Word Count: 5463
Charged Potential:
A Case Study Evaluating the Advisable Level of
Electric Vehicle Charge Anxiety in the Houston
Metropolitan Area
Ryan Deardorff
Ridge Point High School
Abstract–Within the last decade, electric
vehicles have begun to take up larger
portions of the personal consumer market
for automobiles due to a few key
advantages over internal combustion
engine vehicles. Most electric vehicles are
currently very efficient systems with
regards to characteristics such as
acceleration and energy consumption, but
struggle in one major category: charging.
Drivers must contend with concerns of
lack of available infrastructure,
prolonged wait times to charge, and more
when trying to recharge their vehicles.
This study applies a temporal trend
analysis to evaluate the changing state
with concern to charge anxiety by
examining the density of electric vehicles
per fast-charging stall over a 7-year
period beginning January 1, 2018, and
ending January 1, 2024. By utilizing fully
public data for the number of
registrations of Teslas and Tesla
Supercharging Stations, this study maps
out charging density in the Houston
Metropolitan Area as an isolated case
study to a) illustrate the past market
trends, and b) build regression models to
predict future market conditions. Even
though Tesla registrations have increased
dramatically in recent years, results show
that charging density has decreased
marginally from 2021 to 2024. While
predictive models are less conclusive
1
because of the recency of data, results
show that charging density could stay
relatively constant with a slight decrease
as the year 2030 approaches.
Index Terms–Tesla Supercharging Station
(TSS), charge anxiety, charging
infrastructure
I. INTRODUCTION
Electric vehicles (EVs) are
exhilarating; they are quick, efficient, and
release zero direct emissions, they are, in
every sense of the word, electric. At the time
of study, EVs have taken a considerable
market share of automobiles in developed
nations, such as the United States, where
2023 third quarter year over year sales have
increased a staggering 49.8% [1]. As evident
from the wave of new EV sales, there is
surging consumer demand for EVs and
automotive manufactures from dedicated EV
producer and market leader Tesla, to long
standing, iconic American brand, Ford, have
begun producing electric models. However,
EVs are not a new commodity and have
existed for over a century. Internal
combustion engine (ICE) vehicles became
the standard because of the convenience of
refueling quickly with gasoline, but that
could change with increased charging
infrastructure development. With surging
EV sales predicted to bring between 30 to 42

million vehicles to the United States market
by 2030, it is imperative to evaluate if there
will be enough infrastructure to support this
growth and satisfy the subsequent clamor for
charging [2]. Thus, the key issues for EV
adoption are range anxiety, fearing
inadequacies of EV capacity for long-
distance travel, or charge anxiety, fearing
inconveniences or lack of efficient charging
capabilities available [3]. Although they are
different, both forms of anxiety will be used
because they both relate to fears of
inadequate charging infrastructure. In an
important paradox, 99% of trips made by
everyday consumers are less than 100 miles,
well within the range of the vast majority of
EVs on the market, yet many consumers still
list forms of range and charge anxiety as a
leading cause for reluctance towards making
the transition [4]. Research continues to
back this up, such as a study that determined
that the average distance driven every day
by EVs is only 31 miles, well within the
range that could be charged rapidly by local
fast-charging, should it be available [5].
The American Automobile
Association conducted a survey of American
adults that concluded while the biggest
hesitation to buy EVs was high prices, 60%
also listed “Concern there are not enough
places to charge,” 58% listed “Concern
about running out of charge when driving,”
and 55% listed “Unsuitable for long-
distance travel” as reasons to avoid
purchasing an EV [6]. Based on this
perspective from the average consumer, the
United States EV charging infrastructure is
not up to standard for consumers to be
satisfied should they purchase an EV. As a
direct result of this relationship between
individuals and charging technology, setting
aside issues of high prices, which plagues
even traditional ICE vehicles sometimes,
mitigation or elimination of charge anxiety
will allow for much greater adoption rates of
EVs. In turn, this will boost the outlook for
2
the clean energy industries sector, which
will work towards a number of US policies
and future goals for sustainability. However,
not everyone is in favor of EVs, and many
have opposed infrastructure development in
favor of traditional gasoline or other
alternative projects and continue to do so.
Considering this, past trends leading to
today’s struggles for investments in
charging technologies provide valuable
insight into predicting future expectations.
Despite its reputation as a gas
glorifying state, Texas is the third leading
US state for EV registrations with 254,836
currently recognized as of January 1, 2024
[7]. As a pioneer in electric growth with
continual consumer demand for gas, Texas
is uniquely situated to represent the greater
American trend of EV adoption as it juggles
the challenge of managing the interests of
diverse groups with conflicting goals. The
result of this is an opportunity to study the
behavior of the market for EVs in Texas,
specifically in metropolitan areas like the
Houston Metropolitan Area (HMA), to
better understand EV charging. Thus,
evaluating trends from past to present in
electric vehicle adoption and charging
infrastructure development could help
answer questions of range and charge
anxiety today and for the future, mitigating
angst and stabilizing the EV market.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Pertinent Technology and
Terminology
This study utilizes a few
technological terms that are specific to the
EV industry, and this section is intended to
define them in context. First, the term
electric vehicle covers three main
categories; hybrid-EVs (HEVs) that
recharge while driving and do not recharge
via external plug-ins, plug-in-hybrid EVs
(PHEVs) that recharge mainly using low-

power wall chargers, and full battery EVs
(BEVs), like those that Tesla exclusively
produces, that charge through all of the
methods above [8]. As a result, the charging
industry caters almost exclusively to BEVs.
Secondly, EVs charge through multiple
methods; the primary method of wired
connection to an electrical input,
“regenerating” power when braking,
swapping batteries out, and even recently,
implementation of wireless charging from
the road in extremely rare cases [8]-[9].
There are many subsets of charging, but
only TSS are covered in this study. TSS are
charging stations located anywhere from gas
stations to grocery stores to shopping malls
with access to roads, and are composed of
multiple stalls, which are structures at
charging stations each with a port to connect
and charge one vehicle at a time, all of
which are fast-charging [10]. In the context
of this study, charging infrastructure refers
to either individual charging points or all of
them in an area as a whole, and EV
registrations refers to the registration of an
individual electric vehicle to a specific Zip
Code for a specified period of time.
Fig. 1. Teslas connected to Tesla Supercharging
stalls. [11]
B. Discussion of Literature
It would seem that the issue of
charging EVs would be relatively simple to
solve by just building more stations, but
there are many different arguments and
ways of approaching the problem. Before
even examining the issue of exactly where
3
and how, some studies such as a case study
of the economic and technical impact of
EVs on the Texas power grid evaluate the
impact EV adoption has on tangential issues
of power grid demand and emissions
reduction [12]-[13]. At a minimum EV
charging works with three components: the
vehicle itself, the charging connection, and
the grid that the charger is integrated into.
One of the more innovative approaches to
organizing charging is a communicative
approach that incorporates methods of car to
station connection to optimize charging
timing [8]-[14]-[15]. This method lowers the
freedom of consumers by sharing a host of
information with charging infrastructure but
could ultimately lower the cost and time of
charging by providing a communication link
and pricing structure similar to advertised
pricing at a gas station but for EVs [14].
Similarly, other studies present a
communicative method between cars within
an EV fleet to optimally time charging with
respect to demand on the grid, which would
help limit cost, traffic, and time by
considering every vehicle in the area that
would service a charging demand [16]. It is
important to note that there is research at all
rates and levels of charging, but as outlined
by studies assessing charging technologies,
there are fast and slow charging ports
currently based on a scale of 1 to 4. Levels 1
and 2 are alternating current at lower power
while levels 3 and 4 are direct current at
much higher power [8]-[17]. Lack of
availability of all different levels of charging
infrastructure contributes to charge anxiety,
but the absence of fast-charging ports could
cause particular worry when in a pinch for
quick range. While there are many nuances
in charging speed and port connections at
charging points, this study only considers
Tesla Superchargers which are level 3, with
level 4 stations coming in the future [10].
Level 3 fast-charging through direct current
has a maximum charging speed of 350 kW,

and level 4 is anything beyond that, but
these speeds cannot be maintained
throughout charging due to physical
properties of batteries and other grid demand
[8]-[17]. Tesla’s existing Superchargers
range from 150 to 350kW power, with most
being 250kW [10].
In pursuit of EV solutions to aid in
the energy transition away from the 25% of
global emissions caused by the
transportation sector, some have sought
ways to limit the trudge of slow charging
with innovative technology [9]. While most
charging is traditionally done through wired
connection, whether it be fast or slow
charging, some studies have focused on
eliminating the need for physical
connection. The Korea Advanced Institute
of Science & Technology (KAIST) in
Daejeon, South Korea provides one example
with their developed “SMFIR®” technology
that uses wireless capabilities of electric and
magnetic fields to supply an EV with
charge, which can even work while the
vehicle is in motion [9]. While some studies
focus on “moonshot” technology, most
literature such as The 2030 National
Charging Network from the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in
the United States focuses on development of
traditional private, public fast-charging, and
destination charging methods [2]. In their
estimations, the United States is set to reach
a range of 30-40 million EVs by 2030, but in
the most likely scenario of 33 million EVs
NREL predicts that public fast-charging will
account for only 182,000 out of 28 million
ports [2]. However, public fast-charging is
still vital in supporting EVs with convenient
charging when separated from private
solutions which can be inaccessible or
costly. Ultimately, while many studies focus
on future estimations of EV market share, it
frequently fluctuates, so charging capacity
studies must continually update their results
for accuracy [2]-[18].
4
Fig. 2. NREL visual comparing private charging to
the roots of a tree, public fast-charging to the tree
trunk, and public destination to branches and leaves.
[2]
Most research in the field comprises
optimization of some aspects of charging
infrastructure, but the most common topic is
the optimized placement of stations [3]-[15]-
[19]-[20]-[21]. Many studies such as Ahn
and Yeo’s study of Daejeon, South Korea
utilize historic demand data and driving data
from case studies in specific locations to
formulate mathematical models and
algorithms to predict demand, which can
then be used to determine optimal
positioning of charging stations. [13]-[16]-
[21] Within this subset of research there are
many case studies from Böhm’s Facility
Location Optimization at the Frankfurt
International Airport in Germany to an
optimization study utilizing neural networks
based on data from EVs on the campus of
the Georgia Institute of Technology [16]-
[21]. Throughout their different use cases,
the premise of these models remains
similarly aligned with the goal of optimizing
the number and placement of charging
stations given vehicle fleet sizes and driving
behavior [15]. The most relevant study to
the HMA is Ahn and Yeo’s evaluation of
Daejeon, a metropolitan area in South
Korea. Their research utilized traffic data

from taxis to determine the density of
vehicle traffic and battery usage to plot a
map of the city with 1km2 blocks of density
[19]. The results of their study could then be
used by officials to make better informed
decisions on how to place charging stations
around the city. Additionally, the Analysis
of Distribution of Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations in the Baltic study that considered
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in the early
stages of EV adoption in the 2010s provides
a relevant framework for density-based
evaluation [22]. By relating the distribution
of EVs and charging stations with account
for the number of stalls, their work sets a
standard for understanding the importance
of considering the densities of vehicles per
area and number of stalls to support the EV
fleet.
Considering the literature available
and the various methods of evaluating
electric vehicle charge anxiety and EV
issues at large, there is no specific literature
covering many areas, including the HMA.
Several resources, including the Dallas-Fort
Worth Clean Cities Initiative and others,
have a myriad of tools available to the
public to examine all facets of EVs from
registrations, charging stations, charging
corridors,1 and more, but they lack the
ability to convey to consumers the trends in
charge anxiety [17]. The main tool available
at consumers disposal is an individual’s
ability to search for the nearest charging
station or those available along the path of a
trip, not any sort of metric to illustrate the
number of vehicles that rely on those
stations for necessary fast-charging or how
that metric has changed over time [17]. As
mentioned above, there are other methods to
charge EVs such as destination charging and
private charging, but the most relevant form
of charging to alleviate charge anxiety is
public fast-charging because it provides
1
Charging corridors are main thoroughfares with
access to charging stations close to the road.
5
immediate access anytime it is required,
analogous to gas stations for ICE vehicles.
Subsequently, a study evaluating the density
of EVs per fast-charging stall that
demonstrates trends with specific spatio-
temporal data could provide essential
awareness to the EV charging discussion by
rectifying how the concern consumers have
surrounding charging infrastructure should
be changing as the market grows.
III. METHOD
In this study, a quantitative,
correlational, trend analysis was chosen to
illustrate the development of electric vehicle
charging density in the Houston area. A few
important omittances and specifics to the
range of this paper were made for precision
as well as simplicity. First, the Houston area
is considered as the Houston Metropolitan
Area (HMA) for consistency with the
region’s infrastructure as a whole. The
HMA contains the following 9 Counties:
Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery,
and Waller [23]. All will be included, even
though some Counties do not contribute
much statistically to this study. Additionally,
data for this study was gathered in
connection to Zip Codes, for which some of
the analysis is sorted by Zip Code, and for
the other portions of County or HMA
profile, Zip Codes are only included if more
than 50% of their land area is contained in
the zone being examined [24].

Fig. 3. HMA Broken Down by County. [23]
Secondly, only Tesla, which
produces fully electric based vehicles and
charging stations, is considered for this
study despite the now diverse EV market
makeup. Teslas comprise around 65% of the
total EV market in the United States and
account for roughly 60% of fast-charge
charging infrastructure, both of which hold
true in the HMA, making their large but
equivalent size applicable to study [25].
Additionally, although Tesla has allowed
non-Tesla vehicle charging at some
locations since 2021, they only recently
announced a landmark change to allow other
major EV makers access through adopting
the North American Charging Standard
(NACS) to charge at most Tesla charging
stations beginning in 2024. Historically
Tesla Supercharging Stations (TSS) haven’t
been opened for easy interoperability for
EVs from other manufacturers, and were
therefore limited to nearly only Tesla use,
especially true in the HMA where no TSS
have been opened to other BEVs through the
end of the study [11]. Additionally, and
most crucially, 99% of Teslas only fast
charge using Tesla’s Supercharging
network, meaning Tesla vehicles per TSS
stall is statistically significant [25]. These
6
numbers give Tesla a secluded, separate
section of the industry for the period 2018-
2024 that allows for a study excluding other
manufacturers to prevent murky results by
grouping vehicles with stations they cannot
even charge at due to different types of port
connections, while allowing some level of
reasonable extrapolation due to the
equivalent market shares in vehicle and
station count [8].
With regards to the scope and time
period, it is important to note that that range
of years selected analyzes charging stations
available and registered vehicles from the
1st of January 2018 to 2024, because prior
to 2018 there were 2 or less active TSS in
the HMA as well as comparatively low
levels of Tesla registrations. The study
incorporates snapshots at the beginning of
each year as an indicator of the coming
year’s size of EV market and TSS charging
infrastructure. All vehicle data for this study
came from the Atlas EV Hub which tracks
all EV registration data from state vehicle
registries [26]. Data from 2021 and beyond
was cross-checked with Dallas-Fort Worth
Clean Cities Initiative, which despite not
being instituted in Houston, tracks data for
all of Texas, including the HMA [7]-[26].
All TSS data came from the website
supercharge.info which tracks global
openings of TSS with accuracy and was
cross-checked with Tesla’s own website. All
sources were selected because of their
reputability on accuracy and their accessible
data that bundles date, location by Zip Code,
and vehicle type or number of stalls
available.
This study’s results are broken down
into three levels for analysis: Zip Code-
level, County-level, and HMA-level. All the
data was gathered from the Atlas EV Hub
and supercharge.info before being
subsequently sorted via Excel and Google
Sheets by Zip Code and year [7]-[26]-[27].
Then, utilizing a framework similar to the
 7

Analysis of Distribution of Electric Vehicle descending order of magnitude of scope,

Charging Stations in the Baltic study, each while the underlying data in its totality is
section was examined for density by available in the tables in the Appendix
determining the number of registered Teslas section below. All data came from
per TSS stall available in each section [22]. “snapshots” beginning January 1, 2018, and
For some Zip Codes or Counties, there are a recurring each consecutive year. While no
number of registered Teslas with no TSS. degree of uncertainty was able to be
Two tools are then used to demonstrate this calculated due to the sheer volume and
data: Maptive, a geospatial mapping tool, to spread of data, information regarding TSS
overlay data on specific sections of the stalls is utilized with 100% certainty and
HMA, and Desmos, a free, online graphing data on the Number of Teslas reaches max
tool, to graph density of the HMA, number uncertainty of around ±3 Teslas per Zip
of Teslas, and TSS independently while Code in Zip Codes containing values >100,
using its built in linear and non-linear meaning overall certainty is at or above
regression models to make predictions about 97%.
the future [28]-[29]. Finally, each level was
evaluated for the sections of overall greatest B. HMA Results
change, or lack thereof, in terms of number TABLE I
of vehicles, number of stalls, and/or density HMA Density
of Teslas per TSS stall. This data was then Year Total Total Density
used to make conclusions about changes in Number Number T/S
the HMA market by illustrating changes in of Stalls of Teslas
density that directly relate to range and
charge anxiety. It was hypothesized that data 2018 14 436 31.14
would illustrate a decline in density and a 2019 30 2,779 92.63
subsequent decline in anxiety. Ultimately,
this study evaluates longitudinal data to 2020 42 6,033 143.64
compare the HMA to itself historically to 2021 54 9,060 167.78
determine if consumer’s charge anxiety
should have been considerably relieved and 2022 94 15,680 166.81
to also predict outcomes by 2030, a 2023 194 23,375 120.49
benchmark year for the electric vehicle
market. 2024 323 35,584 110.17
a
Data pertaining to the HMA as an aggregate of all
IV. RESULTS individual Zip Codes.
b
Stalls and Teslas correspond to the total raw number
A. Results Outline across all Zip Codes, and Density displays the
quotient of Teslas divided by stalls.
In accordance with the predictions in
the methods section, the results of this study
yielded several vital and useful metrics as
well as a noticeable absence in certain areas
of criteria.2 The most important data will be
displayed and discussed below in

2
Assume that absent sections are due to multiple or
complete 0s from 2018 to 2024 in
Vehicles/stalls/Density, unless otherwise noted.
 8

result for 2030 will be more conservative

and likely fit in a range of 100,000-
140,00033 Most importantly, the linear
regression of the density data yields a result
of 2213 by the year 2030, however, the 4th
degree approximation regression curve
yields nonsensical negative values by 2026.
By comparing the regression graph and the
general trend of the density data points the
result is that the future is quite uncertain but
given the general trend of the data in the last
3 years there has been noticeable decreases
in the density as it trends toward values
<100 by the year 2030. Finally, by
comparing the quotient of the boundaries of
the approximated ranges for the number of
Fig. 4. Graphical Representation of Density T/S with
regression models in red from TABLE I. [29]
vehicles and stalls by 2030, a resulting range
for density of 67-1273 emerges, with
As seen in TABLE I and Fig. 4, the likelihood that real results are closer to
number of stalls and Teslas show growth for around 90.3
every consecutive year, but density has been
trending lower in the last 3 years. Looking
forward, the linear and 4th degree regression
models from Desmos, mathematical models
that use the values and changes in the values
to map a function of the density through
time, produce future approximations. The
linear regression model yields a result of
5303 for the number of stalls by the year
2030, while a non-linear 4th degree
approximation yields a result of 3,2273
stalls. The actual result for 2030 will likely
lie between these two numbers towards the
lower-middle of the spectrum after
accounting for an eventual decrease in the
rate of growth for Teslas and stalls that has
occurred in the last few years, giving an
approximated range of 1,200-1,5003 For the
number of registered Teslas in the HMA a
linear regression model yields 63,5123
Teslas by 2030, while the 4th degree
approximation yields 226,8083 Teslas.
Similarly to the number of stalls, the actual
3
Past data on stalls, Teslas, and Densities have high
degrees of certainty. However, approximations made
for the future have high degrees of uncertainty.
 9

C. County Results Counties of Fort Bend and Harris, Fort Bend

TABLE II displays a wave-like behavior with three
County Densities peaks in 2020, 2022, and sometime at or
County Fort Harris Montgo Waller after 2024, while Harris demonstrates wave-
Bend mery like behavior with only one peak in 2021.
2018
Density 0 22 0 0
2019
Density 65 82.23 0 0
2020
Density 148.63 112.15 0 0
2021
Density 90.9 164.18 0 0
2022
Density 165.3 127.59 0 0
2023
Density 119.2 116.53 140.75 3.81
2024
Density 171.13 84.08 207 7.81
a
Density data from the 4 significant Counties4
included in the study.

The results of the County level are

limited due to a surprising lack of stalls
across all 9 HMA Counties. Only Fort Bend,
Harris, Montgomery, and Waller yielded
any density results and are displayed above,
while the remaining Counties have been
omitted. This was partially expected as some
Counties were predetermined in the
aforementioned methods section to not
provide much statistically to the results,
however, both Brazoria and Galveston
contributed >1000 total Teslas to the HMA
by 2024, yet neither contain any TSS
through the end of the study. Of the listed
Counties that did contain TSS, Montgomery
and Waller did not receive TSS until 2023,
making it challenging to make conclusions
on such limited longitudinal data. Between
the two most statistically significant

4
Defined as having TSS at any point in the period of
study.
 10

D. Zip Code Results

Fig. 5. through Fig. 8. TSS Nodes. [28] Fig. 9 through Fig. 12. Tesla Registrations. [28]
a a
Figures 5 through 8 illustrate the locations of TSS as Figures 9 through 12 illustrate distribution of Teslas
nodes with hot to cool colors representing the relative in each Zip Code with data split into ranges 0-0, 1-
proximity to TSS for charging. 1/2 mean, 1/2 mean-mean, mean-3/2 mean, 3/2
b
2018, 2020, 2022, 2024 respective snapshots. mean–statistical outlier limit, outlier limit-beyond.5
c b
Intensity and size of radius is dependent on the 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 respective snapshots.
c
number of TSS stalls at each node. Ranges were chosen because the mode stayed 0,
while the mean and max values from 2018 to 2024
increased over eighty-fold, dwarfing early values.

5
Statistical outlier limit is defined as 3 times the
standard deviation distance away from the mean.
 11

Fig. 5 through Fig. 8 demonstrate a Similar to the results of the County

clear positive trend of increasing charging section, the majority of Zip Codes do not
coverage of the HMA, however, it is largely provide density values because they contain
concentrated in Harris County. This is no TSS,7 and for those that do, many
contrasted against Fig. 9 through Fig. 12 received their TSS after 2021, providing
which illustrate a clear trend that most Tesla limited data. For this reason, only the top 7
registrations have occurred in the most significant Zip Codes are displayed
surrounding Counties and suburbs of Harris while the rest can be found in the Appendix.
County. While it is not necessarily Of these, 5 showed consistent increases in
detrimental to EV owners that most TSS are density throughout the entire observed
centralized because most of the traffic in the period in accordance with when they first
HMA is presumably centered around the received TSS and have not increased in
economic sectors in downtown Houston, the number of stalls since, while the 77494 and
lack of TSS coverage in areas with the 77098 Zip Codes received more TSS stalls
highest registration could indicate higher in 2023 and 2024 respectively, resulting in
probability of charge anxiety. The resulting their decreases of density.
data displayed in Fig. 5 through Fig. 12 is
another way of demonstrating densities V. DISCUSSION
throughout the HMA, but without the
limitations of the Zip Code boundaries on The results of this study highlight a
the TSS as they are mapped by precise few main pieces of information on each
global-positioning-system coordinates in level of analysis. First, in the County and
Fig. 5 through Fig. 8. Zip Code analysis there was an evident lack
of TSS. This lack of lower-level data while
TABLE III simultaneously showing decreases in HMA
Zip Code Densities density from 168 in 2021 to 110 in 2024
Zip 77040 77056 77063 77090 77098 77469 77494 reveals a very important trend: TSS
Code
developments have been largely aggregated
2018 in Harris County. While Harris County is the
Density 0 0 0 3.67 0 0 0
central and most important county to the
2019
Density 1.38 0 0 4.33 0 2 0 HMA, the HMA remains one of the largest
2020
metropolitan areas in the US and
Density 3 0 0 6.33 0 6.13 0 subsequently could benefit from TSS
2021 implementations outside of Harris County.
Density 4.88 0 0 8.5 0 9.38 29.42 However, it must be discussed that certain
2022 locations are chosen for several factors
Density 9.25 12.94 3.69 9.67 15.38 21.63 53.17 besides density, such as traffic and
2023 availability. One such example is in Zip
Density 13.5 17.44 5.5 10.5 21.38 37.38 29.28 Code 77484, where a TSS with 16 stalls
2024 were retrofitted into the popular vehicle stop
Density 18.75 21.81 8.94 12.83 19.73 65 50.61
a
and gas station, Buc-ee’s. While not all
Densities of the 7 most significant Zip Codes6 in the
HMA.
locations can be determined solely based on
density and total lack of TSS this brings up a
second major point: the distribution of TSS

6 7
Defined as having non-zero density for greater than See Appendix II for full data, including zeros.
2 years.

is mismatched in certain cases. For example,
the Zip Code 77406 in Fort Bend County
has 595 Teslas registered by 2024, nearly
1/70th the HMA total and 5 times the
average Zip Code,8 yet it contains no TSS to
date. This is just one of many cases where
there are values of registered Teslas much
greater than the average that would be prime
candidates to receive TSS.
While there are many case specific
results, the goal of the framework of this
study is not only to provide correlational
trend analysis on density mapping in
specific places or at large, but to make
broader conclusions about range and charge
anxiety. Using the reasonable extrapolation
listed in the methodology, it is within
bounds to say that in some ways there is
both greater concern for charge anxiety and
less. The data clearly points to declining
density of the HMA, but given the sprawl of
the metropolitan area, there are many
portions of the HMA that are decentralized
and are quite a distance from the 239 out of
353 total stalls now installed in Harris
County. For example, the 1788 Teslas in
Brazoria County are far from accessible TSS
or the 1168 in Galveston County, as neither
have TSS.9 While it is possible that the
owners in Galveston County are part of the
few <1% of Tesla drivers that fast-charge at
other locations than TSS, their density
alongside other manufacturers' EVs in the
area would be extreme.
The biggest takeaways at each level
are as follows. As observed in Fig. 4, the
hypothesis was proven correct that there was
a decline in density in recent years, but only
for the past 3 years. For roughly the first half
of the study there were large increases in
density that have gradually been alleviated
with new openings of TSS. At the county
level, two things became apparent. First, the
dominant County for both Teslas and TSS
8 9
See Appendix I for miscellaneous data and
information for contextualization.
12
by a wide margin was Harris County. And
second, because of how centralized in the
HMA most TSS are, the majority of
Counties, despite their size or number of
Teslas, are disadvantaged for charging. The
most pertinent information from the Zip
Code level of analysis is the lack of data.
Only 22 of the 353 Zip Codes in the HMA
contained TSS at any point in the study, and
for those that did, they only received 1 or 2
TSS, which did not provide much of a trend
to study. This indicates that the isolation of
the results to this level was too small to
yield meaningful results of density. The
underlying trend throughout the Zip Code
and Counties concludes that many areas still
lack TSS despite having high numbers of
Teslas, meaning that even if overall density
is declining, relative density in most areas
can be entirely different as seen in Fig. 5
through Fig. 12.
Lastly, the volatility of the market in
the study period and the unfortunate lack of
historic data points for the regression-based
analysis presented mixed results for the
future towards 2030. As observed in Fig. 4
the trend going forward regarding the whole
study period is non-conclusive, however,
regarding only the last 4 years it appears
likely that the overall charging density of the
HMA will continue to decrease slowly.
Additionally, regarding the approximations
of vehicles and stalls separately and using
them to create a range for density illustrates
a more probable scenario that the density
will continue to trend downwards towards a
value of 90. An amalgamation of this
information concludes that by 2030 there
will likely be wider-spread coverage and
decreased charging density to mitigate real
concern for charge anxiety across the
entirety of the HMA.
See Appendix III for full location data.

VI. IMPLICATIONS AND CLOSING
REMARKS
The direct conclusions from this
study demonstrate a few different ebbs and
flows of charging infrastructure density in
the HMA which are limited in scope.
Metrics such as Zip Codes with the greatest
number of Teslas without any TSS or even
broader, whole Counties without any TSS
such as Brazoria or Galveston, are identified
as candidates where the introduction of any
TSS stalls would alleviate charge anxiety.
Additionally, there are many metrics and
trends, such as minute trends in specific Zip
Codes, which are unable to be assessed
individually due to time and space
constraints but provide potential for plotting
optimal locations of TSS. Lastly, the
numbers regarding density of Teslas per
TSS stall are largely artificial numbers
because there is no defined value that can be
concluded from this study as an
“equilibrium.” The only viable form of
analysis for this study is an isolated trend
analysis comparing the HMA to itself.
However, future studies could incorporate a
similar framework to web together detailed
maps of an area and match with sentiment
analysis from EV owners, prospective
buyers, and consumers at large to evaluate
how levels of access to TSS in an area
correlate to consumer range and charge
anxiety. With regards to the isolated aspect
of this study, additional studies from
metropolitan areas in Texas, other states, or
even other nations could provide relevant
and deterministic data on a metropolitan
area level of analysis.
While this study provides valuable
insight into the charging supply and
demand, there are a few key limitations and
qualifications of the data. First, the levels
and sections analyzed are distributed by Zip
10
Actual number may vary. Progress can be tracked
via supercharge.info or Tesla’s official website.
13
Codes which were sometimes omitted or
taken into only one County when they
actually contributed to multiple, in which a
density distribution based on square blocks
of consistent sizing could provide more
accurate distribution. Additionally, this
study looked only at an annual basis, which
leaves gaps in between annual snapshots, as
a station completed early in the year was
only considered as contributing to the grid
for the following year. Also, while there are
several conditions listed in the methods
section that outline why only Tesla was
chosen for this study, there is the other
roughly 40% market share of vehicles and
charging infrastructure that future research
could consider [7]. Additionally, all facets of
EV technology are rapidly developing,
especially as Tesla expands their
Supercharging network to other
manufacturers and plans to nearly triple their
presence by building 37 new TSS around the
HMA within a few years per Casey Tuttle,
Tesla Project Developer of Supercharging
Southwest/Houston [25].10 Additionally, EV
makers are constantly increasing battery
capacities to increase time in between
charges and speed to decrease time of
physical charging. These developments will
drastically change the market and
subsequent results of this study in a very
short period of time, should it be repeated.
Furthermore, the results of this study are
used to draw conclusions on range and
charge anxiety by considering available TSS
stalls, but it does not include other fast-
charging available at private businesses or
residences where most charging takes place,
although these types of chargers provide
more cyclical charging as opposed to the
convenience and necessity of Supercharging
while away from regular charging bases.
Lastly and most crucially this study was
unable to consider the variable charge

speeds, demand, or traffic at specific
locations because other fast-charging
infrastructure providers declined to provide
information, instead this study relies on a
simplification that the average number of
vehicles per area is relatively constant
because the net flow in and out is assumed
to be zero and omits variables that cannot be
measured or constrained.
Although the results of this study are
limited, they lay the groundwork for future
studies in the HMA and other regions too.
Similar processes could be used to create
algorithms or programs to quickly come to
conclusions about charging infrastructure
density. Most importantly, this study
14
presents a method for analyzing public data
on EV registrations and charging station
infrastructure to make conclusions on range
and charge anxiety, information which can
be used to make suggestions for future
placement charging locations. While Tesla
and other companies likely conduct similar
analysis along with other metrics to plan out
development of their own charging
infrastructure, this kind of public
information could be used by anyone to
evaluate or lobby for candidates of future
TSS locations to mitigate range and charge
anxiety.
 15

References

[1] S. Tucker, Tesla EV market share falls to 50% - kelley blue book,
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/tesla-ev-market-share-falls-to-50/ (accessed Apr. 28,
2024).

[2] The 2030 national charging network, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85654.pdf

(accessed Apr. 26, 2024).

[3] W. Yu, L. Zhang, R. Lu, and J. Ma, “Optimal number of charging station and pricing
strategy for the electric vehicle with component commonality considering consumer range
anxiety,” PloS one, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166567/ (accessed
Apr. 25, 2024).

[4] “What is ev charging anxiety – and is range anxiety a thing of the past?,” What is EV
charging anxiety? | Is EV range anxiety a thing of the past? | National Grid Group,
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/ev-charging-anxiety-and-range-
anxiety (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[5] A. Garberson, “Ev driving range study by state finds an overlooked stat,” Recurrent,
https://recurrentauto.webflow.io/research/ev-range-by-state (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[6] B. Moye, “Americans reveal fresh thoughts on electric vehicles,” AAA Newsroom,
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/07/americans-reveal-fresh-thoughts-on-electric-vehicles/
(accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[7] “Dallas-fort worth clean cities,” DFWCC, https://www.dfwcleancities.org/ (accessed

Apr. 25, 2024).

[8] G. F. Savari et al., “Assessment of charging technologies, infrastructure and charging

station recommendation schemes of electric vehicles: A Review,” Ain Shams Engineering
Journal, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090447922002490 (accessed
Apr. 28, 2024).

[9] I.-S. Suh, Intelligent Wireless EV fast charging with SMFIR® technology,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262329723_Intelligent_wireless_EV_fast_chargi
ng_with_SMFIRR_Technology (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[10] “Find us,” Tesla,

https://www.tesla.com/findus?v=2&bounds=30.342809918652417%2C-
93.920113631728%2C29.170903164521164%2C-
96.732613631728&zoom=10&filters=party (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[11] “Tesla Superchargers explained,” Vanarama,

https://www.vanarama.com/guides/cars/what-are-tesla-superchargers-and-how-do-i-use-
them (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).
 16

[12] J. L. Wert, H. Chang, T. J. Overbye, Y. Xu, and F. Safdarian, The Economic and
Technical Impacts of Houston’s Electric Vehicles on the Texas Transmission System: A
Case Study, (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[13] E. Valsera-Naranjo, A. Sumper, R. Villafafila-Robles, and D. Martínez-Vicente,

“Probabilistic method to assess the impact of charging of electric vehicles on distribution
grids,” MDPI, https://doi.org/10.3390/en5051503 (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[14] Y. Lima, H.-M. Kim, S. Kang, and T.-H. Kim, Vehicle-to-grid communication system
for electric vehicle charging, (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[15] J. A. Mahlberg, J. Desai, and D. M. Bullock, “Evaluation of electric vehicle charging

usage and driver activity,” MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/14/11/308 (accessed
Apr. 25, 2024).

[16] J. Shanmuganathan, A. A. Victoire, A. Victoire, and G. Balraj, Deep Learning LSTM

Recurrent Neural Network Model for Prediction of Electric Vehicle Charging Demand,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362777079_Deep_Learning_LSTM_Recurrent_
Neural_Network_Model_for_Prediction_of_Electric_Vehicle_Charging_Demand
(accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[17] B. Amel, L. Borderiou, and M. Becherif, Charging Stations for Large-Scale

Deployment of Electric Vehicles,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377510456_Charging_Stations_for_Large-
Scale_Deployment_of_Electric_Vehicles (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[18] K. Kieckhafer, T. Volling, and T. S. Spengler, A hybrid simulation approach for

estimating the market share evolution of electric vehicles,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267024615_A_Hybrid_Simulation_Approach_fo
r_Estimating_the_Market_Share_Evolution_of_Electric_Vehicles (accessed Apr. 25,
2024).

[19] Y. Ahn and H. Yeo, “An analytical planning model to estimate the optimal density of
charging stations for electric vehicles,” PLOS ONE,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141307 (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[20] A. Benmouna, L. Borderiou, and M. Becherif, “Charging stations for large-scale

deployment of electric vehicles,” MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/10/1/33
(accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[21] K.-H. Böhm, Facility Location Optimization in Charging Infrastructures for Fleet-
Operated Electric Vehicles, (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[22] D. Berjoza and I. Jurgena , Analysis of Distribution of Electric Vehicle Charging

Stations in the Baltic, (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).
 17

[23] “Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area Profile,” Houston Metropolitan Statistical

Area Profile | Houston.org, https://www.houston.org/houston-data/houston-metropolitan-
statistical-area-profile (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[24] “U.S. Zip Codes: Free Zip Code map and Zip Code lookup,” UnitedStatesZipCodes,
https://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/ (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[25] C. Tuttle, “A Discussion of Tesla’s Supercharging Presence in the Houston Area,”

Feb. 8, 2024 (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[26] A. Ruder, “State EV registration data,” Atlas EV Hub,

https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/state-ev-registration-data/ (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[27] “Supercharge.info,” Supercharger Status Changes ATOM,

https://supercharge.info/data (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[28] “How to plot multiple locations on a map,” Maptive, https://www.maptive.com/plot-

multiple-locations-on-a-map/ (accessed Apr. 25, 2024).

[29] “Graphing calculator,” Desmos, https://www.desmos.com/calculator (accessed Apr.

25, 2024).
 18

Appendix I
Discrete Data from Study
Value
Metric (Reference Year 2024 Unless Otherwise
Noted)

Number of Counties in the HMA 9

Number of Zip Codes Included in Study 353

Number of Zip Codes Containing 1 or More 22

TSS

Number of Zip Codes Containing 2 TSS 3

Total Number of TSS 25

Number of 150kW TSS 6

Number of 250kW TSS 19

Total Number of Stalls 323

Mean Number of Stalls per TSS 13.46

Mean Number of Teslas per Zip Code (T/Z) 1.2

2018

Mean T/Z 2019 7.9

Mean T/Z 2020 17.1

Mean T/Z 2021 25.7

Mean T/Z 2022 44.4

Mean T/Z 2023 66.2

Mean T/Z 2024 100.8

 19

Appendix II
Full Non-Zero Zip Code Densities
Zip Code 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Density Density Density Density Density Density Density
77007 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.97
77040 0 1.38 3 4.88 9.25 13.5 18.75
77056 0 0 0 0 12.94 17.44 21.81
77063 0 0 0 0 3.69 5.5 8.94
77065 0 0 0 0 0 5.94 8.31
77070 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.21
77077 0 0 0 0 0 32.38 44.88
77082 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.5
77087 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.53
77090 3.67 4.33 6.33 8.5 9.67 10.5 12.83
77098 0 0 0 0 15.38 21.38 19.73
77338 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6
77385 0 0 0 0 0 7.44 12.69
77388 0 0 0 0 0 14.25 23.75
77389 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.07
77469 0 2 6.13 9.38 21.63 37.38 65
77479 0 0 0 0 0 0 282.25
77484 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.56
77494 0 0 0 29.42 53.17 29.28 50.61
77521 0 0 0 0 0 5.17 8.08
77530 0 0 0 0.5 1.38 2 2.88
77598 0 0 1.17 1.33 2 3 4.17
 20

Appendix III
Full TSS Information
County City Zip Code Number of First Full First Full
Stalls Year Year
Harris Houston 77090 6 2016 NA
Harris Channelview 77530 8 2017 NA
Harris Houston 77040 8 2019 NA
Fort Bend Richmond 77469 8 2019 NA
Harris Webster 77598 12 2020 NA
Fort Bend Katy 77494 12 2021 NA
Harris Houston 77056 16 2022 NA
Harris Houston 77063 16 2022 NA
Harris Houston 77098 8 2022 2023
Harris Houston 77065 16 2023 NA
Harris Houston 77077 8 2023 NA
Montgomery Shenandoah 77385 8 2023 NA
Montgomery Shenandoah 77385 8 2023 NA
Harris Spring 77388 8 2023 NA
Waller Waller 77484 16 2023 NA
Fort Bend Katy 77494 24 2023 NA
Harris Baytown 77521 12 2023 NA
Harris Houston 77007 35 2024 NA
Harris Houston 77070 14 2024 NA
Harris Houston 77082 16 2024 NA
Harris Houston 77087 15 2024 NA
Harris Houston 77098 19 2024 NA
Harris Humble 77338 15 2024 NA
Harris Spring 77389 15 2024 NA
Fort Bend Sugar Land 77479 8 2024 NA
 21

Appendix IV
Full Tesla Registration Data
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total #of
436 2779 6033 9060 15680 23375 35584
Teslas
Standard
3.2 18.7 38.6 58.3 96.6 143.5 227.5
Deviation
Mean
Teslas per 1.2 7.9 17.1 25.7 44.4 66.2 100.8
Zip Code
Max 25 198 387 606 961 1400 2258
Outliers> 10.8 64 132.9 200.6 334.2 496.7 783.3

County Zip Has 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Code Stalls #of #of #of #of #of #of #of
or Not Teslas Teslas Teslas Teslas Teslas Teslas Teslas
Harris 77001 0 1 1 1 1 3 3
Harris 77002 1 8 28 46 84 121 172
Harris 77003 2 14 32 42 91 126 164
Harris 77004 5 39 72 103 174 220 300
Harris 77005 16 87 201 295 414 539 624
Harris 77006 5 51 83 129 197 285 344
Harris 77007 HS 11 93 199 285 458 649 874
Harris 77008 3 51 125 186 323 414 548
Harris 77009 2 16 40 66 119 147 189
Harris 77010 1 4 3 4 7 7 11
Harris 77011 0 2 3 3 8 17 23
Harris 77012 0 1 2 2 3 8 12
Harris 77013 0 1 1 2 4 7 10
Harris 77014 1 2 7 9 21 29 49
Harris 77015 0 2 3 4 12 24 31
Harris 77016 0 0 0 1 4 6 11
Harris 77017 0 2 4 7 13 19 20
Harris 77018 4 27 47 73 127 174 245
 22

Harris 77019 6 66 118 188 252 340 430

Harris 77020 1 5 5 11 18 38 56
Harris 77021 2 9 14 18 25 46 79
Harris 77022 0 0 0 2 5 13 30
Harris 77023 0 5 8 17 25 37 61
Harris 77024 21 95 183 282 401 507 636
Harris 77025 6 40 71 117 178 228 302
Harris 77026 0 0 1 1 3 9 11
Harris 77027 10 42 76 98 164 240 307
Harris 77028 0 1 2 1 5 5 10
Harris 77029 0 0 0 1 2 7 8
Harris 77030 3 21 53 79 114 138 175
Harris 77031 0 0 4 3 7 12 25
Harris 77032 5 13 21 18 8 21 31
Harris 77033 1 1 3 3 3 6 14
Harris 77034 1 3 3 5 13 23 36
Harris 77035 1 6 12 13 33 46 64
Harris 77036 0 1 12 16 40 59 92
Harris 77037 0 1 2 2 4 9 10
Harris 77038 7 14 7 15 13 47 83
Harris 77039 0 0 1 1 3 10 13
Harris 77040 HS 2 11 24 39 74 108 150
Harris 77041 7 24 39 58 99 153 244
Harris 77042 3 13 36 40 65 102 134
Harris 77043 2 11 22 41 74 116 183
Harris 77044 0 13 31 41 88 126 181
Harris 77045 0 1 3 6 23 45 59
Harris 77046 0 2 8 13 14 11 12
Harris 77047 2 4 6 8 24 52 82
Harris 77048 2 5 4 5 12 19 25
 23

Harris 77049 0 2 8 20 34 55 78
Harris 77050 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Harris 77051 0 2 4 5 12 23 39
Harris 77052 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77053 0 0 2 4 4 13 24
Harris 77054 2 5 13 22 38 54 117
Harris 77055 3 28 62 100 172 252 337
Harris 77056 HS 11 38 98 137 207 279 349
Harris 77057 5 29 60 85 121 171 231
Harris 77058 0 7 13 24 38 43 67
Harris 77059 2 26 42 78 107 156 210
Harris 77060 0 0 1 1 3 3 11
Harris 77061 0 0 3 3 14 16 21
Harris 77062 2 12 20 31 44 64 92
Harris 77063 HS 2 11 30 45 59 88 143
Harris 77064 1 14 34 42 71 99 169
Harris 77065 HS 1 7 19 29 58 95 133
Harris 77066 0 6 22 28 45 63 98
Harris 77067 0 2 5 6 12 14 19
Harris 77068 0 5 7 13 22 41 62
Harris 77069 3 17 24 35 57 70 94
Harris 77070 HS 2 13 28 50 91 125 199
Harris 77071 0 2 5 9 17 31 41
Harris 77072 1 8 7 15 30 59 97
Harris 77073 13 43 64 57 45 82 153
Harris 77074 1 6 13 15 24 33 42
Harris 77075 0 0 2 3 15 30 62
Harris 77076 0 0 2 4 6 9 19
Harris 77077 HS 4 38 86 118 200 259 359
Harris 77078 0 0 1 2 4 2 8
 24

Harris 77079 2 30 59 67 133 204 270

Harris 77080 0 3 22 33 64 105 176
Harris 77081 1 5 10 13 20 39 55
Harris 77082 HS 6 24 45 60 110 171 232
Harris 77083 1 9 20 29 73 125 225
Harris 77084 2 11 38 41 91 156 305
Harris 77085 0 0 1 5 7 11 20
Harris 77086 0 1 5 3 8 22 34
Harris 77087 HS 0 0 2 5 8 12 23
Harris 77088 0 2 1 8 14 22 39
Harris 77089 1 14 18 25 75 130 213
Harris 77090 HS 22 26 38 51 58 63 77
Harris 77091 0 2 7 12 26 35 59
Harris 77092 1 3 16 21 30 56 67
Harris 77093 0 1 2 4 10 13 21
Harris 77094 1 13 26 39 66 84 118
Harris 77095 1 17 35 54 107 168 306
Harris 77096 3 25 63 76 119 163 219
Harris 77097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77098 HS 4 29 66 86 123 171 217
Harris 77099 1 2 5 8 16 26 54
Harris 77201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77202 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77204 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Harris 77205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77206 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Harris 77207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 25

Harris 77210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77216 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77225 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Harris 77226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77228 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77231 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77241 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Harris 77242 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Harris 77243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 26

Harris 77244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77252 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Harris 77253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77265 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Harris 77266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 27

Harris 77275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77279 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Harris 77280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77287 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77289 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Harris 77290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montgomery 77301 0 2 4 6 14 23 47
Montgomery 77302 0 1 7 12 15 34 56
Montgomery 77303 0 2 7 8 15 22 29
Montgomery 77304 1 7 20 34 56 86 142
Montgomery 77305 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Montgomery 77306 0 0 0 0 1 2 9
Harris 77315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montgomery 77316 1 6 15 28 68 108 173
 28

Montgomery 77318 2 8 13 19 34 50 71
Harris 77325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Liberty 77327 0 1 0 2 5 11 19
Montgomery 77333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77336 2 3 5 6 9 15 18
Harris 77337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77338 HS 1 1 12 17 24 35 54
Harris 77339 2 10 18 29 63 86 133
Harris 77345 8 20 30 42 70 109 143
Harris 77346 1 18 42 70 135 210 320
Harris 77347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montgomery 77353 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montgomery 77354 3 16 37 54 93 148 215
Montgomery 77355 0 7 15 23 38 56 90
Montgomery 77356 1 12 30 58 95 142 176
Montgomery 77357 1 1 1 8 18 28 60
Montgomery 77362 0 2 4 7 13 31 40
Montgomery 77365 0 3 13 21 49 81 104
Liberty 77368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Liberty 77369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montgomery 77372 0 0 0 0 3 9 8
Harris 77373 1 9 20 29 51 96 156
Harris 77375 5 25 57 81 154 245 372
Harris 77377 3 18 42 67 104 167 248
Montgomery 77378 0 0 6 9 15 20 29
Harris 77379 9 46 107 150 265 357 517
Montgomery 77380 11 29 63 88 147 197 272
Montgomery 77381 3 33 80 145 211 264 342
Montgomery 77382 11 55 98 159 268 351 481
Harris 77383 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
 29

Montgomery 77384 1 11 26 47 99 128 246

Montgomery 77385 HS 4 8 19 36 65 119 203
Montgomery 77386 6 44 83 122 217 348 517
Montgomery 77387 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
Harris 77388 HS 1 8 23 41 91 114 190
Harris 77389 HS 4 36 83 115 198 258 376
Harris 77391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montgomery 77393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77396 1 9 22 26 63 94 156
Harris 77401 20 89 139 205 303 361 460
Harris 77402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77406 1 17 63 97 215 334 595
Fort Bend 77407 6 33 99 156 340 617 1115
Harris 77410 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77413 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77417 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Austin 77418 0 3 5 7 10 12 13
Brazoria 77422 0 0 0 1 2 4 8
Waller 77423 0 2 5 6 20 40 95
Harris 77429 4 47 97 159 258 369 585
Brazoria 77430 0 0 2 2 2 2 3
Harris 77433 6 43 120 178 388 710 1313
Fort Bend 77441 1 15 46 68 129 210 409
Brazoria 77444 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waller 77445 0 0 0 2 7 15 21
Waller 77446 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77447 0 3 7 12 30 39 75
Harris 77449 1 7 23 39 101 197 333
Harris 77450 2 29 79 117 210 298 432
 30

Fort Bend 77451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fort Bend 77459 4 61 143 204 382 614 1041
Fort Bend 77461 0 1 2 3 5 6 8
Fort Bend 77464 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waller 77466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77469 HS 1 16 49 75 173 299 520
Fort Bend 77471 0 1 11 10 26 44 82
Austin 77473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Austin 77474 0 1 2 4 6 10 15
Fort Bend 77476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77477 2 9 23 51 77 105 149
Fort Bend 77478 4 40 61 88 156 212 337
Fort Bend 77479 HS 25 198 387 606 961 1400 2258
Brazoria 77480 0 0 2 5 6 3 4
Fort Bend 77481 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Waller 77484 HS 0 0 0 1 4 6 9
Fort Bend 77485 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Brazoria 77486 0 0 0 2 7 10 13
Fort Bend 77487 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Fort Bend 77489 0 0 1 3 13 25 45
Harris 77491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77493 0 8 26 38 121 258 513
Fort Bend 77494 HS 14 98 225 353 638 1054 1822
Fort Bend 77496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fort Bend 77498 4 28 70 89 166 275 427
Harris 77501 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77502 0 0 1 3 5 6 20
Harris 77503 0 0 2 3 4 6 8
 31

Harris 77504 0 2 3 5 8 13 19
Harris 77505 1 3 8 9 19 35 54
Harris 77506 1 1 1 3 4 7 13
Harris 77507 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Harris 77508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Galveston 77510 0 0 0 1 3 5 9
Brazoria 77511 0 2 5 8 16 36 49
Chambers 77514 0 0 0 0 1 2 7
Brazoria 77515 0 3 8 11 16 18 31
Galveston 77517 0 0 1 0 4 7 13
Galveston 77518 0 2 3 3 4 8 11
Harris 77520 0 0 4 4 7 10 12
Harris 77521 HS 0 4 10 16 37 62 97
Harris 77522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chambers 77523 0 0 10 21 38 64 91
Harris 77530 HS 0 0 0 4 11 16 23
Brazoria 77531 0 0 1 1 6 7 9
Harris 77532 1 2 4 11 18 33 41
Liberty 77533 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Brazoria 77534 1 1 1 1 2 7 6
Liberty 77535 0 1 3 5 11 22 28
Harris 77536 0 1 8 10 21 24 35
Liberty 77538 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Galveston 77539 1 1 8 20 35 68 97
Brazoria 77541 0 0 2 5 10 11 17
Fort Bend 77545 0 3 7 11 21 37 64
Galveston 77546 3 26 69 97 177 235 341
Harris 77547 0 1 0 2 3 3 6
Galveston 77550 0 4 9 9 11 18 31
Galveston 77551 0 3 7 6 10 13 25
 32

Galveston 77554 0 4 11 21 34 40 41
Chambers 77560 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Liberty 77561 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Harris 77562 0 1 1 2 5 6 11
Galveston 77563 0 0 0 2 3 7 9
Liberty 77564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Galveston 77565 1 5 10 12 23 27 36
Brazoria 77566 1 2 10 18 27 34 39
Galveston 77568 0 1 1 7 15 28 51
Harris 77571 0 2 5 9 18 21 34
Harris 77572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Galveston 77573 2 35 65 107 215 307 468
Liberty 77575 0 0 0 3 3 3 7
Brazoria 77577 0 0 0 1 1 2 1
Brazoria 77578 3 15 37 47 103 179 303
Chambers 77580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brazoria 77581 3 15 43 77 112 180 238
Liberty 77582 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brazoria 77583 0 12 31 48 84 152 260
Brazoria 77584 6 63 133 201 338 503 807
Harris 77586 2 15 27 44 61 83 110
Harris 77587 0 0 0 0 2 2 4
Galveston 77590 0 0 0 3 6 8 17
Galveston 77591 0 0 3 3 8 10 16
Chambers 77597 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Harris 77598 HS 0 2 14 16 24 36 50
Galveston 77617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Galveston 77623 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Galveston 77650 0 0 0 1 2 2 3
Chambers 77661 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 33

Chambers 77665 0 0 0 0 1 3 6
Montgomery 77873 0 0 0 0 4 3 1
Austin 78931 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Austin 78944 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Austin 78950 0 1 2 3 4 6 6