Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Less_Tennis5174524 t1_ja7r0rx wrote

Doesn't this favor larger regions?

8

okram2k t1_ja8bg0x wrote

Yes. There's several counties in the southwest that have next to nothing in them but because a railroad crosses them they are counted as dark green.

2

oopsie-mybad t1_ja8tcdj wrote

Needs to be normalized as a ratio of miles to relative county size.

5

BRENNEJM OP t1_ja7f8ev wrote

Source: Census TIGER/Line Data
Tools: ArcGIS

Top 5 Counties:
Cook County, Illinois - 999.9 miles
San Bernardino County, California - 895.9 miles
St. Louis County, Minnesota - 631.0 miles
Franklin County, Ohio - 604.0 miles
Wayne County, Michigan - 575.5 miles

2

Kesshh t1_ja7q6sb wrote

That’s an interesting way to present the data.

First thing popped into my head is how railways have slope limit both uphill and downhill. To traverse a slope will require way more rails to loop and/or zigzags. So rails in mountainous region will have significantly more miles to cover the same distance between two points than in a flat region. I wonder if there’s enough data to change the measure from plain miles to actual distance covered. That would make an interesting comparison.

2

eastfan9 t1_jaasi3m wrote

Former Southside Chicago resident here. Can confirm the absurd amount of tracks we have in Chicagoland

1

davi8631 t1_ja7rkoy wrote

So there's more train rails(meaning a higher chance of derailment) in more populated regions? Sounds like a recipe for disaster

0

backgamemon t1_ja95wze wrote

Yes that is how trains work (they bring stuff from place to place, aka where the people live)

1