My reading of this is that the 'socially' optimal equilibrium (that is to say, the equilibrium for customers) is to build stations in a way that minimizes peopl

My reading of this is that the 'socially' optimal equilibrium (that is to say, the equilibrium for customers) is to build stations in a way that minimizes people's effort to get to them (assuming an even distribution, it would be at .3~ and .6~ on that line he uses), whereas the equilibrium for station owners in light of competition is to cluster roughly in the middle. Social optimality in this case is all about population density (finding the minimum of the function that represents the total effort of everyone involved, _assuming station owner profits are constant_ which is a big assumption), and has nothing to do with forcing stations into Wyoming (unless a few million people suddenly move to Cheyenne). I could be reading this totally wrong though, you can define social equilibrium an infinite number of ways depending on what you're trying to maximize, and what you simplify to 'ceteris paribus'