Liupanshui in context: Street-network sprawl trends

Liupanshui in context

3.544.55<19751976–19901991–20052006–2020SNDi of street additions
3.544.55<19751976–19901991–20052006–2020SNDi of entire street network
LiupanshuiGuizhou (Region)China (Country)

The chart above shows SNDi trends for new street additions (left panel) and the entire network (right panel), with Liupanshui plotted against Guizhou and China. The SNDi of new construction in Liupanshui was at its lowest in 1991-2005, compared to Guizhou which peaked in 1976-1990 and China which followed a zig-zag trend with an overall increase. Most recently, Liupanshui's incremental SNDi rose from 3.22 to 3.89 between 1991-2005 and 2006-2020. In terms of the aggregate network, Liupanshui ranked 26th out of 41 cities in Guizhou and 1401st out of 1843 in China as of 2020.

New Street Additions (2006–2020)

SNDi value
3.89
Rank in China
1348th of 1843
Rank in Guizhou
30th of 41

Entire Network (Aggregate)

SNDi value
3.57
Rank in China
1401st of 1843
Rank in Guizhou
26th of 41

Rankings go from most connected to most disconnected — rank 1 is the most connected.

What about similarly populated cities?

2345<19751976–19901991–20052006–2020SNDi of street additions
2345<19751976–19901991–20052006–2020SNDi of entire street network
LiupanshuiLarkanaRajamahendravaram

While Larkana and Rajamahendravaram both built increasingly disconnected streets over time, Liupanshui built increasingly connected streets from 1975 through 1991-2005, then shifted to more disconnected patterns in new street additions. Looking at the full network, Larkana and Rajamahendravaram both became progressively more disconnected, while Liupanshui became more connected from 1975 through 1991-2005, then grew more sprawly from 1991-2005 onwards. Notably, Liupanshui had a more sprawly network than Larkana in 1975 but the two have since reversed their relative ranking.