Freeway legs as a proxy for sprawl.

Atlanta has three interstates running through it: 75, 20, 85, providing 6 corridors to sprawl along.

 Kansas City beat is out:--it has 29, 35, 70, 49, so 8 corridors to sprawl along.


Dallas only has 5 corridors to/away from down town. (Oh, but wait: Oklahoma City _also_ has five. And...Denver, San Antonio, Kansas City). Houston also has six, but... I-69 doesn't go anywhere (and shouldn't be part of the Interstate Highway System). Federally funded sprawl, that. St. Louis also has three Interstates--44, 70 and 55. Nashville, ditto: 24,40 and 55. Indianapolis has 65,69 and 70.  Birmingham has 65, 20 and 22, but is the terminus of 22...

Louisville (65, 65, 71), pairs within Cincinnati (71, 74, 75).

Columbus, Ohio, despite the apparent spaghetti of freeways, only has two interstates. Hate to see the
condition of the roads there.

Detroit gets three: 75,  94 96. 

Chicago may be the winner: 90, 88, 80, 55, 57, 65, 90.

Nothing in Florida is central enough to have more than two Interstates running through them.

Charleston, SC has (weirdly) only one: I-26; Charlotte, NC has two: 77 and 85.

Knoxville sits where 40 & 75 meet.

I wonder--if you were to make a 'block size' map, in terms of distance from the interstate, where would be most remote? Many serious contenders, but as always, Nevada wins for least connected state.

Places that shouldn't have Interstate access: Lubbock, Texas. So remote!

Pittsburgh looks...weird. The Interstates don't go through it so much as around it: 79, 70, 76, in a triangle. Downtown access relies on beltways (279 and 376). Also reminds me that western Pennsylvania is functionally part of Ohio, rather than the eastern seaboard.

Washington DC is the nexus between I-66 and I-95, but thanks to I-270, functionally has another 'leg'. (A reminder that Baltimore used to be bigger than DC).

Baltimore itself only has...83,95,97.

Buffalo just has the 90, Philly the 76 and 95. NYC the 95 and 87.

Portland has I-84 and I-5. Seattle the I-5 and the 90.

So. My hypothesis: Cities start building fixed guideway transit only when it road expansion gets expensive. The cost to adds lanes becomes marginally higher over time (as the easiest options get built out first). Places that can expand their accessible area along more 'legs' face the crunch in freeway capacity later, and tend to sprawl for longer periods of time. (When one 'leg' runs out of capacity, development proceeds along another leg).  Constrained geography also helps, as it concentrates trip ends in a more transit-suitable way--rivers and steeps slopes/mountains. Rivers also help, because they add the cost of bridges to highway construction, and make fixed guideway transit a more attractive alternative. So the most sprawling places ought have lots of freeway 'legs'.

Sadly, the number of  Federally funded 'beltways' biases the results--many places have number Interstates that only remotely resemble circumferential beltways.

All the transit in California can be explained by the lack of Interstates--no place has more than 6 'legs': San Diego only has I-5, and surprisingly important I-8. Sacramento has the 5 and the 80. LA, for all the talk about all it's freeways, only has the 5,10 and 15. But a lot of beltways. SF has (nominally) just the 80, although it has 280, 680, 880 and 580 as beltways.

8 'Legs' - Kansas City
7 Legs - Chicago
6 Legs: St. Louis, Nashville, Indianapolis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Detroit, Baltimore, Houston (sort of)
5 Legs: Oklahoma City, Denver, San Antonio, Dallas, Birmingham, DC
4 Legs: Columbus, Ohio; Tampa, Orlando, Knoxville, Pittsburgh (?), Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake.
2 Legs: Buffalo

Columbus, Ohio seems like it ought have fixed guideway transit - 2 million metro population, and only 4 legs to grow along. Seems to have managed to self-sabotage itself by having a lot of other highways: 104, 62, 40,33,23...they've got to be going broke trying to pay for all that.

Maybe Atlanta needs it's own County (like Denver)

The beltway crosses...1,2,3,4 counties? (DeKalb, Fulton,Cobb, Clayton).

But everyone would scream. You can bet your bottom dollar that every one of those counties has indulged in freeway oriented 'economic development' and are counting on the proceeds from which to bail out all their SFD-related costs.

FrontRunner - on the perils of commuter rail

This morning finds me less than enraptured of FrontRunner. Not because what it is not (fast, frequent, reliable), but rather because of what it is: Commuter rail. Read somewhere (likely Twitter) criticising transit agencies for dumping billion of dollars into creating high-cost but lightly ridden suburban commuter rail networks. Today, looking at Denver, this sort of strikes home.


In a related vein, the Transport Politic had a good article up on "What Kind of Network to Build?" The relevant part of the article was this:

"Denver, Minneapolis, and Portland are developing primarily radial networks, focusing on expanding access into their downtowns. Their lines—not only those that already exist, but also those under construction and proposed—are widely spaced across the region. On the other hand, Atlanta, Montréal, and Toronto are largely pursuing a grid of new lines that focus on their respective regions’ densest areas. This approach is likely to increase overall transit use more effectively, though it may not provide as useful an alternative to regional traffic. Los Angeles and Seattle are pursuing transit investment programs that tow the line somewhat between the two."

Seems like Denver, Minneapolis and Portland are developing light rail networks that mimic commuter rail networks, sprawling out to the suburbs in all directions, while places with existing heavy rail networks are focusing on many (shorter, lower capital cost) lines within the already built up dense areas. 

Part of the appeal of Commuter Rail comes from the east coast, where commuter rail networks (LIRR, etc) are the outgrowths of profitable passenger service from years ago. Today, I question that they can be replicated: Their genesis is as railroads providing access to the walkable urban cores of (pre-automotive) towns. While small, such towns were based on a monocentric (pre-automotive) automobile model. When I visit FrontRunner stations, all I see are Park and Ride lots, and a bus depot. The PnR makes sense--it's the only way that enough people can be concentrated within walkable distance of the FrontRunner station. Parking has a density of about 1 rider/400 SF. Achieving the same thing with residential density (assuming one rider/household, and 1000 SF/household), requires a FAR of 2.5. At a 50% lot coverage ratio that implies something like 5 stories of residential. Nowhere is that present along FrontRunner.

So FrontRunner is not creating transit-oriented polycentric density. It's just congestion relief. Correlational research out there suggests that a mile of transit travel (a passenger mile) replaces 3 miles of automobile travel, and effect called the Transit Leverage Effect. Empirical evidence bears this out: When a transit strike ocurrs, traffic congestion gets truly gnarly. Research suggests that this is because it's the people with the worst automobile commutes (long commuters along congested roads) that tend to take transit. When deprived of that alternative, they drive anyway. 

What alarms me is the idea that commuter rail is actually supporting sprawl: For a few people, it makes otherwise infeasible automobile commutes possible. Because those people drive a long way (consuming a lot of road capacity), doing so frees up road capacity for others. Via the triple convergence (from other times, other routes, and other modes) that capacity gets used up, until the road system again reaches an equilibrium of barely bearable congestion. 

Which makes me wonder: What does FrontRunner actually achieve? What does any commuter rail actually achieve? To me, it seems like it only makes life better for a few extreme commuters, whose auto commutes would otherwise be awful. 

I'm sure it also benefits a few transit dependent people, for whom the alternative is not making the trip. But I seriously question if the benefit of this small number of people (and it is a small number--FrontRunner ridership numbers are not large) is actually worth the millions of dollars it costs. I feel like we'd be far better creating the 'Freeway Flyers' network of BRT, and making a freeway lane into a HOT lane, then spending millions on commuter rail. 

A decade ago, I supported FrontRunner as an 'express route', making is possible to travel between points that would take far too long to access by Trax. Not once (even while transit dependent) have I ever used FrontRunner for such a purpose. The frequency is too low to make it feasible as part of a transfer network.  FrontRunner is not part of the Frequent Transit Network. 

Why waste so much breath on this issue? Because UTA (and WFRC) are getting ready to spend hundreds of millions double-tracking and electrifying FrontRunner. Double-tracking so that FrontRunner can actually become more reliable (check UTA's twitter for records of it's perpetual delay), and electrification to reduce pollution. (The dirty secret of FrontRunner being that it actually produces more pollution, per rider, and an equivalent number of cars). Part of the pollution is also caused by the single-tracking, which means that the FrontRunner is constantly starting and stopping, waiting for other trains to pass so that it can proceed. 

Here is what is planned. I don't think I like it. That bit of the FronRunner at the south is $51 million dollars for 6.8 miles. Happily, a lot of the stuff on the plan is corridor preservation. Corridor preservation is the essence of planning: Buying cheap today what you are going to need tomorrow. 

Subsidizing Sprawl

If you weren't in the know, the WestSide COnnector (from I-15 to Provo Municipal) is pure sprawl subsidy. Nothing out there but farmland and wetland, all of which soon to become more low-density suburbia. How do I know this? Because there is nothing else out there!

Check it out!

The road will initially be a two lane highway...but they are already purchasing land for 3 more lanes, to make it into an arterial road. Why an arterial road? Because they already know that big-boxes and subdivisions are going to sprout up along it, generating traffic, so that it will become too congested, with too many turning cars, for a 2-lane road to support.

But it will never be too congested. Note all the curves in the road--it is to avoid wetland. To the south and the west of the road, it will be possible to build almost nothing.  In effect, this is going to be an 'orbital', at the edge of the urbanized area. Which suggests congestion will be less severe, as the road will only be loading from one side.

Still, a gift to autotopia--the only through road for a mile will be on the outside edge of the urbanized area. No hassle for drivers, but a longer walk for everyone else.