Acknowledgments US Department of Transportation - BTS

Table 1-71: Annual Roadway Congestion IndexUrban area Population group 1982 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Points Rank a Points Rank aOmaha, NE-IA Medium 0.61 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.94 0 10 33 33Orlando, FL Large 0.72 0.83 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.22 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.23 1.23 1.24 1.17 1.17 1.16 -7 77 44 11Oxnard-Ventura, CA Medium 0.83 0.97 1.15 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.21 1.19 1.19 -3 41 36 23Pensacola, FL-AL Small 0.71 0.74 0.86 0.83 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.97 0.99 1.03 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.11 1.12 0.98 0.97 0.97 -12 99 26 52Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD Very large 0.83 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.06 1.07 -5 56 25 59Phoenix, AZ Very large 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.10 1.14 1.19 1.25 1.26 1.23 1.25 1.30 1.32 1.29 1.25 1.22 1.25 1.24 -8 85 21 74Pittsburgh, PA Large 0.67 0.69 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.73 0.75 -4 53 8 90Portland, OR-WA Large 0.87 0.89 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.18 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.20 1.20 1.17 1.14 1.14 -9 97 26 51Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY Medium 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.84 0.84 -6 70 2 97Providence, RI-MA Large 0.55 0.54 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.89 0.87 0.88 -5 64 34 31Provo, UT Small 1.16 1.17 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.12 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.03 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.92 0.90 0.88 -15 101 -28 101Raleigh-Durham, NC Large 0.63 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.86 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.01 0.97 0.96 0.96 -4 52 34 30Richmond, VA Medium 0.61 0.58 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.79 0.84 0.86 0.84 0.80 0.77 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.80 -2 24 20 77Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Large 0.76 0.89 1.14 1.17 1.16 1.14 1.11 1.16 1.17 1.15 1.19 1.24 1.26 1.29 1.36 1.43 1.45 1.45 1.47 1.45 1.41 1.39 1.40 -5 59 64 1Rochester, NY Medium 0.48 0.52 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.72 0.73 -4 46 25 61Sacramento, CA Large 0.75 0.88 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.13 1.17 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.31 1.35 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.29 1.27 1.27 -8 88 52 4Salem, OR Small 0.58 0.66 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.88 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.83 0.82 -7 75 25 60Salt Lake City, UT Medium 0.72 0.77 0.88 0.92 0.95 0.99 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.03 1.01 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.01 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.97 -6 69 25 55San Antonio, TX Large 0.68 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.83 0.88 0.94 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.09 1.09 1.10 -1 18 42 15San Diego, CA Very large 0.83 0.93 1.23 1.22 1.22 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.28 1.33 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.42 1.41 1.39 1.37 1.34 1.32 1.32 -9 95 49 5San Francisco-Oakland, CA Very large 1.01 1.13 1.31 1.30 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.36 1.38 1.35 1.39 1.40 1.39 1.40 1.40 1.38 1.34 1.32 1.32 -7 82 31 39San Jose, CA Large 1.03 1.10 1.23 1.23 1.20 1.16 1.18 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.19 1.23 1.35 1.37 1.36 1.36 1.33 1.33 1.35 1.34 1.32 1.30 1.30 -4 47 27 47San Juan, PR Large 0.69 0.73 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.87 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.17 1.15 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.11 1.16 1 7 48 6Sarasota-Bradenton, FL Medium 0.77 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.98 1.01 1.02 1.10 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.23 1.17 1.17 1.17 -7 79 40 16Seattle, WA Very large 0.84 0.94 1.14 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.19 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.13 1.12 1.10 1.08 1.08 -8 83 23 65Spokane, WA Small 0.53 0.59 0.64 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.69 -2 28 16 80Springfield, MA-CT Medium 0.60 0.63 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.81 -2 27 21 73St. Louis, MO-IL Large 0.84 0.89 0.86 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.99 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.86 0.87 -4 51 3 95Stockton, CA Small 0.64 0.72 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.15 1.20 1.12 1.11 1.11 0 16 47 7Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL Large 1.04 1.09 1.13 1.18 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.12 1.13 1.17 1.20 1.21 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.29 1.24 1.24 1.24 -3 39 20 76Toledo, OH-MI Medium 0.54 0.61 0.65 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.78 0.81 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.79 0.77 0.78 -8 90 24 62Tucson, AZ Medium 0.89 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.10 1.12 1.18 1.17 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.18 0 9 29 42Tulsa, OK Medium 0.62 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.83 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.77 0.76 0.75 -6 68 13 85Virginia Beach, VA Large 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.01 -1 20 23 68Washington, DC-VA-MD Very large 0.83 1.01 1.05 1.06 1.12 1.15 1.21 1.22 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.24 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.34 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.33 1.31 1.30 -5 55 47 8Wichita, KS Medium 0.49 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0 11 5 91Winston-Salem, NC Small 0.70 0.75 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.84 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.82 -3 37 12 87Worcester, MA Small 0.68 0.70 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.85 0 14 17 79439 Urban area average b 439 Areas 0.69 0.73 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.98 0.98 0.99 -5 NA 30 NA101 Urban area average b 101 Areas 0.83 0.89 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.14 (R) 1.26 1.26 8 NA 43 NAVery large area average b Very large 0.92 0.99 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.25 1.24 1.24 -5 NA 33 NALarge area average b Large 0.75 0.81 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.07 (R) 1.49 1.49 38 NA 73 NAMedium area average b Medium 0.67 0.72 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.92 -3 NA 25 NASmall area average b Small 0.69 0.71 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.93 0.91 (R) 0.87 (R) 0.87 0.87 -5 NA 18 NAKEY: NA = not applicable; R = revised.Very large urban areas – 3 million and over population.Large urban areas – 1 million to less than 3 million population.Medium urban areas – 500,000 to less than 1 million population.Small urban areas – less than 500,000 population.a Rank is based on the calculated point change with the highest number corresponding to a rank of 1.bAverage weighted by vehicle miles traveled in city.Short-term2005-2010Points changeLong-term1982-2010NOTESThe Roadway Congestion Index (RCI) is a measure of vehicle travel density on major roadways in an urban area. An RCI exceeding 1.0 indicates an undesirablecongestion level, on an average, on the freeways and principal arterial street systems during the peak period. The urban areas included are those containing over500,000 people and several smaller places mostly chosen by previous sponsors of the Texas Transportation Institute study on mobility. Population group is basedon 2010 population.SOURCETexas Transportation Institute, Congestion Data for Your City, Excel spreadsheet of the base statistics for the 101 urban areas and population group summarystatistics (College Station, TX: 2011), available at http://mobility.tamu.edu as of Oct. 20, 2011.