BTS | Table 4-28. Wasted Fuel per Eligible Driver

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) - Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) - United States Department of Transportation (USDOT, US DOT or DOT)

ABOUT RITA | CONTACT US | PRESS ROOM | CAREERS | SITE MAP

Data and Statistics

Bookstore

Programs

About BTS

Upcoming Press Releases

External Links

BTS Home > Publications > National Transportation Statistics > 2000

Table 4-28. Wasted Fuel per Eligible Driver

Excel | CSV

	Gallons Wasted							(% change) Short-term 1992-1997		(% change) Long-term 1982-1997
Urban area	^R1982	^R1986	^R1990	^R1992	^R1995	^R1996	1997	%	Rank	%	Rank
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY	0	5	10	10	10	13	13	30	40	NM	59
Albuquerque, NM	6	11	23	28	45	51	57	104	6	850	3
Atlanta, GA	25	53	43	47	84	96	106	126	3	324	30
Austin, TX	17	30	33	45	57	63	82	82	14	382	27
Bakersfield, CA	0	0	10	9	8	12	12	33	38	NM	59
Baltimore, MD	20	31	54	51	68	69	72	41	32	260	35
Beaumont, TX	0	0	0	11	20	18	18	64	18	NM	59
Boston, MA	27	48	67	73	91	95	98	34	37	263	34
Boulder, CO	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NM	62	NM	59
Brownsville, TX	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NM	62	NM	59
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	4	4	9	8	10	10	11	38	35	175	44
Charlotte, NC	15	19	34	36	42	45	61	69	17	307	31
Chicago, IL-Northwestern, IN	20	38	47	51	58	62	65	27	46	225	39
Cincinnati, OH-KY	9	13	30	34	42	44	50	47	26	456	18
Cleveland, OH	3	5	14	16	26	30	33	106	5	1000	2
Colorado Springs, CO	0	9	9	16	24	23	23	44	28	NM	59
Columbus, OH	6	9	27	27	42	41	47	74	15	683	9
Corpus Christi, TX	11	10	10	10	9	13	13	30	40	18	58
Dallas, TX	24	55	56	62	78	78	92	48	25	283	33
Denver, CO	16	23	34	43	61	65	70	63	20	338	29
Detroit, MI	35	46	72	79	80	86	92	16	51	163	47
El Paso, TX-NM	6	6	10	18	19	16	20	11	53	233	38
Eugene-Springfield, OR	0	0	0	0	6	13	12	NM	62	NM	59
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano Beach, FL	8	14	17	35	40	42	47	34	36	488	14
Fort Worth, TX	13	28	37	38	49	54	60	58	22	362	28
Fresno, CA	8	14	29	20	22	22	26	30	40	225	39
Hartford-Middletown, CT	7	23	37	37	31	32	38	3	60	443	21
Honolulu, HI	22	31	38	43	46	44	45	5	57	105	51
Houston, TX	57	63	55	56	63	73	90	61	21	58	57
Indianapolis, IN	5	10	19	26	68	70	79	204	1	1480	1
Jacksonville, FL	17	22	33	35	48	54	53	51	24	212	42
Kansas City, MO-KS	5	9	17	18	31	37	44	144	2	780	8
Laredo, TX	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	NM	62	NM	59
Las Vegas, NV	9	18	42	35	53	55	50	43	29	456	18
Los Angeles, CA	64	92	118	118	120	122	122	3	59	91	53
Louisville, KY-IN	7	11	19	37	49	59	63	70	16	800	5
Memphis, TN-AR-MS	7	7	17	23	39	42	44	91	9	529	13
Miami-Hialeah, FL	31	43	69	79	80	73	83	5	56	168	46
Milwaukee, WI	8	13	24	33	43	41	39	18	50	388	26
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN	6	14	23	28	43	45	53	89	12	783	7
Nashville, TN	13	22	33	33	55	61	71	115	4	446	20
New Orleans, LA	20	31	37	37	42	38	37	0	62	85	54
New York, NY-Northeastern, NJ	24	33	46	41	49	52	58	41	31	142	49
Norfolk, VA	15	27	34	34	40	49	52	53	23	247	37
Oklahoma City, OK	4	5	13	15	21	27	29	93	8	625	11
Omaha, NE-IA	8	13	26	35	43	50	45	29	44	463	17
Orlando, FL	15	24	22	42	44	52	60	43	29	300	32
Philadelphia, PA-NJ	22	29	32	31	34	39	40	29	43	82	55
Phoenix, AZ	23	37	43	42	42	50	51	21	49	122	50
Pittsburgh, PA	8	13	18	18	22	21	22	22	48	175	44
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA	14	30	44	60	79	85	80	33	38	471	15
Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA	6	14	30	23	30	34	32	39	34	433	23
Rochester, NY	2	5	9	13	17	19	19	46	27	850	3
Sacramento, CA	12	22	50	48	55	62	59	23	47	392	25
Salem, OR	0	0	17	15	15	14	21	40	33	NM	59
Salt Lake City, UT	4	3	11	22	35	37	36	64	18	800	5
San Antonio, TX	12	28	20	22	33	37	42	91	10	250	36
San Bernardino-Riverside, CA	13	34	59	67	73	77	74	10	54	469	16
San Diego, CA	11	30	55	57	57	59	59	4	58	436	22
San Francisco-Oakland, CA	56	86	96	91	93	94	91	0	62	63	56
San Jose, CA	23	42	75	73	73	72	69	-5	68	200	43
Seattle-Everett, WA	33	56	83	104	94	96	106	2	61	221	41
Spokane, WA	0	9	9	8	12	12	16	100	7	NM	59
St. Louis, MO-IL	16	24	36	43	75	75	79	84	13	394	24
Tacoma, WA	6	19	45	44	41	40	47	7	55	683	9
Tampa, FL	29	33	41	51	58	57	58	14	52	100	52
Tucson, AZ	6	6	20	20	27	30	38	90	11	533	12
Washington, DC-MD-VA	46	69	88	91	106	115	116	27	45	152	48

KEY: NM = not meaningful; R = revised.

NOTES: "Wasted" fuel is the difference between the fuel consumed under estimated existing conditions and the fuel consumed if all traffic was moving at free-flow conditions. Calculations are made for peak period speeds and for free-flow speeds on both the freeway and principal arterial system. For a more detailed description of the formulas used, see the source document. An eligible driver is someone 16 years and older who is eligible for a driver's license. The cities shown represent the 50 largest metropolitan areas, as well as others chosen by the states sponsoring the study.

SOURCES: 1982-1996: Texas Transportation Institute, unpublished data.

1997: Ibid., The 1999 Annual Urban Mobility Report (College Station, TX: 1999), table 6.