4 ms·
The "ranked by travel time in hours" metric is a little weird. Travel by what? Trains, planes, or automobiles? There's also a huge chunk of the state of Main
by megaman22 9y ago
The "ranked by travel time in hours" metric is a little weird. Travel by what? Trains, planes, or automobiles?
There's also a huge chunk of the state of Maine that is more than 3.5 hours from either Boston or Quebec City (there are no cities in Maine larger than 75,000 people[1])
[1] https://www.maine-demographics.com/cities_by_population https://www.maine-demographics.com/cities_by_population
- torstenvl 9y agoWhether there are any cities in Maine larger than 75,000 people is irrelevant. The study is not based on city population. EDIT: The WaPo story is also not based on city population.
- pessimizer 9y ago> The Post used simple criteria: “towns that are farthest from any metro with more than 75,000 people, ranked by travel time in hours.” This story isn't about the study, which also wasn't to find the towns most in the middle of nowhere, but about a WaPo story, which was.
- DFHippie 9y agoIf you read the Washington Post article it goes into considerably more detail. It is based on certain assumptions about what modes of travel are available at different locations on the globe, so in much of Greenland or on Ellesmere Island it is assumed you are traveling by foot.
- stephencanon 9y agoThe Portland metro area is well over 75k, but Portland's barely closer than Boston, and there are large areas of Maine that are more than 3.5 hours from anything. Huge parts of Aroostook don't even really have "towns" per se (which may be why they're not on the list, since it purports to list the most in-the-middle-of-nowhere towns).