Operations Performance Measurement Program
photos of traffic merging on a multi-level freeway interchange, traffic near a construction zone, variable message sign, train at a crossing, traffic on a river bridge, and a rural highway
21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies

UCR April 2010-June 2010 (FY 2010, Q3)

Urban Congestion Reports

PDF Version 205KB
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®.

A Snapshot of Congestion Trends in the U.S. for April 2010 through June 2010.

Congested Hours

Average duration of weekday congestion

+45 minutes
from last year
red upward arrow - general trend is for declining conditions

Apr-Jun 2010: 4:48
Apr-Jun 2009: 4:03

Travel Time Index

Peak period travel times vs. off-peak travel times

+5 point
from last year
red upward arrow - general trend is for declining conditions

Apr-Jun 2010: 1.22
Apr-Jun 2009: 1.17

Planning Time Index

Unreliability (variability) of travel

+8 points
from last year
red upward arrow - general trend is for declining conditions

Apr-Jun 2010: 1.50
Apr-Jun 2009: 1.42

Summary of Nationwide Trends

  • All three nationwide measures in 2010 showed significantly worsening conditions when compared to the same three months in 2009.
  • Two of the 21 cities showed improvements in all three measures.
  • Thirteen of the 21 cities showed worsening conditions in all three measures.
  • Six of the 21 cities had mixed results among the three measures.

Congestion and Reliability Trends for Each UCR City

April 2010 through June 2010 Quarterly Urban Congestion Report Compared to the same Three Months Last Year
City Congested Hours Travel Time Index Planning Time Index % Change in VMT % Usable Data
2010 Change from 2009 2010 Change from 2009 2010 Change from 2009
Atlanta, GA 4:13 -0:28 1.22 +3 1.58 +4 -6% 80%
Boston, MA 5:26 +0:44 1.27 +6 1.63 +9 0% 100%
Chicago, IL 9:39 -0:06 1.39 +7 1.74 +2 5% 73%
Detroit, MI 3:20 +0:03 1.20 +6 1.50 +3 -11% 73%
Houston, TX 3:31 +0:07 1.24 +2 1.51 -2 0% 82%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 4:18 +1:11 1.19 +5 1.48 +13 0% 99%
Oklahoma City, OK 1:37 +0:04 1.06 +2 1.19 +6 1% 100%
Orange County, CA 3:34 +0:36 1.19 +5 1.46 +9 -1% 100%
Los Angeles, CA 6:28 +0:49 1.29 +5 1.59 +8 0% 100%
Philadelphia, PA 6:14 +1:19 1.28 +7 1.66 +9 2% 95%
Phoenix, AZ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Pittsburgh, PA 7:53 +1:55 1.20 0 1.43 0 4% 100%
Portland, OR 1:39 +0:03 1.23 +2 1.62 +7 1% 33%
Providence, RI 2:14 -0:09 1.08 +1 1.24 0 1% 100%
Riverside – San Bernardino, CA 2:58 +0:21 1.10 +2 1.25 +4 -1% 100%
Sacramento, CA 1:55 +0:06 1.08 +1 1.21 +1 -1% 100%
St. Louis, MO 1:44 -0:10 1.10 +3 1.27 +3 -4% 98%
Salt Lake City, UT 3:15 -0:15 1.05 -2 1.16 -5 -1% 96%
San Antonio, TX n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
San Diego, CA 2:14 +0:30 1.10 +5 1.29 +12 0% 99%
San Francisco, CA 2:53 +0:22 1.13 +3 1.32 +5 -1% 100%
Seattle, WA 5:22 +0:19 1.29 +2 1.72 +7 -1% 100%
Tampa, FL 2:21 -0:10 1.08 -2 1.21 -8 -3% 100%

Notes:
Green bolded values (with – sign) indicate improving conditions; red italics (with + sign) indicate worsening conditions.
"n.a." indicates that data was not available or was of insufficient quality.
Comparison of 2010 to 2009 is for the same three-month period (April-June).

For more information on the UCR, contact Rich Taylor (Rich.Taylor@dot.gov).