XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   J. Clarke wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...   
   > > In article ,   
   > >  "sna"  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > But those were both settled before the train showed up.   
   > >   
   > > The issue is not settlement, but the fallacy that trains don't make   
   > > sense until *after* the population density rises to a certain level.   
   > > The reality is that, at least historically, trains *allowed* for the   
   > > density to rise (or fall) much more quickly than other available   
   > > transportation methods.  The same is true even today where cities   
   > > "rediscover" commuter rail, or even park-and-ride stations for busses.   
   >   
   > Whoa.  The trains "made sense" because they were going from one area of   
   > high population density to another such area through low density space   
   > in between, or because they were carrying high-value cargo from a source   
   > to a high-population-density destnation.   
   >   
   > They weren't just built out into the middle of nowhere in the hope that   
   > growth would occur.   
      
   To quote Kevin Costner: "Build it and they will come." ;-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)