Print Article
Here are the cities with the most freeway lane miles per capita:
(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. Dallas / Fort Worth - .719
Here are the ten with the least freeway lane miles per capita:
1. Chicago
2. Tampa/St.Petersburg
3. Miami
4. New York City/Newark
5. Portland
6. Sacramento
7. Phoenix
8. Los Angeles
9. Philadelphia
10. Washington, DC
Why do we need a Northern Outer Beltway again?
Source: http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/2012/04/freeway-lane-miles-per-capita.html
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hm72.cfm
Share this article
RSS
tufsu1
May 08, 2012, 09:40:18 AMnever mind the northern outer beltway.....why do we need any kind of outer beltway?
fsujax
May 08, 2012, 09:52:40 AMIf Atlanta can kill their outer beltway, then there is no excuse for us.
urbaknight
May 08, 2012, 12:23:35 PMIf that outer beltway gets built, (God forbid) it should be a toll road. Those who choose not to use it, shouldn't have to pay for it.
jcjohnpaint
May 08, 2012, 12:25:43 PMYeah who the hell cooks this outer beltway crap up? Now Northern?
AaroniusLives
May 08, 2012, 12:28:38 PMTo be fair, this is an unfair comparison, based on Jacksonville-the-city being Jacksonville-the-county. Of course Miami has less freeway miles per capita than Jax! How about Miami-Dade County, or "Miami" as the world sees it? And Washington DC barely has any actual freeways in its boundaries...but there's a whole bunch of 'em framing the area around the District that everyone thinks of as "Washington" if you don't live here, and which many people who live in those very 'burbs claim as "living in Washington."
If one was to do a fair, modern comparison, do either the county that the city is located in, or the MSA. I'm pretty sure Fort Lauderdale doesn't have all that many freeway lanes running through the city itself, but "Fort Lauderdale", otherwise known by its proper name as Broward County is highwayed up to the gills. The same is true of both Tampa and "Tampa" (Hillsborough County.)
This doesn't mean that the suburban, car-centric and dominant form that Metro Jax has taken is any less of a dead end for the metropolitan area. It just means that a bunch of cities didn't make the cut because the results used an arbitrary boundary (the city line) that pretty outmoded and outdated with regards to how people actually live and move through the "city" and the city. Especially in the South, at the very least, a county-to-county comparison would be more illuminating, as well as a MSA comparo. Or, to put this another way, my parents live and work in "Fort Lauderdale," and by that, I mean that they live and work in Broward County, which is just as screwed when the gas runs out as Jax. It just looks better on useless lists because of the city line drawn well before the county line.
JFman00
May 08, 2012, 12:49:23 PMThe FHWA urbanized areas are even more forgiving/more appropriate than MSA. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/fl/fl_floridaeast.pdf
Here's Chicago's http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/il/chicago_il.pdf
DC: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/md/washingtondc_md.pdf
DemocraticNole
May 08, 2012, 01:48:29 PMI don't know that I necessarily agree with you AaroniusLives. Look at a map of Jacksonville prior to the 1967 consolidation and how many freeway miles are inside those boundaries. If you did that, I think you would see Jacksonville would still be very high on the list.
Freeways in of themselves do not necessarily contribute to sprawl. In areas where there is significant sprawl, there should be sufficient freeway structure in place to service those communities. In the Tampa area, we have kind of the opposite problem of Jacksonville: endless sprawl, with limited freeway infrastructure to support it. Take Pinellas County (St. Pete) for instance. There were several proposed freeways for the county that were killed off because of freeway revolts. The freeways were killed, yet endless sprawl was still allowed. Now, the county has a population of 916,542 and has only two freeways: I-275 and US-19 (intermittently). Because of uncontrolled sprawl with poor infrastructure, the state and county are spending hundreds of millions to upgrade much of US-19 to a freeway throughout the county. It takes about an hour to drive from south St. Pete (South County) to Tarpon Springs (North County) and most of the route is littered with traffic signals and slow going. Had better planning been in place, that time could be greatly reduced. Tampa has the same issue. North of town on Dale Mabry and east of town in the Brandon area, endless sprawl was allowed without proper road infrastructure, and citizens are now paying the price.
copperfiend
May 08, 2012, 02:14:40 PMLand developers.
cityimrov
May 08, 2012, 02:48:31 PMFrom the pieces I picked from previous topics I've read on MJ, it sounds like the reason why freeways are always built is because FDOT can fully control them as state roads. Thus it keeps building freeways in the middle of nowhere vs alternative transportation methods in more dense areas where there is no state control but high population.
It sounds like Florida completely designed it's Department of Transportation to be freeways only vs NYSDOT which probably does everything including major work inside NYC.
Anti redneck
May 08, 2012, 03:53:48 PMI find it hard to believe that we have more highways than Orlando, Tampa, or Miami. But why do we need an outer beltway? It connects nowhere to nowhere. Only traveling traffic would benefit because they would just be bypassing Jacksonville.
cline
May 08, 2012, 03:58:04 PMThey also build freeways in the middle of nowhere because they are pressured by wealthy landowners so that they can open up their land for development. Outer Beltway is the classic example.
copperfiend
May 08, 2012, 04:04:41 PMExactly. Land owners, developers, those in the construction industry.
cityimrov
May 08, 2012, 05:03:01 PMSo why doesn't the more influential and larger amounts of people who live in these highly dense area do the same and pressure them to build something there?
JFman00
May 08, 2012, 05:22:56 PMBecause highly dense areas are already highly dense. The land is already worth a lot ($750,000 for a vacant quarter acre downtown), so there's not nearly as much property value added from infrastructure improvements as land in formerly inaccessible areas (diminishing returns).
cityimrov
May 08, 2012, 05:40:28 PMSo basically, what your saying is Metro Jacksonville's plan of making more dense neighborhoods is a bad idea? In short, the return on investment on building up Downtown or Riverside or San Marco will be much less than building a highway in the middle of nowhere? Things like complete streets, while nice, will produce a much lower investment than more freeways?
JFman00
May 08, 2012, 06:15:55 PMImproving Riverside/San Marco/DT a case where the benefits are widely distributed (many people who may not life in those neighborhoods or own property/businesses can get quite a bit out of improving those neighborhoods) vs one where the benefits are concentrated (building roads in the middle of nowhere most benefits just the property owner).
You asked why people who live in dense areas aren't as able or willing to push for new construction in those areas. They would have to work with their neighbors or have to gain credence as a representative of their neighborhood to advocate effectively for infrastructure improvements, which would be shared accordingly. On the other hand, absentee landlord of a hundred acres not only doesn't have to compete with neighbors who have different priorities, they also stand to capture 100% of the benefit of improvements.
A different way of putting it: the Outer Beltway has high private benefit and relatively low social/public benefit, transit improvements have relatively low private benefit and high public/social benefit. We, as residents of Jacksonville, would benefit much more from transit/urban core improvements than the Outer Beltway but have significantly higher institutional/organizational barriers to advocate for such improvements compared to suburban land developers.
cityimrov
May 08, 2012, 07:05:27 PMThat makes more sense. So basically what has to be done is that the people in these neighborhoods have to unite over a project that they want (let's say light rail through Riverside). The community also has to be very welcoming and make the process so easy and nice that when FDOT representatives come visit, they would be more happy to work as a City-State Partnership and help a community then they would for a private land developer?
Bring out the balloons, the plans, the welcoming mat, the parade, and the open arms!
JFman00
May 08, 2012, 07:11:15 PMYup just about. By showing that a community will support a project without forcing constant delays and cost overruns, urban development can compete on a fairer footing with deep-pocketed, single-interest speculators. The High Line in NYC is an excellent example of a community-driven urban development effort going toe-to-toe with property developers (who are as a whole not nearly as bad a group as I describe) and winning, with incredible results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Line_(New_York_City)
http://www.thehighline.org/about/friends-of-the-high-line
Anti redneck
May 08, 2012, 10:41:00 PMWho exactly would stand out and push for something like light rail? Is it a possibility that the residents around that area just don't care? That's been a Jacksonville attitude for a very long time now.
tufsu1
May 08, 2012, 10:54:03 PMwe don't necessarily, but we have far fewer people....so the per capita ratio is higher
ChriswUfGator
May 09, 2012, 06:20:35 AMThat's not the tune you were singing last year...
tufsu1
May 09, 2012, 01:43:52 PM^ nice try, but those who actually know me are very aware of my feelings regarding the Outer Beltway
Bewler
May 14, 2012, 10:39:32 AMIf you have to build any more interstate how about something that connects to Bay St over by the Maxwell House Coffee plant that could serve as another entrance/exit to the Sports District? Looking at google maps it seems like they could potentially start it from I95 over by the field north of WJXT, cross the river and have it connect on the vacant lot right on the other side.
I know it wouldn’t be at all practical now considering how much you would have to demo, but guess I just always wished we could have had an Interstate that actually ran through our downtown. The current set up of 95 veering to the left through riverside a seems to convey the message “Just go around, nothing to see here. That’s it, keep moving.”
cline
May 14, 2012, 10:44:41 AMI-95/Hart Expressway/Arlington Expressway/ et. al. caused enough detriment to communities that happened to be in their paths. No need to repeat the process.
Bewler
May 14, 2012, 11:30:15 AMBut Cline, if you look on google maps or read the part where I said "start it from I95 over by the FIELD north of WJXT, cross the river and have it connect on the VACANT LOT right on the other side." you'll see that no communities would have to be affected if done properly.
cline
May 14, 2012, 11:36:00 AMSorry, but I don't agree that utilizing riverfront property for an expressway ramp is the best and highest use of a piece of property. But maybe that's just me.
ChriswUfGator
May 14, 2012, 12:05:10 PMBut you still couldn't help defending it anyway...lol
tufsu1
May 14, 2012, 01:10:52 PMand I stand by that point....it doesn't mean I support building the road
if you're going to take a position on something chris, it helps to have enough facts to be able to refute arguments made by the other side
tufsu1
May 14, 2012, 01:12:37 PMso basically you support building a new expressway on the edge of downtown...and that would be different from I-95 how?
Bewler
May 14, 2012, 01:33:46 PMIt wouldn't. I already said it's pretty much impossible to get 95 to go directly through our city at this point. This would just be an easier way to get to the stadium from 95 and might encourage more people driving through to actually visit our downtown if it took them to actual destinations.
Not to mention if you did have to do any demo it would be the homes of the people on the south bank who have kept us from having an awesome music venue at Met Park. So preferably we could bulldoze their houses while they were in them.
JFman00
May 14, 2012, 02:10:39 PMThere is absolutely no need to run a highway through a CBD or urban neighborhood to get people to visit. In fact, doing so often accomplishes just the opposite. There's a reason why New Orleans is working towards pulling down the Claiborne, why Seattle is pulling down the Alaskan Way Viaduct, why San Fran didn't replace the Embarcadero, why New Yorkers so strenuously objected to Moses proposed roadways, why Niagra Falls is removing its Robert Moses State Parkway, and why Portland removed its Harbor Drive Expressway. The examples go on.
Rerouting 95/10 would only further disrupt urban neighborhoods, wreck the existing street grid and serve no benefit bar making it easier for people to get crosstown without having to spend time in-between. If that last goal is what you desire, by all means, let's keep destroying downtown. Just remember, you can't be a suburb of nowhere.
Bewler
May 14, 2012, 02:25:00 PMMan, you guys are ridiculous sometimes.
You make one proposal (that no one bothers to fully read and comprehend apparently) and suddenly you "support" it as a plan. As if I'm flying the flag of an ideology.
Sorry didn't realize you guys hated suggestions.
At what point did I ever mention wanting to destroy downtown? Go ahead, re-read my comments and tell me.
JFman00
May 14, 2012, 02:39:52 PMDumping another high-volume roadway onto Bay St would be a great way to discourage efficient land-use (pedestrian-friendly/transit-oriented development). With the Main St bridge, Hart Bridge and ridiculously car-friendly State/Union St pairing, I fail to see how the Sports District is insufficiently accessible by auto.
I think the disagreement here is your initial contention that having I-95 cut through downtown would have been the ideal situation to start with.
tufsu1
May 14, 2012, 03:39:46 PMexactly
Bewler
May 14, 2012, 04:19:23 PMAlright fine, instead of through DT it can just go over it.
David
May 14, 2012, 04:31:36 PMNope, that would be an elevated highway. They cast dark shadows to the properties that line it below and create a sense of disconnect in the community. You're no good at pretend city planning Bewler!
JFman00
May 14, 2012, 04:37:35 PMThe majority of my examples were arguments against doing just that; that building more limited-access roadway anywhere downtown is a backward and wasteful idea. Road projects that reduce the impact on their surroundings are often good ideas (Big Dig, Alaskan Way tunnel replacement, Congress Parkway bridge reconstruction in Chicago), but costs often spiral out of control especially when they involve going below-grade. The argument nowadays is for urban roadways to integrate and improve their surroundings by being friendly to multiple forms of transit, especially pedestrians.
Bewler
May 14, 2012, 04:48:07 PMWell I was just trying to find a good compromise David. If I had things my way I would have 95 cut a path of destruction through DT starting with the Modis building (ideally this would occur during the middle of a work day to kill as many people as possible) and then widen it to twenty lanes on each side for no reason.
But that's just me.
JFman00
May 14, 2012, 04:53:08 PMYou might be joking but the scary thing is that it happens, and there are people out there that would take such a suggestion quite seriously. Look at Pensacola's I-110. They destroyed 30 blocks of neighborhood, and relatively recently expanded it to 6 lanes.