live, and it has--depending on how you calculate it--something like 300 per sq. km. on average. So all of the rail proposals here end up with a front range segment, and the anti-rail arguments based on population density are diversionary.

The question is, what is the right way to calculate population density for a 1.5 dimensional system like this? One way would be to only count the counties it passes through, based on the argument that the counties are going to be affected most by rail-related taxes. Or you could say that the width of impact of a railroad is three miles in either direction. Or maybe it's a 10 mile radius around each station.

Is there a standard way to do this?

by asdf on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:18:39 PM EST
For HSR, I would say the catchment population per hour travel, with a thirty mile radius for Express HSR and a fifteen mile radius for Emerging HSR.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Aug 23rd, 2010 at 11:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the density argument is the biggest and most successfully spread lie of US anti-rail advocates. As BruceMcF's reply indicates, what really counts is not even one-dimensional: it's populations near stations (resp. potential stations).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 24th, 2010 at 09:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series