ITS Deployment Statistics - Arterial Miles Covered by Incident Detection and Verification Methods


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

About This Site

FAQ

Survey Results

State of the Practice

ITS Knowledge
Resources:

Deployment Statistics

Applications Overview

Benefits Database

Cost Database

Lessons Learned

Resource Guide

Updated 8:00 AM EST, April 15, 2008
Deployment Statistics

Arterial Miles Covered by Incident Detection and Verification Methods

2005 National Summary

Number of Metropolitan Areas Surveyed / Returned Survey	Metropolitan Areas with Arterial Incident Detection and Verification	Number of Arterial Miles
Number of Metropolitan Areas Surveyed / Returned Survey		Total	Covered by Free Cellular	Free Cellular Percent	Covered by Computer Algorithms	Computer Algorithms Percent	Covered by CCTV	CCTV Percent
77 / 77	52	97021	4148	4%	1481	2%	4912	5%

2005 Metropolitan Summary

Click here to show only the metropolitan areas with the specified technology

Click on a hyperlinked column header to sort the data by the column value.

Metropolitan Area	State	Number of Agencies Surveyed / Returned Survey	Agencies with Arterial Incident Detection and Verification	Number of Arterial Miles
Metropolitan Area	State	Number of Agencies Surveyed / Returned Survey	Agencies with Arterial Incident Detection and Verification	Total	Free Cellular	Free Cellular Percent	Com-puter Algo-rithms	Com-puter Algor-ithms Per-cent	CCTV	CCTV Per-cent
Albany, Schenectady, Troy	NY	5 / 4	0	979	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Albuquerque	NM	3 / 3	0	100	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Allentown, Bethlehem, Easton	PA	2 / 2	0	209	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Atlanta	GA	10 / 9	5	1813	1813	100%	0	0%	129	7%
Austin	TX	1 / 1	0	311	N/R*	N/R*	N/R*	N/R*	N/R*	N/R*
Bakersfield	CA	2 / 1	1	1774	0	0%	0	0%	20	1%
Baltimore	MD	5 / 4	0	1325	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Baton Rouge	LA	3 / 3	2	356	0	0%	23	6%	23	6%
Birmingham	AL	3 / 3	0	689	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Boston, Lawrence, Salem	MA	13 / 9	1	3174	0	0%	0	0%	50	2%
Buffalo, Niagara Falls	NY	6 / 4	0	790	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Charleston	SC	3 / 2	2	402	0	0%	0	0%	53	13%
Charlotte, Gastonia, Rock Hill	NC	3 / 3	2	410	0	0%	0	0%	70	17%
Chicago, Gary, Lake County	IL	25 / 22	2	4696	0	0%	0	0%	51	1%
Cincinnati, Hamilton	OH	8 / 8	2	1144	320	28%	88	8%	122	11%
Cleveland, Akron, Lorain	OH	18 / 15	1	1163	0	0%	0	0%	3	0%
Columbus	OH	3 / 3	2	613	0	0%	0	0%	120	20%
Dallas, Fort Worth	TX	13 / 12	6	2634	0	0%	0	0%	158	6%
Dayton, Springfield	OH	8 / 7	1	584	0	0%	0	0%	11	2%
Denver, Boulder	CO	14 / 14	5	1763	0	0%	0	0%	331	19%
Detroit, Ann Arbor	MI	12 / 12	2	2864	0	0%	0	0%	6	0%
El Paso	TX	2 / 2	1	444	0	0%	0	0%	65	15%
Fresno	CA	2 / 2	1	1551	0	0%	0	0%	40	3%
Grand Rapids	MI	3 / 3	1	629	0	0%	0	0%	15	2%
Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point	NC	7 / 7	5	554	95	17%	0	0%	392	71%
Greenville, Spartanburg	SC	3 / 3	1	431	0	0%	20	5%	18	4%
Hampton Roads	VA	7 / 7	2	886	0	0%	0	0%	40	5%
Harrisburg, Lebanon, Carlisle	PA	1 / 1	0	342	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Hartford, New Britain, Middletown	CT	6 / 5	1	957	0	0%	0	0%	15	2%
Honolulu	HI	1 / 1	1	231	0	0%	0	0%	150	65%
Houston, Galveston, Brazoria	TX	8 / 8	0	3288	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Indianapolis	IN	4 / 4	0	755	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Jacksonville	FL	4 / 4	1	421	0	0%	0	0%	20	5%
Kansas City	MO	6 / 6	2	1338	0	0%	0	0%	54	4%
Knoxville	TN	3 / 3	0	202	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Las Vegas	NV	1 / 1	1	426	0	0%	0	0%	6	1%
Little Rock, North Little Rock	AR	2 / 2	0	554	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Los Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside	CA	17 / 17	10	10523	0	0%	273	3%	808	8%
Louisville	KY	3 / 3	1	516	0	0%	38	7%	48	9%
Memphis	TN	2 / 2	0	750	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Miami, Fort Lauderdale	FL	2 / 2	1	1071	0	0%	0	0%	12	1%
Milwaukee, Racine	WI	10 / 10	1	1314	0	0%	50	4%	100	8%
Minneapolis, St. Paul	MN	12 / 11	4	2066	0	0%	8	0%	62	3%
Nashville	TN	2 / 2	0	1029	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
New Haven, Meriden	CT	5 / 3	0	664	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
New Orleans	LA	5 / 5	1	720	170	24%	0	0%	12	2%
New York, Northern New Jersey, Southwestern Connecticut	NY	43 / 39	7	7232	173	2%	91	1%	571	8%
Oklahoma City	OK	3 / 3	0	913	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Omaha	NE	4 / 4	0	475	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Orlando	FL	4 / 4	2	977	7	1%	0	0%	20	2%
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton	PA	15 / 14	1	3726	0	0%	75	2%	350	9%
Phoenix	AZ	10 / 10	6	1577	481	31%	240	15%	73	5%
Pittsburgh, Beaver Valley	PA	3 / 2	1	1967	0	0%	0	0%	10	1%
Portland, Vancouver	OR	7 / 6	3	597	0	0%	24	4%	27	5%
Providence, Pawtucket, Fall River	RI	7 / 7	1	751	0	0%	0	0%	32	4%
Raleigh-Durham	NC	5 / 3	2	662	5	1%	0	0%	30	5%
Richmond, Petersburg	VA	4 / 3	1	679	679	100%	0	0%	0	0%
Rochester	NY	1 / 1	1	423	0	0%	0	0%	5	1%
Sacramento	CA	3 / 2	2	1497	0	0%	7	0%	50	3%
Salt Lake City, Ogden	UT	6 / 5	2	598	10	2%	0	0%	5	1%
San Antonio	TX	2 / 2	1	712	0	0%	480	67%	140	20%
San Diego	CA	7 / 7	1	1137	0	0%	0	0%	5	0%
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose	CA	7 / 7	5	2507	0	0%	0	0%	80	3%
Sarasota-Bradenton	FL	2 / 2	0	323	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Scranton, Wilkes-Barre	PA	1 / 1	0	324	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Seattle, Tacoma	WA	11 / 11	6	2100	0	0%	0	0%	74	4%
Springfield	MA	2 / 2	0	627	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
St. Louis	MO	8 / 8	1	1903	0	0%	14	1%	20	1%
Syracuse	NY	3 / 2	0	339	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater	FL	6 / 6	4	863	45	5%	0	0%	49	6%
Toledo	OH	4 / 4	0	443	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Tucson	AZ	3 / 3	2	623	350	56%	0	0%	26	4%
Tulsa	OK	3 / 3	0	674	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Washington	DC	7 / 6	4	1663	0	0%	50	3%	224	13%
West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Delray	FL	2 / 2	2	449	0	0%	0	0%	117	26%
Wichita	KS	2 / 2	0	442	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Youngstown, Warren	OH	5 / 5	0	363	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
77 Metropolitan Areas * N/R = No response

Arterial Miles Covered by Incident Detection and Verification Methods2005 National Summary

2005 Metropolitan Summary

Arterial Miles Covered by Incident Detection and Verification Methods

2005 National Summary