Which state has the BEST overall highway/freeway connectivity?

[Flint1979]

Wow!  Michigan looks mighty good in comparison:

•          Clinton #8
•          Waterford #21
•          Commerce #42

West Bloomfield (#24) ought to be on this list as well, but it is fairly close to several freeways, plus the Northwestern Highway (MI-10) and Telegraph Road (US-24) are awfully close to counting as "highways".  Could go either way here.

Northwestern and Telegraph both are highways.

I'm not inclined to agree.  But they certainly add positively to the "connectivity" into West Bloomfield.  A number of the more populous cities and townships in Michigan don't have well-defined downtowns and/or industrial districts, both of which factor heavily into whether the city is "well connected" to the [in-state] freeway/highway network.

Lol what makes you think they aren't? One is a US highway and the other one is a state highway.

[webny99]

To attempt an answer to the original question, what are some states we can agree on as contenders for "best" overall connectivity?

I would put Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio at the top of the list for starters. Georgia and Florida haven't been discussed much, I might put them in a fringe/top-ten tier that's pretty good but probably not #1, along with Indiana, New York, and Wisconsin. (10 states listed)

At a glance, Illinois appears to be well connected.  But the top cities "not connected" are:

[list snipped][/list]

Mount Prospect (#24) ought to be on this list, but its hard to make that argument and not think of nearby Cicero (#11) being similar.
You could make an argument that Plainfield (#33) ought not be on this list, but the natural barrier of the twin lakes says otherwise.
There's a bunch of stop lights along North Avenue (IL-64) to get into Carol Stream (#42), but I try to be forgiving in these circumstances.
Ouch!  Quincy has it's own Interstate spur route (I-172), but then its downtown is not connected to it directly.

Very fair points. I'm tempted to give a bit of a pass for Waukegan because it's pretty close to I-94 and essentially a Chicago suburb. The rest aren't as egregious, but it is notable that some of Illinois' interstate corridors are somewhat redundant and don't do a great job bringing connectivity to smaller cities. Rockford to points west also appears to be a gap, but I'm not sure what existing US 20 is like.

Kansas doesn't look so good in comparison.  Here's the cities that are "not connected":

[list snipped][/list]

Also remember that Kansas is a lot less populous overall, so those cities are probably quite a bit smaller than similarly-ranked cities would be in state like Illinois or Michigan.

[webny99]

Just eyeballing it and not simply accepting stats as fact, Arkansas is probably right in the middle. They have plenty of 4-lane "spokes" from Little Rock both freeway and expressway and the east-west connectivity (mainly US 64) is improving. Other parts of the state are playing catch-up but it's getting better.

Little Rock is well-connected to the rest of the state, but many other point-to-points are lacking, especially north/south. Hot Springs is also lacking an expressway/freeway connection.

[kphoger]

Kansas' problems are less noticeable, perhaps, than the map might suggest at first glance.

For example, to get from Manhattan (home of K-State) to Wichita, you either go out of your way to Salina first or drive a bunch of two-lane roads.  Also, Wichita–Hutchinson–Great Bend–Hays (pop. 75,000 between the latter three) would be an excellent corridor for a multilane highway that would certainly get some in-state truck traffic.  Instead, the Hutchinson–Great Bend–Hays portion is a series of 90° angles.

[webny99]

On second thought, Kansas is probably top ten, but I'm not sure it's top five.  It's looking increasingly likely that we're headed for a collision course between Michigan and North Carolina. If that is the case, I think Michigan wins right now, but North Carolina wins the endgame because they're much more active in improving their network.

[Dirt Roads]

At a glance, Illinois appears to be well connected.  But the top cities "not connected" are:

[list snipped][/list]

Mount Prospect (#24) ought to be on this list, but its hard to make that argument and not think of nearby Cicero (#11) being similar.
You could make an argument that Plainfield (#33) ought not be on this list, but the natural barrier of the twin lakes says otherwise.
There's a bunch of stop lights along North Avenue (IL-64) to get into Carol Stream (#42), but I try to be forgiving in these circumstances.
Ouch!  Quincy has it's own Interstate spur route (I-172), but then its downtown is not connected to it directly.

Very fair points. I'm tempted to give a bit of a pass for Waukegan because it's pretty close to I-94 and essentially a Chicago suburb. The rest aren't as egregious, but it is notable that some of Illinois' interstate corridors are somewhat redundant and don't do a great job bringing connectivity to smaller cities. Rockford to points west also appears to be a gap, but I'm not sure what existing US 20 is like.

Indeed, and this is a very important consideration.  "Almost connected" is much better than "not connected whatsoever". 

Kansas doesn't look so good in comparison.  Here's the cities that are "not connected":

[list snipped][/list]

Also remember that Kansas is a lot less populous overall, so those cities are probably quite a bit smaller than similarly-ranked cities would be in state like Illinois or Michigan.

Another good point.  The rankings and relative population need to be factored into the puzzle.  But there ought to be a caveat here.  The lack of connection to a county seat with a smaller population in a county that has a much higher population (or perhaps a region that covers multiple counties, can't think of any offhand) needs to be factored as a transportation issue.

I was hoping to come up with a multi-prong ranking system for connectivity (or lack thereof).  But there's so much data to consider (including how well connected one node is to the closest major node), that I don't see any of us tackling the problem without a well-programmed Bot.

[TheStranger]

To attempt an answer to the original question, what are some states we can agree on as contenders for "best" overall connectivity?

I would put Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina, and Ohio at the top of the list for starters. Georgia and Florida haven't been discussed much, I might put them in a fringe/top-ten tier that's pretty good but probably not #1, along with Indiana, New York, and Wisconsin. (10 states listed)

Separating "average" into two tiers, I would include Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, and all of New England except Maine and Vermont in the first tier. (14 states listed)

for California there are several specific questions that my initial ranking of the top 5-6 cities touched upon:

- Route 152 is a key Bay Area-Central Valley connector (especially with any Route 180 expressway upgrade west of Fresno not being likely to start construction in the next decade or so), but does have one portion where it is a through-town boulevard with numerous stoplights, in Los Banos a few miles east of I-5.

In particular, this means the current most direct route from San Jose to Fresno absolutely requires going through Los Banos.  Talks of a bypass have been around for decades, and some funding progress has occurred, but construction is not yet imminent.

How much does this one gap between pure highway segments hurt the measurements of California's overall connectivity?  Or is Route 152 considered (by your measure) highway even in this arterial section?

- Doing some of the calculations, I think it takes until the 27th largest city in California (Santa Rosa) before any of its individual connections to the cities larger than it involves a 2-lane road as the only practical choice.  That's pretty good.  But I also recall that one of the posters here did Utah a few pages back and specifically went metro area-to-metro area, rather than by individual cities (due to the suburban development of the Wastach Front, and the relative small size of Salt Lake City proper in terms of poplation).  Should California's connectivity be measured by metro areas, and if so...how should that be defined (i.e. the Bay Area as one region?  or SF/San Jose/Oakland somewhat separately.  How would the Los Angeles metro area be considered?  etc.)

- Should I attempt to also measure pure freeway connectivity between cities or regions, as opposed to via four-lane highways (with and without stoplights)?  This might be where a state like North Carolina does have an advantage in this sort of measurement.

[hobsini2]

To answer this kind of question, I would include states that have 4 lane divided highways with some limited access. Highways like US 30 between Valparaiso and Ft Wayne or US 287 between Wichita Falls and Ft Worth or US 151 between Cedar Rapids and Fond du Lac come to mind. While they are not interstates or freeways over the entire length, they still have a high quality way of getting between cities.

So with my previous statement in mind, let's break it down by states to try and quantify this.  Take the biggest metro areas per state (depending on the size of the state) or metros near the border in other states and let's see if there are good connections. As a rule of thumb, if the city has an inset in the atlas or state issued map, then it should be considered important enough for connections to the other cities in the state. Obviously, there will be exceptions.  The first thing is are there connections between the state capital and largest (or next largest) metro area from a various smaller metro area.

I will not include Alaska and Hawaii since they are not in the contiguous US.

[TheStranger]

Currently doing the calculations for the California links between urban areas, and it seems to me the first "not entirely four lane" one would be Norcal urban areas with the 16th largest urban area in the state Palmdale/Lancaster (where the fastest route is I-5 to the two-lane Route 138).

Santa Rosa to Sacramento is another one where one does not have a direct four-lane option between the two areas...

[IowaTraveler]

To answer this kind of question, I would include states that have 4 lane divided highways with some limited access. Highways like US 30 between Valparaiso and Ft Wayne or US 287 between Wichita Falls and Ft Worth or US 151 between Cedar Rapids and Fond du Lac come to mind. While they are not interstates or freeways over the entire length, they still have a high quality way of getting between cities.

I agree that it's important to consider at-grade expressways when considering highway connectivity. That being said, I really don't think that US 30 in Indiana belongs in a list of 'high quality' connections.

[skluth]

Currently doing the calculations for the California links between urban areas, and it seems to me the first "not entirely four lane" one would be Norcal urban areas with the 16th largest urban area in the state Palmdale/Lancaster (where the fastest route is I-5 to the two-lane Route 138).

Santa Rosa to Sacramento is another one where one does not have a direct four-lane option between the two areas...

It will be interesting to see if Lancaster/Palmdale become better connected once the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield is complete.

[TheStranger]

Currently doing the calculations for the California links between urban areas, and it seems to me the first "not entirely four lane" one would be Norcal urban areas with the 16th largest urban area in the state Palmdale/Lancaster (where the fastest route is I-5 to the two-lane Route 138).

Santa Rosa to Sacramento is another one where one does not have a direct four-lane option between the two areas...

It will be interesting to see if Lancaster/Palmdale become better connected once the Westside Parkway in Bakersfield is complete.

Let me do a quick distance check from Buttonwillow at the southern 5/58 junction, to Lancaster:

I-5 to Route 138 is 97.5 miles (important to note that 138 was supposed to be, but never was four-laned as the shelved Metropolitan Bypass project)
Route 58 to Business Route 58 in Mojave (former US 466) to Route 14 is 105-106 miles, this is presumably the future four-lane-entirely route.  (Mojave area has some stoplights, and geographically a southbound driver would be doubling back slightly to the north on 58 between Arvin and Tehachapi)

Notable is that the Antelope Valley Freeway currently stops before reaching Mojave city limits, with no direct connection to the 58 freeway bypass (not sure when or if this link will ever be made).

[hobsini2]

To answer this kind of question, I would include states that have 4 lane divided highways with some limited access. Highways like US 30 between Valparaiso and Ft Wayne or US 287 between Wichita Falls and Ft Worth or US 151 between Cedar Rapids and Fond du Lac come to mind. While they are not interstates or freeways over the entire length, they still have a high quality way of getting between cities.

I agree that it's important to consider at-grade expressways when considering highway connectivity. That being said, I really don't think that US 30 in Indiana belongs in a list of 'high quality' connections.

I disagree. US 30 between Ind 49 and I-69 has a posted 55-65 mph for most of that stretch. I would say that's a much higher quality of connectivity than say a 2 lane rural road.

[sprjus4]

The route is four lanes divided but has numerous traffic signals and passes near towns on non-access control bypasses that have led to developments, multiple conflict points, etc.

The maximum speed limit on the route is only 60 mph.

[hobsini2]

The route is four lanes divided but has numerous traffic signals and passes near towns on non-access control bypasses that have led to developments, multiple conflict points, etc.

The maximum speed limit on the route is only 60 mph.

Between Ind 49 in Valpo and I-69 in Ft Wayne, there are a total of 28 stoplights over 90 miles. 2 by Valpo, US 421, Ind 39, 3 by Plymouth, Ind 19, 9 by Warsaw, Ind 13, Ind 5, 6 by Columbia City and 3 west of Ft Wayne.

So that disqualifies it from being a good connection? It certainly is the quickest way between Chicago and Ft Wayne. And it is used as a shunpike in both Indiana and Ohio. So I would say that still qualifies.

[sprjus4]

It's a decent connection, but it isn't as high quality as it could be. An improvement would be free-flow with no lights (or minimal lights), and the highest would be a limited access freeway.

It suffices but certainly needs improvement.

[Dirt Roads]

^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities).  That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).

[This is a primary issue in my ongoing rant against how National Highway System funds are administered].

[hobsini2]

It's a decent connection, but it isn't as high quality as it could be. An improvement would be free-flow with no lights (or minimal lights), and the highest would be a limited access freeway.

It suffices but certainly needs improvement.

Now that I agree with.

[TheStranger]

^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities).  That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).

[This is a primary issue in my ongoing rant against how National Highway System funds are administered].

Ooh.

Going back to my question above re: Route 152 in Los Banos, speed limit (based on Google Street View) is just 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0569595,-120.8519103,3a,75y,275.05h,74.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgAsY1ycxH1LPm1nXcTAJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Does that through-town segment then disqualify 152 as a fully high quality four-lane connection between the South Bay and Fresno?  (For comparison, SF/Oakland-Fresno can be done entirely via freeway: 80 to 580 to 205 to 5 to 120 to 99)

[Dirt Roads]

^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities).  That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).

Ooh.

Going back to my question above re: Route 152 in Los Banos, speed limit (based on Google Street View) is just 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0569595,-120.8519103,3a,75y,275.05h,74.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgAsY1ycxH1LPm1nXcTAJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Does that through-town segment then disqualify 152 as a fully high quality four-lane connection between the South Bay and Fresno?  (For comparison, SF/Oakland-Fresno can be done entirely via freeway: 80 to 580 to 205 to 5 to 120 to 99)

I'm not the OP, so my opinion isn't important here.  But the issue on the table is connectivity.  Once you "get there", the only reason to continue to adhere to [highway design practices] is to provide upstream connectivity for other locations.  Los Banos is the only location that I've looked at thus far that has some level of connectivity on both sides (in this case CA-152 west and east). 

From the looks of it, Los Banos should qualify as "well connected" to anything along the I-5 Corridor.  It's a different question looking along CA-152 eastward to the CA-99 Corridor.  Because of the sharp triangle, I don't think it is reasonable to consider Los Banos connected to anything north of Chowchilla.  Me personally, I would disqualify CA-152 west of Los Banos because of the lack of a continuous median in many locations.  My rationale is simple.  If the route is [designed] primarily for through traffic, the DOT should protect the through traffic (both safety and throughput).  Otherwise, the route is [designed] for local traffic (maybe not primarily, but with tradeoffs against through traffic).

The Los Banos scenario raises a different question.  How far perpendicular off of a freeway corridor is appropriate to consider a city "well connected" in cases like this where the city is connected to the freeway and not directly to another city (located at or near that freeway).  I've wondered about perhaps 50 miles.  But there's a math problem here, as a diagonal non-highway route might be a faster connection than the perpendicular highway route, even for shorter distances.

For the record, that section of CA-152 is part of the National Highway System.

[Flint1979]

In order to Shunpike US-30 would be the best route to go if you were going between like Chicago and Pittsburgh. There might be a few areas where it's faster to take another route but you'll end up back on US-30 before you get to Pittsburgh in that example. US-20 is alright but I like US-30 better.

[TheStranger]

^^^^
Irrespective of what I've said previously in this thread, my "definition" of a "highway" requires a four-lane divided highway with a minimum average speed of 45MPH over every 5-mile segment, except for short rush hours (7-8AM, 5-6PM) or except in truly urban areas (huge cities).  That is average speed, not necessarily the speed limit (but it is hard to have any 35MPH speed limits and meet this definition).

Ooh.

Going back to my question above re: Route 152 in Los Banos, speed limit (based on Google Street View) is just 35 MPH:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.0569595,-120.8519103,3a,75y,275.05h,74.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJgAsY1ycxH1LPm1nXcTAJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Does that through-town segment then disqualify 152 as a fully high quality four-lane connection between the South Bay and Fresno?  (For comparison, SF/Oakland-Fresno can be done entirely via freeway: 80 to 580 to 205 to 5 to 120 to 99)

I'm not the OP, so my opinion isn't important here.  But the issue on the table is connectivity.  Once you "get there", the only reason to continue to adhere to [highway design practices] is to provide upstream connectivity for other locations.  Los Banos is the only location that I've looked at thus far that has some level of connectivity on both sides (in this case CA-152 west and east). 

From the looks of it, Los Banos should qualify as "well connected" to anything along the I-5 Corridor.  It's a different question looking along CA-152 eastward to the CA-99 Corridor.  Because of the sharp triangle, I don't think it is reasonable to consider Los Banos connected to anything north of Chowchilla.  Me personally, I would disqualify CA-152 west of Los Banos because of the lack of a continuous median in many locations.  My rationale is simple.  If the route is [designed] primarily for through traffic, the DOT should protect the through traffic (both safety and throughput).  Otherwise, the route is [designed] for local traffic (maybe not primarily, but with tradeoffs against through traffic).

The Los Banos scenario raises a different question.  How far perpendicular off of a freeway corridor is appropriate to consider a city "well connected" in cases like this where the city is connected to the freeway and not directly to another city (located at or near that freeway).  I've wondered about perhaps 50 miles.  But there's a math problem here, as a diagonal non-highway route might be a faster connection than the perpendicular highway route, even for shorter distances.

For the record, that section of CA-152 is part of the National Highway System.

IIRC what else might disqualify this too, that only occurred to me a minute ago:  the infamous 2-lane section of 152 between Gilroy and Route 156 (which there's been talk of bypassing, though when that will occur is uncertain).  That basically takes out the whole "stoplight-free" aspect between 101 and 156, as well as the aspect of being four-lane to begin with.

What this does mean:

San Jose is very well connected going north/northeast (Sacramento, Stockton, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Rosa) with freeways or no-stoplight four-lane roads.  Going south, anything on the central coast is fair game (i.e. Santa Barbara, Ventura) as well as stuff along current and former US 101 beyond that (Los Angeles metro area all the way to San Diego, Anaheim, Riverside and points beyond).

BUT to connect towards the San Joaquin Valley south of Modesto (Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia), that's where the South Bay isn't quite as strongly linked at this time, due to the issues on Route 152 in both Gilroy and in Los Banos.

[hobsini2]

In order to Shunpike US-30 would be the best route to go if you were going between like Chicago and Pittsburgh. There might be a few areas where it's faster to take another route but you'll end up back on US-30 before you get to Pittsburgh in that example. US-20 is alright but I like US-30 better.

Agreed. I do like using Ohio 2 if I am going to Cleveland.

[Gnutella]

Overall, Pennsylvania does a decent job connecting its more populous municipalities via freeway, not always directly but fairly easily using the system as a whole.

There are almost 90 municipalities (cities, boroughs, townships) in PA with a population over 20k. The vast majority of them either have a freeway within their limits or there's one no more than 10 miles away.

Notable gaps include:

-Numerous interchanges between the PA Turnpike system and other freeways. The I-95 interchange is incomplete but planned to be completed, and the Scranton Beltway project will fix the connections between I-476 and I-81.
-I-99 does not directly connect to I-80 or I-70/I-76. The I-80 interchange is due to be constructed starting later this year.
-Pittsburgh lacks a connection to I-80 via PA 28.
-Reading and Allentown are not connected via freeway (or even a proper four-lane at-grade route).
-US 422 between Reading and Pottstown.
-US 322 at Duncannon and between Potters Mills and Boalsburg (completion of this gap is in the study phase) hinders the connection between Harrisburg and State College.
-The incomplete Mon-Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway projects.
-Harrisburg and Williamsport. The CSVT project will bypass the only section remaining with traffic signals. US 11/15 is (more or less) expressway-grade between Duncannon and Selinsgrove with no signals.
-There are numerous formerly planned freeways that were never built around Philly, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. Some maybe should have been built, while others are best left on the drawing board, but that's a whole other discussion.

Besides the connections between highways, which are gradually getting corrected, I think this is what Pennsylvania needs the most:


- Upgrade U.S. 6 to a "shared four" across the entire Commonwealth

- Upgrade U.S. 30 to a four-lane divided highway from Breezewood to York via Chambersburg and Gettysburg, and a "shared four" from Ligonier to Bedford

- Upgrade U.S. 219 to a four-lane divided highway from Ebensburg to Bradford via DuBois

- Upgrade U.S. 220 to a four-lane divided highway from the Maryland state line to Bedford, and a "shared four" from I-180 to the New York state line

- Upgrade U.S. 222 to a controlled-access highway from Reading to Allentown

- Upgrade U.S. 322 to a four-lane divided highway from Meadville to State College via Franklin, Clarion, DuBois and Clearfield (including a concurrency with I-80 from Clarion to Clearfield)

- Upgrade U.S. 422 to a four-lane divided highway from New Castle to Ebensburg via Butler, Kittanning and Indiana

- Upgrade PA 28 to a four-lane divided highway from Kittanning to Brookville