Why do the freeway networks on the east coast have so many more freeways than on the west coast? For example, California's population is the largest, yet we barely have any freeways in our metro areas, where many smaller cities on the east coast have giant freeway systems that don't even seem necessary for their populations, or even their metro areas.
Maybe the eastcoast freeway network was mostly constructed before the freeway revolts?
The most luxurious freeway systems seems to be in cities like Kansas City or Oklahoma City though. They also rank consistently the lowest in congestion lists.
KC low in congestion? I've always thought of that being moderately congested - then again, I think a large part of it is people not having any idea how to stay on I-70 through that Exit 2 complex.
Plenty of freeway revolts in the northeast, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston, etc. all were meant to have many more freeways.
I think they got more Interstates and freeways because of the higher population.
Maybe because California didn't have a "Robert Moses" kind of guy.
But still if you look at cities like Syracuse, NY, or Scranton, PA or Asheville, NC, or Columbia, SC, or Knoxville, TN...the list goes on and on...those cities don't seem like they'd need more than one freeway, yet they have entire networks around them.
Yeah... this is kinda true. I always just chalked it up to the fact that the population was centered on the east coast back then. It's only really over the past few decades that the west coast has emerged as a mega population center.
The same can be said for the Sunbelt cities.
Well, we almost got a bunch in Portland--they hired Robert Moses to come out here. Unfortunately, they never ended up being built.
I think it at least partially is a result of the west coast really getting built up later. There was less population here when the Interstate system was created, and we kind of got short-changed out here by the timing of the freeway revolts.
-Alex (Tarkus)
Quote from: voyager on January 26, 2009, 01:18:35 PM
But still if you look at cities like Syracuse, NY, or Scranton, PA or Asheville, NC, or Columbia, SC, or Knoxville, TN...the list goes on and on...those cities don't seem like they'd need more than one freeway, yet they have entire networks around them.
I live near Syracuse, and our freeways (especially I-81 through downtown) can be HORRIBLE!
Yeah, but if you look at any California city, they have similar populations but only one freeway where there would be 3 back east, yet the traffic counts are still horrible.
I agree, getting around in California is a pain. Thank goodness they at least finished the 210 in San Bernardino, that helped out there until people realized it was OPEN! Now it is as backed up as all the others.