Massachusetts: region in United States
What exactly constitutes the spatial extent of the city? For these aggregations, we used the Global Human Settlement Layer Urban Center Database (GHS-UCDB) to define the boundaries of the city. These cities -- or urban centers -- cover areas that are densely populated and built-up, and so may extend beyond the spatial borders of these cities that we may be familiar with. The GHS area is shaded in blue.
View Massachusetts, United States on the sprawlmap
Most recent snapshot: Taking into account the entire (i.e. aggregate) street network in Massachusetts as of 2014, the overall level of street-network sprawl is 3.82, which is highly disconnected.
Trends in street network construction: The SNDis of street construction for the respective time periods are 2.96, 5.24, 6.95 and 5.79. Street construction in Massachusetts increased in disconnectivity initially but has since improved. The streets constructed in 1991-2000 were the most disconnected.
Quantity of street network construction: The street network in Massachusetts spans a total of 68200 kilometers. It is dominated by roads constructed prior to 1975. These roads have an SNDi of 2.96, which is in the 40th to 60th percentile of disconnectedness.
Effect on the aggregate network: New construction in each period adds to the total stock of streets, but does not change streets that have already been built. Therefore, it has a limited effect on the street network as a whole. The SNDis of the aggregate street network in the respective time periods are 2.96, 3.43, 3.59 and 3.82. Overall, the SNDi of the aggregate street network has risen: the street network in Massachusetts has become more disconnected. This increase has slowed: between 1975 and 1976-1990, SNDi rose by 0.46 points, but between 1991-2000 and 2001-2014, it rose by just 0.23.
The level of street-network sprawl in new development in Massachusetts peaked in 1991-2000. To get a sense of how street development has changed in Massachusetts, we can consider three of its most populous cities: Boston, Springfield and Worcester. Out of the three cities, Springfield and Worcester do not follow the same trend as the region. The level of street-network sprawl in new development in Springfield rose steadily. The level of street-network sprawl in new development in Worcester rose steadily.
How do development practices in Massachusetts fare in comparison to others in United States? Most recently in 2001-2014, street construction in Massachusetts was the 20th-most disconnected out of the 46 regions in United States. Its position in the ranks since 1975 has risen; relative to other regions in United States, street construction in Massachusetts has become more disconnected. Massachusetts ranked 21st in 1975, 14th in 1976-1990, 11th in 1991-2000 and 20th in 2001-2014.
As of 2014, the city with the most disconnected street network in Massachusetts is Framingham with an SNDi of 3.11, which is in the 40th to 60th percentile of disconnectedness. Conversely, the most connected city is New Bedford with an SNDi of 2.18, which is relatively well-connected. See trends for these cities: New Bedford, Framingham
The level of street-network sprawl in the aggregate network in Massachusetts rose steadily. To get a sense of how the aggregate street network has changed in Massachusetts, we can consider three of its most populous cities: Boston, Springfield and Worcester. Disconnectivity in the most populous cities in Massachusetts follow the same region trend.
To date, Massachusetts is the 23rd-most disconnected out of the 46 regions in United States. Its position in the ranks since 1975 has fallen; relative to other regions in United States, the street network in Massachusetts has become more connected. Massachusetts ranked 21st in 1975, 22nd in 1976-1990, 23rd in 1991-2000 and 23rd in 2001-2014.