black dodge journey 2017

What's My Car Worth?
Buyer's Guide

2017 Dodge Journey

Select a year

Lows Underpowered engines, ponderous handling, lack of technology.
Verdict The Journey is a practical choice for families on a tight budget, but rival crossovers beat it in most key areas.

Introduced nearly a decade ago, the aging mid-size Journey has survived this long thanks to its affordability and practicality, but it’s decidedly lacking in the latest technology and safety equipment. Despite the availability of five trim packages, the choice of inline-four and V-6 engines, front- or all-wheel drive, and five- or seven-passenger seating, the Journey is just not truly competitive with the best family crossovers. It’s only worth considering if there’s a steep discount working in your favor.

What's New for 2017?

Not much. Other than a few new paint colors, the Journey’s biggest update this year was the renaming of its top trim level from R/T to GT.

Original MSRP:

SE: $22,290
SXT: $26,590
Crossroad: $28,090
Crossroad Plus: $29,835
GT: $33,090

Engine, Transmission, and Performance

The base Journey comes with an underpowered 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine and an ancient four-speed automatic transmission that’s best avoided. We can confidently say that its 173 horsepower isn't enough to adequately power this two-ton SUV. Even the 283-hp V-6 model is slower than most rivals. The bigger engine is punchy enough for everyday driving, but its six-speed automatic transmission is sometimes slow on the uptake when you request more power, hampering the Journey’s responsiveness. Front-wheel drive is standard with either engine; all-wheel drive is optional on the V-6 and not available with the inline-four. The Journey’s numb, ponderous handling leaves it wallowing in corners with lots of body roll and imprecise steering. The benefit of its soft suspension, however, is a comfortable ride on the freeway.

2017 red dodge journey suv on a trail near a wheat field

Fuel Economy

Interior, comfort, and cargo.

The Journey’s cabin is far from upscale, and fitting anyone in the third row—even children—requires compromises from those in the second row. Cheap-feeling bits, such as a plasticky shifter and hollow-sounding interior door-trim panels, are especially egregious in higher-trim Journeys. Several luxury features, including a power-adjustable passenger seat, cooled seats, and heated rear seats are notable in their absence from the options list. Practicality is one of the few areas where the Journey shines: its interior is easily configurable, and it has tons of cubby storage for odds and ends, even if its total cargo capacity isn’t as large as some rivals.

Infotainment and Connectivity

The Journey comes with the same easy-to-use Uconnect touchscreen as many other Dodge products. However, only the optional system, with its larger screen, incorporates the latest connectivity features. The Journey’s standard infotainment setup has a small 4.3-inch touchscreen with only the basics: AM/FM radio, a USB port, and an auxiliary audio jack. We’d choose the optional 8.4-inch touchscreen, which has much larger touch zones and more available features, including optional navigation, voice command, and Bluetooth connectivity. Neither Apple CarPlay nor Android Auto is offered, and there’s only a a single USB port up front.

Safety Features and Crash Test Ratings

Overall safety rating (nhtsa).

For more information about the Dodge Journey’s crash-test results, visit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ( IIHS ) websites.

Some older vehicles are still eligible for coverage under a manufacturer's Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) program. For more information visit our guide to every manufacturer's CPO program.

.css-1updq97:before{background-color:#000000;color:#fff;left:0;width:50%;border:0 solid transparent;bottom:48%;height:0.125rem;content:'';position:absolute;z-index:-2000000;} Shopping Tools .css-1e2ieb7:after{background-color:#000000;color:#fff;right:0;width:50%;border:0 solid transparent;bottom:48%;height:0.125rem;content:'';position:absolute;z-index:-2000000;}

More from dodge, .css-gpjca5{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;margin:0rem;} 2024 dodge hornet hybrid.

2025 Dodge Charger Daytona EV

Starting at $50,000 est

2024 Dodge Hornet

Starting at $32,995 · 7.5/10

Starting at $32,330 · 7.5/10

2024 Dodge Durango SRT 392

Starting at $76,590 · 7/10

Starting at $75,310 · 7/10

Starting at $71,890 · 7/10

Starting at $67,472 · 7/10

Starting at $64,490 · 7/10

Starting at $64,390 · 9/10

2024 Dodge Durango SRT Hellcat

Starting at $103,590 · 7.5/10

Starting at $96,200 · 7.5/10

Starting at $82,590 · 7.5/10

2025 Dodge Charger

Starting at $40,000 est

Starting at $36,920 · 6.5/10

Starting at $34,240 · 6.5/10

Starting at $32,720 · 6.5/10

Starting at $31,490 · 6.5/10

Starting at $30,965 · 6/10

Starting at N/A · 6/10

2024 Dodge Durango

Starting at $41,265 · 7/10

Starting at $42,235 · 7/10

Starting at $40,090 · 7/10

Starting at $35,472 · 7/10

Starting at $32,290 · 7/10

Starting at $31,940 · 8/10

Starting at N/A · 8/10

Cars for Sale
Research & Reviews
News & Videos
Sell Your Car
Sign in with Google
Sign in with Facebook
Sign in with Apple
2017 Dodge Journey

Change year or car

starting MSRP

Base trim shown

Combined MPG

Seating capacity

View all 2017 Dodge Journey specs .

Limited body roll
Easy to maneuver
8.4-inch display's simple interface
Crossroad trim's cabin materials and design
V-6's automatic transmission can be hesitant to kick down
Nonlinear braking response
Some low-rent dashboard buttons
Ride quality

Starting msrp listed lowest to highest price

Wondering which trim is right for you?

Our 2017 Dodge Journey trim comparison will help you decide.

Notable features

New GT trim level replaces R/T
Seating for five or seven
Four-cylinder engine standard
V-6 available
Front-wheel drive or all-wheel drive
8.4-inch touch-screen entertainment system available

Consumer reviews

Comfort 4.7
Interior 4.6
Performance 4.6
Exterior 4.7
Reliability 4.7

Most recent consumer reviews

Great car 10/10 would definitely recommend.

Very nice car, interior is super sleek, it handles super well. Engine runs great. Very spacious inside 3 rows lots of leg room. Love the seat warmers!!!

Comfort 5.0
Interior 5.0
Performance 5.0
Exterior 5.0
Reliability 5.0
Purchased a Used car
Used for Commuting
Does recommend this car

Problem van

It's been a journey, first week battery died out. Trouble with seat bealts. Trouble with seat head piece. Key trouble. Dash lights turn on warning without cause.

Comfort 3.0
Interior 3.0
Performance 2.0
Exterior 4.0
Reliability 2.0
Purchased a New car
Used for Transporting family
Does not recommend this car

Solid, economical, reliable transportation

Bought new in October 2017. 85,000+ miles. Needs new set of tires (previous set went 40,000+ miles) and a new battery (original battery dying after 69 months). Otherwise just (full synthetic) oil changes and routine maintenance. 2.4L 4-cyl. engine/4-sp. automatic trans. runs strong. 21 MPG in town, 30 MPG on the highway. Good winter traction with the right tires. Nothing inside or outside has fallen off that wasn't helped off by road debris. I wanted basic transportation without all the bling - this vehicle has more than filled the bill.

NHTSA crash test and rollover ratings (scores out of 5)

Have questions about warranties or CPO programs?

Compare the competitors

2016 Chevrolet Cruze Limited

2017 Jeep Patriot

2018 Chevrolet Equinox

All model years for the dodge journey.

2020 Dodge Journey
2019 Dodge Journey
2018 Dodge Journey
2016 Dodge Journey
2015 Dodge Journey
2014 Dodge Journey
2013 Dodge Journey
2012 Dodge Journey
2011 Dodge Journey
2010 Dodge Journey
2009 Dodge Journey

2017 Dodge Journey

# 18 out of 18 in 2017 affordable midsize suvs.

Search Used Listings

Enter your zip code to search used Journey listings in your area.

$ 12,977 - 17,791

Avg Price Paid

$ 21,195 - 33,895

Original MSRP

2017 Dodge Journey Review

Other Years:

U.S. News Rating

The 2017 Dodge Journey has a low average list price, a smooth ride, and a user-friendly infotainment system. However, it ranks near the bottom of the midsize SUV class due to its poor predicted reliability rating, lackluster base engine, limited cargo space, and low safety scores.

Below-average list price

User-friendly infotainment system

Comfortable ride

Below-average cargo space

Low predicted reliability and safety ratings

Underpowered base engine

What's New for 2017

GT replaces R/T as highest trim

Features and Specs

Seats 5 - 7

16-19 City / 24-25 Hwy

173 - 283 horsepower

Dodge Journey Rankings

The 2017 Dodge Journey's #18 ranking is based on its score within the 2017 Affordable Midsize SUVs category. Currently the Dodge Journey has a score of 7.1 out of 10, which is based on our evaluation of 50 pieces of research and data elements using various sources .

# 18 in 2017 Affordable Midsize SUVs
# 23 in 2017 Affordable SUVs with 3 Rows
# 40 in 2017 Affordable Crossover SUVs
# 74 in Used SUVs with 3 Rows under $15K
# 134 in Used Crossover SUVs $10K to $15K
# 187 in Used Midsize SUVs under $20K
Critics' Rating 7.0
Performance 6.4
Total Cost of Ownership 8.7
Interior 7.9

Where This Vehicle Ranks

2017 Kia Sorento

$15,548 - $22,401 AVG PRICE PAID

2017 Nissan Murano

$15,691 - $21,097 AVG PRICE PAID

2017 Toyota Highlander

$21,863 - $30,497 AVG PRICE PAID

2017 Buick Enclave

$18,560 - $22,052 AVG PRICE PAID

2017 GMC Acadia

$14,950 - $23,020 AVG PRICE PAID

$12,977 - $17,791 AVG PRICE PAID

2017 Journey Photos

2017 Dodge Journey Overview

Is the 2017 dodge journey a good used suv.

Be good to yourself – don’t get the 2017 Dodge Journey. It has a comfortable ride, an easy-to-use infotainment system, and a lower average price than most other midsize SUVs . However, this is one Journey you won't want to take with open arms. It has an underpowered base engine, noticeable body roll in corners, and poor predicted reliability and safety ratings. It also has below-average cargo space for the class.

Why You Can Trust Us

To give you a complete overview of the 2017 Journey – and make your car-shopping experience easier – we analyzed 50 Dodge Journey reviews alongside reliability ratings, safety scores, and more.

U.S. News Best Cars has been ranking and reviewing vehicles since 2007, and our crew has more than 75 years of combined experience in the auto industry. To ensure our objectivity, we do not accept expensive gifts from carmakers, and an external company manages the ads on our site.

How Much is a 2017 Dodge Journey?

Based on roughly 3,200 listings for the 2017 Dodge Journey, prices range from roughly $15,000 and $22,300. The average list price for the Journey is $18,300. The price you pay depends on the vehicle's condition, mileage, features, and location.

See the Best Used Car Deals »

How Much Does the 2017 Dodge Journey Cost to Own?

The 2017 Dodge Journey's five-year estimated costs for fuel, insurance, maintenance, and repairs are projected to be about $25,160 – or $5,030 per year. By comparison, five-year costs for the 2017 Kia Sorento and 2017 Dodge Durango are about $24,250 and $26,880, respectively.

Is It Better to Buy a Used or New Journey?

Unlike previous model years, the 2018 Dodge Journey comes standard with a third row of seats. Also, Dodge reduced the lineup to four trims for 2018. Other than that, the 2017 Journey is relatively similar and costs less than the 2018 model.

Read about the new Dodge Journey »

You'll be hard pressed to find a comparable 2018 midsize SUV that costs nearly the same as the 2017 Dodge Journey. But don’t stop believing that you can do better than the Journey. If you're willing to pay a bit more, consider the 2018 Kia Sorento . Like the Journey, the Sorento features a user-friendly infotainment system and offers a comfortable ride. Beyond that, the Kia and the Journey are worlds apart. The Sorento has a higher fuel economy rating, more passenger room, and a little more overall cargo space. The Kia's cabin is also more upscale than the Journey's.

See the Best New Car Deals »

See the Best New Car Lease Deals »

Which Model Year of the Dodge Journey Is Best?

The 2017 Dodge Journey is part of a generation that debuted for the 2009 model year. Besides some trim level reshuffling through the years, the 2017 is relatively similar to older model years. After all these years, you can shop for models as far back as 2013 and get it almost any way you want it for a lower price.

Compare the 2015, 2016, and 2017 Journey »

How Reliable Is the 2017 Dodge Journey?

The 2017 Dodge Journey has a below-average predicted reliability rating of 2.5 out of five from J.D. Power.

2017 Dodge Journey Recalls

At the time of this writing, the 2017 Journey has one safety recall. The cruise control system may not be able to be cancelled, which could increase the risk of a crash. Make sure this recall is resolved before purchasing the Journey.

See more information on Dodge Journey safety recalls »

Which Used Dodge Journey Model Is Right for Me?

The 2017 Dodge Journey comes in five trims: SE, SXT, Crossroad, Crossroad Plus, and the top-of-the-line GT. Since the base trim's features are scarce, we recommend the Crossroad Plus, which has leather bucket seats, dual-zone automatic climate control, a leather-wrapped steering wheel, a six-way power-adjustable driver's seat, an 8.4-inch touch screen, voice command, Bluetooth, and satellite radio.

See 2017 Dodge Journey trims and specs »

2017 Dodge Journey Safety

Score: 8.4/10.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave the 2017 Dodge Journey the highest rating of Good in four crash tests and the lowest rating of Poor in the driver-side small overlap front crash test. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave the Journey four out of five stars overall, along with four stars in frontal and rollover crash tests and five stars in the side crash test.

Available advanced safety features include a rearview camera and rear parking sensors.

2017 Dodge Journey Versus the Competition

Which is better: 2017 dodge journey or 2017 kia sorento.

The 2017 Kia Sorento is one of the highest-ranked midsize crossovers in the class. Unlike the Journey, it has top-notch predicted reliability, high safety scores, and an upscale cabin. Additionally, it has better gas mileage estimates and more overall passenger and cargo space than the Journey. Besides the Journey's lower average list price, there's really no reason to go on this Journey.

Which Is Better: 2017 Dodge Journey or 2017 Dodge Durango?

If you still want to stay in the Dodge family, the 2017 Dodge Durango also sits in the midsize SUV class. Though both vehicles have low predicted reliability, the Durango is the better SUV of the two. Inside, the Durango has a larger cargo bay and more passenger space. Performance-wise, the Durango has a powerful base engine and nimble handling – things you can't say about the Journey.

Compare the Journey, Sorento, and Durango »

2017 Journey Performance

How does the 2017 dodge journey drive.

The Journey has a comfortable ride, but it exhibits excessive body roll around corners. A sluggish 173-horsepower four-cylinder engine powers the 2017 Dodge Journey. However, some models come with a stronger 283-horsepower V6. The standard four-speed automatic transmission is outdated and unrefined. The V6 comes with a six-speed automatic that is slow to downshift. Front-wheel drive is standard, and all-wheel drive is available.

Does the 2017 Dodge Journey Get Good Gas Mileage?

The 2017 Dodge Journey delivers 19 mpg in the city and 25 mpg on the highway. With the V6 engine, efficiency drops to 17/25 mpg city/highway. The 2017 Kia Sorento delivers 21/28 mpg city/highway, and the 2017 Dodge Durango gets 19/26 mpg city/highway.

2017 Journey Interior

How many people does the 2017 journey seat.

The base 2-row 2017 Dodge Journey seats five. Some higher trims add a third row that increases capacity to seven. The first two rows are adult friendly, but only the young can fit in the optional third row. Cloth upholstery is standard, but some models come with leather upholstery and heated front seats.

How Many Car Seats Fit in the 2017 Dodge Journey?

There are two full sets of LATCH child-seat connectors on the 2017 Journey's second-row outboard seats. There’s also an upper tether and a right lower anchor on the middle seat. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave the Journey the second-lowest rating of Marginal for its ease of use. Some upper tethers are hard to find and can be confused with other hardware. Also, some lower anchors are too deep in the seats and difficult to maneuver around.

2017 Dodge Journey Features

Standard features include a USB port, a 4.3-inch touch screen, and a six-speaker audio system. Some models come with voice command, Bluetooth, an 8.4-inch touch screen, a premium audio system, and dual-zone automatic climate control.

See 2017 Dodge Journey specs »

2017 Dodge Journey Dimensions

Dodge journey cargo space.

The 2017 Dodge Journey has 10.7 cubic feet cargo space with the available third row in use. It has 37 cubic feet of space behind the second row (39.6 in 2-row models). With all rear seats folded down, the Journey has 67.6 cubic feet of space overall. These numbers are below average for the class. However, there is a good amount of small-item storage and an available fold-flat front passenger seat.

2017 Journey Length and Weight

The 2017 Journey is roughly 16 feet long, and its curb weight is between 3,800 to 4,240 pounds.

Where Was the 2017 Dodge Journey Built?

The 2017 Dodge Journey was built in Toluca, Mexico.

Other Years

Local inventory.

2019 Dodge Journey For Sale
2018 Dodge Journey For Sale
2017 Dodge Journey For Sale
2016 Dodge Journey For Sale
2015 Dodge Journey For Sale
All Dodge Journey For Sale
All Dodge For Sale

Car Payment Calculators

Use our tools to calculate monthly payments or figure out which cars you can afford.

U.S. News Best Cars Awards

Best Cars for the Money
Best Cars for Families
Best Vehicle Brands

Journey Shoppers Should Also Consider

# 1 in 2017 Affordable Midsize SUVs

# 2 in 2017 Affordable Midsize SUVs

# 4 in 2017 Affordable Midsize SUVs

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Cars for Sale >
Dodge Journey >
2017 Dodge Journey >

Black 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale

Recent studies.

2017 Dodge Journey SXT - 50,943 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SE - 66,728 mi

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad - 80,287 mi

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad Plus - 87,705 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SXT - 135,839 mi

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad - 55,426 mi

2017 Dodge Journey GT - 103,209 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SXT - 131,173 mi

2017 Dodge Journey GT - 93,616 mi

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad - 120,138 mi

2017 Dodge Journey GT - 61,885 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SE - 133,545 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SE - 48,705 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SE - 102,502 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SE - 42,564 mi

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad - 101,969 mi

2017 Dodge Journey SXT - 110,066 mi

2017 Dodge Journey - 82,206 mi

2017 dodge journey sxt - 150,220 mi.

2017 Dodge Journey SXT - 122,416 mi

Please enter a five-digit zip code to find cars for sale near you.

What is the average price for Black 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale? How many are for sale and priced below market?

40 cars for sale found, starting at $6,999
Average price for Black 2017 Dodge Journey: $12,460
15 deals found. Average savings of $1,380
Save up to $2,756 below estimated market price

Other Popular Colors For 2017 Dodge Journey

Other popular black 2017 dodge cars, popular model years for dodge journey black.

We're sorry for any inconvenience, but the site is currently unavailable.

Try changing your search query or try one of the suggestions below!

War in ukraine, free and up-to-date :), transportation to and from moscow sheremetyevo airport, what is the distance from moscow sheremetyevo airport to the centre of moscow.

The distance to the centre of Moscow (Saint Basil’s Cathedral / Red Square) is 34 kilometres from South Terminal Complex and 42 kilometres from North Terminal Complex. Thus, terminals A and B are further away from the city. Travel time between the airport and the city centre is 1 hour and 5 minutes. Unfortunately, it can be busy on the roads and you should take into account a car journey that takes longer.

From SVO Airport to Moscow City centre by Taxi

City centre

Public transport

Train aeroexpress to moscow – buy tickets.

The fastest travel option between Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport and the centre of Moscow is the train Aeroexpress. You can get stuck in a traffic jam if you travel by car, taxi or bus, that won’t happen if you take the train. The Aeroexpress commutes between Belorussky Station in the city and the railway station at the airport, located on the south side of the airport at Terminal E. An automated people mover (APM) runs between this station and terminals A and B. The Aeroexpress departs every 30 minutes, travel time is 35 minutes.

From metro station Belorusskaya at Belorussky Station, you can travel by metro to the city centre and other parts of Moscow. The journey time from metro station Belorusskaya to metro station Teatralnaya close to Red Square is only 5 minutes.

Aeroexpress tickets The prices are listed below, an Aeroexpress ticket including a ride with the metro, tram or (trolley) bus costs 560 RUB, the price for a subway ticket is 55 RUB. You can buy tickets for the Aeroexpress at the stations, but it is cheaper to do this online. Please consult website and timetable Aeroexpress for more information.

SAVING TIPS: Tickets can be bought at the airport, but online it is easier and cheaper (450 RUB one way, 900 RUB return). A group ticket can be used by four people and costs 1,100 RUB for a single journey and 1,800 RUB for a return (valid for 30 days). The price is the same online and from the ticket machine. Aeroexpress trains run without stopping, besides you can use free WiFi aboard since early 2015.

Top 5 sights in Moscow

1. Red Square – free! 2. Moscow Kremlin 3. Saint Basil’s Cathedral 4. Moscow Metro Tour of 1.5 hours 5. Communist Walking Tour of 2 hours

Bus and metro to Moscow

It is more economical to travel by bus and metro to the centre of Moscow. Needless to say, taking a direct train is easier and faster. With bus 817 and bus 948 you can get in 35 minutes to metro station Planernaya (northernmost station metro line 7). With bus 851 and bus 949 it takes 25 minutes to metro station Rechnoy Vokzal (northernmost station metro line 2). The price of a bus ticket is 57 RUB or 80 RUB.

From both stations you can take the metro to the centre of Moscow, station Kuznetskiy Most for metro line 7 (travel time: 31 minutes) and station Teatralnaya for metro line 2 (travel time: 23 minutes). Metro station Kuznetskiy Most is a short distance from the world-famous Bolshoi Theatre. The total journey time is at least one hour. If the bus ends up in a traffic jam, the journey can take a lot longer.

Tickets for the subway priced 55 RUB are available from the ticket vending machines. You can also buy a day ticket (yediniy) for public transport in Moscow for 200 RUB, it is valid for 24 hours. During the night you can travel by bus H1 between the airport and the city every half hour. Please consult buses to and from Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport and website Moscow Metro for more information.

“The metro stations with the most central location in Moscow are Okhotny Ryad (M1), Teatralnaya (M2) and Revolution Square (M3), at a short distance from Red Square, Kremlin and GUM.”

Discover and book tickets, activities and tours:

Prague: the best of mozart with opera and ballet.

Enjoy an evening in lavish style listening to a Concertino Prague Orchestra in the historical Smetana Hall. Relax as you listen to music by Mozart and marvel at the talented musicians and dancers.

Sydney: Kandinsky Exhibition at the Art Gallery of NSW

Experience a showcase of the life and work of Kandinsky, one of the most influential and best-loved European modernists at the must-see Art Gallery of New South Wales.

Yerevan: Self-Guided Tour for your Audio Device with Map

Explore the city of Yerevan on a self-guided audio tour. Dive into sights like the Sculpture Park, Republic Square, and the Cascade staircase with facinating audio commentary.

Belgrade 20th century tour

Get to know history and architecture of turbulent period in Serbian development. The most important sights and attractions from the last century.

Budapest: Private Communism Walking Tour with Museum Entry

Learn about everyday life in Budapest during the days of communism, when people drove Trabant cars and drank spirits at work. Hear about the black market and the infamous queues to buy bananas, and visit sites where revolutionary action took place.

Evening Walking Yerevan City Tour with 3 Brandy & Gata

3 types of Armenian brandy and sweet pastry Gata you need to taste in Yerevan. Welcome to our city of sun! The largest and capital city of the Republic of Armenia is Yerevan-the city older than Rome.

Tours and transport

Behind the iron curtain of tallinn - secrets of the soviets.

Get to know the Soviet history of Tallin. Visit an abandoned Soviet air defense base and find out about the former border-zone areas in Tallinn.

Riga Highlights bike tour

Explore Riga's top sights on this guided bicycle tour. Get out of the Old Town and experience beautiful parks, the Jewish Ghetto, the fascinating Moscow suburb, and see the Art Nouveau district.

Warsaw: Private 3-Hour Tour by Car with Hotel Pickup

Discover the past and present of Warsaw on a private 3-hour tour. Learn more about the history of the city and its dynamic development. See the Royal Route, Łazienki Park, and palace complex.

★★★☆☆ 2 reviews

Have you visited Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport lately? So far, 2 airport passengers have written an airport review about Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport. This airport has an average score of 3 out of 5. Provide other airport travellers with essential airport information and tell us about your airport experience.

Write a review

Used 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale Near Me

2017 Dodge Journey SXT 4dr SUV

Keyless Entry/Start
Third-row seating
Power Driver Seat
Tire Pressure Warnin...

Located in Fort Worth , TX / 914 miles away from Rutland, ND

Engine: 3.6L V6 24V Vvt 3rd Row Seat Compact Spare Tire Comfort/Convenience Group Radio: 4.3S Keyless Start Black; Premium Cloth Low-Back Bucket Seats...

AutoCheck Vehicle History Summary

Accident Free Vehicle : Yes

Personal Use Only : No

History Provider : AutoCheck

Title Details : Clean Title

Salvage Vehicle : No

Frame Damage : No

Theft History : No

Lemon Status : No

Free History Report : No

Features and Specs:

Listing Information:

VIN: 3C4PDCBG2HT532704 Stock: HT532704 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 03-26-2024

2017 Dodge Journey SE 4dr SUV

Located in Monroe , NC / 1,167 miles away from Rutland, ND

2nd Row 40/60 Tilt & Slide Seat, 3rd Row 50/50 Fold/Reclining Seat, 4.3" Touch Screen Display, Air Conditioning w/3-Zone Temperature Control, AM/FM ra...

Accident Free Vehicle : No

Personal Use Only : Yes

21 Combined MPG ( 19 City/ 25 Highway)

VIN: 3C4PDCAB5HT545470 Stock: 175470 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 02-27-2024

Back-up camera

Located in Avondale , AZ / 1,169 miles away from Rutland, ND

Discover Versatility and Comfort with the Used 2017 Dodge Journey SXT - Available at Wii Auto Sales in Canoga Park, Los Angeles! Explore the road ahe...

VIN: 3C4PDCBG1HT670783 Stock: P7398 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 02-08-2024

Located in Littleton , CO / 586 miles away from Rutland, ND

Flexible Seating Group Uconnect Voice Command W/Bluetooth 3rd Row Seat Blacktop Package Compact Spare Tire Keyless Start Black; Premium Cloth Low-Back...

VIN: 3C4PDCAB1HT586906 Stock: HT586906 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 03-27-2024

Multi-Zone Climate C...

Located in Saint Cloud , MN / 163 miles away from Rutland, ND

This 2017 Dodge Journey SXT is a reliable and efficient motorcar. It has a 3.6 liter 6 cylinder engine with sequential port fuel injection, and has be...

VIN: 3C4PDCBG5HT675467 Stock: 21169 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 03-23-2024

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad 4dr SUV

Located in Houston , TX / 1,124 miles away from Rutland, ND

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad Vice White 2017 Dodge 4D Sport Utility Journey Crossroad 4-Speed Automatic VLP 2.4L I4 DOHC 16V Dual VVT 19/25 City/Hig...

Title Details : Title issue reported

VIN: 3C4PDCGB6HT706657 Stock: R706657 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 07-10-2023

2017 Dodge Journey GT 4dr SUV

Leather Seats

Located in Mansfield , OH / 832 miles away from Rutland, ND

Clean CARFAX. Billet Clearcoat AWD 3.6L V6 24V VVT Journey AT THE GRAHAM AUTOMALL USED CAR SUPERSTORE WE SIMPLY SELL MORE THAN OUR COMPETITORS BECAUSE...

19 Combined MPG ( 16 City/ 24 Highway)

VIN: 3C4PDDEG5HT593272 Stock: FTP248B Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 02-22-2024

Located in Wheat Ridge , CO / 579 miles away from Rutland, ND

THIS VEHICLE NICELY EQUIPPED WITH : Quick Order Package 28U Crossroad, Journey Crossroad, 4D Sport Utility, 3.6L V6 24V VVT, 6-Speed Automatic, AWD, V...

VIN: 3C4PDDGG6HT708815 Stock: HT708815T Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 04-19-2024

2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad Plus 4dr SUV

Located in McMurray , PA / 962 miles away from Rutland, ND

CarFax No Accidents Reported,CarFax 1-Owner,Rare Find,3rd Row Seat,Back-Up Camera,Bluetooth,Brake Assist,Heated Seats,Heated Steering Wheel,Keyless St...

VIN: 3C4PDDGG0HT704419 Stock: HT704419A Certified Pre-Owned: No

Located in Florence , KY / 814 miles away from Rutland, ND

Vice White 2017 Dodge Journey GT AWD 6-Speed Automatic 3.6L V6 24V VVT *CLEAN CARFAX*, *LIFETIME POWERTRAIN WARRANTY*, AWD. Reviews: * Available three...

VIN: 3C4PDDEG4HT616427 Stock: 45652C Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 02-13-2024

Located in Canoga Park , CA / 1,376 miles away from Rutland, ND

Recent Arrival! 2nd Row Overhead 9" Video Screen, 368 Watt Amplifier, 5-Year SiriusXM Traffic Service, 5-Year SiriusXM Travel Link Service, 8.4" Touch...

VIN: 3C4PDCGG1HT648243 Stock: 648243 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 04-13-2024

Trip Computer

Located in Crystal Lake , IL / 528 miles away from Rutland, ND

Pitch Black Clearcoat 2017 Dodge Journey SE FWD 4-Speed Automatic VLP 2.4L I4 DOHC 16V Dual VVT GREAT SERVICE HISTORY, PRICED BELOW MARKET VALUE, VERY...

VIN: 3C4PDCAB3HT563613 Stock: XX7208A Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 01-15-2024

Located in Chandler , AZ / 1,161 miles away from Rutland, ND

Engine: 3.6L V6 24V Vvt Uconnect Voice Command W/Bluetooth 3rd Row Seat Compact Spare Tire Keyless Start Black; Premium Cloth Low-Back Bucket Seats Ti...

VIN: 3C4PDCBG7HT675910 Stock: HT675910 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 03-30-2024

Located in Mount Pleasant , WI / 524 miles away from Rutland, ND

WHEELS: 19" X 7" PAINTED ALUMINUM (STD), TRANSMISSION: 6-SPEED AUTOMATIC 62TE (STD), RADIO: UCONNECT 3 NAV W/8.4" DISPLAY, QUICK ORDER PACKAGE 28P -in...

VIN: 3C4PDDEG7HT557664 Stock: HT557664 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 04-12-2024

Located in Columbus , OH / 840 miles away from Rutland, ND

Auto Boutique is proud to offer excellent, pre-owned vehicles. With our no haggle pricing policy you can be sure you're getting the best deal possible...

VIN: 3C4PDCAB1HT709104 Stock: X4735D Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 01-19-2024

Located in Klamath Falls , OR / 1,224 miles away from Rutland, ND

CarFax No Accidents Reported,Rare Find,3rd Row Seat,Bluetooth,Brake Assist,Keyless Start,Satellite Radio,V6 Cylinder Engine,Power Door Locks,Satellite...

VIN: 3C4PDDGG4HT543279 Stock: HT543279CV Certified Pre-Owned: No

Located in Bohemia , NY / 1,272 miles away from Rutland, ND

100% Clean Carfax! One Owner! Loaded! Third Row Seating! 28V Preferred Package! 19 Inch Hyper Black Wheels! Leather Seats! Uconnect 8.4 Inch Screen! P...

VIN: 3C4PDDGG7HT541929 Stock: 541929 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 10-16-2023

Located in Renton , WA / 1,169 miles away from Rutland, ND

CarMax values transparency and wants you to love your next car, not settle on it. Certain vehicles may have unrepaired safety recalls. Check nhtsa.gov...

VIN: 3C4PDCAB9HT701848 Stock: 24498774 Certified Pre-Owned: No

Located in Sheffield Village , OH / 832 miles away from Rutland, ND

Billet Clearcoat 2017 Dodge Journey SE FWD 4-Speed Automatic VLP 2.4L I4 DOHC 16V Dual VVTRecent Arrival! Odometer is 1707 miles below market average!...

VIN: 3C4PDCAB4HT638755 Stock: H2778 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 04-12-2024

Located in Exton , PA / 1,176 miles away from Rutland, ND

New Price! 2017 Dodge Journey SE FWD 2.4L I4 DOHC 16V Dual VVT 4-Speed Automatic VLP SEOdometer is 33130 miles below market average!Reviews:* Availabl...

VIN: 3C4PDCAB2HT709791 Stock: 20238B Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 03-13-2024

Sunroof/Moonroof

Located in Minster , OH / 765 miles away from Rutland, ND

ALL OF OUR VEHICLES ARE HAND SELECTED BY OUR BUYERS. ALL VEHICLES ARE RAN THROUGH A MULTI-POINT INSPECTION BEFORE HITTING THE LOT. COME CHECK OUT OUR ...

VIN: 3C4PDCGG7HT626165 Stock: S12202 Certified Pre-Owned: No Listed since: 02-02-2024

Consumer Reviews for the Dodge Journey

5 star ( 49 %)
4 star ( 20 %)
3 star ( 12 %)
2 star ( 6 %)
1 star ( 12 %)

Not a Sports car but fun with room for a big dog.

What is a good price for a used 2017 dodge journey, what engine options are available for the 2017 dodge journey, what are the positives of the 2017 dodge journey, what are the drawbacks of the 2017 dodge journey, what trim level is the new top-of-the-line dodge journey for 2017, what are the trim levels available for the 2017 dodge journey.

Certified Pre-Owned
Dodge Journey
Home delivery available
Only show local listings

Make & Model

Used ( 415 )
Certified Pre-Owned ( 6 )

Price & Payment

Price rating.

Edmunds' ratings are backed by 15+ years of pricing research done by our data scientists How are ratings determined? We analyze millions of data points to generate our ratings. We look at vehicle configuration, options, history, nearby transactions, market pricing and more — the ratings are up-to-date and relevant to your search area.

Great Price ( 14 )
Good Price ( 60 )
Fair Price ( 166 )
Crossroad ( 73 )
SE Value ( 42 )
Crossroad Plus ( 17 )
Crew ( 14 )
SE Value Package ( 11 )
Mainstreet ( 9 )
American Value Package ( 6 )
Limited ( 6 )

Vehicle History

One Owner ( 133 )
No Accidents ( 290 )
Personal Use Only ( 199 )
Exclude vehicles with Major Issues Reported ( 34 )

Engine & Drivetrain

Transmission.

Automatic ( 421 )

Engine Type

Gas ( 375 )
Flex-Fuel (FFV) ( 46 )
Front Wheel Drive ( 264 )
All Wheel Drive ( 157 )
6 cylinders ( 227 )
4 cylinders ( 194 )

Exterior Color

Gray ( 87 )
Black ( 85 )
White ( 79 )
Silver ( 71 )
Dark Red ( 57 )
Dark Blue ( 26 )
Orange ( 5 )
Off White/Cream ( 2 )
Light Blue ( 1 )

Interior Color

Black ( 257 )
Light Brown ( 13 )

Total Seating

5 Seats ( 126 )
7 Seats ( 295 )

Comfort & Convenience

3rd Row Seating ( 202 )
Audio And Cruise Controls On Steering Wheel ( 160 )
Auto Climate Control ( 12 )
Automatic Doors ( 16 )
Fold Flat Rear Seats ( 98 )
Heated Seats ( 50 )
Heated Steering Wheel ( 37 )
Keyless Entry Start ( 212 )
Leather Seats ( 62 )
Multi-zone Climate Control ( 160 )
Navigation ( 30 )
Power Driver Seat ( 115 )
Power Liftgate Trunk ( 1 )
Rear Bench Seats ( 28 )
Remote Start ( 46 )
Seat Memory ( 2 )
Telescopic Steering Wheel ( 138 )
Trip Computer ( 132 )
Alarm ( 120 )
Automatic Emergency Braking ( 152 )
Back-Up Camera ( 152 )
Lane Departure Warning ( 1 )
Occupant Sensing Airbag ( 90 )
Parking Sensors ( 78 )
Stability Control ( 195 )
Tire Pressure Warning ( 150 )

Engine & Exterior

2500lb Towing Capacity ( 3 )
AWD/4WD ( 75 )
Heated Mirrors ( 154 )
Roof Rack ( 95 )
Sunroof Moonroof ( 31 )
Towing Hitch ( 74 )
Upgraded Headlights ( 98 )
Upgraded Tires ( 44 )

Entertainment

AUX Audio Inputs ( 115 )
Android Auto ( 1 )
Apple CarPlay ( 1 )
Bluetooth ( 133 )
Mobile Internet ( 1 )
Premium Audio ( 16 )
Rear Entertainment System ( 19 )
USB Inputs ( 26 )

Options & Packages

17" x 6.5" Aluminum Wheels ( 9 )
3.6L V6 24-Valve VVT Engine ( 29 )
50 State Emissions ( 36 )
6 Premium Speakers w/Subwoofer ( 4 )
6-Speed Automatic 62TE Transmission ( 23 )
American Value Quick Order Package 22D ( 5 )
Black ( 46 )
Black Side Roof Rails ( 8 )
Blacktop Package ( 47 )
Comfort/Convenience Group (Fleet) ( 14 )
Compact Spare Tire ( 15 )
Connectivity Group ( 16 )
Crossroad Plus Quick Order Package 22V ( 4 )
Crossroad Plus Quick Order Package 28V ( 7 )
Crossroad Quick Order Package 22U ( 3 )
Driver Convenience Group ( 17 )
Engine Block Heater ( 6 )
Flexible Seating Group ( 38 )
Front License Plate Attachment Screws ( 41 )
High Beam Daytime Running Headlamps (Fleet) ( 7 )
MOPAR All Weather Group ( 5 )
Navigation & Sun Group ( 4 )
Navigation and Back-Up Camera Group ( 24 )
Navigation and Sound Group I ( 5 )
ParkSense Rear Park Assist System (Fleet) ( 9 )
Popular Equipment Group ( 40 )
Power Express Open/Close Sunroof ( 11 )
Quick Order Package 22A ( 10 )
Quick Order Package 22B ( 42 )
Quick Order Package 22E ( 7 )
Quick Order Package 22F ( 23 )
Quick Order Package 22S ( 8 )
Quick Order Package 28C ( 9 )
Quick Order Package 28E ( 22 )
Quick Order Package 28F ( 6 )
Quick Order Package 28J ( 13 )
Quick Order Package 28M ( 9 )
Quick Order Package 28P ( 26 )
Quick Order Package 28S ( 8 )
Quick Order Package 28V ( 9 )
Radio 4.3 ( 6 )
Radio 4.3S (Fleet) ( 7 )
Rear Seat Video Group I ( 8 )
SE Popular Equipment Group ( 14 )
SE Quick Order Package 22F ( 5 )
Trailer Tow Prep Group ( 5 )
Uconnect 4.3S ( 4 )
Uconnect 8.4 Touch Screen Radio Group ( 6 )
Uconnect Voice Command w/Bluetooth ( 18 )
Uconnect Voice Command w/Bluetooth (Fleet) ( 14 )

Vehicle Listing Details

Recently added listings
Listings with recent price drops
Hide listings without photos
Hide listings without price
Hide in transit listings

Related Dodge Journey info

Used vehicles for sale.

Used Dodge Journey 2019
Used Dodge Journey 2011
Used Dodge Journey 2012
Used Dodge Journey 2013
Used Dodge Journey 2015 For Sale
Used Dodge Journey 2016
Used Dodge Journey 2014
Used Dodge Journey 2010
Used Dodge Journey 2018
Used Dodge Journey 2020

Shop used vehicles by model

Used Dodge Nitro
Used Dodge Challenger
Used Dodge Neon
Used Dodge Durango
Used Dodge Magnum
Used Dodge Avenger
Used Dodge Intrepid
Used Dodge Dart
Used Dodge RAM 350
Used Dodge Grand Caravan
Used Dodge Ram Pickup 2500
Used Dodge Journey

Shop used models by city

Used Dodge Stealth in Huntsville, AL
Used Dodge Durango in Cape Coral, FL
Used Dodge Intrepid in Fresno, CA
Used Dodge Intrepid in Memphis, TN
Used Dodge SRT Viper in Irving, TX
Used Dodge Grand Caravan in Akron, OH
Used Dodge Ram Pickup 2500 in Charleston, SC
Used Dodge Journey in Salinas, CA
Used Dodge Challenger in Hollywood, FL
Used Dodge Grand Caravan in Panama City, FL

Shop used model years by city

Used Dodge Durango 2018 in Vancouver, WA
Used Dodge Charger 2016 in Lansing, MI
Used Dodge Challenger 2011 in Santa Ana, CA

Other models

Used Infiniti QX in Lawrenceburg, IN
Used Ford Contour in Harvey, LA
Used Toyota Fj-Cruiser in Commerce City, CO
Used Nissan Juke in Hermiston, OR
New Lexus LC for Sale in Oklahoma City, OK
Used Chevrolet Camaro in Richmond, VA
New Lincoln Navigator for Sale in Redondo Beach, CA
New Ram 1500-Classic for Sale in Edwardsville, IL
New BMW X3-M for Sale in Winchester, VA
Used Lincoln Mkz-Hybrid in Carol Stream, IL

* Delivery of any kind does not apply to Alaska and Hawaii. Contact the dealer for delivery details, restrictions and costs.

Join Edmunds

Receive pricing updates, shopping tips & more!

Most Beautiful Metro Stations in Moscow

Visiting Moscow? Get yourself a metro card and explore Moscow’s beautiful metro stations. Moscow’s world-famous metro system is efficient and a great way to get from A to B. But there is more to it; Soviet mosaic decorations, exuberant halls with chandeliers, colourful paintings and immense statues. Moscow’s metro is an attraction itself, so take half a day and dive into Moscow’s underground!

The best thing to do is to get on the brown circle (number 5) line since the most beautiful metro stations are situated on this line. The only exception is the metro stop Mayakovskaya one the green line (number 2). My suggestion is to get a map, mark these metro stops on there and hop on the metro. It helps to get an English > Russian map to better understand the names of the stops. At some of the metro stops, the microphone voice speaks Russian and English so it’s not difficult at all.

Another thing we found out, is that it’s worth taking the escalator and explore the other corridors to discover how beautiful the full station is.

Quick hotel suggestion for Moscow is the amazing Brick Design Hotel .

These are my favourite metro stations in Moscow, in order of my personal preference:

1. Mayakovskaya Station

The metro station of Mayakovskaya looks like a ballroom! Wide arches, huge domes with lamps and mosaic works make your exit of the metro overwhelming. Look up and you will see the many colourful mosaics with typical Soviet pictures. Mayakovskaya is my personal favourite and is the only stop not on the brown line but on the green line.

2. Komsomolskaya Station

Komsomolskaya metro station is famous for its yellow ceiling. An average museum is nothing compared to this stop. Splendour all over the place, black and gold, mosaic – again – and enormous chandeliers that made my lamp at home look like a toy.

3. Novoslobodskaya Station

The pillars in the main hall of Novoslobodskaya metro station have the most colourful stained glass decorations. The golden arches and the golden mosaic with a naked lady holding a baby in front of the Soviet hammer and sickle, make the drama complete.

4. Prospect Mira Station

The beautiful chandeliers and the lines in the ceiling, make Prospekt Mira an architectural masterpiece.

5. Belorusskaya Station

Prestigious arches, octagonal shapes of Socialistic Soviet Republic mosaics. The eyecatcher of Belorusskaya metro station, however, is the enormous statue of three men with long coats, holding guns and a flag.

6. Kiyevskaya Station

The metro station of Kiyevskaya is a bit more romantic than Belorusskaya and Prospect Mira. Beautiful paintings with classical decorations.

7. Taganskaya Station

At the main hall Taganskaya metro station you will find triangle light blue and white decorations that are an ode to various Russians that – I assume – are important for Russian history and victory. There is no need to explore others halls of Taganskaya, this is it.

8. Paveletskaya Station

Another and most definitely the less beautiful outrageous huge golden mosaic covers one of the walls of Paveletskaya. I would recommend taking the escalator to the exit upstairs to admire the turquoise dome and a painting of the St Basil’s Cathedral in a wooden frame.

Travelling with Moscow’s metro is inexpensive. You can have a lot of joy for just a few Rubbles.

1 single journey: RMB 50 – € 0,70
1 day ticket: RMB 210 – € 2,95

Like to know about Moscow, travelling in Russia or the Transsiberian Train journey ? Read my other articles about Russia .

161 Shares

Urban Heat Island and Urban Dry Island in Moscow and Their Centennial Changes

Displayed acceptance dates for articles published prior to 2023 are approximate to within a week. If needed, exact acceptance dates can be obtained by emailing [email protected] .

Download PDF

The long-term dynamics of both urban heat island (UHI) and urban dry island (UDI) intensities over the city of Moscow, Russia, has been analyzed for the period from the end of the nineteenth century until recent years using data of the ground meteorological network. Besides traditional maximum heat/dry island intensity, an additional parameter—station-averaged intensity as a mean difference between the data of all urban and rural stations—has been used. The traditional maximum (mean annual) UHI intensity in Moscow was nearly 1.0°C at the end of the nineteenth century, 1.2°C one century ago, 1.5°–1.6°C both in the middle and at the end of the twentieth century, and 2.0°C in recent years. The station-averaged UHI intensity was equal to 0.7°–0.8°C in the second half of the twentieth century and increased up to 1.0°C in recent years. It is probable that stabilization of both parameters from the 1950s to the 1990s was connected with the extensive city growth at that time (mass resettlement of inhabitants from the overpopulated city center to the new urban periphery since the 1960s). The new increase of UHI intensities is the result of the new intensive city growth. The relative humidity in Moscow significantly decreased during the last 146 years (mostly because of warming), unlike water vapor pressure. The UDI is closely connected with the UHI; the absolute value (modulus) of its intensity is increasing in time from −4% at the end of the nineteenth century to −9% now. During the last two decades, the UDI as well as the UHI became much stronger than before.

Publisher's Note: This article was revised on 24 January 2018 to add the additional affiliation of the author, which was missing when originally published.

The urban heat island (UHI) is a well-known phenomenon that was first discovered in London, United Kingdom, by L. Howard ( Howard 1818 ). Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, it has been analyzed almost everywhere in the world ( Böer 1964 ; Kratzer 1956 ; Landsberg 1981 ; Oke 1978 ; etc.). As is known, almost every city and even every village creates its own canopy UHI (i.e., warmer air temperatures on average than the surrounding rural area, at least in the evening, at night, and in the early morning). The only exceptions are specific geographical conditions: for example, some cities are cooler than their outskirts in dry tropical deserts because of the urban “oasis effect”: Beersheba, Israel, all the year round before 1985 (O. Potchter 2011, personal communication); Cairo, Egypt, in late autumn ( Robaa 2003 ); Arbīl, Iraq, in Kurdistan during the dry season ( Rasul et al. 2015 ); irrigated urban areas of Phoenix, Arizona, during the daytime ( Baker et al. 2002 ); and so on. Some general conclusions about the UHI in different cities are made in Lokoshchenko (2014) .

It is usual to study only daily and/or seasonal variability of the UHI, but another interesting and important direction is the analysis of UHI long-term centennial changes. This analysis for Moscow, Russia, was first made ( Lokoshchenko 2013 ) for the period from 1915 to 1955; it was then expanded for the period from 1887 to 1997 ( Lokoshchenko 2014 ), and stabilization of the UHI intensity in the second half of the twentieth century was discovered. It was supposed ( Lokoshchenko 2014 ) that the deceleration of the UHI intensity growth is connected with the extensive development of the city, but adding new data for recent years surprisingly shows a new sharp growth of the UHI intensity during the last two decades ( Lokoshchenko 2015 ). Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to study long-term changes of Moscow UHI from the 1880s until nowadays and to explain its dynamics using all of the available data on urban population and its density and energy consumption.

In addition, another climatic phenomenon—the urban dry island (UDI)—and its centennial dynamics for the same period have also been studied for the first time. It is probable that the UDI was first described in Berlin and Munich, Germany ( Kratzer 1956 ), but usually this phenomenon is known only by data averaged over more or less shorter periods. As one knows, relative humidity F depends on two parameters: water vapor pressure e and air temperature T because F = e / E × 100%, where saturation vapor pressure E is a function of T . Thus, the UDI is closely connected with the UHI and is the direct result of higher T in the city. In addition, the urban dry island is also the result of less evaporation in a city because of small green areas, anthropogenic precipitation drainage, and so on. As is known, the relative humidity in cities is usually lower than in the rural zone (e.g., Kratzer 1956 ; Landsberg 1981 ). For example, the mean monthly difference of F inside and outside the city of Belgrade, Serbia, ranges from −11% to +5% ( Unkašević et al. 2001 ). The difference of F in Chicago, Illinois, and in its outskirts is usually from −3% to −11% depending on the season and the time of day ( Ackerman 1987 ). According to Landsberg and Maisel (1972) , the average daily difference of F inside and outside the city of Columbia, Maryland, is −4%, and one-half of this value is the result of UHI, whereas the other half is the result of lower urban evapotranspiration.

The geographical basis of reliability of the UHII A as a new parameter is the well-known fact that a heat island often represents a “plateau” form in the field of T with a sharp increase of air temperatures close to city margins ( Landsberg 1981 ). It is evident that if the density of urban development is nearly the same everywhere inside a city then T C ~ T U and parameters UHII MAX and UHII A are close to each other. On the other hand, the more inhomogeneous an urban area inside a city is, the bigger the difference between T C and T U is. Of course, the UHII A value may be analyzed only if the ground meteorological network is dense, that is, if several weather stations operate inside a city simultaneously. Note that the traditional parameter UHII MAX strongly depends on the environs and data quality of only one central urban station. The values of UHII MAX may be biased in time if the close vicinity of a central station has significantly changed or if a central station was displaced. For this reason, UHII A seems to be a more statistically trustworthy parameter than UHII MAX . A similar approach (calculation of UHII A ) was used for gridded data for mean annual values of T on the basis of 1 km × 1 km grid cells by Gallo and Xian (2014) and for minimum T on the basis of 1 km × 1 km grid cells by Debbage and Shepherd (2015) . Below, we shall use both parameters in their comparison with each other.

Note that, since at least the end of the nineteenth century, the air temperature T was measured in the Russian Empire and then in the Soviet Union and Russian Federation at the 2-m level above the surface using classical August psychrometers (which include dry and wet mercury thermometers) in special meteorological boxes—in the “Russian box” (Wild box) from 1874 until 1910–14 and later in the “English box” (Stevenson box). The accuracy of T measurements is in the limits of ±0.2°C for positive values and ±0.3°C for T < 0°C ( Reifer et al. 1971 ). The frequency of measurements was three times per day at 0700, 1300, and 2100 LT (the so-called classical Mannheim hours that were used since the eighteenth century) before 1936; four times per day at 0100, 0700, 1300, and 1900 LT from 1936 to 1965; and eight times per day (every 3 h) from 1966 to the present. All thermometers at any station are tested regularly in accord with the standards of the Russian Hydrometeorological Service; their instrumental correction is usually tested by measurements of the 0°C value (low reference point) in melting snow and other values (±5°, ±10°C, etc.) in some liquids (e.g., in spirits) with the use of a reference platinum thermometer.

The atmospheric humidity, according to classical order, is measured using either an August psychrometer (i.e., simultaneous readings of both dry and wet thermometers in a Stevenson box; Kedrolivansky 1937 ) when T ≥ −10°C or a hair hygrometer in the same box if T < −10°C ( Bespalov 1969 ). Thus, constant instrumentation provides a homogeneous long-term time series. Mean annual temperature and mean relative humidity F are calculated as an average of 12 monthly averaged values of T and F , respectively.

The main part of Moscow (except six protuberances) has a symmetrical ellipsoidal form. It is located on flat terrain that is almost homogeneous with no vast areas of open water. As seen from a satellite image ( Fig. 1 ), the Moscow River, which flows across the city from northwest to southeast, is narrow (its width inside the city is only 120–200 m). Therefore, it does not influence the T spatial field except for microscale thermal effects along its banks. Note also that the Moscow region is a significantly forested zone; forests cover about 40% of the region.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 56, 10; 10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0383.1

Download Figure
Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The urban heat island intensity in Moscow was studied for five separate periods ( Fig. 2 ). Figure 2a shows the following ( Lokoshchenko 2014 ): at the end of the nineteenth century, on an average of 3 yr, the difference between T at Landmark Institute (an almost central station located 3.3 km from the Kremlin center) and Mikhelson Observatory (in the close city outskirts) was equal to 0.9°C, whereas the difference between Landmark Institute and Nikolskoye-Gorushki station in the far rural zone was greater: 1.2°C ( Shechtman 1953 ). Of course, only one rural station is insufficient for the analysis; moreover, this difference may be a bit overestimated because of geographic zonality (this station was located to the north of the city). Nevertheless, we can suppose that the heat island intensity UHII MAX was equal to about 1.0°C at that time. It is evident that this parameter of the UHI intensity is only available from the data of one urban station.

Almost 30 years later, six meteorological stations—two urban ones and four close rural ones—operated in this area ( Fig. 2b ). As is seen, the +4°C isotherm is a semicircle and goes around the southern margin of the city during the First World War. In total, 15 meteorological stations including two urban ones operated in the Moscow region at that time (six of them are shown in Fig. 2b ). The mean T in the rural zone outside the city during these two years was in the range from +2.6° to +3.6°C for 13 rural stations at a distance up to ~100 km from the city (some stations are outside the margins of Fig. 2b ). On average, it is equal to +3.2°C both for all of these 13 stations and for four rural stations in the close vicinity of the city (up to 35 km) as Fig. 2b shows. Hence, the UHII MAX value in 1915–16 was equal to 1.2°C according to Eq. (1) . The methodical questions about the real rural air temperature and some details of this analysis are discussed in Lokoshchenko (2014) . In this paper, the UHII MAX for this period was initially supposed to be a bit higher: from 1.2° to 1.4°C, taking into account the value of T = +3.0°C at two stations as probably a real rural background.

Forty years later ( Fig. 2c ), the density of the ground meteorological network was the highest: at least 34 stations were operating in the Moscow region, including 13 stations inside the present-day margins of the city. Note that in the mid-1950s the margins of Moscow were unclear: they were fixed five years later, in August 1960 (an ellipsoid in Fig. 2c ). Nevertheless, probably 10 of these 13 stations were really inside the city in 1954–55, and the other three represented close suburbs at that time. Initially ( Lokoshchenko 2014 ), the measurements of only 8 urban stations and 24 rural ones were analyzed by Shechtman (1971) . Later the author found the archival data of two more special urban stations [Main Aviation Meteorological Station (GAMS) and Phili] that operated in the city at that time but were not included in Shechtman (1971) ; now they have been included in the analysis. The heat island is marked here by two quasi-circle isotherms: +4° and +5°C. The closest station to the city center, Balchug, which is situated only 0.6 km to the south of the Kremlin (1.1 km from the Kremlin center), showed the highest air temperature at that time: +5.35°C. All other urban stations showed a gradual decrease of T from the center to city margins. The mean T inside the city was +4.61°C on the basis of the data from 10 real urban stations and +4.50°C by the data from all 13 stations that were located inside up-to-date margins of the city; previous mean values from 8 old urban stations and 11 new (since 1960) urban stations in Lokoshchenko (2014) were the same, to an accuracy of 0.1°C. In the rural zone of the Moscow region, the mean T at that time was equal to +3.79°C averaged over the data from 24 stations (and +3.74°C; i.e., only a little lower by the data of 21 stations outside modern city margins). Thus, in 1954–55, the traditional UHII MAX intensity value in Moscow (i.e., the difference between Balchug station and all 24 rural stations) was about +1.56°C, whereas the UHII A value (the difference between 10 urban and 24 rural stations) was equal to +0.82°C. With the account of new city margins (13 urban and 21 rural stations), both UHII MAX and UHII A are the same, to an accuracy of 0.1°C: +1.6° and +0.8°C. It should be taken into account that the ground meteorological network in the Moscow region was later reduced, and only 5 urban stations, including Balchug, and 13 rural stations remained in 1991–97 and 2010–14. Thus, for a more correct comparison of different periods, we must use a lower number of stations. The mean T in the urban area in 1954–55 by the data of only the five stations that exist now is nearly the same (+4.48°C), however, and outside the city by the data of 13 stations it is exactly the same (+3.79°C). Hence, recalculated for n = 4 in Eq. (2) and m = 13 in Eqs. (1) and (2) , the UHII MAX value is the same as before (+1.56°C) and the UHII A value is only a little lower (+0.69°C).

The heat island mapping from 1991 to 1997 ( Fig. 2d ) demonstrates two semicircle isotherms: +6°C in the city center and +5°C around the western city margins. The maximum T in the city center (Balchug station) was equal to +6.48°C; the mean T inside the city by the data of five urban stations was +5.69°C, whereas outside the city it was +4.86°C averaged over the data of 13 stations. Note that in Lokoshchenko (2014 ) only 10 of 13 rural stations were used for the analysis of the 1991–97 period; the data rows of three more rural stations (Kashira, Klin, and New-Jerusalem) have breaks: either one or two of seven mean annual T values are absent for that time. Now the author has received restored values of T for all three of these stations for the lost years by comparing them with the closest neighboring stations and using simple correction as the average difference ∆ T between two stations for other years for which mean annual values were available at both places. Note that ∆ T is comparatively stable in time; its standard deviation σ from one year to another for closest stations at distances of 40–50 km on flat terrain (e.g., between Kashira and Kolomna) is only 0.09°C. Therefore, the probable error of the restored value of T on the average of seven years is only about ±0.01°C if one year is missing. So, as a result, these three stations were included in the analysis.

Thus, the UHII MAX intensity value was 1.62°C—that is, only about one-half of a tenth of a degree higher than 40 years ago. The UHII A value also increased only a little since the 1950s: 0.83°C. In fact, it seems to be a surprising result given the continued fast city growth in the second half of the twentieth century. That is why the UHI intensities for these two periods have been precisely analyzed with such a high accuracy of 0.01° Celsius.

In recent years (averaged from 2010 to 2014), as one can see in Fig. 2e , T in Moscow became still higher: +7.8°C at Balchug station and from 6.3° to 6.7°C at the other four urban stations. Thus, one more semicircle isotherm of +7°C appeared in the center of Moscow. On the basis of the same data sampling (5 urban and 13 rural meteorological stations), the values of UHII MAX and UHII A averaged over five recent years are 2.0° and 1.0°C, respectively. So, both parameters demonstrate a new growth after the previous period of their quasi stabilization. The consequent increase of the air temperature in Moscow from one period to another during 128 years is evident in Fig. 2 : T became higher by 0.5°C from 1887–89 to 1915–16, by 1°C from 1915–16 to 1954–55, by 1°C from 1954–55 to 1991–97, and by an additional 1°C from 1991–97 to 2010–14. This increase is the result of both global climate warming and rapid city growth. So, during 128 years, T grew by 4°C in the city center and by nearly 3°C in the rural zone of the Moscow region.

The results of the analysis are presented in Fig. 3a . It demonstrates long-term dynamics of the UHI intensity in Moscow during 128 years, both traditional [Eq. (1) ] and station averaged [Eq. (2) ]. The general growth is evident, but, as is seen, during the second half of the twentieth century both parameters of the UHI intensity changed only a little, whereas earlier and later the intensity growth was fast. In the previous work ( Lokoshchenko 2014 ), the values of UHII MAX and UHII A in 1954–55 and 1991–97 were received as equal. In this work, the author used the same number of stations during both periods for a more correct comparison and, in addition, three more rural stations were considered for the later period—nevertheless, the overall conclusion about quasi stabilization of the UHI has been confirmed. Figure 3b presents mean annual values of both intensity parameters from one year to another for a more detailed analysis of the dynamics (full data from all stations unfortunately are not available from 1966 until 1990). It is evident that one year may be an insufficient period for statistically reliable UHI intensity analysis because the general tendency is masked by local sharp maxima and minima due to specific weather phenomena in some years (mostly because of different durability of anticyclonic conditions that strongly influence intensity values). The standard deviations of mean annual UHII MAX and UHII A values are ~0.2°–0.3° and 0.1°C, respectively. Thus, the same dynamics has been analyzed again with the use of a moving average for a more clear indication of the general tendency. Both UHII MAX and UHII A mean annual values have been averaged for each 5 years with a 1-yr step in time for the 1953–2012 period ( Fig. 3c ). Indeed, as is seen, the estimations of both parameters were nearly the same in the 1950s and 1990s, and a new fast growth of the UHI intensity has started in the mid-2000s (since 2003–05).

Let us discuss another interesting phenomenon, the urban dry island. Figure 4 shows long-term variability of both e and F mean annual values for Moscow since 1870 when regular accurate measurements of both parameters started. This time series is combined with the data of three stations: Landmark Institute from 1870 to 1878 (which was the oldest meteorological station in Moscow before its closing in 1932), Mikhelson Observatory from 1879 to 1953 (which is the oldest Moscow station now), and Moscow University Observatory from 1954 to present. Note that monthly averaged values of both parameters were compared for the periods of simultaneous measurements at two stations (in 1879 for Landmark Institute and Mikhelson Observatory and from 1954 to 1970 for Mikhelson Observatory and University Observatory). It was found that the relations between the data in different urban locations are very close, especially for e values: linear correlation coefficient R is equal to 0.974 for relative humidity and even to 0.999 for water vapor pressure in both places ( Vasilenko and Lokoshchenko 2009 ). Therefore, this common row of data may be accepted as homogeneous. For the first time, this long-term dynamics was published by Vasilenko and Lokoshchenko (2009) and Lokoshchenko and Vasilenko (2010) ; in this paper, it is expanded to recent years. As is seen, water vapor pressure does not demonstrate systematic changes during the last 146 years. The linear regression coefficient K is equal to only 0.0015 hPa yr −1 ; thus it is seen that during the last 146 years the average water content in the ground air layer above Moscow increased on average by only a little—0.2 hPa. Such a small difference is evidently negligible and statistically nonsignificant. Of course, the change of e is not linear: for example, since the end of the 1970s, its growth became faster but during the recent years it decelerated again. Note that the dynamics of e inside and outside the city is very similar: for the period from 1966 to 1997 when the growth of e accelerated, the K value was equal to 0.007 hPa yr −1 by the data of Moscow University and was a bit larger, 0.012 hPa yr −1 , in the Moscow region by the average data of four rural stations (Mozhaisk, Pavlovsky Posad, Serpukhov, and Dmitrov).

Unlike this parameter, relative humidity F demonstrates a quick and systematic (steady in time) fall with the average rate of K = −0.06% yr −1 during the last 146 years; in other words, it decreased from 81% in the 1870s to nearly 72% in recent years. Inside the city, it is the result of general T increase due to both global warming and the intensification of the Moscow UHI. Outside the city, the long-term fall of F is the result of global warming only. So, it is not a surprise that in the Moscow region its rate of decrease is half as fast as inside the city. For the period from 1951 to 2015 (for which data on F in the Moscow region are available), the linear regression coefficient K of F mean annual values is −0.06% yr −1 at Moscow University and only −0.03% yr −1 in the Moscow region by the average data of the same four rural stations mentioned above.

The dynamics of the main humidity parameters allows one to understand long-term changes of the F spatial field in a big city. Let us discuss the dynamics of the urban dry island in Moscow as was done above for UHI. Note that human-body sensations and human health depend on relative humidity more than on absolute humidity level—thus, dryness is a more important parameter than any other humidity parameter such as water vapor pressure, specific humidity, and so on. The hygiene standard for a human body is the F in the range from 30% to 60% ( Isaev 2001 ).

One of the methodical problems of this study is the change in measurement frequency. As was already mentioned above, the meteorological measurements in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union were carried out three times per day before 1936, four times per day from 1936 to 1965, and eight times per day since 1966. The relative humidity data are available in Shechtman (1959 , 1972) as average values at each time of observation. To receive a homogeneous row of data, a special correction was made using hygrograph records (daily hygrograms) at the Moscow University meteorological observatory that indicate the values of F during every hour. A perfect (the most accurate) mean daily value of F 24 as an average of 24 hourly values during a day was compared with an average both of three values F 3 and of four values F 4 according to the time of observations in the past for each day during three years (1981–83). As a result, the correction coefficient between a perfect mean daily value and mean value of three times (0700, 1300, and 2100 LT) is equal to 1.0049 (standard deviation σ = 0.0384; sample size n = 1095). The similar correction between F 24 and F 4 is equal to 0.9997 ( σ = 0.0386; n = 1095). On the basis of these corrections, all mean values of F before 1966 were recalculated by the author to receive a homogeneous data row.

Let us discuss the intensity of the UDI and its centennial dynamics in time. As was the case for the UHI, the analysis is possible only from the moment when two stations, urban and rural, began to operate simultaneously. In the Moscow region, only in 1879 did the second station (Mikhelson Observatory, formerly known as Petrovsko-Razumovskoye and TSKhA) appear; before that, only one station (Landmark Institute) operated in the city. Landmark Institute was located close to the Moscow Kremlin center (see above), and therefore it may be accepted as a central station. The station data on relative humidity F are unfortunately available only since 1891 ( Shechtman 1959 ) and for fewer stations than for T . Unlike air temperature, relative humidity at most stations in the Russian Empire was a seasonal parameter and was as a rule measured only during a warm season—hence, mean annual values are available for only a few of the stations ( Moscow Province Council 1915 ). Figure 5a shows that on average for the 1891–97 period we can compare the data of only two stations: Landmark Institute in the central part of the city and Mikhelson Observatory, which at that time represented close suburbs. None of the remote rural stations in the Moscow region measured F continuously in the 1890s. Averaged over seven years, F was equal to 75.0% at Landmark Institute and 78.9% at Mikhelson Observatory so that UDII MAX = −3.9% according to Eq. (3) . Of course, this value is only approximate because for more correct estimation of this parameter we need data from several rural stations.

One-quarter of a century later, during the First World War, the data of five stations in the Moscow region (four of which are presented in Fig. 5b ; one more was too distant from the city) are available. The lowest value of F in average of two years (76.9%) was received just in the city center (at Landmark Institute), whereas the second urban station Mikhelson Observatory (which appeared inside the city already at that time) registered a little higher value: 78.4%. At three rural stations, respective mean F values were 82.1%, 82.0%, and 78.7% (on average: 80.9%). So UDII MAX remained nearly the same as before: −4.0%. Even for such a short period (two years), this estimation seems to be very reliable because in 1915 and in 1916 UDII MAX was equal to −4.2% and −3.8%, respectively; that is, its change from one year to another is small. As one can see in Fig. 5b , the urban dry island is evidently a real geographical phenomenon because F grows both to the south and to the north of the city.

For the period of 1954–55, the data on F are available for 32 of 34 weather stations in the Moscow region [ Shechtman (1972) and additional archival data] except for two rural stations where data are available only on T ( Shechtman 1971 ). As Fig. 5c shows, the new central Balchug station at that time registered the lowest F value averaged over two years: 71.9%. At the same time, other urban stations demonstrated intermediate values from 74% to 76%, whereas at rural stations this parameter was from 77% to 80%. Two of three urban stations closest to Balchug station demonstrate a little higher value (74%), and only at GAMS station, in the close vicinity of the center, F = 76% (it is seen as a bending curve around it in Fig. 5c ). So, a comparatively high value could be the result either of microclimatic specifics of the GAMS location or of wrong instrumental correction to thermometers: either dry thermometer readings were a bit underestimated (it may be as well the cause of similar bending of the +5°C isotherm in Fig. 2c ), or wet thermometer readings were a bit overestimated, or both. Averaged over two years in the mid-twentieth century, the relative humidity inside the city (averaged by the data of 10 urban stations including Balchug marked by gray and black stars in Fig. 5c ) was equal to 74.7%, whereas in the Moscow region outside the city (averaged by the data of 22 rural stations that existed at that time), it was equal to 77.7%. Therefore, UDII MAX = 71.9% − 77.7% = −5.8%; UDII A = 74.7% − 77.7% = −3.0% for n = 9 and m = 22 in Eqs. (3) and (4) . For a more correct comparison with the next two periods, however, we should account for the reduction of the ground network. Therefore, all values were recalculated only for the data of stations that exist now: mean relative humidity was 74.8% in the city by the data of 5 urban stations and 77.9% outside the city by the data of 13 rural stations. Hence, average estimations are close to each other despite different sampling. As a result, both parameters of the UDI intensity are nearly the same as well: UDII MAX = −6.0%; UDII A = −3.1% (for n = 4 and m = 13).

Forty years later, averaged from 1991 to 1997 ( Fig. 5d ), the F value at the central urban Balchug station was equal to 73.0%, the average over all 5 urban stations was 76.0%, and the average of all 13 rural stations was 78.1%. Thus, UDII MAX = −5.1% and UDII A = −2.1%. In reality, UDI is contoured by the 75% isoline and includes only three stations. Besides Balchug, the isoline includes two more stations: University and Nemchinovka (a close rural station that is located only 1 km to the west of the city margin; usually, it demonstrates intermediate position between urban and rural stations), where the F value was only a little higher than at Balchug station: 74%. In the north of the city and in the rural zone, average F values were from 76% to 80%. So, the UDI became weaker than it was in the mid-1950s because the average F in the urban area increased significantly (by 1.2% for the same 5 stations), whereas outside the city, it remained nearly the same (it increased only a bit by the data of the same 13 stations: by 0.2%). As one can see in the 1990s, all urban stations except for University station demonstrate higher relative humidity than was observed 40 years ago.

Averaged over the five years from 2010 to 2014, the F value at Balchug station is the lowest among other stations: 68.0%; the mean F values in urban and rural areas by the data of the same 5 and 13 stations are 73.2% and 76.6%, respectively. Hence, UDII MAX = −8.6% and UDII A = −3.4%; so, UDI recently became much stronger than before. As a result, for the first time, it is marked by two isovapors (lines of the same relative humidity): 70% and 75%. The absence of observations to the south and to the east of the city unfortunately makes it not possible to close the isovapors.

Some details of the above analysis and methodical questions need a brief comment. Note that data rows of both the Landmark Institute and Mikhelson Observatory are complete and continuous in time. Unlike them, at some other stations there were short breaks in observations. For example, at Biryulyovo (southern rural station in Fig. 5b ) and at Ramenskoye forestry (one of two northern rural stations at that time), the data on F during 1915 and 1916 are available for 22 of 24 months, whereas at Sergiyev Posad (another northern station) data were available only for 17 of 24 months. In a similar way, in 1954 and 1955 relative humidity was measured at Central Park of Culture and Recreation (CPKR) urban station during 21 of 24 months and at Kashira rural station during 20 of 24 months. During the period from 1991 to 1997, there were several breaks as well: the data on F at Balchug and Tushino urban stations were respectively received for 83 and 82 of 84 months. Of 84 months, data were received for 83 months at Klin and Kolomna rural stations, 82 months for Kashira and New-Jerusalem, 80 months at Serpukhov, and only 70 months at Klin. In all of these cases, missing values for some months were restored as the most probable values using special correction in comparison with the nearest station. The mean coefficient K between the values of two stations for the same month (when a break at one of them occurred) during several years before and after a break was used (it is important to note that K may be a function of the annual cycle and therefore for the correction we need to use a comparison for the same month). Note that the spatial field of relative humidity is relatively smoothed in conditions of flat relief and in the absence of large areas of open water. The linear correlation coefficient R between mean monthly values of F at several neighboring stations, both in the city and in the rural zone (at distances from 50 to 90 km from each other), for the period of 1990–2000 ranges from 0.92 to 0.96. As is known, the R values of the spatial field of air temperature in the Moscow region at distances up to 100 km are very similar—higher than 0.8 in the warm season and higher than 0.9 in winter ( Rubinstein 1979 ). As a result of the smoothed F field, relations between mean values of F at neighboring weather stations (up to 100 km from each other) are close (as a rule, K is limited to being from 0.95 to 1.05) and steady in time (standard deviation σ K of K values in different years is on average only 0.04). This means that a possible error of the monthly averaged restored value of F taking into account the σ K value and a typical range of this parameter (usually from 70% to 80%; extreme monthly averaged values can range from 55% to 95% depending on a season) is about 2%–3%. Hence, for example, if at any station, 2 of 84 monthly averaged values are unknown, the most probable error of the total F value averaged over seven years there is only 0.05%–0.07% (i.e., very small). Note as well that Tushino urban station (star in the northwestern part of the city in Figs. 5c–e ) was replaced and has operated 6.5 km to the north from its previous location since 1986.

Another specific correction was made for the data of Pogodinka urban station for the period of 1954–55 where, since June of 1955, the measurements of F began to be made only three times per day instead of four times like before—without a nocturnal reading at 0100 LT. For this station, a comparison with nearest neighbor University Observatory station (3.0 km away from Pogodinka station) was carried out for this nocturnal time only. The coefficient between nocturnal values of F at these two stations in 1954 (when measurements were simultaneous at both places) was used for each month since June–December of 1955 to restore missing values at Pogodinka; then mean monthly values F 4 were calculated by three real values and one restored value, and last a correction 0.9997 was used to get accurate daily averaged estimation. Here, the correction was based on simultaneous data during only one year because University Observatory station was founded in 1954 and soon after 1955 Pogodinka station was closed. Thus, the rows of F data are continuous at both stations in 1891–97, at 2 of 5 stations in 1915–16, at 29 of 32 stations in 1954–55, at 10 of 18 stations in 1991–97, and at all 18 stations in 2010–14.

Long-term changes of the UDI intensity are presented in Fig. 6 as was done above in Fig. 3 for the UHI intensity. Similar to Fig. 3 , both UDII MAX and UDII A values for the period 1954–55 are shown here for a reduced number of stations (5 urban and 13 rural) that operate now for a more correct comparison with the two later periods. As is seen, the UDI intensity dynamics is complicated and nonmonotonic. Periods of clear UDI intensification in the beginning of the twentieth century and during the last two decades are separated by the UDII fall—both maximum and average—in the second half of the past century. This result seems unexpected. The question is what happened and why did UDI become weaker in the 1990s than it was before? This fall corresponds to quasi stabilization of the UHI intensity that took place at that time as was shown above. So, why did the UDI intensity not stabilize as well?

Its fall was evidently not the result of some local changes in the close vicinity of the central station Balchug because the UDII A value, as is seen, also decreased. True, one of five urban stations was displaced as already mentioned, but four other stations remained where they were in the 1950s. According to additional calculations accounting for only four urban stations without Tushino, UDII A = −3.5% in 1954–55 and UDII A = −3.0% in 1991–97. Thus, it is seen that weakening of the UDI was a real effect and was not the result of the displacement of one station. The method of humidity measurements and even the type of sensors remained everywhere the same because the Soviet meteorological service was classical and conservative. Note as well that this fall was not the result of some changes in the air moisture content because the e data of University Observatory station remained nearly the same: it was on average 7.6 and 7.7 hPa, respectively, for the periods 1954–55 and 1991–97. In addition, the reduction of UDI intensities was not the consequence of a too-short period of only two years of averaging in 1954–55. An additional calculation was made for 7 years from 1954 to 1960, and the mean F value at Balchug station was received as 71.9%; the mean F at urban (5 stations) and rural (13 stations) areas was 74.8% and 78.2% respectively; thus, UDII MAX = −6.3%; UDII A = −3.4%, and therefore averaged over 7 years in the 1950s the UDI was even deeper and, hence, its fall during the next 37 years was even sharper.

The most probable cause of the UDI weakening is the intensive greening of the city. However, park and forest zones inside Moscow did not increase inside new city margins: the total area of all green zones was 68.7 km 2 in 1958, 167.8 km 2 after city extension in 1961 ( Central State Archive of Moscow 1964 ), nearly 66 km 2 in 1978 ( Great Soviet Encyclopedia 1980 ), and 65.6 km 2 in 1995 ( Great Russian Encyclopedia 1998 ). Thus, the reason for the UDI weakening in Moscow from the 1950s to 1990s remains an open question.

Nevertheless, despite a temporary decrease, in general during the whole period of the F measurements, the UDI in Moscow became stronger: from −4% at the end of the nineteenth century to −9% in recent years. It is evident that this effect is an indirect consequence of the UHI intensification because both phenomena are closely connected (the warmer the urban air is, the drier it is). It is interesting to note that, according to Kratzer (1956) , the average intensity of the UDI in German and Austrian cities (apparently the UDII MAX value) was from −4% to −6% in the beginning of the twentieth century. In Parma, Italy, this parameter in the 1970s was equal on average to −5% ( Landsberg 1981 ). In the afternoon in anticyclonic conditions, however, the difference of F between the urban center and the park zone may be much bigger—up to 30% as was observed in Munich ( Kratzer 1956 ).

Note that the level of absolute humidity mostly reflects total water content in different air masses, and so its variability is large scale and the spatial field of e is comparatively smoothed. According to Oke (1978) , the difference between the values of e inside and outside cities is small and changes its sign in the daily cycle. Thus, unlike average dryness, average humidity does not demonstrate time-stable local effects such as an urban island. The urban “humidity island” (i.e., higher values of e inside the city) may exist only late in the evening and at night in anticyclonic conditions because of the absence of dew or at least much weaker dew in the city than in the rural zone ( Chandler 1967 ; Landsberg 1981 ; Oke 1978 ; Kuttler et al. 2007 ). Even if the urban humidity island exists in the afternoon, it is the strongest on average at night—for example, in Chicago ( Ackerman 1987 ).

For the period of 1991–97, the average e is 8.0 hPa in the city (by the data of 5 urban stations) and 7.9 hPa in the rural zone (by the data of 13 rural stations). The standard deviation σ is 0.5 hPa for the sampling of 35 mean annual values of e at urban stations and σ = 0.4 hPa for the sampling of 89 mean annual values at rural stations (two values are absent). Thus, the difference between the city and rural zone (0.1 hPa) averaged over 7 years is not statistically significant.

The dynamics of both urban islands that was discussed above needs explanation. The previous results of the long-term dynamics of the UHI intensity that were analyzed by Lokoshchenko (2013 , 2014) and its quasi stabilization from the mid-1950s ( Fig. 2c ) to the mid-1990s ( Fig. 2d ) were explained in Lokoshchenko (2014) by the probable extensive growth of the city in the second half of the twentieth century. As a result, the heat island intensity asymptotically approaches its upper limit. A similar effect was noted, for example, for London ( Wilby et al. 2011 ) and Madrid, Spain (D. F. Rasilla Alvarez 2013, personal communication).

Later ( Lokoshchenko 2015 ) a new increase of the UHI intensity during the recent two decades ( Fig. 2e ) was observed in new additional data. As was shown above, the UDI intensity, as well as the UHI intensity, was in general increasing. Yet from the 1950s until the 1990s, it even decreased. To explain these changes, it is necessary to take into account the factors that create additional heat and additional dryness in the city. Note that the exact real intensity of urban heat sources, the density of the urban development (the average part of buildings and asphalt pavement in an area unit in the city), and some other physical parameters that directly influence the UHI and UDI intensities are unfortunately unavailable. Some indirect economic and social factors—for example, the density of urban population and energy consumption—are closely connected with the direct physical factors, however. Let us discuss their long-term changes in Moscow.

As the top panel of Fig. 7 shows, the population of the city (filled symbols) demonstrates an almost monotonically increasing function since at least 1886 excepting only two falls during the Russian Civil War in 1917–20 and the Second World War (called the Great Patriotic War in the Soviet Union) in 1941–45. The official statistics of Moscow population are available from the Central State Archive of Moscow (1957 , 1963 , 1964) , Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1980) , Great Russian Encyclopedia (1998) , and others. There is a big gap from 1939 to 1956, however, which was earlier shown by the author ( Lokoshchenko 2015 ). Now, in addition to the official data, the author also used special estimations of Moscow population from 1940 to 1947 made by Gavrilova (2000) and Ulianova (2006) . As is seen, the reduction of the urban population in Moscow was sharp but comparatively short: in 1947, according to Gavrilova (2000) , it already became only a little smaller than before the war. Later, the increase of population took place at nearly the same rate—therefore, this parameter cannot explain the stabilization of the UHI intensity values from the 1950s to 1990s.

Indeed, a more important parameter is not the urban population but its density per area unit. The dynamics of the population density in Moscow from 1905 until recent years (open symbols in the top panel of Fig. 7 ) takes into account both population number and urban area (all statistics were received for the beginning of each year). Note that accurate estimation of the urban area is not always possible: sometimes city margins are strictly determined (e.g., since August 1960) but earlier urban area could be estimated only approximately. The author used the values of the urban area from 1905 to 2011 from the data of official statistics including Central State Archive of Moscow (1963) and others. As one can see, the population density function, unlike the population function, is stepwise: gradual increases are followed by sharp falls. Two of three main falls were connected with the rapid reduction of population during the Civil and Great Patriotic Wars (because of both military mobilization and civil population evacuating from the city), whereas the third reduction in the beginning of 1961 is explained by the sharp increase of the city area which, in accord with a Soviet government decision, was suddenly expanded in August of 1960 up to new ellipsoid margins (see Fig. 2c ). At that moment, the territory of Moscow became 2.5 times as large as before (from 356 km 2 before August 1960 to 885 km 2 later). As a result, the population density of the city decreased by nearly a factor of 2, but just after 1961 it began to increase again; in the beginning of the 2010s, it was already almost 11 000 people per square kilometer. In 2011, the Russian government greatly expanded again the area of Moscow to the southwest, but the new official city margins are unrealistic, and the newly urban area, so-called New Moscow, is a phantom because it still remains a typical rural zone. Therefore, we shall discuss below the real urban area, which since 1984 has had the shape of a turtle, that is, an ellipsoid with several outer protuberances ( Figs. 1 and 2d,e ).

As one can see, the urban density from 1961 to recent years has increased at nearly the same rate, and therefore it does not explain the changes of the UHI and UDI intensities. We should, however, take into account the fact that the intensities of both islands, according to Eqs. (1) – (4) , depend mostly on the conditions at the city center rather than those of the whole city because four of five urban weather stations in Moscow (including Balchug, Mikhelson, and University Observatories) are located inside the old urban area from before 1960. A separate analysis of the population density dynamics for the city center is a difficult problem, however, because administrative division of the city changed several times. Before 1992, Moscow was divided into urban districts (7 from 1920 to 1922, 6 from 1922 to 1929, 10 from 1929 to 1936, 23 from 1936 to 1941, 25 from 1941 to 1957, 20 from 1957 to August 1960, 30 from August 1960 to 1969, 32 from 1969 to 1977, and 33 from 1983), whereas in 1992 the administrative network changed and 10 municipal districts, including the central district, were created instead of the former 33 urban districts. The official annual statistics on urban population for some urban districts exist since 1977; for the earlier period, only three estimations are available: the results of population censuses in 1959 and in 1970 (when citizens were asked, among other questions, in which urban district they were living) and, in addition, a special municipal estimation that was made in 1963 ( Central State Archive of Moscow 1963 ). As is seen in the middle panel of Fig. 7 , Moscow center was extremely overpopulated at the end of the 1950s. At that time, most Moscow families consisted of two or even three generations and, as a rule, occupied one room in multiroom shared apartments. Thus, urban population density averaged over seven districts in the central part of Moscow (see the left panel in Fig. 8 ) was almost 32 800 per square kilometer in 1959 (black filled diamonds in the middle panel of Fig. 7 ), that is, just before city area expansion. The serious housing crisis was soon overcome because of mass construction in the new urban area and mass resettlement of Moscow population from the overpopulated center to the new urban periphery. As a result, in 1970, population density in the center reduced to nearly 20 200 per square kilometer on average for three of seven central Moscow regions and then to 15 800 per square kilometer in 1977 and 11 000 per square kilometer in 1992 on average over five of the same seven districts, taking into account changes of their boundaries in time. The boundaries of five central districts whose data are available since 1977 until 1992 and of the new central district since 1992 ( Fig. 8b , right panel) do not coincide with each other; that is why urban population density in 1992 (the only year for which both statistics exist) is a bit different: 11 000 people per square kilometer averaged over seven districts and 10 400 per square kilometer in the new central district (gray filled diamonds in the middle panel of Fig. 7 ). Then urban population density in the city center continued to decrease up to 1997–98, when it reached a minimum (a little less than 10 100 per square kilometer). Thus, the change of urban population density during the last decades had opposite signs in the whole city (gradual growth) and in the center (rapid fall).

Since 1999, the population density in the city center began to increase, and in 2015 it was already equal to 11 500 persons per square kilometer. Indeed, at the end of the 1990s, the growth of the city became intensive again because of a mass migration of people to Moscow from other Russian regions and from the former republics of the Soviet Union because living standards and the possibility of finding a job in the capital were much higher than in the rest of the country. As a result, massive or so-called point construction of new high buildings between old houses started in Moscow, including in its center. Indeed, the increase of population density in the city center since 1998 was not so high, but we should take into account two more things. First, the official statistics on population in Moscow (including the city center) were probably underestimated during the recent 25 years because a lot of migrants lived (and are living now) there without any registration. Second, a lot of nonresidential buildings, mostly trade centers, were constructed in Moscow center since the mid-1990s—evidently they strengthen the UHI intensity like dwelling houses. Thus, the extensive growth of the city that took place from 1960 until the mid-1990s was followed by new densification of housing during the recent two decades.

That is not the only reason for the new increase of Moscow UHI and UDI intensities, however. One more important parameter is electric power consumption (PC). Integral annual data of PC in the whole Moscow region, including both the city of Moscow and surrounding rural area, from 1990 to 2015 are plotted in the bottom panel of Fig. 7 . As is seen, after 1991 a sharp fall of power consumption took place as a result of economic crisis and the dissolution of the Soviet Union followed by industrial collapse and mass closing of plants. Since 1998, this parameter began to grow again (one more minimum in 2009 was the result of another economic crisis). Thus, PC in the whole region increased from 62–63 TW h in the mid-1990s to nearly 100 TW h in 2014–15. It is evident that a significant part of energy is emitted as heat into the atmosphere, which leads to additional city warming—both directly (e.g., operation of domestic heaters) and indirectly (e.g., the reduction of infrared effective radiation by plumes from smoke chimneys). Note that we only have general statistics for the whole region, including both the city and its suburbs (an approximate fraction for power consumption only in the city limits is about 0.50–0.55 of the total value for the region). We should acknowledge that the city area (1081 km 2 in the 2000s) is very small relative to Moscow-region area without the city (~47 000 km 2 ). Hence, the increase of PC evidently leads to more intensive warming of the city than its suburbs because the city occupies only 2% of the region area but spends one-half of the total energy. Thus, energy consumption increase since 1998 seems to be an additional cause of the UHI intensification (and, as a result, the UDI intensification, too) in recent times.

The urban dry island is a real physical phenomenon that is closely connected with the urban heat island. As a rule, relative humidity in the city center is lower than in the rural zone outside the city.

The urban heat island intensity in Moscow since the 1880s has increased from 1.0° to 2.0°C. During almost the same time, the absolute value of urban dry island intensity increased (in a negative direction) from −4% to −9%.

The space-averaged urban island intensity seems to be a more reliable and trustworthy parameter than simple traditional estimation of the maximum intensity using only one central urban station. In Moscow, this additional parameter for the UHI increased from 0.7° to 1.0°C during the last 60 years; for the UDI, it is now equal to −3%.

The dynamics of Moscow UHI and UDI intensities during the last 128 years demonstrate an increase in the first half of the twentieth century followed by its quasi stabilization for the UHI (and even a temporary reduction for the UDI) in the second half of the twentieth century because of the extensive growth of the city at that time and then new amplification of both islands during the last two decades. The probable reasons of up-to-date UHI and UDI amplifying are the growth of urban population density, especially in the city center, and, in addition, a rapid increase of power consumption since the end of the 1990s.

Relative humidity F in Moscow decreased significantly during the last 146 years—on average from 81% in the 1870s to 72% in recent years. At the same time, water vapor pressure remains almost the same and does not demonstrate any significant changes in time.

The spatial field of relative humidity is comparatively smoothed; the correlation coefficients between monthly averaged F values at different stations at distances up to 100 km range from 0.92 to 0.96.

Acknowledgments

The author is very grateful to N. A. Tereshonok and N. S. Nikolaev from the central administration of the Russian Hydrometeorological Service, T. M. Rosinskaya—the head of Mikhelson Observatory, I. S. Shcherbakova from Moscow Statistical Service (Mosgorstat), and I. V. Gorodkova and her colleagues from System Operator of Russian Integrated/Unified Power System (IPS/UPS) for the data on measurements that they provided. This work was supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation (Project 16-17-10275).

AMS Publications

Get Involved with AMS

Affiliate sites.

Email : [email protected]

Phone : 617-227-2425

Fax : 617-742-8718

Headquarters:

45 Beacon Street

Boston, MA 02108-3693

1200 New York Ave NW

Washington, DC 200005-3928

Privacy Policy & Disclaimer
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
[66.249.64.20|185.39.149.46]
185.39.149.46

Character limit 500 /500

IMAGES

2017 Black Dodge Journey
2017 Black Clearcoat Dodge Journey at Handy Buick GMC Cadillac in SAINT
New 2017 Dodge Journey Blacktop SXT AWD V6
2017 Dodge Journey Reviews, Ratings, Prices
2017 Black Dodge Journey SE
2017 Dodge Journey R/T Blacktop Edition, 3.6L 6cyl Petrol Automatic, SUV

VIDEO

Dodge Journey 2017 sxt $309,000 EDUARDO ESTRADA-Ejecutivo de ventas 5545320507
Dodge Journey 2017 за 2600$Авто з США доставили в Україну. Купити авто из США 0683555600#авто_из_сша
DODGE JOURNEY 2017 SXT EDUARDO ESTRADA-Ejecutivo de ventas 5545320507
Обзор Dodge Journey 2017 из США
ЧЁРНЫЙ АДАМ ❘ Финальный трейлер (Официальный дубляж) [4K ULTRA HD] 2022 ❘ Дуэйн Джонсон
Black

COMMENTS

2017 Dodge Journey Price, Value, Ratings & Reviews
The 2017 Dodge Journey 7-passenger crossover SUV is available in a five trims, from the base SE to the top-line GT. At its most basic, the Dodge Journey SUV includes dual-zone climate control, 4.3 ...
2017 Dodge Journey Review, Pricing, and Specs
2017 Dodge Journey. 4 / 10 C/D RATING. Specs. Photos. ... Tested! 2016 Dodge Journey V-6 AWD; ... Car and Driver values are calculated from the same Black Book® data dealers use to appraise vehicles.
2017 Dodge Journey Specs, Price, MPG & Reviews
Research the 2017 Dodge Journey at Cars.com and find specs, pricing, MPG, safety data, photos, videos, reviews and local inventory.
Used Black Dodge Journey for Sale Near Me
2017 Dodge Journey. GT 4dr SUV. $17,590. 77,110 miles. No accidents, 2 Owners, Personal use ... - Sleek and sophisticated in black, the 2019 Dodge Journey SE is the epitome of style meets ...
2017 Dodge Journey Review & Ratings
Cost to Drive Cost to drive estimates for the 2017 Dodge Journey SE 4dr SUV (2.4L 4cyl 4A) and comparison vehicles are based on 15,000 miles per year (with a mix of 55% city and 45% highway ...
2017 Dodge Journey Review, Pricing, & Pictures
The 2017 Dodge Journey's five-year estimated costs for fuel, insurance, maintenance, and repairs are projected to be about $25,160 - or $5,030 per year. By comparison, five-year costs for the 2017 Kia Sorento and 2017 Dodge Durango are about $24,250 and $26,880, respectively.
2017 Dodge Journey GT AWD Blacktop First Test
Powered by a 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6 engine with 283 hp, our tester should have been able to keep up with rivals. But the 4,405-pound Dodge hit 60 mph in 7.9 seconds, making it slower than the V-6 ...
Black 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale
Average price for Black 2017 Dodge Journey: $12,038; 18 deals found. Average savings of $1,643; Save up to $2,821 below estimated market price; Other Popular Colors For 2017 Dodge Journey. Average Price Deals Listings; White 2017 Dodge Journey: $12,878 Save $4,125 on 16 deals ...
PDF 2017 Dodge Journey
vehicle in the 2017 Dodge lineup pays homage to its iconic bloodline with award-winning features and superior craftsmanship. The powerful engines and ... Urban chic or kick-back casual, you could say Journey is the new Black. It's jeweled wraparound headlamps, highly sculpted front fascia and split-crosshair honeycomb grille are perfectly ...
2017 Dodge Journey: Specs, Prices, Ratings, and Reviews
The 2017 Dodge Journey SE is priced from $21,145. A $1,095 destination charge raises the base price to $22,240. Standard equipment includes automatic headlamps, daytime running lights, power-heated side mirrors, keyless entry, air conditioning, a tilt-and-telescopic steering column, power windows, power door locks, and an audio system. SXT.
Used 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale (with Photos)
2017 Make: Dodge Model: Journey Body type: SUV / Crossover Doors: 4 doors Drivetrain: All-Wheel Drive Engine: 283 hp 3.6L V6 Exterior color: Gray (Granite Crystal Metallic Clearcoat) Combined gas mileage: 20 MPG Fuel type: Gasoline Interior color: Black Transmission: 6-Speed Automatic Mileage: 97,618 NHTSA overall safety rating: 4 Stock number:
Used 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale
Test drive Used 2017 Dodge Journey at home from the top dealers in your area. Search from 332 Used Dodge Journey cars for sale, including a 2017 Dodge Journey Crossroad, a 2017 Dodge Journey SE, and a 2017 Dodge Journey SXT ranging in price from $2,900 to $21,995.
2017 Dodge Journey for Sale
Shop, watch video walkarounds and compare prices on 2017 Dodge Journey listings. See Kelley Blue Book pricing to get the best deal. Search from 324 Dodge Journey cars for sale, including a Used ...
Used 2017 Dodge Journey SUV Review
The 2017 Dodge Journey soldiers on as a relic of the past in many ways. This affordable crossover with available three-row seating debuted back in 2009, and it hasn't received a full redesign since.
Moscow City Downtown Spring 2017
t was video about nothing and we didn't want to publish it but since some of the fans are interested in Moscow we put the clip together although it's been al...
Transportation to and from Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport
With bus 817 and bus 948 you can get in 35 minutes to metro station Planernaya (northernmost station metro line 7). With bus 851 and bus 949 it takes 25 minutes to metro station Rechnoy Vokzal (northernmost station metro line 2). The price of a bus ticket is 57 RUB or 80 RUB. From both stations you can take the metro to the centre of Moscow ...
Used 2017 Dodge Journey for Sale Near Me
The 2017 Dodge Journey SE, SXT, Crossroad and Crossroad Plus come with a 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine that produces 173 hp and 166 pound-feet of torque. Optional on those trims and standard on ...
Most Beautiful Metro Stations in Moscow
2. Komsomolskaya Station. Komsomolskaya metro station is famous for its yellow ceiling. An average museum is nothing compared to this stop. Splendour all over the place, black and gold, mosaic - again - and enormous chandeliers that made my lamp at home look like a toy. 3. Novoslobodskaya Station.
Urban Heat Island and Urban Dry Island in Moscow and Their ...
Abstract The long-term dynamics of both urban heat island (UHI) and urban dry island (UDI) intensities over the city of Moscow, Russia, has been analyzed for the period from the end of the nineteenth century until recent years using data of the ground meteorological network. Besides traditional maximum heat/dry island intensity, an additional parameter—station-averaged intensity as a mean ...