Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

mapsbynik.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#91

Post by protomyth »

mitchty wrote: post #62
abentspoon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Update: On a more detailed examination of those two states, I’m convinced the contrast here is due to differences in the sizes of the blocks. North Dakota’s blocks are more consistently small (StDev of 3.3) while South Dakota’s are more varied (StDev of 9.28). West of the Missouri River, South Dakota’s blocks are substantially larger than those in ND, so a single inhabitant can appear to take up more spaaaaaace. Be…

Yep, I grew up in ND, and my nearest non family neighbor was 7 miles away. This was pretty common. So if you parcel things up smaller than say 5 miles you'll miss people there pretty easily.

Yeah, it looks like they are setting the census blocks small on what is farm, ranch, park, and reservation land. The Red River divides ND and MN and there is space there because of previous moves from flooding.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#92

Post by sophacles »

dredmorbius wrote: post #82
olefoo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And supposedly half the population that lives West of the Mississippi lives within 30 miles of I-5. Don't have the US Census loaded currently so I can't check it, but that does sound about right.

Given that half the population of the US is 156 million, and half that is 78, it's plausible, but a quick add-up of combined MSAs comes up short: LA is 18.1 million, San Diego 3.2 Sacramento 2.2, Stockton 0.7, Portland 0.5, and Seattle-Tacoma 3.6. I get about 23.3 million total, which is still 54 million short. SF-SJ-Oak adds another 8.4 million, but most of it is more than 30 miles from I5. Checking by state confirm…

Actually, west of the mississippi (and assuming all of Louisiana and Minnesota) the population is only about 130 million - so those three states are about 40% of that population. Given the rapid growth of texas, colorado and arizona, and Nevada (well Las Vegas) in the last 15 years, it wouldn't surprise me if those three states would have been over half the population west of the Mississippi not that long ago.

As for within 5 Miles of I-5.. probably not, but within it's area of influence, for sure - the western parts of those three states are pretty empty, even by my midwest trained standards.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#93

Post by protomyth »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

Drove across Wyoming the other day on the way to Denver and I could definitely appreciate that it was the least populated state in the US (or least densely populated). Lots of open space.

Drove from ND to Denver through Wyoming and felt very much alone in a lot of places. I thought ND between small towns was empty, but Wyoming was scary empty.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#94

Post by forkandwait »

tlrobinson wrote: post #63
abentspoon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Update: On a more detailed examination of those two states, I’m convinced the contrast here is due to differences in the sizes of the blocks. North Dakota’s blocks are more consistently small (StDev of 3.3) while South Dakota’s are more varied (StDev of 9.28). West of the Missouri River, South Dakota’s blocks are substantially larger than those in ND, so a single inhabitant can appear to take up more spaaaaaace. Be…

I assume the census data doesn't have enough information to divide it up into equal size areas?

Most census geographies aim for equal-ish population, so they vary widely in size. Blocks are a little different, though, and are designed to be a more or less nicely boundaried thing as well -- surrounded by streets with no crossings, etc.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#95

Post by bmelton »

Dewie wrote: post #85
bmelton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be precise, Alaska is the least _densely_ populated state, but Wyoming is the least populated state. Wyoming has a population of ~576,000, which is clearly less than Alaska's population of ~731,000 in absolute numbers of population. However, because Alaska is roughly 6 times larger (586,412 square miles vs 97,814), it wins by quite a bit on lowest density.

> To be precise, Alaska is the least _densely_ populated state, but Wyoming is the least populated state. You aren't adding any precision, or disambiguating. The OP said least _densely_ populated, as did I.

And the GP said "I could definitely appreciate that it was the least populated state in the US (or least densely populated). Lots of open space."

Just making sure we're all talking about the same thing.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#96

Post by Retric »

dmm wrote: post #49
refurb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting that link, very interesting! Two comments: 1. I lean towards the idea that the government wastes a lot of money on stupid things. This however, is pretty dam neat. 2. I'm surprised that most of the US (60%?) is purple/blue which would suggest most of the land in the US has a road within 0.2 to 0.5 km? That's really surprising. I guess if you threw in logging roads and any type of path that could su…

It's worth taking a look at the federal budget in detail sometime. Politicians love to argue and make a big deal about relatively small outlays, in comparison Social security + medicare/medicaid = 48% of spending, with military you have 66%. Non-military discretionary is only 17% which includes all of the department of the interior, including the USGS.

The US government spends money in odd ways so you can say all sorts of odd things. Truth is education spending (1T) is more than direct military spending unless you include pensions and heathcare for military workers. It's also larger than social security.

Sure in theory state and local spending are seperate but in practice a lot of state and local spending is tied to the federal government.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#97

Post by ToastyMallows »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #27

Related to this is a PDF from the USGS showing the average distance to the nearest road: https://www.fort.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/products/publi...

For that link all I get is "The specified URL cannot be found." Mirror?

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dfc wrote: post #45

What happens around 98º W? From ND to TX the character of the map changes around 98º W.

In addition to what sanddancer said:

You get west of the western edge of the Gulf of Mexico. So yo don't get moisture coming north off of the Gulf. So the land not only gets more rugged, it gets drier. So you get less farming and more ranching.

Re: Nobody lives here: the 5 million US census blocks with zero population

#100

Post by AnimalMuppet »

wyclif wrote: post #87
jabits wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I lived in Cheyenne for five years (nuke officer), and to this day, whenever I get caught in an afternoon, car door bending wind, I think of those days; the air continuously rolls down the Front Range whipping through town...but Vedauwoo was beautiful, and thankfully Ft Collins was just a hop away.

Vedauwoo is nice, and Laramie is a laid-back college town. I also like the more remote parts of NE WY, like Thunder Basin National Grassland. I have friends who are homesteading near Wheatland.

Homesteading near Wheatland? Can you give a bit more detail on that?

Do you mean, they just purchased a farm? Or do you mean like the actual US Homestead Act, making a farm out of nothing?

Post reply on HN