
Maps that show the anatomy of America’s vast infrastructure - grrrtttt
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-american-infrastrucure/
======
prions
As a Civil Engineer myself, I feel like people don't realize the amount of
underlying stuff that goes into even basic infrastructure projects. There's
layers of planning, design, permitting, regulations and bidding involved. It
usually takes years to finally get to construction and even then there's a
whole host of issues that arise that can delay even a simple project. Case in
point: I was the principal inspector for a small pump station project,
estimated two weeks of construction and it took just over 3 months.

There's definitely room for improvement though. A big part of the issue is the
mismatch between the private and municipal sides of the project. As someone on
the private side as a consultant, it can be really frustrating to constantly
jump through bureaucratic hoops that come across as massive wastes of time and
money.

~~~
AceJohnny2
This is actually one of the most fascinating aspects of modern society to me.
I can't resist opportunities to tour local infrastructure.

I think it's NYT who a few years ago had a series of articles about the work
of maintaining the underground aqueducts that bring water to NYC, and in
building a new one. [1] It was to me a more engrossing read than any OS deep-
dive article, despite the latter being more in-line with my passion and work.

It's also why I loved the fantasy book "Two Serpents Rise" [2] by Max
Gladstone, because it's basically about the water infrastructure of Los
Angeles. Which has a fascinating real-world history of its own! [3]

[1] can't find NYT, but here's a related article:
[http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/19/4853636/underground-
with-...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/19/4853636/underground-with-
manhattans-new-water-tunnel-three-photo-essay)

[2] [http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16059411-two-serpents-
ris...](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16059411-two-serpents-rise)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars)

~~~
prions
One of the most satisfying parts of my job is getting first hand access to
seeing so much interesting infrastructure.

I specialize in water, so getting access to the treatment plans is my
favorite. Drinking water plants are mostly off limits for the public but I've
gotten tours of a few.

If you're around the NYC area try visiting the Brooklyn Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Those egg shaped digesters are really well designed. I even heard of a
couple getting married there.

~~~
mccoyspace
I can see them from my window! They are great. There is also an interesting
public artwork their made by the artist/architect Vito Acconci.

------
AceJohnny2
Related, here's a diagram that shows energy flows in our economy, from the raw
material source (oil, gas...) through the sectors, industries, and specific
use:

[http://energyliteracy.com/](http://energyliteracy.com/)

(for example, most oil is for transportation, most of which is highway, about
3/4 of which is light-duty vehicles, which is roughly 50% cars and 50% light
trucks, about 1/3 of which are to earn a living...)

via [https://www.fastcoexist.com/3062630/visualizing/this-very-
ve...](https://www.fastcoexist.com/3062630/visualizing/this-very-very-
detailed-chart-shows-how-all-the-energy-in-the-us-is-used)

via
[https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/DLcTGBpwZSF?sfc=tr...](https://plus.google.com/+TimOReilly/posts/DLcTGBpwZSF?sfc=true)

~~~
ci5er
I got banned from an energy-related sub-reddit for making a point in a
discussion about solar using the diagram in your first link. Context is a
bannable offense! :-)

Seriously, though: context is very important. You can't have a meaningful
discussion if people are comparing tailpipe to tailpipe. You need a cradle-to-
grave view of the system and its inputs, chained back, at least one step and
maybe two. It's cumbersome, but otherwise, people keep debating with their
comparisons between apples and wheelbarrows. I used to think that people who
were picking a micro-location for their PoV/stance were acting disingenuously.
But, I've learned that - they really don't know! (Some remain remarkably
incurious once shown, though...)

Anyway: thanks for that link. It's one of my all time favorite Sankey
diagrams, which I found by accident after digging after that earlier one from
LLNL...

~~~
AceJohnny2
> _I used to think that people who were picking a micro-location for their PoV
> /stance were acting disingenuously. But, I've learned that - they really
> don't know! (Some remain remarkably incurious once shown, though...)_

Yeah, I understand your frustration. My feeling is that people want to feel
like they're doing good, and if you come along and show them that they're just
pissing in the ocean... your rhetoric better be really smooth.

Which is why, truthfully, I usually don't bother. It's not my skillset.

------
steven777400
Not trying to nitpick, but at least a tiny sliver of this data is misleading:
the Amtrak stations markers include locations that are definitely not
passenger rail stations. For example, the map shows a half-dozen dots on the
southwest Washington state coast, but the only western Washington passenger
rail service is up and down I-5, and then eastbound from there.

~~~
lazarogamio
Hey there, I was involved in making these maps.

You're absolutely correct. We used point data from BTS
([http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_atlas_database/2015/point)),
and did not filter out non-train station types.

We're fixing this now.

~~~
ekun
Why is there no nuclear in the power plant maps?

~~~
enraged_camel
I'm wondering this as well. Is there no data available, or was it a
political/editorial decision?

~~~
throwanem
Wikipedia doesn't seem to have trouble showing their locations, and there are
a hundred of them currently in operation, producing just shy of a fifth of our
country's electrical power. Given those facts, it is a curious omission, to
say the least.

~~~
acidburnNSA
Seriously. Nuclear plants make up 60% of the US' carbon free electricity and
(as you say) 20% of its generated electricity. Very curious omission indeed.

------
glup
For context, here's population
[http://i.imgur.com/mcA2hWa.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/mcA2hWa.jpg).

Kind of obvious, but a lot of infrastructure (esp. for resource extraction) is
far away from centers of population.

~~~
mason240
Which is something to keep in mind when people talk about blue states being
net Federal tax payers and red states being net Federal tax receivers.

The interstates and railways through ID, WY, or NE aren't there for the people
of those states - there to connect CA and WA to the east coast.

~~~
honkhonkpants
I thought there were there to connect coal fields in the Powder River Basin to
power plants in the midwest.

~~~
Miner49er
This is correct for probably most of the railroads in Wyoming. Not sure about
the other states mentioned but probably true for them too.

------
PaulHoule
No communication networks -- people in underserved areas are crying out for
fiber or anything better than DSL. It's not clear anybody really wants more
electric lines or pipelines but very clear that people want better internet.

~~~
tptacek
In what way is it clear that people want something better than DSL? The
carriers lose money rolling out fiber even in urban areas, in part because
they're required to make it accessible to lower-income families that don't
want it.

Hell, I'm in the industry and not sure what I'd really get from something
better than the DSL I have today.

~~~
spiderfarmer
In my rural neighborhood (somewhere in the Netherlands) we created a
cooperative that will create and manage a fiber network for 5.600 households,
spread in a 345,8 km/2 area. The large Telcos are ignoring us, so we have to
do it ourselves.

In this area everybody has at least ADSL but speeds range from 2Mbit to
20Mbit. There are also a couple hundred households on Cable (max. 150/20).

With Fiber everybody will get a 100/100 connection for about 50 euros / month.
Other packages are available, up tot 500/500.

Even though the people with 20Mbit and up don't complain about their
connection a large part of them signed up for Fiber anyway.

Why?

Because we told them that if we fail to build this network, the people with
~2Mbit connections are screwed. Out of solidarity 65% of all households signed
up, 2 years before they would be able to get it, resulting in a valid business
model for the cooperative.

~~~
tptacek
Internet access at those speeds is, I think, pretty close to universally
available in the US.

------
mmanfrin

      The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that more than 95 
      percent of overseas trade produced or consumed by the United 
      States moves through our ports. 
    

Who woulda thought that _overseas_ trade would go through _ports_.

~~~
rattray
The alternatives are road/rail (via Canada or Mexico) and air. Presumably very
little overseas trade is routed through Canada and Mexico, but it's certainly
possible.

I personally would have guessed a higher percentage would come through air
than 5%.

~~~
honkhonkpants
A really large amount goes through Canada. The port of Vancouver is bigger
than Oakland, and the port of Manzanillo Mexico is only slightly smaller. Both
ports have rail connections to the US interior. The Mexican ports have lower
market share because they are pretty far from Chinese origins, but if you want
to amuse yourself you can Google up a lot of crazy conspiracy theories about
the connections between Mexican ports and the US city of Kansas City. Many
deranged people believe that the Mexicans are usurping our sovereignty via an
obscure customs office in Kansas City that is (barely) connected by rail to
the port of Lazaro Cardenas.

------
tn13
I am a road enthusiast. I have driven on almost every single major road in CA
Nevada and especially the deserted "no one goes there" type roads. I also take
interest in history of roads.

California has been sitting ducks on some really important road proposals or
last so many years despite the deaths they have been causing. My suspicion is
that politicians want to push trains and other larger projects where they
might get kickbacks instead of upgrading existing roads.

Here are some observations:

1\. Highway 1 seems to be under repair all the year for last 3 years. 2\.
Highway 152 is the only major road that connects SJ with I-5. despite this it
is one lane for a large part. It has very high fatality and traffic jam rate.
Decades have passed since government planned to broaden it.
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_152](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_152)]
3\. Panoche road. Not sure why this road exists. But since it does then making
it an expressway could have helped create an alternative to 152 reducing
traffic and accidents. 4\. Then there is Route 130 that connections bay area
to I-5. Several times it was proposed that this route be widened as an
alternative to 152 but it never went ahead. I once saw a car fall several feet
below the road just because he got spooked to see me coming in opposite
direction. It is that desolated.

~~~
_delirium
Every part of CA I've lived in has had a ton of money going into constant road
construction, so this isn't quite my impression. The state's budget in this
area is huge, in the billions annually. When I lived in L.A., they built an
entire new, 6-lane freeway near where I lived. To relieve congestion on the
10, they just built a second parallel freeway, the 210, that doubled up the
route! L.A. has so many freeways now that you can just treat them as arterial
roads. If you miss your freeway interchange, no need to backtrack, just keep
going and take the next freeway.

I also lived for some years south of SF, and from that vantage point it seemed
like a ton of money was being put into roads too. Highway 17 (San Jose to
Santa Cruz) has had hundreds of millions poured into widening and safety
upgrades. There was just a few years ago a major tunnel-boring project on
Highway 1 to replace the "Devil's slide" portion between San Francisco and
Half Moon Bay with new tubes put right through the mountain. And the continual
freeway-ification of US-101 south of Gilroy has had money going into it just
about every year.

And heck, although much of it dates back a bit earlier, the Valley is the only
place I've ever lived that has not only the normal three tiers of: interstate
freeways, U.S. expressways, and state expressways, but also _county_
expressways, like Montague Expressway and San Tomas Expressway. And yet
doesn't have even halfway decent public transit (Caltrain barely counts).

~~~
tn13
As per Federal government reports California has second worst quality of roads
after DC. [1]

Neither LA nor SF Bay area has any good roads. I think your are judging them
by lower standards compared to population density, commute distance etc. It is
barely sufficient.

Just look at this [2] data. California's rate of building new roads is
significantly lower, expenditure stagnant and quality is bad. This despite the
higher gas taxes. The money clearly is going somewhere else.

1\.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/25/why-d...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/25/why-
driving-on-americas-roads-can-be-more-expensive-than-you-
think/?utm_term=.29039be53542)

2\. [http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-1993/why-
califor...](http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-1993/why-california-
stopped-building-freeways/)

~~~
_delirium
The article you link at #2 comes up with a pretty different explanation for
freeway construction stall:

> _The principal cause of declining freeway development was the dramatic rise
> in construction and maintenance costs_

I.e. California would have had to significantly increase its gasoline tax, in
line with the increases in construction costs, to fund continued 1960s-scale
freeway development, but didn't do so: The gas tax today is approximately the
same in real terms as it was in 1960 (it was 4.7¢/gal then, which is roughly
40¢/gal in 2016 dollars). Well that, or find a way to bring construction costs
back down. A small portion of the money diverted to rail doesn't really move
the needle on the big-picture here.

------
huangc10
10 most populous cities in America (by order of most to least): New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego,
Dallas, San Jose.

 __ _Honorable mention: San Francisco is at 13th_ __

~~~
bradleyjg
Measuring city size is a tricky endeavor. Municipal borders are pretty
arbitrary and so not a great way to decide what the real size of the urbanized
area is. The OECD has a methodology they call "functional urban areas"[1] that
starts by identifying linked high density clusters and then refining from
there.

Using their methodology the order is: LA, NYC, Chicago, SF, Houston, DC,
Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, and Phoenix.[2]

[1] [https://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Definition-of-
Funct...](https://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Definition-of-Functional-
Urban-Areas-for-the-OECD-metropolitan-database.pdf)

[2] [https://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/functional-urban-
ar...](https://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/functional-urban-areas-all-
united-states.pdf)

~~~
sien
The wikpedia list of Primary Statistical Areas is pretty useful:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_ar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States)

~~~
kodablah
Even those are way too large to represent "city areas" (i.e. metropolitan
areas). A more reasonable comparison may be to use their subdivisions, MSA's
[0], which can help overcome issues with city boundaries but they too are of
course a bit arbitrary and misleading but can also give a better showing of
size [1]. I've seen these used in many statistical scenarios concerning
population centers.

0 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area)
1 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas)

------
fjarlq
In case lazarogamio is still reading comments here, some feedback:

I have mild red-green color blindness (deuteranopia), which I think is why I'm
having trouble reading a couple of the maps. For example, I can't distinguish
the bridges in need of repair from the rest of the bridges. The pipelines map
is also pretty difficult to read.

Better color choices, and high-resolution images, would be much appreciated.
Thanks!

~~~
lazarogamio
I'm still reading :)

Sorry for this, I'll look into something to make this easier for you in the
article.

In the meanwhile, we published some high-res versions of the maps on reddit,
which hopefully are better for you.

Electric grid:
[https://i.redd.it/2nkdq2bx101y.jpg](https://i.redd.it/2nkdq2bx101y.jpg)
Pipelines:
[https://i.redd.it/mu945myovz0y.jpg](https://i.redd.it/mu945myovz0y.jpg)
Airports:
[https://i.redd.it/m9p0mpy2wz0y.jpg](https://i.redd.it/m9p0mpy2wz0y.jpg)
Ports:
[https://i.redd.it/2khvrwe6201y.jpg](https://i.redd.it/2khvrwe6201y.jpg)
Bridges:
[https://i.redd.it/enf1rtz9z21y.jpg](https://i.redd.it/enf1rtz9z21y.jpg)

~~~
fjarlq
Awesome, thank you!

------
njwi332
If anyone is interested in infrastructure, I highly recommend "On the Grid"
([https://www.amazon.com/Grid-Average-Neighborhood-Systems-
Wor...](https://www.amazon.com/Grid-Average-Neighborhood-Systems-
World/dp/1609611381))

Excellent book that goes over all the systems making up a city. I read it a
couple of years ago but off the top of my head, it covers electricity,
telecommunications, roads, public transport, three water systems (freshwater,
sewage, rainwater) and how they are all interconnected.

------
bikamonki
Wait! You are missing Central America, South America, Mexico and Canada.
Either that or you have the wrong title :)

------
_delirium
As an addendum to the two maps here showing freight tonnage by rail and water
route, the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics has a nice one that
overlays rail/water/truck tonnage on one map:
[http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/transportation_in_the_united_states_2013/moving_goods.html)

------
euyyn
I first thought all those aligned bridges were following the course of rivers.
But it seems that most of them just cross over railways! Compare:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-
ame...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-american-
infrastrucure/img/bridges-1480.jpg?c=400) (bridges) and
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-
ame...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/maps-of-american-
infrastrucure/img/rails-1480.jpg?c=348) (railways).

------
Fillipoman
There's a lot of interesting data in the article, but some of the
visualizations remind me of this:
[https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/).

~~~
amyjess
I thought the same thing too, and I found it particularly intriguing when some
of the maps actually inverted the population map, like the wind power map.

------
gumby
Two things jump out at me: are there really that many bridges in need of
maintenance in the Bay Area? Caltrans is making a big investment (e.g. Bay
Bridge, Benecia etc).

I am also amazed at how much freight still comes into SF/Oakland and New York.
Perhaps the "SF" traffic is actually Pittsburg and Stockton and I just can't
see it clearly at this resolution.

~~~
honkhonkpants
The port of Pittsburg is teensy and the port of Stockton is specialized.
Container traffic at Oakland is pretty heavy and many cars are offloaded at
Vallejo. There are also the oil terminals at Richmond and elsewhere.

~~~
gumby
Thanks, I wasn't thinking hard enough! I've driven past those terminals in
Richmond and Vallejo but haven't paid enough attention.

------
ceejay
It's probably an apples to oranges comparison, but the image of America's
electric grid looks like the prototypical "disaster" scenario when you're a
new hire and walk into a train wreck of a server room that's been ignored or
half-heartedly managed for years :)

~~~
maxerickson
It seems they may have pulled the power line information from OpenStreetMap.
If that is the case, it's partly the data that is messy and incomplete.

As far as apples and oranges, I think that's right, 2 lines dozens of miles
long crossing in the middle of nowhere is no problem at all.

------
CodeSheikh
Looking at this behemoth infrastructure, one can safely say that by just
tweaking/updating existing maintenance related policies, a plenty of new jobs
can be added.

Not to mention implementing policies for the addition of new infrastructure.
For example adding more windmills or installing more solar plants etc etc.

~~~
gumby
> one can safely say that by just tweaking/updating existing maintenance
> related policies, a plenty of new jobs can be added.

Actually one can't safely say that as one can see from the 2007/8 bail out.
The supposedly "shovel ready" projects weren't (if they were indeed shovel
ready they would already have been funded). There was a lot of approval that
had to be done and many of the jobs were for skilled, not unskilled labor, so
really couldn't suck up that many new people. The economy is structurally
quite different from the 1930s when the WPA could, if not bail the economy
out, at least reduce the burden and get something for it.

In addition, where's the money? The current plan, AFAICT, is to sell off
infrastructure (bridges, highways, water systems) in perpetuity and let the
new owner charge tolls and the like. A system that hasn't worked that well in
the US since the 1800s.

------
deegles
Fascinating to see how closely coal and natural gas map to states that went
red in the election vs. all the renewables in blue states. Here's a map:
[http://www.270towin.com/](http://www.270towin.com/)

------
donutz
Ever driven through any of California's oil fields? Drive through someplace
like Taft, and you'll see that the number of pipes just there on the property
probably dwarf the amount of pipes moving that oil across the country.

------
known
Curious to know the infrastructure before 1970

------
DrScump
Am I the only one who fears that these maps would be useful to terrorists?

~~~
logfromblammo
They would be useful to terrorists. But they are more useful to people with
peaceful purposes, by several orders of magnitude.

Any use that a terrorist could find for them can also be found by a security
auditor role-playing as an attacker. If a terrorist could find a weak point in
the infrastructure that may be exploited, so too may a defender, who may then
devise a countermeasure, rather than an attack plan.

Those countermeasures would not necessarily appear on the maps. For instance,
there may be a motion-sensing surveillance camera watching a locked gate on an
access road to a reservoir for a municipal water supply. Such measures are
sufficient to foil impulsive attacks, and planned attacks very often generate
suspicious activity reports and probable cause for investigations well in
advance of the planned event.

In theory, the maps may be a security risk. In practice, they cannot
substitute for in-person investigation of specific sites, and most important
infrastructure elements are at least partially protected against impulse
crimes and accidental damage by chain-link fences, concrete barriers, motion
sensors, and cameras. The typical terrorist candidate doesn't have satellite-
guided ICBMs--they have to actually _go_ to something in order to attack it.
And they are constrained by the need for their attacks to be significant,
public, and obvious.

