Official US Government Icon

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure Site Icon

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

 Find the latest Coronavirus-related transportation statistics on the BTS COVID-19 landing page.

United States Department of Transportation United States Department of Transportation

Table 1-61. Roadway Congestion IndexR

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Table 1-61. Roadway Congestion IndexR

Excel | CSV

Urban area 1982 1986 1990 1992 1995 1996 1997 % change Short-term 1992-1997 % change Long-term 1982-1997
% Rank % Rank
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 0.48 0.56 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.75 9 35 56 60
Albuquerque, NM 0.69 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.98 1.01 1.05 21 64 52 56
Atlanta, GA 0.85 1.01 0.95 0.97 1.12 1.17 1.23 27 68 45 51
Austin, TX 0.78 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.96 1.03 12 46 32 32
Bakersfield, CA 0.47 0.57 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.75 9 35 60 63
Baltimore, MD 0.78 0.81 0.94 0.95 1.03 1.04 1.05 11 41 35 38
Beaumont, TX 0.67 0.74 0.75 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.90 11 41 34 35
Boston, MA 0.91 1.01 1.08 1.12 1.19 1.22 1.24 11 41 36 42
Boulder, CO 0.64 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.80 10 39 25 20
Brownsville, TX 0.53 0.54 0.62 0.64 0.70 0.69 0.71 11 41 34 35
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 0.60 0.57 0.64 0.67 0.72 0.73 0.72 7 22 20 14
Charlotte, NC 1.08 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.96 0.97 1.04 14 50 -4 1
Chicago, IL-Northwestern, IN 0.94 1.06 1.15 1.18 1.24 1.26 1.28 8 26 36 42
Cincinnati, OH-KY 0.81 0.78 0.89 0.91 1.00 1.02 1.08 19 62 33 33
Cleveland, OH 0.75 0.77 0.89 0.90 0.98 0.99 1.01 12 46 35 38
Colorado Springs, CO 0.62 0.63 0.66 0.67 0.75 0.74 0.77 15 54 24 19
Columbus, OH 0.61 0.72 0.87 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.04 18 61 70 68
Corpus Christi, TX 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.72 16 56 7 4
Dallas, TX 0.77 0.97 0.99 1.01 0.98 1.00 1.04 3 13 35 38
Denver, CO 0.77 0.84 0.91 0.92 1.03 1.07 1.08 17 57 40 45
Detroit, MI 0.98 1.02 1.08 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.18 2 11 20 14
El Paso, TX-NM 0.66 0.75 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.86 5 17 30 29
Eugene-Springfield, OR 0.54 0.54 0.63 0.72 0.78 0.82 0.84 17 57 56 60
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach, FL 0.70 0.76 0.79 0.95 1.02 1.04 1.08 14 50 54 58
Fort Worth TX 0.73 0.86 0.92 0.90 0.87 0.90 0.91 1 8 25 20
Fresno, CA 0.81 0.89 0.93 0.85 0.87 0.84 0.90 6 21 11 8
Hartford-Middletown, CT 0.69 0.79 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.90 5 17 30 29
Honolulu, HI 0.86 0.99 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.06 -1 5 23 18
Houston, TX 1.09 1.12 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.02 1.07 8 26 -2 2
Indianapolis, IN 0.62 0.76 0.81 0.84 1.01 1.00 1.05 25 67 69 67
Jacksonville, FL 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.93 11 41 11 8
Kansas City, MO-KS 0.56 0.62 0.66 0.65 0.72 0.75 0.76 17 57 36 42
Laredo, TX 0.52 0.56 0.61 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.61 20 63 17 11
Las Vegas, NV 0.67 0.79 0.95 0.98 1.09 1.10 1.07 9 35 60 63
Los Angeles, CA 1.39 1.46 1.56 1.54 1.50 1.54 1.51 -2 3 9 6
Louisville, KY-IN 0.72 0.74 0.80 0.89 0.99 1.02 1.04 17 57 44 49
Memphis, TN-AR-MS 0.76 0.73 0.84 0.85 0.93 0.95 0.96 13 49 26 22
Miami-Hialeah, FL 0.97 1.05 1.23 1.24 1.28 1.22 1.26 2 11 30 29
Milwaukee, WI 0.76 0.82 0.93 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 -1 5 33 33
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 0.70 0.83 0.89 0.93 1.06 1.08 1.13 22 66 61 65
Nashville, TN 0.71 0.82 0.85 0.86 0.93 0.92 0.96 12 46 35 38
New Orleans, LA 0.89 0.93 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 0.99 1 8 11 8
New York, NY-Northeastern, NJ 0.94 0.98 1.05 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.11 10 39 18 12
Norfolk, VA 0.75 0.86 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.97 0.97 9 35 29 28
Oklahoma City, OK 0.57 0.62 0.73 0.74 0.82 0.84 0.85 15 54 49 53
Omaha, NE-IA 0.67 0.74 0.87 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.00 4 16 49 53
Orlando, FL 0.65 0.80 0.76 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.93 8 26 43 48
Philadelphia, PA-NJ 0.98 1.01 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.05 7 22 7 4
Phoenix, AZ 0.94 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.11 1.13 7 22 20 14
Pittsburgh, PA 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.76 0.76 3 13 6 3
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA 0.79 0.98 1.02 1.07 1.15 1.20 1.22 14 50 54 58
Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA 0.79 0.87 0.91 0.83 0.84 0.87 0.87 5 17 10 7
Rochester, NY 0.53 0.58 0.72 0.74 0.79 0.79 0.78 5 17 47 52
Sacramento, CA 0.71 0.86 1.06 1.06 1.12 1.15 1.14 8 26 61 65
Salem, OR 0.57 0.67 0.72 0.76 0.77 0.80 0.82 8 26 44 49
Salt Lake City, UT 0.68 0.66 0.78 0.91 1.04 1.05 1.04 14 50 53 57
San Antonio, TX 0.73 0.85 0.75 0.76 0.88 0.89 0.92 21 64 26 22
San Bernardino-Riverside, CA 0.73 0.83 1.06 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.15 0 7 58 62
San Diego, CA 0.80 1.02 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.14 1.12 -3 1 40 45
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 1.04 1.26 1.36 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.33 1 8 28 27
San Jose, CA 0.76 0.87 1.07 1.11 1.08 1.08 1.08 -3 1 42 47
Seattle-Everett, WA 1.05 1.22 1.21 1.17 1.20 1.22 1.26 8 26 20 14
Spokane, WA 0.64 0.72 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.81 8 26 27 24
St. Louis, MO-IL 0.81 0.84 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.01 1.03 8 26 27 24
Tacoma, WA 0.77 0.91 1.06 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.15 3 13 49 53
Tampa, FL 0.91 0.91 1.02 1.09 1.11 1.09 1.07 -2 3 18 12
Tucson, AZ 0.79 0.73 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.95 1.00 8 26 27 24
Washington, DC-MD-VA 0.99 1.16 1.21 1.24 1.32 1.32 1.33 7 22 34 35

KEY: R = revised.

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: 1982-97: Texas Transportation Institute, The 1999 Annual Urban Mobility Report (College Station, TX: 1999), Appendix A-4.