>>1970686>Yes it was.Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "the utility of density maps"?
>Apart from oil rigs no one lives there or will ever live there in the foreseeable future. Great Britain is an islandThen say "Britain is an island" instead of going on about the North Sea for no fucking reason.
>most of the major population centers haven't changed much since the industrial revolution 500 years ago. As a consequence these areas has grown more denser than they have outwardAh, you're a fucking retard who doesn't realise that urban areas in Britain have in fact grown massively outward since the industrial revolution.
>good locations for a train station are often fairly obvious.What the fuck? Since when was "choosing a good location for a station is difficult" ever an issue?
>the higher density of the outer parts of UK cities makes local transit more efficient further increasing the value of the intercity train station.Ah yes, the famously high-quality and efficient local transit in Brit-HAHAHAHAHA I can't even finish that sentence without laughing.
>The "Texas Triangle" alone is larger than England and has a 3rd of the population.The size of the triangle is irrelevant when people are only proposing passenger rail along the edges.
>People live outside of the cities in every direction.Your own map shows this to be untrue. San Antonio and Austin may be roughly circular, but outside them some areas are much more populated than others.
>The cities themselves are less dense meaning train stations are further away and local transit is less efficient.I note that you keep avoiding putting any actual numbers to your claims about density.
>a half-assed comparison bewteen Saltburn-by-the-sea and Austin, Texas is retarded.Why are you fixated on Saltburn when I'm not the anon that brought it up? Could it be because, as you can see in pic related, the quality of passenger rail in America has absolutely nothing to do with demand and everything to do with politics?
