3 ms·

> the US has lower population density than most of Europe, but Canada doesn't Population maps of the US [1] and Canada [2] highlight the problem with this argu

> the US has lower population density than most of Europe, but Canada doesn't Population maps of the US [1] and Canada [2] highlight the problem with this argument, though. Canada has low total density, but it's overwhelmingly concentrated around the southern border of the country. The US concentrates population along three coastlines and the Great Lakes, and has more population to support in the low-concentration areas. (For example, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas exist.) So southern Canada has better-than-US infrastructure at higher-than-US population density, while much of northern Canada has exceedingly limited infrastructure. Outside of Alaska, there's no territory in the US comparably written-off to much of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. An example: US highways are nationwide [3], while Canadian highways simply stop [4]. And despite the look of that projection, that's more than a quarter of Canada which is further from a highway than any point in the continental US. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_population_map.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/US_popul... [2] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-... [3] https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-road-map.jpg https://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-road-map.jpg [4] https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/policy/NHS_2007.jpg https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/images/policy/NHS_2007.jpg

flexie 9y ago
If you exclude tiny Prince Edwards Island, the most densely populated Canadian province is Nova Scotia (with 17.4 Canadians per km2). More than 90 percent of Americans live in states have higher population density than the densest populated Canadian province. Only Maine, Oregon, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska are more empty. Those 13 states account for less than 10 percent of Americans. So - on a state by state / province by province basis, Americans live more close together than Canadians and should have better opportunity for maintaining infrastructure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populat... And just like Canadians tend to cram together close to the coasts and the Great Lakes, Americans also cram together close to the Great Lakes and their coasts. Go 50 miles inland from either coast, and it's vastly less populated than near the coast, with the rivers as an exception. Take a drive from Buffalo to NYC, and you'll see that it's populated near Buffalo (Great lakes), somewhat near Albany (Hudson river) and again once you get near NYC (East Coast). The rest of NY State is rural. Take a look at this map of US population density by county: http://i.imgur.com/hY8tpOn.jpg http://i.imgur.com/hY8tpOn.jpg
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Statistics don’t tell the story. Look at a population density map of Ontario. 30% of Canadians live in Ontario. About half of Ontarians live in the Toronto metro area alone. Overall about half the population lives in the top ten metro areas. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/m1o-eng.htm http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550...
  - flexie 9y ago
    Look at the map I linked to. It’s the same in New York State, Texas and California.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Statistics do tell the story, but you gotta use the right statistics. Using the population of arbitrary geographical regions (provinces and states) isn't a useful measure. For transit and rail, a useful measure might be something like "population density of a region encompassing 50% of the metro area population." A single rail line from Quebec City to Winnipeg, through Ottowa, Toronto, and Calgary, with a spur to Edmonton, would cover all eleven of Canada's largest cities, with 30% of its whole population. That's within those municipalities (i.e., people can take local transit to the inter-city rail line). You cannot draw any similar line that encompasses anywhere near that percentage of the U.S. population. Even if you connected America's 11 largest cities, you'd only have about 26 million people (about 8% of the country). A big reason is that most people who live "in Dallas," for example, don't actually live in the city. Dallas and Ottawa are similar-sized cities of about a million people each. But Ottawa encompasses 70% of its metro area, while Dallas encompasses less than 20% of its metro area. Look at a satellite map of each city. Dallas is sprawl for about 40 miles in each direction from the city center. 40 miles from Ottawa is nothing in every direction (and for the most part, so is 20 miles).
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      Yes, thanks for this. I mentioned a few particularly empty provinces, but I think working from state/province level or even county level is a fundamentally misleading approach. The obvious question is how many infrastructure hubs (cell towers, train stations, highways, etc.) are needed to cover X% of the population. And following that, how closely connected those hubs would be. Suggestions like "Canadians live near the border, but Americans live near the coast so it's similar" completely ignore that reality. The Acela corridor (D.C. to Boston, including Philadelphia and NYC) is the most efficient population-coverage route I know of in the country, but it can't possibly touch the efficiency of that Quebec City to Winnipeg line. Among other things, America has two coasts, and also vastly less urban density than Canada.

flexie 9y ago

If you exclude tiny Prince Edwards Island, the most densely populated Canadian province is Nova Scotia (with 17.4 Canadians per km2). More than 90 percent of Americans live in states have higher population density than the densest populated Canadian province. Only Maine, Oregon, Utah, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska are more empty. Those 13 states account for less than 10 percent of Americans. So - on a state by state / province by province basis, Americans live more close together than Canadians and should have better opportunity for maintaining infrastructure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populat... And just like Canadians tend to cram together close to the coasts and the Great Lakes, Americans also cram together close to the Great Lakes and their coasts. Go 50 miles inland from either coast, and it's vastly less populated than near the coast, with the rivers as an exception. Take a drive from Buffalo to NYC, and you'll see that it's populated near Buffalo (Great lakes), somewhat near Albany (Hudson river) and again once you get near NYC (East Coast). The rest of NY State is rural. Take a look at this map of US population density by county: http://i.imgur.com/hY8tpOn.jpg http://i.imgur.com/hY8tpOn.jpg

Spooky23 9y ago
Statistics don’t tell the story. Look at a population density map of Ontario. 30% of Canadians live in Ontario. About half of Ontarians live in the Toronto metro area alone. Overall about half the population lives in the top ten metro areas. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/m1o-eng.htm http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550...
- flexie 9y ago
  Look at the map I linked to. It’s the same in New York State, Texas and California.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Statistics do tell the story, but you gotta use the right statistics. Using the population of arbitrary geographical regions (provinces and states) isn't a useful measure. For transit and rail, a useful measure might be something like "population density of a region encompassing 50% of the metro area population." A single rail line from Quebec City to Winnipeg, through Ottowa, Toronto, and Calgary, with a spur to Edmonton, would cover all eleven of Canada's largest cities, with 30% of its whole population. That's within those municipalities (i.e., people can take local transit to the inter-city rail line). You cannot draw any similar line that encompasses anywhere near that percentage of the U.S. population. Even if you connected America's 11 largest cities, you'd only have about 26 million people (about 8% of the country). A big reason is that most people who live "in Dallas," for example, don't actually live in the city. Dallas and Ottawa are similar-sized cities of about a million people each. But Ottawa encompasses 70% of its metro area, while Dallas encompasses less than 20% of its metro area. Look at a satellite map of each city. Dallas is sprawl for about 40 miles in each direction from the city center. 40 miles from Ottawa is nothing in every direction (and for the most part, so is 20 miles).
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Yes, thanks for this. I mentioned a few particularly empty provinces, but I think working from state/province level or even county level is a fundamentally misleading approach. The obvious question is how many infrastructure hubs (cell towers, train stations, highways, etc.) are needed to cover X% of the population. And following that, how closely connected those hubs would be. Suggestions like "Canadians live near the border, but Americans live near the coast so it's similar" completely ignore that reality. The Acela corridor (D.C. to Boston, including Philadelphia and NYC) is the most efficient population-coverage route I know of in the country, but it can't possibly touch the efficiency of that Quebec City to Winnipeg line. Among other things, America has two coasts, and also vastly less urban density than Canada.