• OmegaMouse@pawb.socialEnglish
    601·
    8 months 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
      155·
      8 months 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
        18·
        8 months 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
        4·
        8 months 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.

    • fartsparklesEnglish
      2·
      7 months ago

      You’re absolutely right. That train runs across the Swiss Plateau with mountains either side of the plateau. Historically, if you were going to grow any produce, that was where you would grow it so it’s no surprise there’s such a density of people in the flatter part of an extremely mountainous country.

    • telllos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      8 months ago

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