Table 1-61: Roadway Congestion Index

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Population group	Urban area	1982	1985	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	Percent change: Short-term 1995-1999^R		Percent change: Long-term 1982-1999^R
Population group	Urban area	1982	1985	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	Percent^a	Rank^a	Percent^a	Rank^a
Med	Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	^R0.46	0.51	0.68	0.67	0.69	0.71	0.71	0.72	0.74	0.75	0.75	0.77	7	22	67	61
Med	Albuquerque, NM	^R0.62	0.69	0.85	0.84	0.87	0.92	0.98	^R1.02	^R1.06	^R1.12	1.12	1.13	11	49	82	68
Lrg	Atlanta, GA	^R0.77	0.93	^R0.98	0.97	^R0.99	1.05	1.13	^R1.13	1.17	^R1.24	1.28	1.27	12	59	65	59
Med	Austin, TX	^R0.73	0.81	^R0.90	0.90	^R0.87	0.87	0.90	0.94	^R0.97	^R1.02	1.04	1.06	13	60	45	38
Sml	Bakersfield, CA	^R0.54	0.56	^R0.64	0.67	^R0.70	0.68	0.71	0.72	0.74	0.75	0.76	0.77	7	22	43	35
Lrg	Baltimore, MD	^R0.75	0.80	^R0.95	0.95	^R0.97	0.97	1.00	1.03	^R1.03	1.05	1.06	1.07	4	15	43	36
Sml	Beaumont, TX	^R0.68	0.72	^R0.74	0.78	^R0.83	0.82	0.78	^R0.80	0.84	^R0.85	0.85	0.86	7	30	26	14
Vlg	Boston, MA	^R0.88	0.98	^R1.09	1.09	^R1.11	1.17	1.19	^R1.21	1.22	^R1.25	1.27	1.28	6	20	45	39
Sml	Boulder, CO	^R0.55	0.59	^R0.65	0.66	^R0.70	0.71	0.72	0.74	^R0.76	^R0.81	0.83	0.83	12	58	51	46
Sml	Brownsville, TX	^R0.54	0.54	0.62	0.62	0.64	0.68	0.69	0.70	^R0.71	^R0.73	0.76	0.75	7	25	39	33
Lrg	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	^R0.53	0.55	^R0.60	0.62	^R0.64	0.66	0.68	^R0.67	^R0.66	^R0.68	0.70	0.72	7	29	36	30
Med	Charlotte, NC	^R0.86	1.02	^R1.05	1.04	^R0.98	0.94	0.93	^R0.95	^R1.01	^R1.07	1.09	1.14	20	68	33	22
Vlg	Chicago, IL-Northwestern, IN	^R0.95	1.02	^R1.18	1.19	^R1.17	1.17	1.17	^R1.22	^R1.27	^R1.27	1.31	1.31	7	28	38	31
Lrg	Cincinnati, OH-KY	^R0.70	0.78	^R0.92	0.90	0.91	0.95	1.00	1.00	^R1.04	^R1.09	1.11	1.12	12	55	60	58
Lrg	Cleveland, OH	^R0.68	0.65	^R0.83	0.83	^R0.85	0.89	0.91	^R0.92	^R0.94	^R0.96	0.98	0.99	8	31	46	40
Sml	Colorado Springs, CO	^R0.50	0.60	^R0.62	0.61	^R0.64	0.66	0.68	^R0.73	^R0.76	^R0.81	0.83	0.85	16	65	70	63
Lrg	Columbus, OH	^R0.63	0.68	^R0.86	0.88	^R0.90	0.92	0.94	^R0.95	1.00	1.04	1.05	1.05	11	46	67	60
Sml	Corpus Christi, TX	^R0.57	0.65	^R0.67	0.66	^R0.67	0.65	0.64	^R0.64	^R0.66	^R0.70	0.70	0.71	11	50	25	12
Lrg	Dallas, TX	^R0.78	0.91	0.99	1.01	1.01	0.99	0.97	0.98	1.00	1.04	1.04	1.05	7	25	35	25
Lrg	Denver, CO	^R0.82	0.86	^R0.92	0.93	^R0.97	0.99	1.02	^R1.07	^R1.12	^R1.14	1.18	1.20	12	57	46	41
Vlg	Detroit, MI	^R0.89	0.91	1.08	1.09	1.16	1.19	1.15	^R1.16	^R1.18	1.18	1.18	1.20	3	13	35	26
Med	El Paso, TX-NM	^R0.62	0.70	^R0.73	0.78	0.82	0.83	0.85	^R0.85	^R0.84	0.86	0.91	0.94	11	48	52	48
Sml	Eugene-Springfield, OR	^R0.53	0.58	^R0.68	0.69	^R0.70	0.74	0.75	0.78	0.82	0.84	0.87	0.91	17	66	72	65
Lrg	Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach, FL	^R0.69	0.75	^R0.90	0.95	^R1.03	1.05	1.03	^R1.05	^R1.07	^R1.12	1.12	1.17	11	52	70	62
Lrg	Fort Worth TX	0.73	0.82	0.92	0.89	0.90	0.86	0.87	0.87	0.90	0.91	0.94	0.96	10	44	32	21
Med	Fresno, CA	^R0.67	0.65	^R0.89	0.88	^R0.87	0.85	0.85	0.87	^R0.89	^R0.92	0.96	1.00	15	63	49	44
Med	Hartford-Middletown, CT	^R0.61	0.74	^R0.85	0.85	^R0.87	0.84	0.85	^R0.86	^R0.87	0.90	0.91	0.94	9	41	54	52
Med	Honolulu, HI	^R0.79	0.84	^R1.03	1.03	^R1.04	1.05	1.07	1.07	1.07	1.06	1.06	1.06	-1	4	34	24
Vlg	Houston, TX	^R1.03	1.11	^R1.05	1.00	0.99	1.02	1.00	^R1.00	^R1.03	1.07	1.10	1.10	10	43	7	1
Lrg	Indianapolis, IN	^R0.64	0.69	^R0.83	0.85	^R0.91	0.96	1.04	^R1.11	^R1.11	^R1.13	1.12	1.11	0	6	73	66
Med	Jacksonville, FL	^R0.75	0.81	^R0.94	0.96	^R0.98	1.00	1.02	^R1.04	^R1.02	^R1.01	1.01	1.00	-4	1	33	23
Lrg	Kansas City, MO-KS	^R0.50	0.58	^R0.63	0.61	^R0.63	0.69	0.71	0.72	0.75	0.76	0.77	0.79	10	42	58	54
Sml	Laredo, TX	^R0.55	0.56	^R0.56	0.57	^R0.56	0.54	0.54	^R0.53	0.56	^R0.60	0.63	0.61	15	64	11	4
Lrg	Las Vegas, NV	^R0.69	0.78	^R1.08	1.11	^R1.08	1.14	1.13	^R1.12	^R1.12	^R1.11	1.13	1.18	5	19	71	64
Vlg	Los Angeles, CA	^R1.29	1.31	^R1.59	1.58	^R1.56	1.54	1.50	^R1.52	^R1.56	^R1.54	1.58	1.58	4	16	22	11
Med	Louisville, KY-IN	^R0.78	0.78	0.80	0.84	0.89	0.95	0.99	^R1.00	1.02	^R1.05	1.08	1.09	9	38	40	34
Med	Memphis, TN-AR-MS	^R0.71	0.70	^R0.88	0.88	^R0.89	0.89	0.94	^R0.96	^R0.98	^R0.98	0.99	0.98	2	10	38	32
Lrg	Miami-Hialeah, FL	^R0.95	0.99	^R1.20	1.17	^R1.20	1.19	1.22	^R1.25	^R1.23	^R1.23	1.22	1.23	-2	3	29	18
Lrg	Milwaukee, WI	^R0.71	0.80	^R0.92	0.92	^R0.92	0.89	0.91	^R0.94	^R0.99	1.01	1.02	1.05	12	53	48	43
Lrg	Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN	^R0.66	0.76	0.89	0.91	0.93	0.98	1.04	1.06	1.08	1.13	1.18	1.20	13	62	82	67
Med	Nashville, TN	^R0.83	0.81	0.85	0.84	^R0.85	0.85	0.90	0.93	^R0.93	^R0.98	0.97	1.01	9	37	22	10
Lrg	New Orleans, LA	^R0.92	0.97	^R0.94	0.96	^R0.95	0.94	0.99	^R0.99	^R0.96	^R0.97	1.00	0.99	0	6	8	2
Vlg	New York, NY-Northeastern, NJ	^R0.77	0.84	^R0.99	0.98	^R0.97	0.99	1.02	1.04	^R1.08	^R1.13	1.14	1.15	11	47	49	45
Lrg	Norfolk, VA	^R0.89	1.01	^R0.96	0.90	^R0.87	0.88	0.91	0.93	0.97	0.97	0.96	0.97	4	17	9	3
Lrg	Oklahoma City, OK	^R0.65	0.71	0.73	0.74	0.74	0.78	0.77	0.82	0.84	0.85	0.86	0.88	7	27	35	28
Med	Omaha, NE-IA	^R0.62	0.70	^R0.75	0.76	^R0.79	0.80	0.80	^R0.81	^R0.84	^R0.85	0.87	0.90	11	51	45	37
Lrg	Orlando, FL	^R0.82	0.93	^R0.95	0.97	^R0.97	0.97	0.96	^R0.97	^R1.00	^R1.04	1.05	1.05	8	35	28	16
Vlg	Philadelphia, PA-NJ	^R0.82	0.86	^R0.94	0.99	0.98	0.96	0.97	^R0.97	^R0.98	^R1.02	1.05	1.06	9	40	29	17
Lrg	Phoenix, AZ	^R0.95	0.98	^R1.01	1.03	1.06	1.05	1.04	^R1.08	^R1.14	^R1.12	1.16	1.21	12	56	27	15
Lrg	Pittsburgh, PA	^R0.70	0.73	0.75	0.75	0.74	0.74	0.74	0.76	0.76	0.76	0.78	0.78	3	11	11	6
Lrg	Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA	^R0.81	0.90	^R1.01	1.03	1.07	1.10	1.12	1.15	1.20	1.22	1.22	1.24	8	33	53	51
Med	Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA	^R0.70	0.83	^R0.89	0.88	0.83	0.82	0.82	0.84	0.87	^R0.89	0.93	0.95	13	61	36	29
Med	Rochester, NY	^R0.51	0.57	^R0.69	0.70	^R0.72	0.72	0.74	^R0.77	^R0.77	^R0.76	0.77	0.78	1	8	53	50
Lrg	Sacramento, CA	^R0.76	0.88	^R1.05	1.05	^R1.07	1.09	1.12	1.12	^R1.17	1.14	1.18	1.20	7	24	58	53
Sml	Salem, OR	^R0.56	0.64	^R0.79	0.81	^R0.79	0.79	0.79	0.77	^R0.79	0.82	0.86	0.85	10	45	52	49
Med	Salt Lake City, UT	^R0.66	0.71	^R0.84	0.89	0.91	0.95	1.01	1.04	1.05	^R1.01	1.01	1.00	-4	1	52	47
Lrg	San Antonio, TX	^R0.69	0.79	^R0.74	0.74	^R0.77	0.78	0.81	^R0.87	0.89	0.92	0.96	1.02	17	67	48	42
Lrg	San Bernardino-Riverside, CA	^R0.78	0.90	^R1.15	1.16	1.15	1.14	1.12	1.16	^R1.18	^R1.16	1.20	1.24	7	21	59	57
Lrg	San Diego, CA	^R0.79	0.90	^R1.19	1.18	^R1.18	1.16	1.16	^R1.16	^R1.16	^R1.15	1.19	1.25	8	32	58	55
Vlg	San Francisco-Oakland, CA	^R1.06	1.17	^R1.35	1.32	1.32	1.33	1.31	1.34	^R1.35	^R1.36	1.37	1.39	4	14	31	19
Lrg	San Jose, CA	^R1.07	1.13	^R1.24	1.25	^R1.22	1.18	1.15	^R1.13	^R1.11	^R1.11	1.13	1.19	5	18	11	5
Lrg	Seattle-Everett, WA	^R1.07	1.17	1.21	1.21	1.17	1.18	1.19	1.20	1.22	^R1.25	1.26	1.30	8	36	21	9
Sml	Spokane, WA	^R0.66	0.71	^R0.74	0.77	^R0.74	0.73	0.77	0.76	^R0.78	^R0.80	0.81	0.83	9	39	26	13
Lrg	St. Louis, MO-IL	^R0.87	0.94	^R0.91	0.90	^R0.92	0.95	0.99	1.00	1.01	^R1.02	1.01	1.03	3	12	18	7
Med	Tacoma, WA	^R0.75	0.78	^R0.91	0.96	^R1.02	1.08	1.10	1.10	1.11	1.15	1.18	1.19	8	34	59	56
Med	Tampa, FL	0.91	0.87	1.02	1.07	1.09	1.11	1.11	1.11	1.09	^R1.08	1.08	1.10	-1	5	21	8
Med	Tucson, AZ	^R0.80	0.76	0.89	0.93	0.93	0.96	0.95	0.94	^R0.97	1.00	1.04	1.05	12	53	31	20
Vlg	Washington, DC-MD-VA	0.99	1.13	^R1.24	1.23	^R1.28	1.31	1.34	1.32	1.32	1.33	1.35	1.34	2	9	35	27
	68 Area Average^b	0.83	0.90	1.02	1.02	1.03	1.04	1.05	1.07	1.09	1.11	1.13	1.14	7		38
	Very Large Area Average^b	0.97	1.04	1.19	1.19	1.18	1.19	1.19	1.21	1.23	1.25	1.27	1.28	6		32
	Large Area Average^b	0.75	0.83	0.94	0.94	0.95	0.96	0.99	1.00	1.02	1.05	1.06	1.09	8		44
	Medium Area Average^b	0.68	0.74	0.85	0.87	0.88	0.89	0.91	0.93	0.95	0.96	0.98	0.99	7		45
	Small Area Average^b	0.56	0.62	0.67	0.68	0.69	0.69	0.70	0.71	0.74	0.77	0.78	0.79	10		39

KEY: R = revised.

Vlg = very large urban areas - over 3 million population.

Lrg = large urban areas - over 1 million and less than 3 million population.

Med = medium urban areas - over 500,000 and less than 1 million population.

Sml = small urban areas - less than 500,000 population.

^a Percent change was calculated using the numbers in this table and were not obtained from the source mentioned below. Rank is based on the calculated percent change with the lowest number corresponding to a rank of 1.

^b For the years 1982, 1992, and 1999, the average RCI was obtained from table A-17 from the Texas Transportation Instutute's The 2001 Annual Urban Mobility Report referenced below. For other years, the average RCI was calculated using data obtained from the web site and the RCI formula in the report.

NOTES: The 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 undesirable congestion level, on average, on the freeways and principal arterial street system during the peak period.

The cities shown represent the 50 largest metropolitan areas, as well as others chosen by the states sponsoring the Texas Transportation Institute study on mobility.

Due to changes in methodology, data for all years shown were revised. For a detailed explanation of the formulas used, see the source document.

SOURCE: 1982-1999: Texas Transportation Institute, The 2001 Annual Urban Mobility Report (College Station, TX: 2001); RCI data and population groups were obtained from Internet site http://mobility.tamu.edu accessed on Sept. 14, 2001.

USA Banner

Table 1-61: Roadway Congestion Index

Table 1-61: Roadway Congestion Index