Originally Posted by
jefnvk
The thing that people tend to forget is how more compact most of Europe is. Germany has 80M or so people crammed into an area smaller than Montana. If that is how the US were populated, I'd agree that things like a national cycle system (and trains) were more feasible.
The other side of the coin is that many people...even those living in the US and Canada...don't realize how vast the US is and how low the population can be outside of cities. Montana, to continue your example, has 7 people per square mile (2 per square kilometer for the rest of you). And even that number is inflated by the way that it is calculated. Colorado, for example, has 52 people per square mile but the Fort Collins/Denver/Colorado Springs/Pueblo corridor has a population density of 5000 people per square mile while much of the rest of the state has less than 25 per sq mile.
The area where the ACA TransAm route runs through has <1 person per sq mile and even that is inflated since Eads...the only "town" on that part of the route has 700 people (1500 per sq mile) in it. Kiowa county, which the route transverses, is almost 1800 square miles. Do the math and there ain't nobody out there!
Much of the US from within 200 miles of either coast with a few exceptions really is similarly populated. I can say that with a fair amount of certainty. Once you get away from just about any town, there's really no one and nothing out there.