XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 2/4/2014 6:34 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > 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." ;-)   
   >   
   Yes, but which "they"?   
      
   --   
   The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,   
   hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with   
   methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate   
   wouldn't tolerate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)