Freeway Lane Miles Per Capita

[M II A II R II K]

Freeway Lane Miles Per Capita


April 19, 2012

Read More: http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2012/04/freeway-lane-miles-per-capita.html

Excel Spreadsheet: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hm72.cfm

I did some playing around with the latest data I could find, via the Federal Highway Administration's excel spreadsheet on the subject matter. They have good data on highway miles, but only estimated lane miles unfortunately. Still that is the critical one. Several two-lane highways would be better than few 10- or 20-lane monsters, spreading the traffic around rather than funneling it.

- It's like a who's who of decaying or soon to decay cities.

- And then there's crossing northern boundaries, we'd find Vancouver: 0. Of course, the metro area has freeways. But not the city proper.

.....




(Numbers = mile per 1,000 people):

1. Kansas City - 1.262
2. St Louis - 1.070
3. Houston - .822
4. Cleveland - .816
5. Columbus - .779
6. San Antonio - .759
7. Jacksonville - .745
8. Providence - .742
9. Pittsburgh - .731
10. Baltimore - .724
11. DFW - .719




Here are the ten with the least freeway lane miles per capita:

1. Chicago
2. Tampa/St.Pete - wouldn't want too many octogenarians out on the road anyway.
3. Miami - surprising. No worries, MIA will rectify this as soon as they expand I-95 to 40 lanes (this was really once an idea).
4. NYC/Newark
5. Portland
6. Sacramento
7. Phoenix
8. LA
9. Philly
10. DC

[mhays]

I'd say a large number of skinny freeways would be worse than a few thick ones. Every freeway slices the city apart, unless it's a tunnel, or elevated, which in the latter case is worse in other ways.

[Mr Downtown]

Skinny freeways are easier to slip into the urban fabric than wide unbridgeable ones. Interestingly, they're also better for moving traffic. Two four-lane freeways move more vehicles per hour than one eight-laner. Here's an old favorite, the Broken Arrow Expressway in Tulsa, but Minneapolis also has some good examples. With six lanes plus a railroad, it's obviously wider than a normal street but doesn't fragment the city much more than a good-sized creek does:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1938060/Broken%20Arrow%20Exp.jpg

Bing Maps

[mhays]

So you cut way more neighborhoods in half. Great.

[TarHeelJ]

Houston, Kansas City, San Antonio, Dallas, Columbus...decaying or soon to decay? That's a strange statement. :koko:

It's also strange to see cities like D.C./L.A./Chicago on a list of cities being praised for a lack of freeway lanes...

[electricron]

Why didn't you include the data for the least as you did for the most?
I was wondering how much less the least were compared to the most.

[ardecila]

Yeah this is how Houston has slipped several new freeways into existing parts of the city without massive demolitions.

Sometimes I wish all urban interstates had been built this way... it seems like European cities did this, and then employed congestion-pricing strategies so that the people who really needed the fast mobility of expressways could get it without worrying about congestion.

The trick comes at interchanges, which can sprawl into gigantic monsters if the design is not carefully contained.

[pesto]

Here are the ten with the least freeway lane miles per capita:

1. Chicago
2. Tampa/St.Pete - wouldn't want too many octogenarians out on the road anyway.
3. Miami - surprising. No worries, MIA will rectify this as soon as they expand I-95 to 40 lanes (this was really once an idea).
4. NYC/Newark
5. Portland
6. Sacramento
7. Phoenix
8. LA
9. Philly
10. DC

Interesting how many cities with the worst traffic (LA, NY, Chicago, DC) have few freeway lanes per capita. Only Houston seems to have bad traffic AND plenty of freeway lanes.

[ardecila]

Yea, but most of the biggest freeway cities have struggling or at least sluggish economies, whereas the least freeway cities are mostly thriving.

Statistically speaking, I wonder what the correlation is between lane-miles and regional GDP?

I've always thought that Chicago's super-low lane miles per capita was a drag on the economy. Most of the expressway system is tolled and severely limited-access (exits are 4-5 miles apart), which shifts all but the longest trips onto surface roads and prevents Chicagoland's massive population from swamping the system. On the other hand, the massive surface roads create unpleasant communities and longer travel times, both of which drive residents and businesses away.

[TarHeelJ]

Yea, but most of the biggest freeway cities have struggling or at least sluggish economies, whereas the least freeway cities are mostly thriving.

Statistically speaking, I wonder what the correlation is between lane-miles and regional GDP?

I've always thought that Chicago's super-low lane miles per capita was a drag on the economy. Most of the expressway system is tolled and severely limited-access (exits are 4-5 miles apart), which shifts all but the longest trips onto surface roads and prevents Chicagoland's massive population from swamping the system. On the other hand, the massive surface roads create unpleasant communities and longer travel times, both of which drive residents and businesses away.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, most of the biggest freeway cities have pretty decent economies. I'm not too sure about a couple of them, but I'm fairly sure that the economies of Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Columbus, San Antonio, and Kansas City(maybe) are all pretty healthy...

[ardecila]

Jacksonville? Not really. Neither is KC. San Antonio and Columbus are doing alright but have not experienced any kind of explosive growth. SA is actually the laggard among large Texas cities, and Columbus is only good by Ohio/Midwestern standards (buoyed largely by OSU).

[AviationGuy]

(delete)

[alchemist redux]

The Phoenix stat is somewhat misleading. Sure, there are relatively few freeways, but there is a 6-lane arterial road with a 45 mph speed limit every mile.