20020672 Ver 3_3 Monroe FSFEIS App C-E_20140514

APPENDIX C APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX C
JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCE INFORMATION

 Review for Potential On-Site Mitigation (ESI, February 2010) Page C-1
 On-Site Mitigation Feasibility Assessment (Atkins, November 2011) Page C-16
 NCEEP Mitigation Credits Page C-24
 Carolina Heelsplitter Mitigation Page C-25

This page was intentionally left blank.
1

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Carl Gibilaro, PE
PBS&J

FROM: Paul Petitgout

DATE: February 12, 2010

RE: Review for Potential On-Site Mitigation
Monroe Connector/Bypass
STIP R-3329 and R-2559
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
______________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this memorandum is to document potential on-site mitigation opportunities
within the project study area to possibly aid in meeting the compensatory mitigation requirements
of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass. For purposes of this memorandum, “on-site” is
defined as an area in the vicinity of the preferred alternative, extending from the US 74/I-485
interchange near the town of Matthews in Mecklenburg County, to between the towns of
Wingate and Marshville along US 74 in Union County.

Site Selection Methodology

Potential restoration sites were identified by examining aerial photography in areas where
wetlands and streams were found to be coincident with disturbed land uses. Based on aerial
photography interpretation, areas judged to have restoration/enhancement potential were
recorded and those areas without potential were discounted. Specific methodology and data used
in identifying wetland and stream restoration sites are described separately in this section. Aerial
photography used in the identification of all restoration/enhancement sites was provided by
PBS&J. The aerial photography, in concert with other data sets including soils (SSURGO
database), hydrology, contour data (NCDOT), and county parcel data were used to locate the
potential mitigation areas.

Site selection criteria were developed with consideration for guidance from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 2003) and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP 2004). The following guidelines were generally observed:

C-1
2

Stream Restoration/Enhancement

• Stream projects must have a minimum of 50 feet conservation easement on both sides
of the stream for the entire project length. Easements are measured from the top of
the stream bank on both sides of the stream. The easement may be wider if there is
room for additional planting (up to 200 feet from the top on either side of the stream)
or if there is a wetland component to the project (no easement width limit).
o One side of stream must be free of utilities.
o Streams with a utility on one side must have a 50 foot easement in addition to
any existing utility easement. The width of the utility cannot count towards
the 50 foot requirement.

• The stream segment proposed for restoration must be greater than or equal to 2,000
linear feet in length; however, exceptions may be made under certain circumstances.
There is no maximum length for a stream project. Stream restoration opportunities
that are less than 2,000 linear feet, but involve relocation of the existing stream as a
result of the proposed roadway, were also considered.

• Less than 10 square miles drainage area (typically 1st and 2nd order streams, 3rd order
streams in some cases), and no greater than a 3rd order stream.

• Proposed stream segments can be perennial or intermittent as indicated on USGS 24K
Quadrangle Maps and/or in the NRCS Soil Surveys. No more than 50 percent of the
proposed restoration or enhancement project can be intermittent.

• Proposed stream segments cannot generally occur over more than three property
parcels that are under different ownership.

Wetland Restoration/Enhancement

• Hydric soils must be present (might be relic).

• Original wetland hydrology is altered by ditching, tile drains, filling, or other means
caused by human influences.

• Proposed wetland restoration area lacks appropriate wetland vegetation.

• Minimum of 2 acres (unless associated with a stream project) in size, but no
maximum.

• Site is not comprised entirely of invasive vegetation species (i.e. manageable within
reason).

After identification of potential mitigation opportunities, sites were further evaluated in the field.
Field evaluations at prospective mitigation sites were performed over the course of two days by
staff with extensive experience in mitigation implementation. Evaluations included an
C-2
3
assessment of soils, hydrology, vegetative cover, and landscape/watershed characteristics. Sites
were evaluated with consideration for an existing buffer and proximity to existing jurisdictional
systems. Notes were collected regarding species composition, soil matrix and chroma, and any
site constraints (e.g. active farming, culverts, utilities). Site photos were also collected.

Based on this review, ESI indentified over 25 sites, totaling approximately 2,000 acres that
potentially contain stream mitigation opportunities. Of the 25 sites that had mitigation potential,
21 of them were not recommended because they violated one or more of the guidelines listed
above. Four of the sites located during this review are considered viable mitigation opportunities
and are described below (Table 1), and their general locations depicted on Figure 1. It should be
noted that, in general, the mitigation opportunities extended across multiple parcels, which
makes procuring these areas as potential mitigation sites much more difficult. However, all of
the sites selected for review contain no more than three ownerships.

Table 1. Parcel Data for Selected Mitigation Opportunities.
PIN Owner Mailing Address Acreage Mitigation Site Number
M7081003
07081003
Vance Adam Sherin (and
others) –Heirs
7216 Oak Spring Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079
45.3
45.3 Site 1
07081002
Vance Adam Sherin (and
others) – Heirs
7403 Stinson-Hartis Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079 32.2 Site 1
K7078011 Crosland – Fairhaven LLC
227 W. Trade Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 84.6 Site 1
07078012C Kathleen Bowden
3725 Morningstar Drive
Mathews, NC 28105 17.1 Site 1
07027033 90
Carlton Tyson (and
others), Trustee
PO Box 748
Monroe, NC 28111 60.7 Site 2
07027033A Franklin W. Howey, Jr.
PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111 37.0 Site 2
08303014 Billy F. Acycoth
2211 White Store Road
Monroe, NC 28112 38.3 Site 3
08273001
Thomas Ray & Judy H.
Poplin
3310 Poplin Road
Monroe, NC 28110 182.0 Site 3
02211024
02211024 H
Thomas E. & Sarah H.
Traywick
PO Box 131
Wingate, NC 28174
16.4
38.5 Site 4
02211024 G NCDOT
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001 66.8 Site 4

Following field evaluations, ten parcels were found that contain opportunities for stream
mitigation. These parcels are grouped into 4 sites (Sites 1-4) and are described below. Figures
and photographs for each site are also provided. All of the recommended sites will require
additional analysis and feasibility studies to determine the full mitigation potential.

Site 1: Oak Spring Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement

Site one (Figure 2, Photo Plate 1), the Oak Spring Road Site, is located approximately 2,500 feet
north of the intersection of Oak Spring Road and Stinson-Hartis Road, in western Union County.
The site consists of four tax parcels, two of which are under the same ownership. The potential
mitigation area consists of a severely degraded, 2,000 foot stream reach of North Fork Crooked
Creek. Cattle operations on this property have severely degraded the overall stability and water
quality of this reach of North Fork Crooked Creek. Stream enhancement potential exists due to
the reach’s degraded dimension and profile along with its non-existent riparian buffer. Riffles
C-3
4
and pools appear to be ill-formed and mid-channel bars are also forming, causing this stream
reach to become more unstable.

Stream enhancement techniques that could possibly be utilized for this reach include (but are not
limited to) bank stabilization, the use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream profile,
construction of bankfull benches (where appropriate), the planting of a riparian buffer, and
exclusion of the cattle from the restored riparian buffer area through fencing. No contact has
been initiated with the landowner(s). Additional analysis and feasibility studies will be required
to determine if stream mitigation activities are both practical and cost effective for this site.

The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5, depending on
the range of techniques that are prescribed for a particular site. With this range of multipliers in
mind, a stream reach of approximately 2,000 linear feet would generate approximately 800 to
2,000 stream mitigation units (SMU). The USACE, in conjunction with NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine the
mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.

Site 2: Rocky River Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement

Site two (Figure 3, Photo Plate 2) is located approximately 3,000 feet north of the intersection of
Rocky River Road and Secrest Shortcut Road. The site consists of two tax parcels that total
approximately 97.8 acres. The current land use would be characterized as cultivated agricultural
land. The site contains approximately 1,800 linear feet of perennial stream and 1,800 linear feet
of intermittent stream that would be available for mitigation. Both reaches can be generally
described as having relatively steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The
stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained buffer between the
stream and the cultivation activities.

Mitigation potential within Site 2 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 1,800 linear feet of perennial stream and 1,800 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for the perennial and intermittent reaches of
Site 2 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a bankfull benches (when necessary), the
use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream dimension and profile, and the planting a
riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability, increase channel shading, and provide
travel corridors for wildlife.

The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 3,600 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,440 to 3,600 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.

Site 3: Poplin Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement

Site three (Figure 4, Photo Plate 3) is located approximately 2,500 feet north of the intersection
of Poplin Road and Secrest Shortcut Road. The site consists of two tax parcels that total
C-4
5
approximately 220.3 acres. The current land use would be characterized as cultivated
agricultural land. The site contains approximately 4,225 linear feet of perennial stream that
would be available for mitigation. This reach can be generally described as having relatively
steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The stream banks are eroded in
some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained riparian area between the stream and the
cultivated agricultural land.

Mitigation potential within Site 3 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 4,225 linear feet of perennial stream. Stream enhancement approaches that are
appropriate for this perennial reach on Site 3 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a
bankfull benches (when necessary), the use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream
dimension and profile, and the planting a riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability,
increase channel shading, and provide travel corridors for wildlife.

The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 4,225 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,690 to 4,225 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.

Site 4: Poplin Road Site
Mitigation Opportunity: Stream Enhancement

Site four (Figure 5, Photo Plate 4) is located approximately 500 feet east of the intersection of
Phifer Road and Forest Hills School Road. The site consists of three tax parcels that total
approximately 121.7 acres. The current land use would be characterized as pasture land. The
site contains approximately 425 linear feet of perennial stream and 2,100 linear feet of
intermittent stream that would be available for mitigation. Both reaches can be generally
described as having relatively steep banks, low sinuosity and a non-existent riparian buffer. The
stream banks are eroded in some areas as a result of the lack of a maintained buffer between the
stream and the adjacent pasture land.

Mitigation potential within Site 4 consists of stream enhancement opportunities along
approximately 425 linear feet of perennial stream and 2,100 linear feet of intermittent stream.
Stream enhancement approaches that are appropriate for the perennial and intermittent reaches of
Site 4 include (but are not limited to) the excavation of a bankfull benches (when necessary), the
use of in-stream structures to redefine the stream dimension and profile, cattle exclusion fencing,
and the planting a riparian buffer that will enhance stream bank stability, increase channel
shading, and provide travel corridors for wildlife.

The mitigation activity multiplier for stream enhancement ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 depending on
the techniques that are applied to the site. Stream enhancement of approximately 2,525 linear
feet of intermittent and perennial stream could result in 1,010 to 2,525 SMU. The USACE, in
conjunction with NCDWQ and all other relevant regulatory agencies, will ultimately determine
the mitigation credit ratio for each mitigation project.

C-5
6

Wetland Mitigation Opportunities

During the review for potential wetland and stream mitigation sites, no wetlands sites were
revealed that met the site selection criteria described above. There may be the potential for
wetland mitigation created through the stream mitigation opportunities, but the amount would be
small (potentially less than 0.25 acre).

Literature Cited

NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2004. Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 12 pp.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE Wilmington
District, Regulatory Branch. 26 pp + appendices.

Acknowledgement

ESI would like to acknowledge PBS&J for providing the template for this technical
memorandum.
C-6
kj
kj
kj
kj
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
US-74
NC-75
NC-84
NC-
2
0
0
U
S
-
6
0
1
N
C
-
2
0
5
N
C
-
2
0
7
NC-218
NC
-
5
2
2
N
C
-
1
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
US
-
7
4
US-74
NC-200
U
S
-
6
0
1
NC-
2
1
8
UNIONUNION
STANLYSTANLY
MECKLENBURGMECKLENBURG
CABARRUSCABARRUS
Potential On-Site Mitigation Overview
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 31.5
Miles
kj Sites*
Corridor Boundary*
Major Roads
County Boundaries
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
1
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informationalpurposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal orengineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory reviewand is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior toregulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.
*Location and Extent is Approximate.
C-7
North Fork Crooked Creek
S008c
S0
2
8
a
S012
b
S03
2
S0
1
0
S0
1
1
S012a
S
0
1
3
d
S0
2
9
c
S013
a
S029bS029a
S
0
1
3
b
S008cW005
P03
P04
W020
K7078011
07081002
M7081003
K7081003
07078012C
PX04
O
A
K

S
P
R
I
N
G

R
D
ST
I
N
S
O
N

H
A
R
D
I
S

R
D
STEVENS MIL
L

R
D
STR
A
N
D

D
R
FAIR SKY D
R
BL
U
E

I
R
I
S

D
R
OS
C
A
R

R
O
B
I
N
S
O
N

D
R
P
E
S
C
A

L
N
WHITE OAK LN
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 600300
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
2
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informationalpurposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal orengineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory reviewand is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior toregulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.*Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 1
C-8
SitePhotographs
UnionCounty,NorthCarolina
PotentialOn-SiteMitigation-Site1
MonroeConnector-Bypass
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
PhotoPlate:
ET09028.00
Jan2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate1.cdr
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES,INC.
C 1999ESI
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
9401-CSouthernPineBoulevard
Charlotte,NorthCarolina28273
[phone]
[phone]Fax
Photo1:ViewofNorthForkCrookedCreekandadjacentpasturelandcomprisingSite1.
Photo2:ViewoferodingbanksandextensivesedimentdepositionwithinSite1.
C-9
South Fork Crooked Creek
UT to South Fork Crooked Creek
S047
S0
5
5
S0
5
1
a
S
0
5
2
b
S0
5
4
S05
6
c
S
0
5
6
b
S
0
5
7
b
S0
5
2
c
S
0
5
8
c
S0
5
1
c
S050a
S
0
5
8
d
S0
5
1
b
S04
7
S047
P2
4
P1
8
W042
P23
W054
W036
P26
P22
W053
P19
W040c
P20
P25
W052P21
W049P17
W040d
W050
W040a
W038
W039
W037
W041
W040b
07027033 90
07027033A
R
O
C
K
Y

R
I
V
E
R

R
D
SE
C
R
E
S
T

S
H
O
R
T

C
U
T

R
D
HAYWOOD RD
C
R
E
E
K
S
I
D
E

D
R
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 600300
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
3
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informationalpurposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal orengineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory reviewand is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior toregulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.*Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 2
C-10
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 1
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate1.cdr
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
Source: Topozone.com,
Carvers Gap and Spruce Pine Quadrangles, 1994.
Project Location
Feet
200001000
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
Disclaimer: Information represented on this map was derived
from secondary data sources and is to be used for general
planning purposes only. No warranties or representations of
accuracy are expressed or implied.
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
[phone]
[phone] Fax
N
Photo 1: View of North Fork Crooked Creek and adjacent pastureland comprising Site 1.
Photo 2: View of eroding banks and extensive sediment deposition within Site 1.
C-11
UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek
UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek
S0
6
4
e
S068
a
S070b
S071
S
0
6
6
b
S068d
S0
6
4
c
S064d
S06
9
S
0
6
4
h
S068cS068b
S
0
6
4
g
S0
6
7
b
S
0
7
4
b
S064i
S070a
S
0
6
4
f
S
0
6
4
e
P35
P38
W074
P37
P36
P39
W070a
W071
P29
W068b
W072
W069b
W073bw073a
08273001
08273001
08303014
08303014C
P
O
P
L
I
N

R
D
SECR
E
S
T

S
H
O
R
T

C
U
T

R
D
WIL
L
I
S

L
O
N
G

R
D
CLEAR CR
E
E
K

D
R
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 600300
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
4
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informationalpurposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal orengineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory reviewand is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior toregulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.*Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 3
C-12
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 3
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate3.cdr
3
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
Source: Topozone.com,
Carvers Gap and Spruce Pine Quadrangles, 1994.
Project Location
Feet
200001000
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
Disclaimer: Information represented on this map was derived
from secondary data sources and is to be used for general
planning purposes only. No warranties or representations of
accuracy are expressed or implied.
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
[phone]
[phone] Fax
N
Photo 5: View of channelized UT to East Fork Stewarts Creek and adjacent agricultural field
within Site 3.
Photo 6: View of southwestern tributary exhibiting severe bank erosion and non-existent
riparian buffer within Site 3.
C-13
UT to Negro Head Creek
S1
6
1
c
S1
6
1
b
S164d
S
1
6
4
c
S
1
6
1
a
S176b
S172a
S162
S
1
6
4
a
S17
8
W176
W178
W197
W196
W192
W190
W193
W178
W177
W195
W205
W198
W191
W194
02211024H
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
02211024G
WX214
WX177
WX194
SX162z
US 74 HWY
PHIFER RD
F
O
R
E
S
T

H
I
L
L
S

S
C
H
O
O
L

R
D
PHIFER CIR
Potential On-Site Mitigation -
Monroe Connector / Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina
File: P:\GeoGra\Projects\Offices\ET\2009\028\GIS\Potential_Mit.mxd Printed: 01/21/2010 9:36 am
E
0 600300
Feet
Site Boundaries*
Corridor Boundary*
2008 Pond*
2008 Wetland*
2009 Pond*
2009 Wetland*
Site Parcels
2008 Intermittent Stream*
2008 Perennial Stream*
2009 Intermittent Stream*
2009 Perennial Stream*
Aerial Interpreted Stream*
ET09028.00
Jan. 2010
JDS/JRN
Figure:
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
5
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informationalpurposes only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal orengineering purposes. This information presented is not for regulatory reviewand is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor prior toregulatory review.
Sources: ESI; Union County GIS; PBS&J Engineers.*Location and Extent is Approximate.
Site 4
C-14
Site Photographs
Potential On-Site Mitigation - Site 4
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Union County, North Carolina
Project:
Date:
Drwn/Chkd:
Photo Plate:
ET09028.00
Jan 2010
JMB/SPP
ET09028.00\photoplate4.cdr
4
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
C 1999 ESI
Source: Topozone.com,
Carvers Gap and Spruce Pine Quadrangles, 1994.
Project Location
Feet
200001000
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
Disclaimer: Information represented on this map was derived
from secondary data sources and is to be used for general
planning purposes only. No warranties or representations of
accuracy are expressed or implied.
9401-C Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
[phone]
[phone] Fax
N
Photo 7: View of unstable channel and adjacent pastureland within Site 4.
Photo 8: View of bank erosion and poor riparian buffer within Site 4.
C-15

To: Christy Shumate, North Carolina Turnpike Authority

From: Michael Gloden, Atkins
Date: November 16, 2011
Re: On-Site Mitigation Feasibility Assessment – Monroe Connector/Bypass (STIP No. R-3329/R-2559)
Condition ‘p’ of the Section 404 permit (SAW-2009-00876) issued to the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority (NCTA) for construction of the Monroe Connector-Bypass states:
p. Prior to commencing any work on the project, as defined by special condition (e), above, the
permittee shall provide a final mitigation plan, as approved by the District Engineer, for any on-
site mitigation proposed by the permittee, or, in the event on-site mitigation opportunities are
found to be not available to the permittee, he shall provide documentation of this to the District
Engineer prior to commencing any work on the project.
Four on-site mitigation opportunities for the Monroe Connector/Bypass Project were previously
identified by Environmental Services Incorporated (ESI) and summarized in the memo titled “Review for
Potential On-Site Mitigation” dated February 12, 2010. Atkins North America Inc. (Atkins) subsequently
reviewed the four sites and concurs with the ESI findings that the sites offer stream mitigation
opportunities within and nearby to the Alternative D Study corridor. This memo documents landowner
interest in voluntary mitigation opportunities and an evaluation of mitigation feasibility.
Landowner Contact
Atkins contacted landowners of each site (Sites 1-4, Figure 1) in order to determine their interest in
participating in a mitigation project on their land. Contact information was derived from recently
obtained parcel data available from Union County. Landowners of each site were sent a letter (attached)
explaining the opportunity and asked to return their response regarding participation in an enclosed
postage paid envelope. Of the eight landowners contacted four responded favorably, one was not
interested, and three did not respond. Landowner responses are attached to this memo and
summarized in the following table.
Mitigation
Site PIN Owner Mailing Address Response
Site 1
M7081003,
K7081003 Vance Adam Sherin et al. - Heirs 7216 Oak Spring Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079 Not Interested
07081002 Vance Adam Sherin et al. - Heirs 7403 Stinson Hartis Road
Indian Trail, NC 28079 Not Interested
K7078011 MI Homes of Charlotte LLC 9335 Harris Corners Pky (Suite
100) Charlotte, NC 28269 Interested
0708012C Kathleen Bowden 3725 Morning Star Drive
Matthews, NC 28105 No Response
Site 2
07027033A Franklin W. Howey, Jr. PO Box 429
Monroe, NC 28111 No Response
07027033 90 Carlton Tyson et al. – Trustee PB Box 748
Monroe, NC 28111 Interested
C-16

Mitigation
Site PIN Owner Mailing Address Response
Site 3
08303014 Billy F Aycoth, Sr. – Trustee 4548 Seacrest Shortcut Road
Monroe, NC 28110 No Response
08273001 Thomas Ray and Judy H. Poplin 3310 Poplin Road
Monroe, NC 28110 Interested*
Site 4
02211024H Thomas E. and Sarah H.
Traywick
PO Box 131
Wingate, NC 28174 Interested
02211024G NCDOT 206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001 N/A
*Initial response has changed since the landowner entered into an option to purchase agreement with a private mitigation
banker.

Mitigation Feasibility
Atkins determined mitigation feasibility by considering landowner interest and performing a field review
and screening procedure for each site. The field review was conducted to update and verify information
provided by ESI and consisted of a qualitative assessment of mitigation potential and a review for site
constraints. The screening procedure was performed for viable sites and included a review of protected
species and significant natural areas documented by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP), a review
of cultural and archeological resources within or adjacent to the sites as documented in the Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS and FEIS), and a review of environmental records from an
Environmental Data Resources (EDR) report. The mitigation feasibility of each site is discussed in detail
below.
Site 1: Not Feasible for Mitigation
Site 1 is located along Oak Spring Road between Stevens Mill Road and Stinson Hartis Road in western
Union County (Figure 2). The Site consists of five tax parcels, of which only one is owned by a landowner
who responded favorably to participating in a mitigation project. The tax parcels are color-coded on
Figure 2 to indicate each landowner’s response. The stream within Site 1 previously identified for
enhancement potential (S008c) is approximately 2000 linear feet in length and located on or adjacent to
the property boundary that divides the five tax parcels. Stream mitigation guidelines (USACE 2003)
require a 50-foot riparian buffer along both stream banks which necessitates participation from all five
landowners of Site 1. The one interested landowner (PIN K7078011) only includes a portion of the total
stream length within the site and does not have ownership of both sides of the stream. Due to lack of
landowner interest necessary to provide the required buffer on each side of the stream, Site 1 is
deemed not feasible.
Site 2: Not Feasible for Mitigation
Site 2 is located north of the intersection of Rocky River Road and Secrest Shortcut Road (Figure 3). The
site consists of two tax parcels, of which only one is owned by a landowner who responded favorably to
participating in a mitigation project. The tax parcels are color-coded on Figure 3 to indicate each
landowner’s response. Site 2 is crossed by the Monroe Connector-Bypass project alignment as indicated
by the permitted construction limits (plus 40-feet) shown on Figure 3. Mitigation opportunities
previously identified within the Site include stream enhancement along S047 (located along the
C-17

property boundary between the two tax parcels), S056c (located within the parcel that did not respond),
and S055 (located within the tax parcel with mitigation interest by the owner). Total stream length is
approximately 2,940 linear feet (excluding the portion within the construction limits). The Site also
includes riparian wetland WX822. Due to lack of landowner interest on parcel 0727033A, stream S047 is
no longer feasible for mitigation. Stream S056c is also no longer feasible for mitigation since
participation by both landowners is necessary to allow for the required 50-foot riparian buffer along
both stream banks. A field review of the site for mitigation opportunities along the remaining resources
(stream S055 and wetland WX822) determined that an existing sewer easement is located adjacent to
the eastern stream bank. The sewer easement follows the entire length of stream S055 and
encompasses a large portion of wetland WX822. Sewer easements require routine maintenance and
therefore preclude the establishment of the required 50-ft riparian buffer. Due to lack of landowner
interest, site constraints from an existing sewer easement, and the crossing of the streams by the
Monroe Connector-Bypass, Site 2 is deemed not feasible.
Site 3: Not Available for Mitigation
Site 3 is located along Poplin Road, north of the intersection with Secrest Shortcut Road. The mitigation
opportunity was previously identified to include stream enhancement along approximately 4,225 linear
feet of stream. Site 3 is no longer available for on-site mitigation by NCTA because the landowners
have signed an option to purchase agreement with a private mitigation banker.
Site 4: Potentially Feasible for Mitigation
Site 4 is located along Forest Hill School Road, southeast of the intersection with Phifer Road, and is
adjacent to the Monroe Connector-Bypass project alignment (Figure 4). The site consists of two tax
parcels, one of which is owned by a landowner who responded favorably to participating in a mitigation
project, and the second tax parcel is owned by NCDOT. The site includes approximately 1,000 linear feet
of an intermittent stream (S161b) located between the Monroe Connector-Bypass mainline and an exit
ramp to Forest Hill School Road. Final design drawings for the Monroe Connector-Bypass show that
S161b will be culverted at each end and stormwater drainage from the new road will be diverted into
the stream at two locations. Mitigation opportunities on the site include stream enhancement (level
2) on S161b with potential for implementing additional best management practices (BMP) to treat
stormwater. Stream enhancement activities that may be appropriate for the site include sloping stream
banks for stabilization (when necessary), planting an appropriate riparian buffer, livestock exclusion, and
stormwater treatment. This project would require the purchase of approximately 2.3 acres of property
to provide a 50-foot buffer on each side of the stream. In addition, the purchase of an additional 2.7
acres of property located between S161b and the Monroe Connector- Bypass is recommended.
Purchase of this property would preclude the potential of a stream crossing to provide access and would
provide a buffer between the project and road. Stream enhancement level 2 of approximately 1,000
feet of stream channel with a mitigation multiplier of 2.5 will result in 400 stream mitigation units
from Site 4. (Multiplier of 2.5 is used because S161b is an intermittent stream).

C-18

The results of the environmental screening for Site 4 include the following:
• Surveys for historic archeological resources, architectural resources, and other cultural
resources were completed for the DEIS (with updates in the FEIS) within the design alternative
that includes Site 4. The survey did not find any cultural resources located within or adjacent to
the site that would prevent the implementation of a stream mitigation project.
• Surveys for protected species were also performed for the DEIS (with updates in the FEIS) within
the design alternative that includes Site 4 and no occurrences of any protected species were
identified.
• A recent review of the NHP database indicates that no managed areas, significant natural
heritage areas, or element occurrences are located within or adjacent to the site.
• A transaction screen map and report was obtained from EDR to identify potential
environmental constraints within the Site. The report includes environmental risk records and
locations of known environmental records such as hazardous waste sites, underground storage
tanks, water wells, oil and gas pipelines, and transmission lines. Site 4 was not listed on any
available databases searched by EDR and no known environmental records were found.
• Field investigations identified no historic architectural or archaeological resources, utility
easements, or structures that would prevent the implementation of a stream mitigation project.
Recommendation:
As described above, Sites 1 and 3 are not feasible due to the lack of landowner interest or inability to
acquire the site. Site 2 is not feasible due to lack of landowner interest and site constraints. Although
Site 4 does provide potential for stream mitigation, Atkins does not recommend this site as mitigation
for the following reasons:
1. relatively small size of the project (1000 linear feet)
2. S161b will be culverted at both ends of the project
3. potential impacts associated with stormwater discharges
Atkins believes that this analysis of the four on-site mitigation opportunities provides sufficient
documentation that these sites are not feasible as compensatory mitigation. Upon review and approval
of this document by the NCTA Atkins will prepare a letter to the USACE-Wilmington District, District
Engineer for NCTA signature transmitting these findings.

C-19
kj
kj
kj
kj
2.5 0 2.51.25
Miles
W Figure 1
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
MITIGATION SITELOCATIONS STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County Map Printed November 2011.
Data Sources:Street Map (ESRI)Right-of-Way (NCTA)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
kj
Alternative D Study Corridor
Monroe Connector/Bypass Alignment
Mitigation Site
R-2559 Alignment
C-20
O
a
k

S
p
r
i
n
g
Sti
n
s
o
n

H
a
r
t
i
s
Stevens Mill
K7078011
07081002
M7081003
K7081003
07078012C
S00
8
c
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Perennial Stream
50 Foot Buffer
Mitigation Interest
Yes
No
No Response
500 0 500250
Feet
W Figure 2
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 1
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
Union County Map Printed November 2011.
C-21
07027033 90
07027033A
WX822
Ro
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Sec
r
e
s
t

S
h
o
r
t

C
u
t
Haywood
S04
7
S0
5
5
S056c
S047
S
0
5
5
500 0 500250
Feet
W Figure 3
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 2
Map Printed November 2011.
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559Union County
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Sewer
Streams
Perennial
Intermittent
50 FT Buffer
Wetland
Mitigation Interest
Yes
No Response
C-22
Phifer
F
o
r
e
s
t

H
i
l
l

S
c
h
o
o
l
02211024H
02211024G
S1
6
1
b
Slope Stakes
Slope Stakes + 40 feet
Intermittent Stream
50 FT Buffer
Mitigation Interest
Yes
NCDOT
500 0 500250
Feet
W Figure 4
ON-SITE MITIGATION: SITE 4
Map Printed November 2011.
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559Union County
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559Union CountySTIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559
C-23
The NCEEP sites that provided the mitigation credits for the Monroe Connector Bypass under USACE 404 
permit #2009‐00876, and NCDWR 401 permit #2002‐0672, are listed in the table below.  Credits for the 
46,166 mitigation units for warm water streams, and 16.2 mitigation units for wetlands, needed within 
the Yadkin CU 03040105, are an amalgamation of restoration, enhancement, creation, and preservation 
from these sites.  Site locations and additional information can be found at: 
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/interactive‐mapping 

Si
t
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
d

Mitigation Site Utilized IMS ID# Project Phase
9/18/2009 Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mit. Site 94147 Construction 7/28/2004 Beaver Dam-Drowning Creek II (Rankin Tract) 92164 Long Term Mgmt 4/11/2006 Helms 172 Monitoring Year 4 7/22/2003 Back Creek 17 Long Term Mgmt 6/28/2006 Big Cedar Creek 92532 Monitoring Year 5 9/27/2004 Lone Mountain 2 -Phase Two 92171 Long Term Mgmt 6/8/2006 Suther 370 Monitoring Year 3 6/30/2010 UT to Town Creek 94648 Construction 9/24/2009 Scaly Bark Creek Mitigation Site 94148 Monitoring Year 3 4/11/2005 Dutch Buffalo Creek Walker 92116 Long Term Mgmt 4/15/2005 Dutch Buffalo Creek Wickliff 92117 Long Term Mgmt 7/7/2005 Little River Cochran 92113 Long Term Mgmt 5/11/2005 Barnes Creek Grissom 92106 Long Term Mgmt 12/20/2004 Bishop Tract-Canal Branch 92162 Long Term Mgmt 1/31/2006 Uwharrie River Bingham 92108 Long Term Mgmt 10/9/2007 Uwharrie River Cochran 92109 Long Term Mgmt 2/1/2004 Lambert Tract-Uwharrie River Bluff 92160 Long Term Mgmt 1/23/2006 Drowning Creek IP Forest Investments 92121 Long Term Mgmt 7/7/2006 601 North Property 92546 Long Term Mgmt 6/30/2010 Buffalo Flats Restoration Site 94647 Monitoring Year 2 7/21/2006 Stricker Branch 92556 Close Out 7/18/2006 601 West Property 92545 Long Term Mgmt http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/interactive-mapping
C-24
C-25
C-26
C-27
C-28
C-29
C-30
C-31
C-32

APPENDIX D APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX D
ERRATA

This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX D

MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS D-1
APPENDIX D – DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ERRATA
Appendix D includes corrections and clarifications to the November 2013 Draft Supplemental
Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
SECTION 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED
In Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS (Evaluation of Need for Proposed Action),
the second full paragraph on page 1-2 states that “…NCDOT designated the US 74 corridor as a
Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) and it is also designated as part of the North Carolina
Intrastate System. Consistent with local planning documents, these state designations call for
this corridor to serve high-speed regional travel.” As footnoted in Section 1.1.1 of this Final
Supplemental Final EIS, the North Carolina Intrastate System (defined in NC General Statutes
136-179) was repealed in July 2013 by NC Session Law 2013-183 as part of the Strategic
Prioritization Funding Plan for Transportation Investments. This footnote should also have
been included in Section 1.1.1, Section 1.1.2, and Section 1.2.3 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS.
In Section 1.1.2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the stated purpose of the project is to
“improve mobility and capacity within the project study area by providing a facility for the US 74
corridor from near I-485 in Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate and
Marshville in Union County that allows for high-speed regional travel consistent with the
designations of the North Carolina SHC program and the North Carolina Intrastate System,
while maintaining access to properties along existing US 74.” A note should have been included
here to acknowledge that the North Carolina Intrastate System was repealed. This has been
corrected with the addition of a reference to footnote #2 in Section 1.1.2 of this Final
Supplemental Final EIS.
The North Carolina Intrastate System is also referenced in Section 1.2.3 of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, Transportation and Land Use Plans, which states that the proposed
action is included in local plans “in a manner that is consistent with the SHC and North
Carolina Intrastate System visions for the corridor.” This sentence should have been revised to
remove the reference to the North Carolina Intrastate System since this designation was
repealed prior to publication of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS.
The change in legislation does not change the substantive statements of the project purpose and
need, nor does it affect the alternatives screening process. Although the Intrastate System
legislation was repealed, high-speed travel is still designated for the corridor in the NC SHC
program. Therefore, the removal of the Intrastate System designation does not affect the
purpose or the need for the project as presented in Section 1 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS. Because the purpose and need for the project does not change, the alternatives screening
process described in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS therefore remains valid.
SECTION 1.1.1 – EVALUATION OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The language in the second paragraph of Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS
should have been updated to reflect the fact that although Union County has continued to be one
of the fastest growing counties in the state since 2010, it is not the fastest. In addition, this
paragraph noted that Union County is the only county adjacent to Mecklenburg County that

APPENDIX D

MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS D-2
does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County. This
statement fails to acknowledge that Lincoln County, NC and Lancaster County, SC share a small
portion of their borders with Mecklenburg County but do not have high-speed interstate-type
facilities connecting them with Mecklenburg County.
The corrected paragraph is as follows:
US 74 is the major east-west route connecting the Charlotte region, a major population
center and freight distribution point, to the North Carolina Coast and the port at
Wilmington (North Carolina’s largest port). In addition, US 74 is the primary
transportation connection between Union County, the fastest growing county in North
Carolina between 2000 and 2010, and Mecklenburg County/City of Charlotte, the
economic hub of the region. Although Union County is one of the fastest growing
countyies in the State, it is the only county adjacent to having a major border with
Mecklenburg County that does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting
it to Mecklenburg County.
It should also be noted that the statement about Union County not having a high-speed
interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County was included for the purpose of
showing that growth in Union County is all the more notable because it occurred without such a
facility. The statement was not an attempt to add equity among counties as another need for the
project.
SECTION 1.2.4 – ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS
Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS present peak hour travel speeds
along US 74 based on a review on INRIX data. Some of the travel speeds presented in the tables
were incorrect due to an error in the spreadsheet calculation used to determine weighted average
speeds. The travel speeds shown on Exhibits 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS are correct. Corrected Tables 1-2 and 1-3 are provided below.

APPENDIX D

MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS D-3

CORRECTED TABLE 1-2: Peak Hour Speeds Along US 74 Eastbound (2011, 2012, August
2013)
Approx. 
Length 
(miles) 
Eastbound US 74 Segments 
(from west to east) 
Speed 
Limit 
(mph)
Weighted 
Avg Speed 
Limit to 
Match INRIX 
Segments 
(mph) 
2011  
Peak Hour  
Avg Speed 
(mph) 
2012  
Peak Hour  
Avg Speed 
(mph) 
August 2013 
Peak Hour 
Avg Speed 
(mph) 
Lunch PM Lunch PM Lunch PM 
8.2 I‐485 to  
Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 4645 4042 4546 4042 4546 40 
5.5 
Fowler Secrest Road to  
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) 
(easternmost intersection of US 74 and 
US 601 east of Monroe) 
45 45 35 38 3736 3938 3837 3834 
3.0 US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to  
east of Presson Road 55 
46 4748 4647 48 47 49 48 
0.2 East of Presson Road to  
Wingate City Limit 45 
1.4 Wingate City Limit to  
Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35 
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to  
Olde Country Lane 45 
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west 
of Marshville Town Limit 55 
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town 
Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45 
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35 
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed (mph) 49 44 4243 4445 43 4546 4342 
Comparison ‐  Average Travel Speeds to Speed Limits 
I‐485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) ‐9 to ‐15 mph    below speed limit 
Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland Hwy)  ‐67 to ‐1011 mph    below speed limit 
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to within Marshville +3 to 0+1 mph       about/slightly above speed limit 
OVERALL CORRIDOR ‐43 to ‐7 mph      below speed limit 
Source:  INRIX, Inc.  

APPENDIX D

MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS D-4

The corrected travel speeds shown in the tables above do not change any of the findings of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Eastbound US 74 weighted average travel speeds range from 42-
46 mph (3-7 mph below weighted average speed limit), and westbound US 74 weighted average
travel speeds range from 41-44 mph (5-8 mph below weighted average speed limit). All speeds
along the corridor are still below the desired 50 miles per hour (mph).
In addition, the travel speed information presented in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS has been updated in Section 2.1 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS to include
analysis of INRIX data from all of 2013, which was not available at the time of publication of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Review of the 2013 INRIX data confirms that the average peak
hour travel speeds along US 74 are below 50 mph for all segments in both directions.

CORRECTED TABLE 1-3: Peak Hour Speeds Along US 74 Westbound (2011, 2012, August
2013)
Approx. 
Length 
(miles) 
Eastbound US 74 Segments 
(from east to west) 
Speed 
Limit 
(mph)
Weighted 
Avg Speed 
Limit to 
Match INRIX 
Segments 
(mph) 
2011  
Peak Hour  
Avg Speed 
(mph) 
2012  
Peak Hour  
Avg Speed 
(mph) 
August 2013 
Peak Hour 
Avg Speed 
(mph) 
AM PM AM PM AM PM 
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35 
46 3746 3846 3847 3947 4048 4147 
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town 
Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45 
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west 
of Marshville Town Limit 55 
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to  
Olde Country Lane 45 
1.4 Wingate City Limit to  
Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35 
0.2 East of Presson Road to  
Wingate City Limit 45 
3.0 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to  
east of Presson Road 55 
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to  
US 601 (Pageland Highway) 45 45 38 3735 3938 3938 3940 3633 
8.2 I‐485 to  
Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 3841 4340 4143 4440 4043 4239 
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed (mph) 49 3742 3941 3944 4142 4044 4041 
Comparison ‐  Average Travel Speeds to Speed Limits 
Within Marshville to US 601 (Pageland Hwy)  ‐5+2 to ‐90 mph        belowequal to/slightly above speed limit 
US 601 (Pageland Hwy) to Fowler Secrest Road ‐65 to ‐912 mph        below speed limit 
Fowler Secrest Road to I‐485 ‐112 to ‐176 mph    below speed limit 
OVERALL CORRIDOR ‐85 to ‐128 mph      below speed limit 
Source:  INRIX, Inc.  

APPENDIX D

MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS D-5

SECTION 3 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
SECTION 3.3.3 – AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE
US
Table 3-2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS includes a column titled “Stream Impacts
Requiring Mitigation.” As described in Note 2 at the bottom of the table, mitigation
requirements were based on the assumption that all perennial stream impacts require
mitigation as well as any impacts to intermittent streams with NCDWQ stream ratings greater
than 26. This table was originally included in the Final EIS for estimation purposes since final
decisions with respect to mitigation had not been made by the regulatory agencies at that time.
Following publication of the Final EIS, an acceptance letter was received from the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) dated June 24, 2010 (see Appendix C of this Final Supplemental
Final EIS). The letter states that the EEP will provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
stream impacts up to 23,083 linear feet. Therefore, the stream impacts requiring mitigation
presented in Table 3-2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS should have been equivalent to the
total stream impacts. This change would similarly affect all Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA).
The following is a corrected Table 3-2:
TABLE 3-2: Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Since the Draft EIS
Impacts1 
Perennial 
Streams 
(linear ft) 
Intermittent 
Streams 
(linear ft) 
Total Streams 
(linear ft) 
Wetlands 
(acres) 
Ponds 
(acres) 
Stream 
Impacts 
Requiring 
Mitigation2 
Impacts Reported in Draft EIS 
for DSA D 9,794 12,269 22,063 8.1 2.6 22,06312,550 
Impacts for Preferred 
Alternative (no service roads)  9,205 12,389 21,594 8.0 3.1 21,59411,975 
Add Service Road Impacts +1,148 +341 +1,489 +0.1 +0.0 +1,489+1,260 
TOTAL IMPACTS FOR 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 10,353 12,729 23,083 8.1 3.1 23,08313,235 
Change from Draft EIS to 
Preferred +559 +460 +1,020 0 +0.5 +1,020+685 
Source:  Natural Resources State Technical Report for the Monroe Connector/Bypass (ESI, December 2008) with updated y‐line and 
service road information provided October 2009. 
Notes:  1Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 40‐foot buffer.  2Based on assumption that all perennial stream impacts 
require mitigation as well as any impacts to intermittent streams with NCDWQ stream ratings greater than 26. 

SECTION 3.3.4 – COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The estimated environmental mitigation costs ($11.3 to $11.9 million) presented in Table 3-3 of
the Draft Supplemental Final EIS were incorrect. The mitigation costs were calculated based on
a 2:1 ratio for the intermittent streams, but did not include costs for mitigation of impacts to
perennial streams. The mitigation costs should also have included mitigation for perennial
streams at a 2:1 ratio. Corrected mitigation costs ($16.9 million) are provided in Table 2-1 of the
Final Supplemental Final EIS and are based on the actual environmental mitigation costs paid
for the project.
It should be noted that the cost estimates for the Preferred Alternative presented in Section 3.3.4
of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS ($898.0 million) were based on simply inflating the cost

APPENDIX D

MAY 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS D-6
estimates presented in Section 2.3.4 of the Final EIS ($802.0 million) to reflect a delay in the
project opening date from December 2014 to October 2018. Following publication of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, NCDOT made adjustments to the cost estimates to reflect the design-
build price proposal as well as actual costs paid to date for the project to develop an updated
estimate of project costs. As stated in Section 2.4 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS, the
updated total project cost is $838.6 million with an 70 percent confidence level (70 percent
probability the cost will be less than or equal to this cost).
SECTION 3.4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FROM THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The fourth bullet in the bulleted list of conclusions summarized from the updated quantitative
ICE analysis presented on page 3-18 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS contains an incorrect
number. The following is the corrected bullet:
 The indirect land use effects are modest, totaling about 2,300 2,100 acres of additional
development, an increase of less than 2 percent over the No-Build Scenario and an
increase in development of about 1 percent of the total land area within the study area.
The indirect land use effects were reported correctly on page 71 (Section 5.3) of the Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (ICE Update) (Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc., November 2013). However, in the conclusions on page 90 (Section 5.10) and in the
Executive Summary on page ix (Section E.7), the incorrect acreage (2,300) was reported. The
conclusions from the ICE Update were repeated in part in Section 3.4 of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS, and therefore the incorrect acreage was inadvertently reported in the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS. The error in the ICE Update was typographic in nature and resulted
from a failure to update numbers in all sections of the text during the final rounds of updating
the report. All data reported in the tables in the ICE Update is accurate and the typographic
error does not affect the conclusions regarding impacts.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E
TECHNICAL MEMORANDA

E-1. INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds Memo (April 2014)
E-2. Traffic Forecast Memo (May 2014)
E-3. Review of New CRTPO Socioeconomic Projections
(May 2014)
E-4. Review of the report titled, Review of Traffic Forecasting:
Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft Supplemental Final EIS,
November 2013, prepared by The Hartgen Group for the
Southern Environmental Law Center
E-5. Appold Letter (May 29, 1013)
E-6. MUMPO letter to Kym Hunter (April 16, 2013)
E-7. FHWA Conformity Determination for CRTPO 2040 MTP
(May 2, 2014)
E-8. FHWA Memos

This page was intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-1
INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds Memo (April 2014)

This page was intentionally left blank.
E1-1
segment within the Marshville town limit. Table 2 shows that the entire westbound corridor operates significantly below the posted speed. Figures 1-6 display the average operating speeds for US 74 eastbound and westbound for AM, lunch and PM peak hours in 2013. Tables 3-5 show INRIX average speed data along the US 74 eastbound and westbound corridor per segment and 24-hour period for 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Conclusions The INRIX data demonstrate that localized spot improvements along the US 74 corridor over the last few years have not improved the overall corridor travel speeds. In fact, the average corridor travel speeds have remained relatively constant from 2011 to 2012 to 2013, within +/- 1 to 2 mph. The US 74 facility still experiences congestion during peak periods of the day, and the corridor does not currently operate as a high-speed facility (average speed of 50 mph or greater).
Based on the review of INRIX data, at no time during the day are US 74 average corridor speeds equal to or exceeding 50 mph. US 74 corridor average hourly travel speeds, during peak and off-peak conditions throughout a 24-hour period over a three-year period from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2013, are limited to less than 50 mph. This data includes off -peak periods, free-flow conditions with very little to no congestion, and recent US 74 improvements along the corridor.
E1-2
Table 1. US 74 Eastbound Peak Period Speeds

Apprx.
Segment
Length
(miles)
Eastbound US 74 Segment
from West to East
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Wtd.
Speed
Limit to
match
INRIX
(mph)
2011 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2012 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2013 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM
8.2 I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 45 45 42 48 46 42 47 46 41
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland Highway) 45 45 39 35 38 41 36 38 40 37 35
3 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to east of Presson Road 55
46 48 48 47 48 48 47 49 48 47
0.2 East of Presson Road to Wingate City Limit 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to Olde Country Lane 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west of Marshville Town Limit 55
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45
2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed 49 49 45 44 43 47 45 43 46 45 42
E1
-
3

Table 2. US 74 Westbound Peak Period Speeds

Apprx.
Segment
Length
(miles)
Westbound US 74 Segment
from East to West
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Wtd.
Speed
Limit to
match
INRIX
(mph)
2011 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2012 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
2013 Peak Hour
Speed
(mph)
AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM AM Lunch PM 2.5 Within Marshville Town Limit 35
46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47
0.3 0.3 miles west of Marshville Town Limit to Marshville Town Limit 45
1.5 Olde Country Lane to 0.3 mile west of Marshville Town Limit 55
0.7 Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) to Olde Country Lane 45
1.4 Wingate City Limit to Old Highway 74 (SR 1740) 35
0.2 East of Presson Road to Wingate City Limit 45
3 US 601 (Pageland Highway) to east of Presson Road 55
5.5 Fowler Secrest Road to US 601 (Pageland Highway) 45 45 38 35 35 38 35 38 39 36 35
8.2 I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road (SR 1754) 55 55 41 43 40 43 45 40 41 44 39
23.3 Corridor Weighted Average Speed 49 49 42 43 41 44 44 42 43 44 41
E1
-
4

Figure 1. US 74 Eastbound 2013 AM Peak Period Speeds

E1-5

Figure 2. US 74 Eastbound 2013 Lunch Peak Period Speeds

E1-6

Figure 3. US 74 Eastbound 2013 PM Peak Period Speeds

E1-7

Figure 4. US 74 Westbound 2013 AM Peak Period Speeds

E1-8

Figure 5. US 74 Westbound 2013 Lunch Peak Period Speeds

E1-9

Figure 6. US 74 Westbound 2013 PM Peak Period Speeds

E1-10
TM
C

C
O
D
E
SE
G
M
E
N
T

N
A
M
E
LE
N
G
T
H

(M
I
L
E
S
)
00
:
0
0
0
1
:
0
0
0
2
:
0
0
0
3
:
0
0
0
4
:
0
0
0
5
:
0
0
0
6
:
0
0
0
7
:
0
0
0
8
:
0
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
8
N
C
-
2
0
5
/
E
l
m

S
t
8.
5
4
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
9
12
5
P
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
0
2
36
3
7
3
6
3
7
3
8
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
0
2
9
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
7
3
3
3
5
3
6
3
5
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
5
3
6
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
1
2
35
3
5
3
5
3
6
3
7
3
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
6
2
6
2
6
3
2
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
4
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
7
E

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t
1.
2
1
40
4
0
4
1
4
1
4
1
3
9
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
8
4
0
4
0
4
0
4
0
3
7
3
6
3
9
4
0
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
M
o
r
g
a
n

M
i
l
l

R
d
1.
1
1
42
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
0
3
8
3
8
4
0
4
1
4
0
3
8
3
8
3
9
3
8
3
9
3
8
3
7
3
8
3
7
3
8
4
1
4
1
12
5
P
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
0.
3
5
49
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
1
5
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
1.
5
8
43
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
3
8
3
6
3
5
3
4
3
2
2
9
2
8
3
0
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
5
3
7
3
7
4
1
4
2
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
0
R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
6.
8
6
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
6
4
3
4
3
4
7
4
8
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
7
4
8
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
9
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

R
d
1.
2
7
51
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
1
4
8
4
6
4
5
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
0
3
8
3
6
3
6
4
2
4
6
4
6
4
9
5
0
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
8
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
d
0.
7
5
52
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
3
5
1
4
8
4
6
4
4
4
1
4
0
3
9
3
8
3
7
3
6
3
2
2
8
2
0
2
8
3
9
4
6
4
8
5
1
5
2
12
5
P
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
7
6
56
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
2
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
5
6
5
6
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
4
4
47
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
7
4
8
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
6
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
0.
2
6
45
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
1
3
9
3
9
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
4
3
8
3
8
4
0
4
1
4
4
4
5
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
9
50
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
7
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
8
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
9
42
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
0
3
9
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
5
3
4
3
5
3
7
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
4
1
4
2
48
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
7
4
8
TM
C

C
O
D
E
SE
G
M
E
N
T

N
A
M
E
LE
N
G
T
H

(M
I
L
E
S
)
00
:
0
0
0
1
:
0
0
0
2
:
0
0
0
3
:
0
0
0
4
:
0
0
0
5
:
0
0
0
6
:
0
0
0
7
:
0
0
0
8
:
0
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
6
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
0.
4
3
44
4
4
4
6
4
4
4
6
4
4
3
9
2
4
2
4
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
9
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
6
3
8
3
9
4
4
4
4
12
5
N
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
9
1
55
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
6
1
50
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
1
4
9
4
4
4
5
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
6
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
9
4
9
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
8
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
d
1.
2
6
48
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
4
3
2
4
0
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
8
4
2
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
7
4
8
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
9
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

R
d
6.
8
6
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
0
3
9
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
7
4
8
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
0
R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
1.
6
6
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
7
3
6
3
9
4
0
3
8
3
6
3
6
3
7
3
5
3
5
3
4
3
5
3
8
3
8
3
8
4
2
4
4
12
5
N
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
0.
3
0
48
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
8
4
8
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
1.
0
7
42
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
0
4
0
4
0
3
9
3
8
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
4
0
4
1
3
9
3
8
4
1
4
2
12
5
-
0
7
4
8
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
M
o
r
g
a
n

M
i
l
l

R
d
1.
2
2
39
3
9
4
0
4
0
4
0
3
9
3
7
3
6
3
6
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
0
3
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
5
3
8
3
6
3
7
3
8
3
9
12
5
-
0
7
4
8
7
E

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t
0.
1
1
28
2
8
2
8
2
8
3
1
2
9
2
7
2
8
2
6
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
7
2
7
12
5
N
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
0
1
28
2
7
2
7
2
7
3
1
2
8
2
6
2
7
2
4
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
4
2
6
2
6
2
5
2
5
2
6
2
6
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
8.
5
5
47
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
7
47
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
7
42
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
1
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
5
3
6
3
6
3
5
3
6
3
5
3
7
3
9
3
8
3
8
4
1
4
2
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
6
4
1
4
3
4
5
4
6
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
0
4
2
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
8
4
9
47
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
5
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
7
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e

U
S

7
4

W
B

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

F
o
w
l
e
r

S
e
c
r
e
s
t

t
o

U
S
-
6
0
1
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

I
-
4
8
5

t
o

F
o
w
l
e
r

S
e
c
r
e
s
t
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

U
S
-
6
0
1

t
o

N
C

2
0
5
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

R
o
l
a
n
d

t
o

M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

U
S
-
6
0
1

t
o

R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

M
a
r
s
h
v
i
l
l
e

t
o

U
S
-
6
0
1

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Av
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

f
o
r

U
S

7
4

f
r
o
m

N
C

2
0
5

(
E
l
m

S
t
.
)

t
o

I
-
4
8
5
Ta
b
l
e

3

-

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

I
N
R
I
X

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

D
a
t
a
20
1
1
,

T
u
e
s
d
a
y

-

T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
Av
e
r
a
g
e S
p
e
e
d

f
o
r

U
S

7
4

f
r
o
m

I
-
4
8
5

t
o

N
C

2
0
5

(
E
l
m

S
t
.
)
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e

U
S

7
4

E
B

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
E1
-
1
1
TM
C

C
O
D
E
SE
G
M
E
N
T

N
A
M
E
LE
N
G
T
H

(M
I
L
E
S
)
00
:
0
0
0
1
:
0
0
0
2
:
0
0
0
3
:
0
0
0
4
:
0
0
0
5
:
0
0
0
6
:
0
0
0
7
:
0
0
0
8
:
0
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
8
N
C
-
2
0
5
/
E
l
m

S
t
8.
5
4
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
12
5
P
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
0
2
39
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
7
3
5
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
0
2
9
2
8
2
8
2
8
3
4
3
6
3
6
3
5
3
5
3
3
3
4
3
8
3
8
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
1
2
37
3
7
3
7
3
7
3
7
3
5
3
4
3
2
3
3
3
0
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
6
2
6
3
3
3
6
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
5
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
7
E

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t
1.
2
1
41
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
2
4
1
4
2
3
9
3
8
3
9
3
9
3
8
3
7
3
6
3
7
3
9
4
1
4
0
4
0
4
1
3
9
3
7
4
0
4
0
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
M
o
r
g
a
n

M
i
l
l

R
d
1.
1
1
42
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
0
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
0
3
9
4
0
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
7
3
8
3
8
3
9
4
1
4
1
12
5
P
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
0.
3
5
50
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
2
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
0
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
9
4
9
5
0
5
0
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
1.
5
8
44
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
0
3
6
3
5
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
2
3
5
3
6
3
5
3
6
3
8
3
9
3
8
4
2
4
3
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
0
R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
6.
8
6
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
8
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
9
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

R
d
1.
2
7
52
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
2
5
0
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
0
3
6
3
3
3
6
4
1
4
7
4
7
5
0
5
1
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
8
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
d
0.
7
5
53
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
2
4
9
4
7
4
6
4
0
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
5
3
5
3
0
2
5
1
8
2
4
3
5
4
6
4
8
5
1
5
2
12
5
P
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
7
6
56
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
7
5
6
5
7
5
8
5
8
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
4
5
0
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
4
4
50
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
7
4
6
4
4
4
6
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
9
4
9
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
6
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
0.
2
6
48
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
6
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
0
3
9
3
8
3
7
3
6
3
5
3
8
3
6
3
1
3
7
3
9
4
1
4
2
4
7
4
7
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
50
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
4
7
4
7
4
9
4
9
43
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
1
4
0
3
9
3
9
3
8
3
6
3
5
3
7
3
8
3
9
3
8
3
8
4
0
3
9
3
9
4
2
4
2
48
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
8
TM
C

C
O
D
E
SE
G
M
E
N
T

N
A
M
E
LE
N
G
T
H

(M
I
L
E
S
)
00
:
0
0
0
1
:
0
0
0
2
:
0
0
0
3
:
0
0
0
4
:
0
0
0
5
:
0
0
0
6
:
0
0
0
7
:
0
0
0
8
:
0
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
6
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
0.
4
3
48
4
8
5
0
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
2
2
5
2
7
3
3
3
6
3
4
3
0
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
8
4
1
4
1
4
7
4
8
12
5
N
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
9
1
55
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
4
7
4
9
5
6
5
7
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
6
1
51
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
2
5
2
5
0
4
7
4
9
5
0
5
1
5
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
8
4
8
5
0
5
1
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
8
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
d
1.
2
6
49
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
1
5
1
4
5
3
6
4
0
4
7
4
9
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
4
3
8
4
1
4
4
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
9
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
9
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

R
d
6.
8
6
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
7
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
7
4
5
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
1
4
1
3
9
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
7
4
8
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
0
R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
1.
6
6
45
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
3
6
3
4
3
9
4
0
3
8
3
6
3
6
3
7
3
8
3
9
3
8
3
7
3
8
3
8
3
9
4
3
4
4
12
5
N
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
0.
3
0
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
1.
0
7
42
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
2
4
1
4
0
3
9
3
9
3
8
3
8
3
8
4
0
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
1
3
9
4
2
4
2
12
5
-
0
7
4
8
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
M
o
r
g
a
n

M
i
l
l

R
d
1.
2
2
40
4
0
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
0
3
7
3
6
3
3
3
2
3
0
2
9
3
0
2
9
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
7
3
9
3
8
3
6
3
9
3
9
12
5
-
0
7
4
8
7
E

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t
0.
1
1
32
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
9
2
9
2
6
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
5
2
7
2
7
2
6
3
0
3
1
12
5
N
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
0
1
33
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
0
2
8
2
8
2
5
2
4
2
4
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
5
2
5
2
6
2
8
2
9
2
9
2
8
3
2
3
3
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
8.
5
5
47
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
47
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
43
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
8
3
7
3
8
3
8
3
6
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
7
3
8
3
8
3
9
4
0
3
9
3
8
4
2
4
2
50
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
8
4
3
4
4
4
7
4
8
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
0
4
2
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
8
4
9
47
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
7
Ta
b
l
e

4

-

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

I
N
R
I
X

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

D
a
t
a
Av
e
r
a
g
e

U
S

7
4

W
B

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
Av
g

s
p
e
ed
R
o
l
a
n
d

t
o

M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l
20
1
2
,

T
u
e
s
d
a
y

-

T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
Av
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

f
o
r

U
S

7
4

f
r
o
m

I
-
4
8
5

t
o

N
C

2
0
5

(
E
l
m

S
t
.
)
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

U
S
-
6
0
1

t
o

N
C

2
0
5
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

I
-
4
8
5

t
o

F
o
w
l
e
r

S
e
c
r
e
s
t
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

F
o
w
l
e
r

S
e
c
r
e
s
t

t
o

U
S
-
6
0
1
Av
e
r
a
g
e

U
S

7
4

E
B

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

f
o
r

U
S

7
4

f
r
o
m

N
C

2
0
5

(
E
l
m

S
t
.
)

t
o

I
-
4
8
5
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

M
a
r
s
h
v
i
l
l
e

t
o

U
S
-
6
0
1

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

U
S
-
6
0
1

t
o

R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
E1
-
1
2
TM
C

C
O
D
E
SE
G
M
E
N
T

N
A
M
E
LE
N
G
T
H

(M
I
L
E
S
)
00
:
0
0
0
1
:
0
0
0
2
:
0
0
0
3
:
0
0
0
4
:
0
0
0
5
:
0
0
0
6
:
0
0
0
7
:
0
0
0
8
:
0
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
8
N
C
-
2
0
5
/
E
l
m

S
t
8.
5
4
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
5
0
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
12
5
P
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
0
2
41
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
3
9
3
8
3
6
3
6
3
4
3
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
7
3
6
3
7
3
6
3
9
4
0
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
1
2
39
3
9
3
9
4
0
3
9
3
8
3
7
3
5
3
5
3
2
3
1
3
0
3
0
2
9
2
9
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
4
3
6
3
7
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
7
E

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t
1.
2
1
42
4
3
4
2
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
9
3
8
4
0
4
0
4
0
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
7
3
8
3
7
4
0
4
3
4
1
3
8
4
1
4
1
12
5
+
0
7
4
8
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
M
o
r
g
a
n

M
i
l
l

R
d
1.
1
1
43
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
1
4
0
4
2
4
2
4
1
3
9
4
0
4
0
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
7
3
9
4
0
3
9
4
2
4
3
12
5
P
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
0.
3
5
51
5
0
5
0
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
9
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
9
5
0
4
9
5
0
4
9
5
0
5
0
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
1.
5
8
43
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
3
9
3
7
3
6
3
6
3
4
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
2
3
7
3
8
3
6
4
0
4
1
12
5
+
0
5
8
2
0
R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
6.
8
6
49
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
8
4
6
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
6
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
8
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
9
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

R
d
1.
2
7
52
5
2
5
2
5
3
5
2
5
2
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
0
3
5
3
3
3
5
3
9
4
6
4
6
5
0
5
1
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
8
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
d
0.
7
5
52
5
2
5
2
5
3
5
2
5
2
4
8
4
5
4
6
4
0
3
7
3
7
3
5
3
4
3
3
2
9
2
3
1
9
2
3
3
2
4
5
4
7
5
0
5
1
12
5
P
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
7
6
56
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
7
5
6
5
7
5
6
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
7
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
3
5
0
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
4
4
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
6
4
4
4
6
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
9
12
5
+
0
5
8
1
6
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
0.
2
6
47
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
6
4
4
4
3
4
0
4
1
3
9
4
0
3
9
3
6
3
6
3
5
3
5
3
4
3
0
3
6
3
7
3
9
4
1
4
5
4
6
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
5
0
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
9
50
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
4
9
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
4
1
4
3
4
4
4
6
4
7
4
9
4
9
43
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
0
3
9
4
0
4
0
3
9
3
7
3
7
3
7
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
7
4
0
4
0
3
8
4
1
4
2
48
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
6
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
8
4
8
TM
C

C
O
D
E
SE
G
M
E
N
T

N
A
M
E
LE
N
G
T
H

(M
I
L
E
S
)
00
:
0
0
0
1
:
0
0
0
2
:
0
0
0
3
:
0
0
0
4
:
0
0
0
5
:
0
0
0
6
:
0
0
0
7
:
0
0
0
8
:
0
0
0
9
:
0
0
1
0
:
0
0
1
1
:
0
0
1
2
:
0
0
1
3
:
0
0
1
4
:
0
0
1
5
:
0
0
1
6
:
0
0
1
7
:
0
0
1
8
:
0
0
1
9
:
0
0
2
0
:
0
0
2
1
:
0
0
2
2
:
0
0
2
3
:
0
0
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
6
M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
0.
4
3
47
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
4
6
4
1
2
5
2
5
3
2
3
6
3
4
2
9
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
0
3
1
3
7
4
0
4
1
4
6
4
7
12
5
N
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
9
1
56
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
4
4
2
4
2
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
6
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
7
I
-
4
8
5
0.
6
1
52
5
2
5
2
5
3
5
3
5
3
4
9
4
7
4
8
5
0
5
1
5
1
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
9
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
9
4
8
5
1
5
1
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
8
S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
d
1.
2
6
50
5
0
5
1
5
2
5
2
5
1
4
3
3
3
3
8
4
7
4
9
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
5
4
3
3
6
3
8
4
4
4
6
4
6
4
9
5
0
12
5
-
0
5
8
1
9
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

F
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

R
d
6.
8
6
48
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
6
4
3
4
5
4
6
4
6
4
5
4
2
4
2
4
1
4
0
4
0
3
7
4
0
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
8
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
0
R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
1.
6
6
44
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
3
7
3
5
3
8
3
9
3
7
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
7
3
7
3
8
4
2
4
3
12
5
N
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
0.
3
0
49
4
9
4
9
4
9
5
0
5
0
5
1
5
0
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
4
9
4
8
4
9
4
9
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
1
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

H
w
y
/
S
k
y
w
a
y

D
r
1.
0
7
44
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
4
2
4
0
4
0
3
9
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
8
4
1
4
2
4
1
4
0
4
2
4
3
12
5
-
0
7
4
8
6
N
C
-
2
0
0
/
M
o
r
g
a
n

M
i
l
l

R
d
1.
2
2
40
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
1
3
7
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
6
3
8
3
7
3
7
3
9
4
0
12
5
-
0
7
4
8
7
E

F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n

S
t
0.
1
1
36
3
6
3
7
3
6
3
7
3
6
3
4
3
0
2
8
2
9
2
9
2
8
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
8
2
8
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
5
3
6
12
5
N
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
0.
0
1
36
3
6
3
7
3
6
3
7
3
6
3
3
3
0
2
9
3
1
3
1
3
0
2
9
2
9
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
6
12
5
-
0
5
8
2
2
U
S
-
6
0
1
/
P
a
g
e
l
a
n
d

H
w
y
8.
5
5
48
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
48
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
8
4
8
4
7
4
6
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
7
4
7
4
8
4
8
43
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
9
3
8
3
8
3
8
3
7
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
5
3
6
3
5
3
7
3
9
3
9
3
9
4
1
4
2
49
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
4
6
4
1
4
3
4
7
4
7
4
6
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
2
3
9
4
1
4
5
4
6
4
5
4
8
4
9
48
4
8
4
8
4
8
4
9
4
8
4
7
4
3
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
1
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
7
4
7
Ta
b
l
e

5

-

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

I
N
R
I
X

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

D
a
t
a
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

R
o
l
a
n
d

t
o

M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e U
S

7
4

W
B

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

U
S
-
6
0
1

t
o

R
o
l
a
n
d

D
r
20
1
3
,

T
u
e
s
d
a
y

-

T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
Av
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

f
o
r

U
S

7
4

f
r
o
m

I
-
4
8
5

t
o

N
C

2
0
5

(
E
l
m

S
t
.
)
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

U
S
-
6
0
1

t
o

N
C

2
0
5
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

I
-
4
8
5

t
o

F
o
w
l
e
r

S
e
c
r
e
s
t
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

F
o
w
l
e
r

S
e
c
r
e
s
t

t
o

U
S
-
6
0
1
Av
e
r
a
g
e

U
S

7
4

E
B

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d

f
o
r

U
S

7
4

f
r
o
m

N
C

2
0
5

(
E
l
m

S
t
.
)

t
o

I
-
4
8
5
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

U
S

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
e
e
d
Av
g

s
p
e
e
d

M
a
r
s
h
v
i
l
l
e

t
o

U
S
-
6
0
1

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
E1
-
1
3

Th
i
s

p
a
g
e

w
a
s

i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

l
e
f
t

b
l
a
n
k
.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-2
Traffic Forecast Memo (May 2014)

This page was intentionally left blank.
E2-1
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 2
Table 1 – Summary of Monroe Connector/Bypass Project Traffic Forecasts
Document Name Prepared By,
Date
Forecast
Years
Forecast
Scenarios Model Version and SE Data
Used in
NEPA
Documents
Traffic Forecasts
A
Traffic Forecast for the No-
Build Alternatives for
NCDOT State TIP Project
No. R-3329 and NCDOT
State TIP Project No. R-
2559, Monroe
Connector/Bypass Study
Martin/Alexiou/Bryson
(MAB), June 2008
2007,
2030
2007 &
2030
No-Build
MRM05 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934) Yes
B
Technical Memorandum for
TIP Projects
R-2559 & R-3329 US74
Upgrade Scenario
Wilbur Smith
Associates (WSA),
June 2008
2035
2035
Upgrade
Existing
Build Non-
Toll & Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934) Yes
C
Traffic Forecast for TIP
Projects
R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe
Connector/Bypass
WSA, September
2008
2008,
2035
2008 &
2035
No-Build,
Build
Non-Toll &
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934) Yes
Traffic Forecast Interpolations, Extrapolations and Redistributions
D
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Alternative 3A
2013 AADT Build Toll
Scenario
HNTB, January 2009 2013 2013
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934). No
E 2035 Build Toll Forecast,
Segment 2 (Alternative 3A) HNTB, July 2009 2035 2035
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934). Yes
F
NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised
Monroe Connector Bypass
No-Build Traffic Forecast
Memorandum
HNTB, March 2010 2008,
2035
2008 &
2035
No-Build
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934). Yes
G
Monroe Connector /
Bypass Year 2025 Build
Toll Alternative 3A Traffic
Volume Projections
HNTB, August 2010 2025 2025
Build Toll
MRM06 and 2005 SE data
(SE_Year_taz2934). No
Traffic & Revenue Studies
H
Monroe Connector/Bypass
2009 Update to Preliminary
Study
WSA, April 2009
2014
thru
2054
2014 thru
2054
Build Toll
Modified MRM06 and modified 2008
Interim SE data
(SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim)
No
I
Proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass
Comprehensive Traffic and
Revenue Study, Final
Report
WSA, October 2010
2015
thru
2055
2015 thru
2055
Build Toll
Modified MRM06 and modified 2008
Interim SE data
(SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim)
No

For reference, Table 2 and Table 3 provide an estimated daily traffic volume comparison, by
segment, of the No-Build and Build traffic forecasts, respectively, prepared during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process.

E2-2
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 3
1.1 Traffic Forecasts
Project-Level traffic forecasts were developed for No-Build, Improve Existing, and Build
scenarios. These forecasts are based on data including, but not limited to, traffic counts,
historic travel trends, the MUMPO Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the MRM, and
existing road network operations. It is important to note that the forecasts are not based
solely on any single data source but are based on the review, comparison, and synthesis of
different sources of data. These individual data sources are not intended to be traffic
forecasts and do not include the level of detail ultimately developed in the traffic forecast.
For example, the MRM does not include all the roadways within the study area. Therefore,
those roadways are included in the traffic forecast through analyzing traffic counts or other
available data sources. Another example of source data are Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) volumes, which are developed by annualizing traffic counts collected at one point in
time. The following list describes the uses of each traffic forecast developed in the project
development process:

A. Traffic Forecast for the No-Build Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329
and NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-2559, Monroe Connector/Bypass Study

This forecast is used in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as follows:
 Existing and Year 2030 No-Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum,
completed in March 2008
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS

This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Final EIS

Ultimately this document was updated by the NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559
Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum (Table 1,
F).

B. Technical Memorandum for TIP Projects R-2559 & R-3329 US 74 Upgrade Scenario

This forecast is used in the Draft EIS as follows:
 STIP Projects R-3329/R-2559 Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatives Study,
completed in March 2009
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS

C. Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass

This forecast is used in the Draft EIS as follows:
 Final Air Quality Technical Memorandum for the Monroe Connector Bypass
completed in February 2009
 Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum completed in March 2009
 Year 2035 Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum completed in
February 2009
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Draft EIS
E2-3
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 4

This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
the Final EIS

The No-Build forecast was ultimately updated in the document NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast
Memorandum (Table 1, F). Additional discussion is included in Attachment A (Monroe
Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Summary Memorandum).

1.2 Traffic Forecast Interpolations, Extrapolations or Redistributions
Traffic forecast interpolations, extrapolations, or redistributions of the original traffic forecasts
were developed to state, analyze, or confirm traffic forecast volumes for conditions or years
not included in the initial traffic forecasts. This approach uses the original accepted
forecasts and base data assumptions to mathematically calculate traffic estimates and
redistributions of traffic for conditions not included or known at the time of the initial forecast.
This methodology is appropriate because the differences being considered do not change
the original forecast, assumptions, methodology or base data. The interpolation and
extrapolation process is a method for developing new data points for years not considered in
the base forecast but within the range of volumes established by the base forecast. The
redistribution process was used to evaluate a minor change in the frontage road
configuration at the western terminus of the project. Examples of these differences include
different interchange forms and service road connection points. The geometric differences
analyzed were minor to the point of not changing the base forecast assumptions or data.
The following list describes each traffic forecast’s uses and the interpolations,
extrapolations, or redistributions necessary for that forecast:

D. Monroe Connector/Bypass Alternative 3A 2013 AADT Build Toll Scenario

This 2013 Build Forecast was developed to represent the opening year traffic volumes
for inclusion on the April 2009 Monroe Connector/Bypass public hearing maps. This
forecast was developed through interpolation of the 2008 and 2035 Build forecasts from
the Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table
1, C).

E. 2035 Build Toll Forecast, Segment 2 (Alternative 3A)

This 2035 Build forecast redistributed forecasted volumes from the Traffic Forecast for
TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C) to account for a
minor change in the frontage road configuration at the western terminus of the project.

This forecast is used in the Final EIS as follows:
 Final Addendum to Year 2035 Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum
completed in November 2009
 Addendum Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum completed in February
2010
 Considered as part of the technical analysis that went into the development of
Final EIS

E2-4
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 5
F. NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build
Traffic Forecast Memorandum

This forecast was used to confirm the Draft EIS analysis of existing and design year no-
build conditions and is referenced in the Final EIS Errata. The updated 2008 and 2035
No-Build forecasts were prepared due to No-Build forecast discrepancies in the Traffic
Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C).
Additional discussion is included in Attachment A (Monroe Bypass No-Build Traffic
Forecast Summary Memorandum).

G. Monroe Connector / Bypass Year 2025 Build Toll Alternative 3A Traffic Volume
Projections

This forecast was provided to the Design-Build teams during construction procurement.
The Design-Build teams were given an option of designing the project to the 2035 traffic
forecast volumes and phase constructing the project based on the 2025 year traffic
forecast volumes. Ultimately, the Design-Build teams did not choose the option of phase
constructing using the 2025 year traffic forecast volumes.

1.3 Traffic and Revenue Studies
A Traffic and Revenue Study is a revenue forecast. The purpose of a Traffic and Revenue
Study is to analyze the potential project revenue associated with the proposed toll road.
Therefore, these studies are developed as part of the project financing efforts and are
developed differently than a project level traffic forecast. Two of the major differences in a
Traffic and Revenue Study are the socioeconomic data used and the travel demand model
used. The project level forecasts are based on the socioeconomic data and the travel
demand model as developed and approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) and other data as described in Section 1.1. The Traffic and Revenue Study uses
socioeconomic data developed by an independent economist. The Traffic and Revenue
Study modifies the travel demand model including the traffic analysis zone structure, link
properties, link connections, and value of time assumptions. The following list describes the
uses of the Traffic and Revenue Studies developed during the project development process:

H. Monroe Connector/Bypass 2009 Update to Preliminary Study

This preliminary traffic and revenue forecast is an update to the Monroe Connector
Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study issued in October 2006. These traffic and
revenue forecasts were developed to support the project financing efforts. The Monroe
Connector/Bypass 2009 Update to Preliminary Study (Table 1, H) is referenced in the
Final EIS.

I. Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study, Final
Report

This final traffic and revenue forecast was developed to support the project financing
efforts and was not used in any analysis to support the project level traffic forecast.
(Note: A Draft Final Report was issued in August 2010). Table 4 list Monroe/Connector
Bypass estimated 2015, 2020 and 2030 weekday traffic volumes.

E2-5
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 6
2. Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
The current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecast from the document NCDOT STIP Project R-
3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum
(Table 1, F) was used to confirm the analysis of 2007 existing and 2030 design year no-
build conditions used in the Draft EIS. The analysis was confirmed by quantitatively
demonstrating 2035 forecast volumes were higher than 2030 No-Build volumes and
qualitatively concluding US 74 operations would worsen with higher 2035 No-Build forecast
volumes.

To determine if the current No-Build traffic forecast is still valid, it is necessary to reasonably
determine if an updated No-Build forecast is expected to have lower, equal or higher
forecast volumes. If forecast volumes are expected to be equal to or higher than the current
No-Build forecast used in the 2007 existing and 2030 design year analysis, then it is
reasonable to conclude an updated No-Build forecast would not change the conclusions in
the Draft EIS. The following information was used to validate the 2007/2030 No-Build traffic
forecasts:

 2012 NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes,
 Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM11v1.1,
 Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM14v1.0 output data provided by
CRTPO,
 2009 socioeconomic (SE) data,
 Existing US 74 corridor travel time runs,
 Current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecasts.

Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21, 2013
and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast1
(NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current No-Build traffic forecasts meet the guidelines
that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of
these guidelines are met since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date
of the project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is not
experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic forecast is not
five years older than the Base Year.

2.1 2012 NCDOT AADT Volumes
Existing traffic volumes are a primary factor in determining base year forecast volumes,
such as were used for the 2007 No-Build forecast. For this reason, 2007 and 2012
NCDOT AADT’s were compared along the US 74 corridor to determine if an updated
base year traffic forecast would be expected to have higher volumes than the current
2007 No-Build forecasts. Over the five year period from 2007 to 2012, average volumes
along the US 74 corridor cumulatively grew approximately zero percent, based on
available AADT data. Based on historical AADT growth trends, it is reasonable to
conclude that an updated base year forecast (i.e. 2013) would generally be equal to the
2007 No-Build Forecast. 2007 and 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes are listed in Table 5.

It is appropriate to compare cumulative corridor changes in terms of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and individual segment volume and percent changes. Individual
segment traffic volumes include higher degrees of variability inherent in specific traffic

1 https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ProjectLevelTrafficForecasting.aspx
E2-6
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 7
data base on the placement of traffic counting equipment, daily, monthly and seasonal
variations in data collection, weather and other factors. Corridor VMT considers the
entire corridor, volumes and distance of each corridor segment and calculates VMT
based on multiplying daily segment volumes times segment length. For the purposes of
this memo, comparing overall corridor VMT and percent changes is more appropriate in
identifying general trends in traffic patterns. Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
segment distances used to calculate VMT for all tables are shown on Table 7.

2.2 Comparison of 2030 No-Build MRM05v1.0 to 2035 No-Build MRM11v1.1 Model Data
The Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model, referred to as the MRM, is the primary
tool for evaluating existing and future travel in the Metrolina Region at the planning level.
For project-level traffic forecasting, the MRM is just one tool and associated raw model
outputs are just one piece of data used in the forecasting process. The MRM is
continually updated through the Metrolina Region planning process. The initial No-Build
traffic forecast (Table 1, A) was prepared using MRM05v1.0. Since then three model
versions have been developed, in order of release date: MRM06, MRM08 and MRM11.
MRM11v1.1 was used for the purpose of evaluating the traffic forecasting process used
to develop the initial No-Build traffic forecast (Table 1, A). This model version includes
all the projects as shown in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. A 2035 No-Build
MRM11v1.1 model was developed by removing the Monroe Connector/Bypass links.

The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment for the 2030 No-Build forecast
(Table 1, A), based on the MRM05v1.0 and 2005 SE data, was compared to 2035 No-
Build raw model daily volume assignment from the MRM11v1.1. The 2009 SE data was
used to evaluate how changes in raw model output data may affect an updated future
year No-Build traffic forecast. Raw model output is an important factor in developing
traffic forecasts by, but not limited to, determining growth rates from base year to future
year scenarios, traffic volume orders of magnitude, volume trends along facilities and
future year volumes for new location facilities. Based on a comparison of cumulative
2030 to 2035 No-Build raw model daily volumes along the US 74 corridor, the 2035 No-
Build increases 17 percent over the five year period, corresponding to a three percent
annual growth rate. Raw model daily assignment volumes range from 23,000 to 70,300
and 21,200 to 101,600 for 2030 MRM05v1.0 with 2005 SE data to 2035 MRM11v1.1
with 2009 SE data, respectively. Based on this comparison, an updated future year No-
Build forecast (i.e. 2035) would reasonably be expected to have volumes equal to or
greater than the 2030 No-Build forecast. Thus, an updated No-Build traffic forecast
would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Table 5 lists raw model daily volume
assignment and VMT percent change for both scenarios.

2.3 Comparison of No-Build Scenario Model Data from 2030 MRM06v1.1 to 2030 and
2040 MRM14v1.0
As previously stated, MRM14v1.0 output was provided by CRTPO (formerly MUMPO),
which is compared and summarized in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.

The raw model daily volume assignment data from a run of 2030 MRM05v1.0 was
compared to a model run using the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). It
is important to note that the No-Build model scenarios do not include the Monroe
Connector/Bypass.

Along the existing US 74 corridor, there is some variability between the 2030
MRM05v1.0 and the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 model results, with a general trend of
E2-7
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 8
higher daily assignment in MRM14v1.0 along the western portion of US 74 and lower
daily assignment along the eastern portion. When comparing the 2030 MRM05v1.0 and
the 2030 MRM14v1.0 model results, the cumulative VMT changes equate to a 4 percent
decrease along the US 74 corridor with 8 of the 31 total segments having higher
volumes. When comparing the 2030 MRM05v1.0 and the 2040 MRM14v1.0 model
results, the cumulative VMT changes equate to a 3 percent increase along the US 74
corridor with 20 of the 31 total segments having higher volumes. Overall corridor VMT
results indicate that both the 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 model results show substantial
growth when compared with the existing NCDOT AADT traffic volumes along US 74.

Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0) and SE data (2013), the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still generally
attracting similar levels of demand as MRM05v1.0 and 2005 SE data used in the 2030
No-Build forecast. It is reasonable to conclude that the 2040 MRM14v1.0 assigns
similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the US 74
compared to MRM05v1.0. Thus, an updated No-Build traffic forecast would not change
the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Table 5 lists raw model daily volume assignment and
VMT percent change for each scenario.

2.4 Comparison of 2030 and 2040 No-Build Scenario Model Data from MRM14v1.0
No-Build Scenario model data was compared between 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0
model runs. These results are shown in Table 5. The data between the two model runs
is based on 2013 SE data and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2040 segment
daily traffic assignments exceed the 2030 MRM14v1.0 results. On the existing US 74
facility, volumes increase from approximately 1 percent to 10 percent between the 2030
and 2040 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 7 percent increase
along the US 74 corridor.

The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase on the US 74 corridor between the 2030 and 2040 time periods.
Thus, 2040 No-Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected to
demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along US 74, further substantiating the viability
of and need for the project.

2.5 US 74 Corridor Travel Time Runs
The US 74 corridor from I-485 to Elm Street in Marshville is approximately 22.5 miles in
length and includes 30 signalized intersections, multiple unsignalized intersections, and
multiple driveway access points. 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes range from 23,000 to
57,000 and are projected to increase to a new range from 31,600 to 89,100 based on
2035 No-Build forecast volumes (Table 1, F). This means that 2012 NCDOT AADT
volumes would increase in the range of 9,800 to 33,300 vehicles per day (vpd) (or
between 20 percent to 81 percent) along the US 74 corridor. See Table 6 for the
comparison of 2012 NCDOT AADT and 2035 No-Build forecast volumes. This growth in
US 74 traffic volumes will negatively impact corridor operations by increasing
congestion, reducing travel speeds, and increasing travel times. 2013 existing travel
time runs were collected in March 2013 along the US 74 corridor. Per the US 74
Corridor Travel Time Comparison memorandum (HNTB, October 24, 2013), “US 74
average corridor travel speeds are limited to less than 50 mph, even during off-peak
periods and free-flow conditions with very little to no congestion”. These travel time runs
reflect existing conditions and account for all US 74 highway improvements implemented
E2-8
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 9
between 2007 and the present. The 2013 travel time runs verify that US 74 does not
operate as a high speed facility.

Based on 2012 NCDOT AADT’s, MRM11v1.1 (with 2009 socioeconomic data), and
MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 socioeconomic data), an updated base year and future year forecast
would reasonably be expected to have equal to or higher forecast volumes than the current
no-build forecasts used in the analysis of existing and design year no-build conditions. In
addition, 2013 existing travel time runs along the US 74 corridor verify US 74 does not
operate as a high speed facility. Comparison of 2035 No-Build traffic volume increases to
2012 AADT’s also realistically demonstrate that additional future congestion will continue to
decrease operating speeds along the US 74 corridor, further impairing the ability to provide
high speed mobility. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that updated No-Build forecasts
would not change the conclusions in the Draft EIS. Based on this assessment of all
available information, the current No-Build traffic forecasts are still valid for the purpose they
were used.

3. Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
The Build forecast used in the project level forecasted traffic is titled Traffic Forecast for TIP
Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass (Table 1, C) and contained 2008 and
2035 Build Scenario data. This forecast utilized the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand
Model, MRM06v1.1, and 2005 socioeconomic (SE) data. The validity of the 2035 Build
forecasts were assessed by comparing the 2030 MRM06v1.1 raw model daily volume
assignment with 2030 and 2035 Build raw model daily volume assignments utilizing
MRM11v1.1 and 2009 SE data and 2035 and 2040 Build raw model daily volume
assignments utilizing MRM14v1.0 and 2013 SE data.

The regional model, such as the Metrolina Regional Model, is used as a tool in the
development of traffic forecasts and raw model daily volumes are just one of the many
pieces of data used to develop traffic forecast volumes. It is important to note that a travel
demand model (TDM) is not an exact measure of existing or future traffic volumes but is a
tool to generally measure impacts of growth and development and help forecast travel
characteristics at the planning-level. The TDM employs a mathematical approach to
understanding how changes in land use, population, and area employment will impact the
transportation system. The Metrolina Regional Model encompasses multiple counties in two
states and was developed and calibrated as a tool to evaluate existing and future travel
demands on a regional basis. Raw model volumes for specific roadway links can be
extracted from the regional model but inherently have levels of variability compared to
existing and traffic forecast volumes. The accuracy of raw model volumes to existing and
future conditions is based on a variety of factors: existing and future roadway network
detail, calibration parameters, accuracy of future land use, population, area employment
estimates, and other factors. Therefore, it is not appropriate to directly compare raw model
daily volumes to balanced traffic forecast volumes. General comparisons of raw model daily
volumes from the Build Scenario models can be used as validation of the results from
previous Build Scenario forecasts, since those forecasts use model results as one of the
factors in developing the forecast.

Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21, 2013
and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast
2 (NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current Build traffic forecasts meet the guidelines
E2-9
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 10
that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of
these guidelines are met since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date
of the project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is not
experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic forecast is not
five years older than the Base Year.

The following three comparisons can be made to address the current validity of the previous
Build Scenario traffic forecast results. Comparative results are shown in Table 7.

3.1 Comparison of 2030 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM06v1.1 to MRM11v1.1
Since the 2035 WSA Build Scenario forecast (Table 1, C) was developed with the use of
the (then current) 2030 MRM06v1.1 (with 2005 SE data), the raw model daily volume
assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1 was compared to a model run using the
MRM11v1.1 (with 2009 SE data). It is important to note that both model scenarios
included the Monroe Connector/Bypass. For the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, MRM11v1.1 assigns higher traffic (8 percent to 30 percent) to
the western portion of the Bypass than MRM06v1.1. Conversely, MRM11v1.1 has lower
projected daily assignments (9 percent to 27 percent decreases from MRM06v1.1) in the
central and eastern portions of the project. Along the existing US 74 corridor, there is
some variability between the two model results, with a general trend of higher daily
assignment in MRM11v1.1 (29 of 31 segments have higher volumes). In many cases, -
Y- Line model volumes (the route intersecting the Monroe Connector/Bypass) are lower
in MRM11v1.1 than MRM06v1.1. However, direct comparisons of individual -Y- Line
volumes directly north and south of the Monroe Bypass includes too much individual
variability to provide reasonable comparisons.

For raw model assignment, it is appropriate to consider cumulative changes on the
corridor in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and changes on individual segments,
as previously discussed in Section 2.1. Examining corridor VMT presents overall and
regional traffic differences that more appropriately account for the inherent variability of
individual links based on different segment lengths, characteristics, loading points and
the impact of centroid connectors within the model. Potential reasons for variability
along individual segments are different socioeconomic growth assumptions, different
model networks and link characteristics, and different model methodologies for trip
distribution and assignment. To compare -Y- Line VMT, a segment distance of 0.5 miles
for each -Y- Line north and south of the Monroe Connector/Bypass was determined to
account for ramp offsets, laneage tie-ins and grade changes. By using the same
segment distance for all -Y- Lines, all facility segments were calculated similarly to
determine VMT. Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 7
percent decrease along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 19 percent increase along the
US 74 corridor and a 24 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.

Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM11v1.1), SE data (2009), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still
generally attracting similar levels of demand as MRM06v1.1 and 2005 SE data used in
the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the updated model is predicting more demand for
the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the MRM11v1.1
assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 compared to MRM06v1.1.

2 https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/ProjectLevelTrafficForecasting.aspx
E2-10
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 11

3.2 Comparison of 2030 and 2035 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM11v1.1
The next necessary comparison is to compare Build Scenario model data from the 2030
MRM11v1.1 model to results from a 2035 MRM11v1.1 model run. This comparison was
made using the methodology previously described in Section 2.2. These results are
shown in Table 7. The data between the two model runs is based on the same set of
2009 SE data, and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2035 segment daily traffic
assignments exceed the 2030 MRM11v1.1 results. On the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, volumes increase from 7 percent to 11 percent and are
expected to range between 21,600 and 67,400 in 2035. On the existing US 74 facility,
volumes increase from 5 percent to 15 percent between the 2030 and 2035 model runs.
Individual -Y- Line facilities show increases between 4 percent and 57 percent between
2030 and 2035 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 9 percent
increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 7 percent increase along the US 74
corridor and a 7 percent increase cumulatively for -Y- Line locations. These increases
are not expected to impact the interchange footprints for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
facility.

The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase for all study area facilities between the 2030 and 2035 time
periods. Thus, 2030 Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected
to demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along the Monroe Connector/Bypass Facility,
existing US 74, and project study area -Y- Lines. This would further substantiate the
viability of and need for the project.

3.3 Comparison of 2035 Build MRM11v1.1 to 2030 Build MRM06v1.1 Model Data used
in the Build Scenario Traffic Forecast
As a final comparison, the 2035 MRM11v1.1 daily traffic assignment data was compared
to the original 2030 MRM06v1.1 data used in the development of the 2030 Build
Scenario forecasts. Along the new Monroe Connector facility, 2035 MRM11v1.1
assignments are higher than 2030 MRM06v1.1 data on the western portion of the
project, but are still less (between 1 percent and 19 percent smaller) than the 2030
MRM06v1.1 data on the eastern portion of the project. US 74 corridor results are higher
(for 30 of 31 segments) and have a greater variance range (3 percent to 90 percent
increases) for the 2035 MRM11v1.1 results compared to the 2030 MRM06v1.1 results. -
Y- Line data results have six segments showing increased daily assignment, seven
segments showing decreased assignment, and one segment unchanged between 2035
data and 2030 data. Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to
a 1 percent increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 27 percent increase along
the US 74 corridor and an 18 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
Similar to assessments made previously, potential reasons for the variability include the
different SE data sets, different model networks and network characteristics, and model
assignment methodologies employed in the two MRM versions. Even with the variability
of the results, the overall trend along the new location facility shows consistently
increasing volumes from east to west between the two model data sets. The model run
comparison also shows the potential traffic volume growth between 2030 and 2035
along existing US 74 even with the Monroe Connector facility. It is reasonable to
conclude that a traffic forecast for the Build Scenario that utilizes the latest MRM11v1.1
network and 2009 SE data in a similar manner to which they were employed for the
2008 and 2035 Build Scenario forecast would produce results that are to the same
magnitude, if not greater (based on the data examined in these three comparisons), than
E2-11
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 12
the original 2008 and 2035 Build Scenario forecast data. Comparative results are shown
in Table 7.

The differences between MRM06v1.1 and MRM11v1.1 raw model daily volume assignment,
and the current Build traffic forecasts indicate that the magnitude of traffic along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass and US 74 would still show the need for the project, and benefits to the
existing US 74 corridor from the project, as currently supported by the Build forecast utilized
in the project development process.

3.4 Comparison of 2030 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM06v1.1 to MRM14v1.0
As previously stated, Build MRM14v1.0 output was provided by CRTPO (formerly
MUMPO), which is compared and summarized in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.

The raw model daily volume assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1 was compared
to a model run using the MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). It is important to note that
both model scenarios included the Monroe Connector/Bypass. For the new location
Monroe Connector/Bypass facility, MRM14v1.0 assigns higher traffic (4 percent to 32
percent) to the western portion of the Bypass than MRM06v1.1. Conversely,
MRM14v1.0 has lower projected daily assignments (13 percent to 38 percent decreases
from MRM06v1.1) in the central and eastern portions of the project. Along the existing
US 74 corridor, there is some variability between the two model results, with a general
trend of higher daily assignment in MRM14v1.0 along the western portion of US 74 and
lower daily assignment along the eastern portion (15 of 31 total segments have higher
volumes). In many cases, -Y- Line model volumes (the route intersecting the Monroe
Connector/Bypass) are lower in MRM14v1.0 than MRM06v1.1. However, direct
comparisons of individual -Y- Line volumes directly north and south of the Monroe
Bypass includes too much individual variability to provide reasonable comparisons.

Based on the overall corridor, cumulative VMT changes equate to a 12 percent decrease
along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 4 percent increase along the US 74 corridor and
a 29 percent decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.

Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0), SE data (2013), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still
generally attracting similar levels of demand as MRM06v1.1 and 2005 SE data used in
the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the updated model is predicting more demand for
the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the MRM14v1.0
assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 compared to MRM06v1.1.

3.5 Comparison of 2030 and 2040 Build Scenario Model Data from MRM14v1.0
The next necessary comparison is to compare Build Scenario model data from the 2030
MRM14v1.0 model to results from a 2040 MRM14v1.0 model run. This comparison was
made using the methodology previously described in Section 2.2. These results are
shown in Table 7. The data between the two model runs is based on the same set of
2013 SE data, and shows a high degree of consistency. All 2040 segment daily traffic
assignments exceed the 2030 MRM14v1.0 results. On the new location Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility, volumes increase from 3 percent to 14 percent and are
expected to range between 21,300 and 64,800 in 2040. On the existing US 74 facility,
volumes increase from approximately zero percent to 13 percent between the 2030 and
2040 model runs. Individual -Y- Line facilities show increases between 3 percent and 21
E2-12
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 13
percent between 2030 and 2040 model runs. Overall, cumulative VMT changes equate
to a 10 percent increase along the Monroe Connector/Bypass, a 8 percent increase
along the US 74 corridor and a 13 percent increase cumulatively for -Y- Line locations.
These increases are not expected to impact the interchange footprints for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass facility.

The conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from this data is that traffic volumes are
expected to increase for all study area facilities between the 2030 and 2040 time
periods. Thus, 2030 Build Scenario forecast results might reasonably also be expected
to demonstrate increases in traffic volumes along the Monroe Connector/Bypass Facility,
existing US 74, and project study area -Y- Lines. This would further substantiate the
viability of and need for the project

3.6 Comparison of 2040 Build MRM14v1.0 to 2030 Build MRM06v1.1 Model Data used
in the Build Scenario Traffic Forecast
As a final comparison, the 2040 MRM14v1.0 daily traffic assignment data was compared
to the original 2030 MRM06v1.1 data used in the development of the 2030 Build
Scenario forecasts. Along the new Monroe Connector facility, 2040 MRM14v1.0
assignments are higher than 2030 MRM06v1.1 data on the western portion of the
project, but are still less (between 2 percent and 30 percent smaller) than the 2030
MRM06v1.1 data on the eastern portion of the project. US 74 corridor results are
generally higher on the western portion of the corridor and generally lower on the
eastern portion and have a greater variance range (31 percent decrease to 55 percent
increase) for the 2040 MRM14v1.0 results compared to the 2030 MRM06v1.1 results. -
Y- Line data results have three segments showing increased daily assignment and nine
segments showing decreased assignment between 2040 data and 2030 data. Volumes
on Forest Hills School Road north and south of the proposed Monroe Bypass were not
included in the MRM14v1.0 output provided by CRTPO. Based on the overall corridor,
cumulative VMT changes equate to a 4 percent decrease along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass, a 12 percent increase along the US 74 corridor and an 20 percent
decrease cumulatively for -Y- Line locations. Similar to assessments made previously,
potential reasons for the variability include the different SE data sets, different model
networks and network characteristics, and model assignment methodologies employed
in the two MRM versions. Even with the variability of the results, the overall trend along
the new location facility shows consistently increasing volumes from east to west
between the two model data sets. The model run comparison also shows the potential
traffic volume growth along the western portion of existing US 74 and potential traffic
volume decreases along eastern portions of existing US 74 between 2030 and 2040
even with the Monroe Connector facility. It is reasonable to conclude that a traffic
forecast for the 2040 Build Scenario that utilizes the latest MRM14v1.0 network and
2013 SE data in a similar manner to which they were employed for the 2008 and 2035
Build Scenario forecast would produce results that are to the same magnitude, if not
greater (based on the data examined in these three comparisons), than the original 2008
and 2035 Build Scenario forecast data and would further substantiate the viability of and
need for the project. Comparative results are shown in Table 7.

4. How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US 74
corridor?
Five separate scenarios were analyzed to assess the effects that the Monroe
Connector/Bypass may have on projected traffic volumes on existing US 74.
E2-13
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 14

4.1 Comparison of the Traffic Forecast Used in the NEPA Document
Table 8 compares data from the 2035 No-Build (Table 1, F) and 2035 Build (Table 1, C)
Traffic Forecast Scenarios along the existing US 74 corridor. The results show a
reduction in traffic along the corridor in the range of 600 to 34,200 vehicles per day from
the No-Build to Build Scenario. This equates to a range of 1 percent to 54 percent, with
an average reduction of 30 percent for overall corridor VMT.

4.2 Comparison of the 2030 MRM06v1.1 Model Results
Since the MRM06v1.1 (utilizing 2005 SE data) was used in the development of the 2008
WSA Traffic Forecast that is included in the NEPA documentation, comparisons of No-
Build and Build 2030 raw model daily volume assignments are included in Table 9. The
travel demand model is the primary source of making estimates of traffic diversion and
network traffic flow changes to/from existing facilities onto a new alignment facility such
as the Monroe Connector/Bypass. The only difference in the two travel demand models
is the inclusion of the Monroe Connector/Bypass links.

As shown in Table 9, construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass caused 2030 daily
traffic assignments to reduce along US 74 in the range of 4,800 to 21,900 vehicles per
day. This resulted in percentage reductions of 11 percent to 51 percent of daily traffic
along the corridor from 2030 No-Build data, and an average percent reduction of 31
percent for the overall corridor VMT.

4.3 Comparison of the 2035 MRM11v1.1 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM11v1.1 travel demand model, with updated 2009 SE data and network
information, a third comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2035. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous two
comparisons, 2035 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 5,300 vpd to 25,100
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 11 percent and 45 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 19 percent for the overall corridor VMT.

4.4 Comparison of the 2030 MRM14v1.0 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM14v1.0 travel demand model, with updated 2013 SE data and network
information, a fourth comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2030. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous
three comparisons, 2030 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 7,000 vpd to 20,900
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 14 percent and 57 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 24 percent for the overall corridor VMT.

E2-14
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 15
4.6 Comparison of the 2040 MRM14v1.0 Model Results
Utilizing the MRM14v1.0 travel demand model, with updated 2013 SE data and network
information, a fifth comparison of No-Build/Build traffic volumes was made for the year
2040. The only difference in the two travel demand models is the inclusion of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass links. As shown in Table 9, and similar to results in the previous four
comparisons, 2040 daily traffic assignments along the existing US 74 corridor are
reduced for every segment in the Build condition, with a range of 8,000 vpd to 18,800
vpd. The percentage of volume reduction is between 15 percent and 56 percent, with an
average percent reduction of 24 percent for the overall corridor VMT.

Summarizing the five comparisons to forecast and travel demand model results made
above, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is expected to reduce traffic volumes along the
existing US 74 corridor for every corridor segment in the project study area in the Build
condition. Some traffic on existing US 74 is expected to divert to the new facility, thus
reducing congestion and improving traffic operations along the existing US 74 corridor with
construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.

5. How could changes in socioeconomic data affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project?
Various regional socioeconomic forecasting processes and updates have occurred over the
last decade in association with updated versions of the Metrolina Regional Model. Table 10
summarizes the various socioeconomic data, file name, model version and final forecast
year. Section 4.0 of the Monroe Connector/Bypass Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Technical Report (Baker, May 2013) provides a detailed review of socioeconomic forecast
data.

Table 10 – Metrolina Regional Model Socioeconomic (SE) Data Versions
SE Data
(Forecast) Name
TAZ
File Name
Associated
Model Version
Final
Forecast Year
2005 SE Data SE_Year_taz2934
MRM05v1.0
MRM06v1.0
MRM06v1.1
2030
2008 SE Data SE_Year_081024 MRM08v1.0 2035
2008 Interim Data SE_Year_081119_MUMPO_interim None 2035
2009 SE Data SE_Year_091028
MRM09v1.0
MRM11v1.0
MRM11v1.1
2035
2013 SE Data* LANDUSE_TAZYEAR_131203 MRM14v1.0 2040
* Not available or included in ICE Technical Report (Baker, May 2013).

The Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1, was used as the base model to evaluate raw
model daily volume assignment for 2035 No-Build and Build conditions utilizing 2005, 2008
Interim and 2009 socioeconomic data. MRM05v1.0 and MRM06v1.1 were also utilized in
their respective traffic forecasts, as previously listed in Table 1. MRM08v1.0 and
MRM09v1.0 were not specifically utilized for traffic forecasts in the project development
process. 2008 socioeconomic data was not evaluated or compared in this memorandum,
since it was not used in any traffic forecast or traffic and revenue study. Referencing 2005
SE data raw model daily vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as the baseline, 2008 Interim and
2009 SE data VMT along the US 74 corridor increased 5 percent for the No-Build and 2 to 3
E2-15
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 16
percent and 5 percent along the Monroe Bypass and US 74 for the Build, respectively.
Changes in raw model daily vehicles miles traveled are to be expected and appropriate
when comparing various socioeconomic data which are based on a variety of different
information, assumptions, time periods and horizon years. This comparison shows that
even while differences existing between various socioeconomic data, the resulting VMT are
generally consistent (within 5 percent along US 74 for the No-Build and within 2 to 3 percent
along the Monroe Bypass for the Build). Table 11 lists raw model daily volume assignment
for segments along the Monroe Connector/Bypass project and US 74 corridor for No-Build
and Build conditions with 2005, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data.

As of February 3, 2014, the MRM14v1.0 model and associated output was provided by
CRTPO (formerly MUMPO). In an effort to consider all available information, this memo was
revised to include a comparison of MRM14v1.0 raw model output for future Build scenarios
as discussed in Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6.

Based on a direct comparison of 2005 SE, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data, the
socioeconomic data sets have relatively similar volume assignments and corridor vehicle
miles traveled within 2 to 3 percent and 5 percent for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US
74 corridor, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the three
sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the traffic forecast.

6. How could changes in the socioeconomic data related to indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Based on the Monroe Connector/Bypass Indirect and Cumulative Effects Technical Report
(Baker, May 2013), socioeconomic data was developed for a 2030 Build RPA
(Recommended Preferred Alternative) scenario. This forecast of socioeconomic data is
referenced as 2009 ICE data. The Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1, was run with
one set of socioeconomic data (2009 SE data) for the 2030 No-Build scenario and two sets
of socioeconomic data (2009 SE data and 2009 ICE data) for the 2030 Build scenario. The
only difference between the two Build model runs was the change in socioeconomic data.
The raw model daily volume assignment along the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
corridor were compared for each model run (Table 12). Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
vehicle hours traveled (VHT) were compared for each model run (Table 13).

The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment comparison between the two Build
model runs shows little variability in the results (Table 12). When comparing the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project links as a whole, the corridor VMT difference is less than five
percent, with no individual link having a difference of greater than ten percent or 3,300
vehicles per day (vpd). When comparing the US 74 corridor as a whole, the daily bi-
directional volume difference is less than three percent, with 24 out of 30 individual links
having a difference of less than five percent or 2,800 vpd. The eastern terminus of the
project, from E. Franklin Street to the Monroe Connector/Bypass terminus, projects daily bi-
directional volume differences greater than ten percent or 1,800 vpd to 4,700 vpd.

The raw travel demand model daily volume assignment comparison between the No-Build
and each of the two Build model runs shows the similar variability in the results (Table 12).
When comparing the US 74 corridor as a whole, the daily bi-directional volume differences
between the No-Build and the two Builds vary greatly. In the Build scenarios, all US 74
segment volumes are projected to decrease and corridor VMT decreases between 18 to 21
percent compared to the No-Build scenario. The raw travel demand model daily volume
E2-16
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 17
assignment clearly shows that US 74 traffic volumes and corridor VMT is expected to be
less with construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.

The VMT and VHT values were compared between Union County, Mecklenburg County,
and the entire MRM11v1.1 model network (Table 13). The change in VMT and VHT in
Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg
County and across the MRM network are zero percent. Based on these minor network
assignment changes between 2009 SE data and 2009 ICE data, it is reasonable to conclude
the changes in SE data would not substantially change existing or future Build traffic
forecast results.
E2-17
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 18
Conclusions

1. Question – What traffic forecasts were developed during the Monroe Connector/Bypass
project development process and what were they used for?
Answer – Detailed listing of the traffic forecasts prepared during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process and uses are included on pages 1-5.

2. Question – Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were
used?
Answer – Yes. Based on the assessment of 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes, the Metrolina
Regional Travel Demand Model, MRM11v1.1, utilizing 2009 socioeconomic data, 2030 and
2040 MRM14v1.0, utilizing 2013 socioeconomic data, existing US 74 corridor travel time
runs, and current 2008 and 2035 No-Build forecast information, the No-Build traffic forecasts
are still valid for the purposes they were used.

3. Question – Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purpose they were used?
Answer – Yes. The differences between MRM06v1.1, MRM11v1.1 and MRM14v1.0 raw
model daily volume assignment, and the Build traffic forecasts indicate that the magnitude of
traffic along the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74 would still show the need for the
project, and benefits to the existing US 74 corridor from the project, as currently supported
by the Build forecast utilized in the project development process.

4. Question – How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US 74
corridor?
Answer – When comparing Build and No-Build Traffic Forecast Scenarios and 2030
MRM06v1.1, 2035 MRM11v1.1, 2030 and 2040 MRM14v1.0 raw model network assignment
data, the Build volumes are lower than the No-Build for every segment along the US 74
corridor for the forecast results and model run results.

5. Question – How could changes in socioeconomic data affect the traffic forecast for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Answer – Based on a direct comparison of 2005 SE, 2008 Interim and 2009 SE data, the
socioeconomic data sets have relatively similar volume assignments with cumulative
corridor volumes within two percent and five percent for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and
US 74 corridor, respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the
three sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the traffic forecast.

6. Question – How do changes in the socioeconomic data related to indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecast for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
Answer – Changes in SE data cause relatively minor changes in traffic volumes in the MRM
model runs. Based on the comparison of 2030 Build MRM11v1.1 model runs using 2009
SE data and 2009 ICE SE data, the volume changes and percent changes are not
substantial. The change in VMT and VHT in Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent
respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg County and across the MRM network are
approximately zero percent. These variations in raw model daily volume assignment will not
affect the conclusions of the traffic forecasting development process.
E2-18
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 19
Table 2 – US 74 Corridor No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes
Comparison Type No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes (Sec. 1)
Year 2007 2008 2008 2030 2035 2035
Scenario No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build
Classification Forecast Forecast Forecast Update Forecast Forecast Forecast Update
ID # Source MAB,
June 2008
WSA,
Sept. 2008
HNTB,
March 2010
MAB,
June 2008
WSA,
Sept. 2008
HNTB,
March 2010
US

7
4

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

1 I-485 to Stallings Rd 61,800 74,200 62,900 84,200 140,200 89,100
2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 60,000 72,000 60,900 81,600 134,300 86,300
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 53,600 62,500 54,200 66,600 123,400 69,400
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 51,800 63,300 52,500 68,600 123,500 72,300
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 53,800 63,800 54,300 65,400 124,500 67,900
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 47,600 54,900 48,500 67,200 116,500 71,500
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 41,000 52,800 46,400 62,400 112,800 67,100
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 41,400 45,100 45,300 55,200 101,800 58,200
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 47,600 47,600 48,100 60,200 106,500 62,900
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 45,400 45,400 46,000 59,800 102,100 62,900
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 44,800 45,400 45,400 59,400 102,100 62,600
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 47,000 47,200 47,700 63,000 105,600 66,500
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 58,200 57,600 58,700 69,600 121,300 72,100
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 56,600 56,000 56,700 59,200 110,700 59,800
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 61,600 61,300 61,700 64,400 120,900 65,000
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 61,600 61,300 61,700 64,400 120,900 65,000
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 61,800 61,500 62,000 66,200 121,400 67,200
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 58,200 57,000 58,800 71,800 116,200 74,800
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 58,000 56,800 58,500 70,600 116,200 73,300
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 56,400 56,100 56,900 67,400 115,300 69,800
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 49,600 48,500 50,200 63,800 95,300 66,900
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 42,600 42,000 43,100 54,800 87,300 57,500
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 40,400 40,600 40,900 52,000 85,400 54,500
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 36,600 40,300 37,100 47,000 83,800 49,300
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 46,200 48,400 46,700 58,000 101,400 60,600
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 31,200 34,600 31,500 38,200 77,800 39,700
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 29,600 33,400 30,000 39,000 75,300 41,000
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 29,200 33,400 29,600 37,600 75,300 39,400
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 28,600 32,900 29,100 40,200 74,300 42,700
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 24,400 26,600 24,800 33,000 51,700 35,900
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Marshville 19,400 22,700 19,800 29,400 44,200 31,600

E2
-
1
9
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 20
Table 3 – Monroe Bypass Build Traffic Forecast Volumes
Comparison Type Build Traffic Forecast Volumes (Sec. 1)
Year 2008 2035
Scenario Build Toll Build Toll
Classification Forecast Forecast
Facility ID # Source WSA, Sept. 2008 WSA Sept. 2008
US 74 1 I-485 to US 74 Frontage Road 73,400 115,000
US 74 / Monroe Bypass 2 US 74 Frontage Rd to US 74 / Monroe Bypass Split 71,900 95,600
Frontage Road 3 McKee Rd to Stallings Rd n/a 19,500
Monroe Bypass Segments
1 US 74 to Indian Trail-Fairview Rd 17,500 48,200
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd 18,200 51,200
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd to Rocky River Rd 18,500 52,300
4 Rocky River Rd to US 601 15,900 46,600
5 US 601 to NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) 12,300 35,200
6 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) to Austin Chaney Rd 8,600 24,800
7 Austin Chaney Rd to Forest Hills School Rd 8,400 19,600
8 Forest Hills School Rd to US 74 8,400 16,400
US 74 Segments
2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 56,400 67,400
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd.
West 40,600 51,300
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 41,400 51,400
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 41,900 52,400
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 32,300 38,200
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 30,200 34,500
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 24,500 28,800
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 27,700 33,500
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 25,500 29,100
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 25,500 29,100
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 27,300 32,300
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 37,700 48,000
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 36,100 37,400
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 41,400 47,600
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 41,400 47,600
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 41,600 48,100
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 42,600 57,200
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 42,400 56,900
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 41,600 56,000
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 40,000 54,500
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 33,500 46,500
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 32,100 44,000
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 31,800 42,400
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center
Campus 39,900 60,000
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest
Ave. 26,100 36,600
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 24,900 34,100
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 24,900 34,100
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 24,400 33,100
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 19,700 26,100
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Bypass 13,700 20,700

E2-20
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 21
Table 4 – Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic and Revenue Estimated Traffic Volumes
Comparison Type Build Estimated Traffic Volumes (Sec. 1.3)
Year 2015 2020 2030
Scenario Build Build Build
Model Version MRM06 MRM06 MRM06
Socioeconomic Data 2008 Interim 2008 Interim 2008 Interim
Classification Traffic & Revenue Traffic & Revenue Traffic & Revenue
Facility ID # Source WSA, Oct. 2010 WSA, Oct. 2010 WSA, Oct. 2010
US 74 1 I-485 to US 74 Frontage Road 72,200 77,800 92,600
US 74 / Monroe Bypass 2 US 74 Frontage Rd to US 74 / Monroe Bypass Split 40,600 45,800 58,400
Frontage Road 3 McKee Rd to Stallings Rd 33,400 35,100 35,900
Monroe Bypass Segments
1 US 74 to Indian Trail-Fairview Rd 29,000 33,600 45,600
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd 31,600 35,200 43,600
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd to Rocky River Rd 29,200 32,400 40,200
4 Rocky River Rd to US 601 25,800 28,400 35,600
5 US 601 to NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) 24,600 27,200 32,800
6 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) to Austin Chaney Rd 15,200 17,200 22,600
7 Austin Chaney Rd to Forest Hills School Rd 10,200 11,800 15,600
8 Forest Hills School Rd to US 74 9,200 10,800 14,200
E2
-
2
1

This page was intentionally left blank.
E2-22
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014
22
Table 5 – US 74 Corridor AADT and No-Build Model Data Comparisons
Comparison Type NCDOT AADT (Sec. 2.1) Raw Model Daily Volume (Sec. 2.2) Raw Model Daily Volume (Sec. 2.3)
Year 2007 2012 2030 2035 2030 2040
Scenario n/a n/a No-Build No-Build No-Build No-Build
Model Version n/a n/a MRM05 MRM11 MRM14 MRM14
Socioeconomic Data n/a n/a 2005 2009 2013 2013
Classification AADT AADT Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
ID # Source NCDOT NCDOT Model Model Model Model
US

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

1 I-485 to Stallings Rd 58,000* 57,000* 70,300* 101,600* 87,400* 90,300*
2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 53,000 53,000 65,600 90,300 81,600 81,100
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 50,000 51,000 49,500 65,500 60,700 59,800
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 49,000 48,000 54,000 66,400 60,100 61,200
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. n/a n/a 58,100 56,900 54,500 59,400
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 43,000 44,000 58,100 47,400 53,700 58,700
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 36,000 37,000 59,500 46,100 48,800 53,700
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. n/a n/a 47,900 45,300 47,400 52,100
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 36,000 38,000 50,900 38,100 37,000 40,500
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. n/a n/a 50,900 38,100 37,000 40,500
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. n/a n/a 54,700 43,100 46,100 50,800
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. n/a n/a 54,700 49,200 51,900 56,800
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. n/a n/a 54,700 49,200 51,900 56,800
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 47,000 50,000 40,000 66,400 56,600 61,200
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. n/a n/a 44,000 71,500 59,700 64,700
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. n/a n/a 44,000 71,500 59,700 64,700
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 53,000 55,000 44,000 73,200 60,100 65,200
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 54,000 51,000 57,400 69,300 56,900 61,500
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. n/a n/a 57,400 67,100 54,300 58,600
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 52,000 50,000 53,100 66,400 52,500 56,800
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 47,000 47,000 54,100 68,200 49,900 54,400
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 38,000 33,000 54,100 66,800 49,500 53,800
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. n/a n/a 54,100 65,500 49,100 53,400
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. n/a n/a 54,100 66,400 48,100 52,500
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus n/a n/a 54,100 75,500 52,500 57,500
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 27,000 27,000 32,200 41,500 31,200 34,000
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 25,000 24,000 35,000 48,300 32,800 35,900
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 24,000 25,000 33,200 36,500 26,000 28,200
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 24,000 26,000 30,200 37,700 26,400 29,000
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 24,000 23,000 25,800 30,700 20,400 22,300
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Marshville n/a n/a 23,000 21,200 14,800 16,100
Corridor VMT 706,610 710,230 876,001 965,940 842,066 900,960
% Change in VMT ~0% 10% 7%
% Change in VMT
(2030 MRM05 to 2030 and 2040 MRM14) n/a n/a -4% 3%
VMT Annual Growth Rate ~0% 2% 1%
* US 74 Corridor Segment ID #1 not included in US 74 corridor VMT calculations to provide consistent No-Build and Build corridor comparisons.
E2-23

Th
i
s

p
a
g
e

w
a
s

i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

l
e
f
t

b
l
a
n
k
.

E2
-
2
4
Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 23
Table 6 – US 74 Corridor AADT and No-Build Traffic Forecast Comparison
Comparison Type NCDOT AADT and No-Build Traffic Forecast Volumes (Sec. 2.4)
Year 2012 2035 Traffic
Volume
Increase from
2012 AADT to
2035 No-Build
Forecast
Percent
Volume
Increase from
2012 AADT to
2035 No-Build
Forecast
Scenario n/a No-Build
Classification AADT Forecast Update
ID # Source NCDOT HNTB,
March 2010
US

7
4

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

1 I-485 to Stallings Rd 57,000 89,100 32,100 56%
2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 53,000 86,300 33,300 63%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 51,000 69,400 18,400 36%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 48,000 72,300 24,300 51%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. n/a 67,900 n/a n/a
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 44,000 71,500 27,500 63%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 37,000 67,100 30,100 81%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. n/a 58,200 n/a n/a
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 38,000 62,900 24,900 66%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. n/a 62,900 n/a n/a
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. n/a 62,600 n/a n/a
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. n/a 66,500 n/a n/a
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. n/a 72,100 n/a n/a
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 50,000 59,800 9,800 20%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. n/a 65,000 n/a n/a
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. n/a 65,000 n/a n/a
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 55,000 67,200 12,200 22%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 51,000 74,800 23,800 47%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. n/a 73,300 n/a n/a
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 50,000 69,800 19,800 40%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 47,000 66,900 19,900 42%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 33,000 57,500 24,500 74%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. n/a 54,500 n/a n/a
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. n/a 49,300 n/a n/a
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus n/a 60,600 n/a n/a
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 27,000 39,700 12,700 47%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 24,000 41,000 17,000 71%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 25,000 39,400 14,400 58%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 26,000 42,700 16,700 64%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 23,000 35,900 12,900 56%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Marshville n/a 31,600 n/a n/a
E2
-
2
5

This page was intentionally left blank.
E2-26

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 24
Table 7 – 2030 and 2035 Build Model Data Comparisons
Comparison Type Travel Demand Model Raw Daily Volume Assignment
Year 2030 2030 Percent Change
from
2030 MRM06 to
2030 MRM11
(Sec. 3.1)
2035 Percent Change
from
2030 MRM06 to
2035 MRM11
(Sec. 3.3)
Percent Change
from
2030 MRM11 to
2035 MRM11
(Sec. 3.2)
Scenario Build Build Build
Model Version MRM06 MRM11 MRM11
Socioeconomic Data 2005 2009 2009
Classification Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
Facility ID # Source Model Model Model
US 74 1 I-485 to US 74 Frontage Road n/a 91,300 125,400 37% 134,000 47% 7%
US 74 / Monroe Bypass 2 US 74 Frontage Rd to US 74 / Monroe Bypass Split n/a 89,800 109,500 22% 116,500 30% 6%
Frontage Road 3 McKee Rd to Stallings Rd n/a n/a 7,700 n/a 8,600 n/a 12%
Distance (miles)
Monroe Bypass Segments
1 US 74 to Indian Trail-Fairview Rd 2.24 47,900 62,500 30% 67,400 41% 8%
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd 2.26 49,000 52,900 8% 56,800 16% 7%
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd to Rocky River Rd 1.51 52,400 47,200 -10% 50,800 -3% 8%
4 Rocky River Rd to US 601 3.77 48,300 44,100 -9% 47,700 -1% 8%
5 US 601 to NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) 1.76 48,800 39,500 -19% 43,100 -12% 9%
6 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) to Austin Chaney Rd 4.06 44,600 32,500 -27% 36,000 -19% 11%
7 Austin Chaney Rd to Forest Hills School Rd 1.79 25,900 22,600 -13% 24,800 -4% 10%
8 Forest Hills School Rd to US 74 0.92 23,200 20,000 -14% 21,600 -7% 8%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 813,920 757,407 -7% 822,161 1% 9%
US 74 Segments
2 Stallings Rd / Monroe Bypass to Indian Trail Rd. North 1.27 47,200 61,400 30% 65,200 38% 6%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 0.68 37,500 48,200 29% 51,900 38% 8%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 0.80 35,700 50,100 40% 53,700 50% 7%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 0.60 38,500 45,800 19% 48,200 25% 5%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 1.16 33,100 37,300 13% 39,800 20% 7%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 1.37 34,900 35,800 3% 38,300 10% 7%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 1.17 25,400 36,200 43% 38,400 51% 6%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 0.78 25,400 29,400 16% 31,300 23% 6%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 0.31 30,500 29,400 -4% 31,300 3% 6%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 0.36 38,600 35,200 -9% 37,400 -3% 6%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 0.22 38,600 41,600 8% 43,900 14% 6%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 0.32 38,600 41,600 8% 43,900 14% 6%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 0.27 38,600 53,300 38% 56,700 47% 6%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 0.07 31,100 56,200 81% 59,200 90% 5%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 0.26 31,100 56,200 81% 59,200 90% 5%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 0.33 35,900 57,800 61% 60,900 70% 5%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 0.40 50,900 57,100 12% 60,400 19% 6%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 0.24 48,600 55,000 13% 57,500 18% 5%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 0.57 46,100 54,300 18% 57,500 25% 6%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 0.23 44,900 55,200 23% 59,300 32% 7%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 0.53 45,900 54,600 19% 58,000 26% 6%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 0.26 44,900 52,700 17% 56,100 25% 6%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 0.19 45,000 53,100 18% 56,700 26% 7%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 0.14 54,500 60,600 11% 65,200 20% 8%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Ctr Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 1.30 26,700 30,400 14% 32,500 22% 7%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 0.38 31,100 37,000 19% 40,100 29% 8%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 1.94 24,800 26,000 5% 28,500 15% 10%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 0.29 25,400 27,300 7% 30,000 18% 10%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 2.00 18,400 19,800 8% 22,700 23% 15%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Connector/Bypass 0.50 10,300 10,600 3% 11,600 13% 9%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 614,335 729,912 19% 782,051 27% 7%
-Y- Lines
1 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 17,000 21,500 26% 23,000 35% 7%
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 11,000 7,400 -33% 8,000 -27% 8%
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 15,000 14,000 -7% 15,000 0% 7%
4 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 21,000 12,800 -39% 14,100 -33% 10%
5 Rocky River Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 16,000 12,100 -24% 12,700 -21% 5%
6 Rocky River Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 14,000 17,800 27% 18,600 33% 4%
7 US 601 (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 49,000 20,700 -58% 21,700 -56% 5%
8 US 601 (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 43,000 18,000 -58% 18,800 -56% 4%
9 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 19,000 14,700 -23% 16,100 -15% 10%
10 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 12,000 18,500 54% 19,800 65% 7%
11 Austin Chaney Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 8,400 10,300 23% 11,400 36% 11%
12 Austin Chaney Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 14,000 14,000 0% 15,600 11% 11%
13 Forest Hills School Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 1,400 700 -50% 1,100 -21% 57%
14 Forest Hills School Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 1,600 2,100 31% 2,500 56% 19%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 121,200 92,300 -24% 99,200 -18% 7%
* US 74 Corridor Segment ID #1 not included in US 74 corridor VMT calculations to provide consistent No-Build and Build corridor comparisons.
E2-27

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 25
Table 7 (cont.) – 2030 and 2040 Build Model Data Comparisons
Comparison Type Travel Demand Model Raw Daily Volume Assignment
Year 2030 2030 Percent Change
from
2030 MRM06 to
2030 MRM14
(Sec. 3.4)
2040 Percent Change
from
2030 MRM06 to
2040 MRM14
(Sec. 3.6)
Percent Change
from
2030 MRM14 to
2040 MRM14
(Sec. 3.5)
Scenario Build Build Build
Model Version MRM06 MRM14 MRM14
Socioeconomic Data 2005 2013 2013
Classification Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
Facility ID # Source Model Model Model
US 74 1 I-485 to US 74 Frontage Road n/a 91,300 118,300 30% 125,200 37% 6%
US 74 / Monroe Bypass 2 US 74 Frontage Rd to US 74 / Monroe Bypass Split n/a 89,800 78,900 -12% 80,800 -10% 2%
Frontage Road 3 McKee Rd to Stallings Rd n/a n/a 17,400 n/a 21,500 n/a 24%
Distance (miles)
Monroe Bypass Segments
1 US 74 to Indian Trail-Fairview Rd 2.24 47,900 63,000 32% 64,800 35% 3%
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd 2.26 49,000 50,900 4% 55,300 13% 9%
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd to Rocky River Rd 1.51 52,400 47,800 -9% 53,200 2% 11%
4 Rocky River Rd to US 601 3.77 48,300 41,800 -13% 47,200 -2% 13%
5 US 601 to NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) 1.76 48,800 34,600 -29% 39,500 -19% 14%
6 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) to Austin Chaney Rd 4.06 44,600 27,800 -38% 31,400 -30% 13%
7 Austin Chaney Rd to Forest Hills School Rd 1.79 25,900 19,600 -24% 21,300 -18% 9%
8 Forest Hills School Rd to US 74 0.92 23,200 19,600 -16% 21,300 -8% 9%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 813,920 712,798 -12% 783,133 -4% 10%
US 74 Segments
2 Stallings Rd / Monroe Bypass to Indian Trail Rd. North 1.27 47,200 60,700 29% 62,300 32% 3%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 0.68 37,500 46,800 25% 46,900 25% ~0%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 0.80 35,700 48,700 36% 50,300 41% 3%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 0.60 38,500 46,000 19% 50,200 30% 9%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 1.16 33,100 42,600 29% 46,000 39% 8%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 1.37 34,900 37,500 7% 40,900 17% 9%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 1.17 25,400 36,100 42% 39,400 55% 9%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 0.78 25,400 26,100 3% 28,600 13% 10%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 0.31 30,500 26,100 -14% 28,600 -6% 10%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 0.36 38,600 35,400 -8% 39,100 1% 10%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 0.22 38,600 41,800 8% 46,200 20% 11%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 0.32 38,600 41,800 8% 46,200 20% 11%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 0.27 38,600 42,800 11% 46,500 20% 9%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 0.07 31,100 44,700 44% 48,000 54% 7%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 0.26 31,100 44,700 44% 48,000 54% 7%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 0.33 35,900 45,200 26% 48,500 35% 7%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 0.40 50,900 47,800 -6% 51,000 ~0% 7%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 0.24 48,600 45,200 -7% 48,100 -1% 6%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 0.57 46,100 43,300 -6% 46,300 ~0% 7%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 0.23 44,900 42,300 -6% 45,800 2% 8%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 0.53 45,900 42,500 -7% 45,800 ~0% 8%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 0.26 44,900 40,500 -10% 43,800 -2% 8%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 0.19 45,000 39,500 -12% 42,900 -5% 9%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 0.14 54,500 43,100 -21% 47,200 -13% 10%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Ctr Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 1.30 26,700 22,300 -16% 24,400 -9% 9%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 0.38 31,100 23,800 -23% 26,400 -15% 11%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 1.94 24,800 16,600 -33% 18,700 -25% 13%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 0.29 25,400 17,900 -30% 20,300 -20% 13%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 2.00 18,400 12,100 -34% 13,700 -26% 13%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Connector/Bypass 0.50 10,300 6,400 -38% 7,100 -31% 11%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 614,335 637,290 4% 685,619 12% 8%
-Y- Lines
1 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 17,000 24,800 46% 29,100 71% 17%
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 11,000 7,400 -33% 8,700 -21% 18%
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 15,000 12,300 -18% 13,600 -9% 11%
4 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 21,000 13,300 -37% 15,500 -26% 17%
5 Rocky River Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 16,000 9,500 -41% 10,500 -34% 11%
6 Rocky River Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 14,000 17,300 24% 18,900 35% 9%
7 US 601 (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 49,000 23,300 -52% 26,000 -47% 12%
8 US 601 (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 43,000 23,200 -46% 25,600 -40% 10%
9 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 19,000 10,700 -44% 11,000 -42% 3%
10 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 12,000 17,300 44% 19,000 58% 10%
11 Austin Chaney Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 8,400 5,600 -33% 6,800 -19% 21%
12 Austin Chaney Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 14,000 8,500 -39% 10,200 -27% 20%
13 Forest Hills School Rd (North of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 1,400 Volumes for this segment were not included in the MRM14 output provided CRTPO
14 Forest Hills School Rd (South of Monroe Bypass) 0.50 1,600 Volumes for this segment were not included in the MRM14 output provided CRTPO
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 121,200 86,600 -29% 97,450 -20% 13%
* US 74 Corridor Segment ID #1 not included in US 74 corridor VMT calculations to provide consistent No-Build and Build corridor comparisons.
E2-28

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 26
Table 8 – Effects of the Monroe Connector/Bypass on US 74 Traffic Forecast Volumes
Comparison Type Traffic Forecast Volumes (Sec. 4.1)
Year 2035 2035 Traffic
Volume
Reduction
Due to Build
Scenario
Percent
Volume
Reduction on
US 74 in Build
Scenario
Scenario No-Build Build Toll
Classification Forecast
Update Forecast
ID # Source HNTB,
March 2010
WSA Sept.
2008
US

7
4

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 86,300 67,400 -18,900 -22%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd.
West 69,400 51,300 -18,100 -26%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 72,300 51,400 -20,900 -29%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 67,900 52,400 -15,500 -23%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 71,500 38,200 -33,300 -47%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 67,100 34,500 -32,600 -49%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 58,200 28,800 -29,400 -51%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 62,900 33,500 -29,400 -47%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 62,900 29,100 -33,800 -54%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 62,600 29,100 -33,500 -54%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 66,500 32,300 -34,200 -51%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 72,100 48,000 -24,100 -33%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 59,800 37,400 -22,400 -37%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 65,000 47,600 -17,400 -27%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 65,000 47,600 -17,400 -27%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 67,200 48,100 -19,100 -28%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 74,800 57,200 -17,600 -24%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 73,300 56,900 -16,400 -22%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 69,800 56,000 -13,800 -20%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 66,900 54,500 -12,400 -19%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 57,500 46,500 -11,000 -19%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 54,500 44,000 -10,500 -19%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 49,300 42,400 -6,900 -14%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 60,600 60,000 -600 -1%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest
Ave. 39,700 36,600 -3,100 -8%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 41,000 34,100 -6,900 -17%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 39,400 34,100 -5,300 -13%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 42,700 33,100 -9,600 -22%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 35,900 26,100 -9,800 -27%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Marshville 31,600 20,700 -10,900 -34%
Corridor VMT, VMT Reduction and % Change in VMT 1,095,695 760,460 -335,235 -31%

E2-29

This page was intentionally left blank.
E2-30

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 27
Table 9 – Effects of the Monroe Connector/Bypass on US 74 Travel Demand Model Assignment
Comparison Type Travel Demand Model Raw Output Assignment
Year 2030 2030
Assignment
Reduction Due to
Build Scenario
(Sec. 4.2)
Percent Reduction
on US 74 in Build
Scenario
(Sec. 4.2)
2035 2035
Assignment
Reduction Due to
Build Scenario
(Sec. 4.3)
Percent Reduction
on US 74 in Build
Scenario
(Sec. 4.3)
Scenario No-Build Build No-Build Build
Model Version MRM06 MRM06 MRM11 MRM11
Socioeconomic Data 2005 2005 2009 2009
Classification Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
ID # Source Model Model Model Model
US

7
4

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

2 Stallings Rd / Monroe Bypass to Indian Trail Rd. North 62,600 47,200 -15,400 -25% 90,300 65,200 -25,100 -28%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 51,800 37,500 -14,300 -28% 65,500 51,900 -13,600 -21%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 49,600 35,700 -13,900 -28% 66,400 53,700 -12,700 -19%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 51,000 38,500 -12,500 -25% 56,900 48,200 -8,700 -15%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 50,600 33,100 -17,500 -35% 47,400 39,800 -7,600 -16%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 52,600 34,900 -17,700 -34% 46,100 38,300 -7,800 -17%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 42,600 25,400 -17,200 -40% 45,300 38,400 -6,900 -15%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 47,300 25,400 -21,900 -46% 38,100 31,300 -6,800 -18%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 47,300 30,500 -16,800 -36% 38,100 31,300 -6,800 -18%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 55,700 38,600 -17,100 -31% 43,100 37,400 -5,700 -13%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 55,700 38,600 -17,100 -31% 49,200 43,900 -5,300 -11%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 55,700 38,600 -17,100 -31% 49,200 43,900 -5,300 -11%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 43,400 38,600 -4,800 -11% 66,400 56,700 -9,700 -15%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 48,400 31,100 -17,300 -36% 71,500 59,200 -12,300 -17%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 48,400 31,100 -17,300 -36% 71,500 59,200 -12,300 -17%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 47,300 35,900 -11,400 -24% 73,200 60,900 -12,300 -17%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 61,700 50,900 -10,800 -18% 69,300 60,400 -8,900 -13%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 59,500 48,600 -10,900 -18% 67,100 57,500 -9,600 -14%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 57,100 46,100 -11,000 -19% 66,400 57,500 -8,900 -13%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 56,200 44,900 -11,300 -20% 68,200 59,300 -8,900 -13%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 57,000 45,900 -11,100 -19% 66,800 58,000 -8,800 -13%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 58,700 44,900 -13,800 -24% 65,500 56,100 -9,400 -14%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 59,000 45,000 -14,000 -24% 66,400 56,700 -9,700 -15%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 68,500 54,500 -14,000 -20% 75,500 65,200 -10,300 -14%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 38,500 26,700 -11,800 -31% 41,500 32,500 -9,000 -22%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 41,600 31,100 -10,500 -25% 48,300 40,100 -8,200 -17%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 39,900 24,800 -15,100 -38% 36,500 28,500 -8,000 -22%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 39,500 25,400 -14,100 -36% 37,700 30,000 -7,700 -20%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 30,700 18,400 -12,300 -40% 30,700 22,700 -8,000 -26%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Connector/Bypass 21,200 10,300 -10,900 -51% 21,200 11,600 -9,600 -45%
Corridor VMT, VMT Reduction and % Change in VMT 888,016 614,335 -273,681 -31% 965,940 782,051 -183,889 -19%

E2-31

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 28
Table 9 (cont.) – Effects of the Monroe Connector/Bypass on US 74 Travel Demand Model Assignment
Comparison Type Travel Demand Model Raw Output Assignment
Year 2030 2030
Assignment
Reduction Due to
Build Scenario
(Sec. 4.4)
Percent Reduction
on US 74 in Build
Scenario
(Sec. 4.4)
2040 2040
Assignment
Reduction Due to
Build Scenario
(Sec. 4.5)
Percent Reduction
on US 74 in Build
Scenario
(Sec. 4.5)
Scenario No-Build Build No-Build Build
Model Version MRM 14 MRM 14 MRM 14 MRM 14
Socioeconomic Data 2013 2013 2013 2013
Classification Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
ID # Source Model Model Model Model
US

7
4

S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

2 Stallings Rd / Monroe Bypass to Indian Trail Rd. North 81,600 60,700 -20,900 -26% 81,100 62,300 -18,800 -23%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 60,700 46,800 -13,900 -23% 59,800 46,900 -12,900 -22%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 60,100 48,700 -11,400 -19% 61,200 50,300 -10,900 -18%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 54,500 46,000 -8,500 -16% 59,400 50,200 -9,200 -15%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 53,700 42,600 -11,100 -21% 58,700 46,000 -12,700 -22%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 48,800 37,500 -11,300 -23% 53,700 40,900 -12,800 -24%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 47,400 36,100 -11,300 -24% 52,100 39,400 -12,700 -24%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 37,000 26,100 -10,900 -29% 40,500 28,600 -11,900 -29%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 37,000 26,100 -10,900 -29% 40,500 28,600 -11,900 -29%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 46,100 35,400 -10,700 -23% 50,800 39,100 -11,700 -23%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 51,900 41,800 -10,100 -19% 56,800 46,200 -10,600 -19%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 51,900 41,800 -10,100 -19% 56,800 46,200 -10,600 -19%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 56,600 42,800 -13,800 -24% 61,200 46,500 -14,700 -24%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 59,700 44,700 -15,000 -25% 64,700 48,000 -16,700 -26%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 59,700 44,700 -15,000 -25% 64,700 48,000 -16,700 -26%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 60,100 45,200 -14,900 -25% 65,200 48,500 -16,700 -26%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 56,900 47,800 -9,100 -16% 61,500 51,000 -10,500 -17%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 54,300 45,200 -9,100 -17% 58,600 48,100 -10,500 -18%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 52,500 43,300 -9,200 -18% 56,800 46,300 -10,500 -18%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 49,900 42,300 -7,600 -15% 54,400 45,800 -8,600 -16%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 49,500 42,500 -7,000 -14% 53,800 45,800 -8,000 -15%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 49,100 40,500 -8,600 -18% 53,400 43,800 -9,600 -18%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 48,100 39,500 -8,600 -18% 52,500 42,900 -9,600 -18%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 52,500 43,100 -9,400 -18% 57,500 47,200 -10,300 -18%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest Ave. 31,200 22,300 -8,900 -29% 34,000 24,400 -9,600 -28%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 32,800 23,800 -9,000 -27% 35,900 26,400 -9,500 -26%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 26,000 16,600 -9,400 -36% 28,200 18,700 -9,500 -34%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 26,400 17,900 -8,500 -32% 29,000 20,300 -8,700 -30%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 20,400 12,100 -8,300 -41% 22,300 13,700 -8,600 -39%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Connector/Bypass 14,800 6,400 -8,400 -57% 16,100 7,100 -9,000 -56%
Corridor VMT, VMT Reduction and % Change in VMT 842,066 637,290 -204,776 -24% 900,960 685,619 -215,341 -24%
E2-32

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 29
Table 11 – Effects of the Socioeconomic Data on Travel Demand Model Assignment
Comparison Type Travel Demand Model Raw Assignment (Sec. 5)
Year 2035 2035 2035
Percent Change
from SE 2005 to
SE 2008 Interim
Percent Change
from SE 2005 to
SE 2009
2035 2035 2035
Percent Change
from SE 2005 to
SE 2008 Interim
Percent Change
from SE 2005 to
SE 2009
Scenario No-Build No-Build No-Build Build Build Build
Model Version MRM11 MRM11 MRM11 MRM11 MRM11 MRM11
Socioeconomic Data 2005 2008 Interim 2009 2005 2008 Interim 2009
Classification Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
Facility ID # Source Model Model Model Model Model Model
US 74 1 I-485 to US 74 Frontage Road n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 124,700 131,800 134,000 6% 7%
US 74 / Monroe Bypass 2 US 74 Frontage Rd to US 74 / Monroe Bypass Split n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 110,500 116,000 116,500 5% 5%
Frontage Road 3 McKee Rd to Stallings Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 8,300 8,100 8,600 -2% 4%

Monroe Bypass Segments
1 US 74 to Indian Trail-Fairview Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 62,900 66,800 67,400 6% 7%
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 55,700 56,700 56,800 2% 2%
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd to Rocky River Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 49,800 50,800 50,800 2% 2%
4 Rocky River Rd to US 601 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 47,100 47,300 47,700 0% 1%
5 US 601 to NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 41,700 42,800 43,100 3% 3%
6 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) to Austin Chaney Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 35,100 35,900 36,000 2% 3%
7 Austin Chaney Rd to Forest Hills School Rd n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 24,300 24,700 24,800 2% 2%
8 Forest Hills School Rd to US 74 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21,800 21,600 21,600 -1% -1%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 798,994 817,970 822,161 2% 3%
US 74 Segments
1 I-485 to Stallings Rd 92,100* 98,800* 101,600* 7%* 10%* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a*
2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 82,300 88,500 90,300 8% 10% 61,000 64,600 65,200 6% 7%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 60,000 64,600 65,500 8% 9% 48,500 51,800 51,900 7% 7%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 60,700 66,300 66,400 9% 9% 49,600 53,600 53,700 8% 8%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 53,100 57,200 56,900 8% 7% 45,400 48,300 48,200 6% 6%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 46,500 47,500 47,400 2% 2% 39,700 40,200 39,800 1% 0%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 45,200 46,200 46,100 2% 2% 38,100 38,600 38,300 1% 1%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 46,600 45,600 45,300 -2% -3% 40,300 38,800 38,400 -4% -5%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 38,500 38,300 38,100 -1% -1% 31,700 31,700 31,300 0% -1%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 38,500 38,300 38,100 -1% -1% 31,700 31,700 31,300 0% -1%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 43,300 49,100 43,100 13% 0% 37,500 43,900 37,400 17% 0%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 49,500 49,100 49,200 -1% -1% 43,800 43,900 43,900 0% 0%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 49,500 49,100 49,200 -1% -1% 43,800 43,900 43,900 0% 0%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 66,400 66,300 66,400 0% 0% 57,000 56,900 56,700 0% -1%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 71,400 71,400 71,500 0% 0% 59,600 59,400 59,200 0% -1%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 71,400 71,400 71,500 0% 0% 59,600 59,400 59,200 0% -1%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 72,900 73,100 73,200 0% 0% 61,200 61,100 60,900 0% 0%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 67,000 69,200 69,300 3% 3% 58,100 50,900 60,400 -12% 4%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 65,000 67,000 67,100 3% 3% 56,100 58,100 57,500 4% 2%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 63,800 66,300 66,400 4% 4% 55,200 57,600 57,500 4% 4%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 66,200 67,900 68,200 3% 3% 57,000 59,500 59,300 4% 4%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 64,800 66,400 66,800 2% 3% 55,700 58,000 58,000 4% 4%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 62,800 65,300 65,500 4% 4% 53,100 56,000 56,100 5% 6%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 63,100 66,200 66,400 5% 5% 53,300 56,600 56,700 6% 6%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 71,400 75,400 75,500 6% 6% 60,700 65,100 65,200 7% 7%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest
Ave. 38,900 41,400 41,500 6% 7% 29,600 32,400 32,500 9% 10%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 45,000 48,300 48,300 7% 7% 36,600 40,000 40,100 9% 10%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 33,900 36,300 36,500 7% 8% 25,700 28,300 28,500 10% 11%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 35,000 37,600 37,700 7% 8% 27,200 30,000 30,000 10% 10%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 27,600 30,900 30,700 12% 11% 17,800 21,200 22,700 19% 28%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Bypass 19,900 21,200 21,200 7% 7% 10,200 11,700 11,600 15% 14%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 921,342 965,324 965,940 5% 5% 743,793 778,388 782,051 5% 5%
* US 74 Corridor Segment ID #1 not included in US 74 corridor VMT calculations to provide consistent No-Build and Build corridor comparisons.
E2-33

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 30
Table 12 – Effects of Indirect and Cumulative Effects Socioeconomic Data
on Travel Demand Model Assignment
Comparison Type Travel Demand Model
Raw Assignment (Sec. 6)
Year 2030 2030 Percent
Change from
2030 NB 2009
SE to 2030 B
2009 SE
2030 Percent
Change from
2030 NB 2009
SE to 2030 B
2009 ICE
Percent
Change from
2030 B 2009
SE to 2030 B
2009 ICE
Scenario No-Build Build Build
Model Version MRM11 MRM11 MRM11
Socioeconomic Data 2009 2009 2009 ICE
Classification Raw Model Raw Model Raw Model
Facility ID # Source Model Model Model
US 74 1 I-485 to US 74 Frontage Road n/a 125,400 n/a 125,600 n/a 0%
US 74 / Monroe
Bypass 2 US 74 Frontage Rd to US 74 / Monroe Bypass Split n/a 109,500 n/a 109,700 n/a 0%
Frontage Road 3 McKee Rd to Stallings Rd n/a 7,700 n/a 8,100 n/a 5%

Monroe Bypass
Segments
1 US 74 to Indian Trail-Fairview Rd n/a 62,500 n/a 63,100 n/a 1%
2 Indian Trail-Fairview Rd to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd n/a 52,900 n/a 54,400 n/a 3%
3 Unionville-Indian Trail Rd to Rocky River Rd n/a 47,200 n/a 48,600 n/a 3%
4 Rocky River Rd to US 601 n/a 44,100 n/a 46,300 n/a 5%
5 US 601 to NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) n/a 39,500 n/a 42,400 n/a 7%
6 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Rd) to Austin Chaney Rd n/a 32,500 n/a 35,800 n/a 10%
7 Austin Chaney Rd to Forest Hills School Rd n/a 22,600 n/a 23,800 n/a 5%
8 Forest Hills School Rd to US 74 n/a 20,000 n/a 20,400 n/a 2%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT n/a 757,407 n/a 793,567 n/a 5%
US 74 Corridor
Segments
1 I-485 to Stallings Rd 83,500* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a* n/a*
2 Stallings Rd to Indian Trail Rd. North 83,500 61,400 -26% 61,400 -26% 0%
3 Indian Trail Rd. North to Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West 60,300 48,200 -20% 48,400 -20% 0%
4 Unionville Indian Trail Rd. West to Faith Church Rd. 61,700 50,100 -19% 50,200 -19% 0%
5 Faith Church Rd. to Sardis Church Rd. 54,000 45,800 -15% 46,100 -15% 1%
6 Sardis Church Rd. to Chambers Dr. 44,500 37,300 -16% 38,100 -14% 2%
7 Chambers Dr. to N. Rocky River Rd. 42,200 35,800 -15% 35,500 -16% -1%
8 N. Rocky River Rd. to Fowler Secrest Rd. 42,900 36,200 -16% 37,300 -13% 3%
9 Fowler Secrest Rd. to Rolling Hills Dr. 42,900 29,400 -31% 30,300 -29% 3%
10 Rolling Hills Dr. to Round Table Rd. 40,900 29,400 -28% 30,300 -26% 3%
11 Round Table Rd. to Williams Rd. 46,700 35,200 -25% 35,900 -23% 2%
12 Williams Rd. to Hanover Dr. 62,600 41,600 -34% 42,000 -33% 1%
13 Hanover Dr. to Dickerson Blvd. 62,600 41,600 -34% 42,000 -33% 1%
14 Dickerson Blvd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 62,600 53,300 -15% 54,700 -13% 3%
15 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Secrest Shortcut Rd. 68,000 56,200 -17% 56,900 -16% 1%
16 Secrest Shortcut Rd. to Concord Ave. 68,000 56,200 -17% 56,900 -16% 1%
17 Concord Ave. to US 601 69,500 57,800 -17% 58,600 -16% 1%
18 US 601 to Stafford St. 65,800 57,100 -13% 57,900 -12% 1%
19 Stafford St. to Boyte St. 63,700 55,000 -14% 55,800 -12% 1%
20 Boyte St. to NC 200 62,900 54,300 -14% 55,100 -12% 1%
21 NC 200 to Walkup Ave. 63,300 55,200 -13% 56,300 -11% 2%
22 Walkup Ave. to S. Sutherland Ave. 62,200 54,600 -12% 55,600 -11% 2%
23 S. Sutherland Ave. to Venus St. 61,600 52,700 -14% 54,200 -12% 3%
24 Venus St. to E. Franklin St. 62,000 53,100 -14% 55,200 -11% 4%
25 E. Franklin St. to US 601 / N. Medical Center Campus 70,200 60,600 -14% 63,400 -10% 5%
26 US 601/Metro Medical Center Campus to S. Secrest
Ave. 38,800 30,400 -22% 33,400 -14% 10%
27 S. Secrest Ave. to S. Bivens Rd. 44,900 37,000 -18% 41,400 -8% 12%
28 S. Bivens Rd. to Bivens St. 33,800 26,000 -23% 29,300 -13% 13%
29 Bivens St. to Austin Chaney Rd. 34,700 27,300 -21% 31,900 -8% 17%
30 Austin Chaney Rd. to Forest Hills School Rd. North 27,800 19,800 -29% 24,500 -12% 24%
31 Forest Hills School Rd. North to Monroe Bypass 19,400 10,600 -45% 12,400 -36% 17%
Corridor VMT and % Change in VMT 918,517 729,912 -21% 760,974 -17% 4%
* US 74 Corridor Segment ID #1 not included in US 74 corridor VMT calculations to provide consistent No-Build and Build corridor comparisons.
E2-34

Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary
May 2014 31
Table 13 – 2030 Build VMT and VHT Comparison
2030 Build (with Monroe Connector/Bypass) 2009 SE Data vs.
with 2009 SE Data with 2009 ICE Data 2009 ICE Data
COUNTY TOTAL VMT TOTAL VHT TOTAL VMT TOTAL VHT % CHANGE
in VMT
% CHANGE
in VHT
Mecklenburg County 44,747,461 1,664,994 44,745,210 1,665,283 0% 0%
Union County 9,612,887 302,260 9,948,279 315,582 3% 4%
MRM Network 105,856,112 3,494,897 106,207,332 3,508,645 0% 0%
VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled
VHT – Vehicle Hours Traveled
E2-35

This page was intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-3
Review of New CRTPO Socioeconomic Projections
(May 2014)

This page was intentionally left blank.
Memorandum

To: Jennifer Harris, PE
NCDOT
Date: May 1, 2014
From: Scudder Wagg and Ken Gilland
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Subject: Review of New CRTPO
Socioeconomic Projections

Introduction
This memorandum discusses the newly adopted Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization
(CRTPO) socioeconomic projections developed for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
and how these new projections compare to the projections used in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects
(ICE) Quantitative Analysis Update (Quantitative Analysis Update) for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
(R-3329/R-2559) completed by Baker in November of 2013. The CRTPO is the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), formerly Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO), for the Charlotte region. The MPO
changed its name after 2010 Census results required the addition of portions of Iredell County to the MPO
area. The Quantitative Analysis Update was completed using the projections developed by MUMPO for
its 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)1 as these were the most recent, fully adopted and
completed projections available at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level at the time that report was
completed. These forecasts were completed in 2009 and are therefore called the 2009 Projections here
and in the Quantitative Analysis Update. The methodology and assumptions used in the 2009 Projections
are discussed in detail in Section 3 of the Quantitative Analysis Update. The newly adopted CRPTO
projections were completed in January 2014.

These newly adopted projections serve as a critical input to the new Metrolina Regional Travel Demand
Model version 2014 (MRM14v1.0), which CRPTO uses to test the new 2040 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan (MTP) for air quality conformity. CRPTO adopted the 2040 MTP on April 16, 2014 and is working
with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
test the 2040 MTP for air quality conformity. CRPTO expects to receive its air quality conformity
certification on May 2, 2014. CRTPO staff provided the newly adopted projections in January 2014,
while the MTP was still draft and under review. No changes were made to the projections between
January 2014 and the date the MTP was adopted. To maintain consistency with the naming of projection
versions from the Quantitative Analysis Update, these newly adopted projections will be called the 2014
Projections. This memorandum compares and contrasts the 2009 and 2014 Projections and estimates
what the differences between the projections might have on the conclusions of the Quantitative Analysis
Update.
1 MPOs now use the terminology “Metropolitan Transportation Plan” (MTP) instead of “Long-Range Transportation Plan”
(LRTP) but both documents serve the same purposes as described in Section 3 of the Quantitative Analysis Update.
E3-1
Development of the 2014 Projections
Baker staff received the files that contained the TAZ level projections of the 2014 Projections on
February 3, 2014. The 2014 Projections forecast population, household and employment to the TAZ
level for the entire MRM region with a base year of 2010 and forecast years of 2015, 2025, 2030 and
2040. The 2014 Projections were developed using a two part process:
1. A top-down economic and demographic analysis driven forecast of employment and household
growth at the county and district level completed by Dr. Steven Appold of the University of
North Carolina.
2. A bottom-up disaggregation of those county and district level totals to the travel analysis zone
(TAZ) level using the Land Use Allocation Model (LUSAM) spreadsheet workbook process by
county planners and CRTPO staff.

The 2009 Projections forecast population, household and employment to the TAZ level for the entire
MRM region with a base year of 2005 and forecast years of 2010, 2015, 2025, and 2035. The 2009
Projections used in the Quantitative Analysis Update are updated projections based on a similar two part
process as described in detail in Section 3.2 of the Quantitative Analysis Update. The top-down
forecasting for the 2009 Projections was completed by Dr. Thomas Hammer of UNC-Charlotte in 2003.

The bottom-up disaggregation process for the 2014 Projections used the LUSAM process, similar to the
same process used to update the 2009 Projections as described in Section 3.2 of the Quantitative Analysis
Update. The LUSAM spreadsheet workbook uses a number of inputs to generate the future projections of
households and employment for each TAZ and uses a district level approach to determining the factors
considered in the distribution of the households and employment to each TAZ. For the 2014 Projections,
the LUSAM model overall design and setup was the same as was used in the 2009 Projections; however
the specific weights for different inputs was different. The Travel Time to Core Employment factor that
is available as an optional factor was not used in the allocation process in the LUSAM model for either
the 2009 or 2014 Projections. For the 2009 Projections, the Base Year Households and the Predicted
Growth from the 2005 Projections were the only two factors used in disaggregating the district level
household projections. For the 2014 Projections, four factors were used with Planners Judgment
weighted most heavily at 40 percent, while Vacant Residential Land, Base Year Household and the Prior
Decade Household Growth were each weighted at 20 percent. Table 1 shows the factors and weights
used for household projections for the 2009 and 2014 Projections.

Table 1: LUSAM Variable Weights for Households from 2009 and 2014 Projections for Union County
LUSAM Input 2009 Projections Weight 2014 Projections Weight
Prior Decade Household Growth - 20%
Base Year Households 60% 20%
Vacant Residential Land - 20%
Planners Judgment - 40%
Prior Projection (2005 Projections)
Predicted Growth in Households
40% -

E3-2
County Level Review of 2014 Projections
In his calculations, Dr. Hammer calculated growth trends and allocating growth at four (4) different levels
of geography. These different levels of geography are the national, regional, county, and district levels.
Hammer based the regional levels of growth off the regional share of national growth and projected into
the future. On the other hand, the dispersion of future growth to the regional, county and district levels
are based on allocation. The growth is allocated from the regional level to the counties, and then to the
districts within each county. This included 42 districts and four (4) counties that were not subdivided into
districts.

Dr. Hammer allocated growth based on demand and supply side factors based on the allocation of
regional growth to the counties and the allocation of county growth to the districts. Demand side factors
include past and existing economic trends, past and existing demographic trends, economic-demographic
linkages, influence of income on growth patterns, and location. The supply side factors consist of land
area and past land use and infrastructure policies. These demand and supply side factors dictate the
placement of growth from the regional level to the counties and from the counties to the district level.

Dr. Stephen Appold completed the top-down portion of the 2014 Projections using a similar economic
and demographic focused methodology and allocated growth from the regional level to the county and
district levels. Two major differences result in different forecasts for the regional, county and district
levels. First, with the recent economic disruptions, Dr. Appold has forecasted lower levels of
employment and household growth across the region. The second major difference is in the allocation
methods as Dr. Appold has assumed that the density to distance gradient will flatten out more slowly than
Dr. Hammer assumed. In the Dr. Hammer’s projections, the historical trends of population and
employment density showed a trend of more dispersion throughout the region. In Dr. Appold’s analysis
of recent trends, between 1990 and 2010, the density to distance gradient steepened over time. This
would suggest greater growth occurring in the core of the region (Mecklenburg County) versus periphery
counties. Dr. Appold, therefore, presumed that the density to distance gradient would flatten more slowly
than Dr. Hammer assumed, and his forecasts allocate more growth closer to the existing urban core and
less to the peripheral communities.2 Table 2 outlines the difference between the projected number of
households from the forecasts by Dr. Appold and Dr. Hammer. For Mecklenburg County, Dr. Appold’s
projections show about 10 percent higher households and about 1 percent higher employment in 2030
than Dr. Hammer. For Union County, Dr. Appold’s projections show about 9 percent fewer households
and about 23 percent fewer jobs in 2030 than Dr. Hammer. The district breakdown for Union County
shows how the change in the density to distance gradient assumption substantially shifted the expected
growth toward the northwest district of Union County relative to the east and central districts.

2 Appold, Stephen, PhD. Presentation of Partial Results to Charlotte Regional Alliance tor Transportation (Craft).
October 16, 2012.
E3-3

Table 2: Employment and Household Projections for 2030 for Union County
Mecklenburg Union
All Districts Central Northwest South East Total
Appold:
2013
Household 505,264 29,009 54,521 11,691 5,112 100,333
Employment 951,622 47,308 47,340 3,799 4,955 103,402
Hammer:
2003
Household 457,674 40,343 48,561 13,988 7,881 110,773
Employment 945,591 62,531 51,613 5,752 8,598 128,494
Difference Household 47,590 -11,334 5,960 -2,297 -2,769 -10,440
Employment 6,031 -15,223 -4,273 -1,953 -3,643 -25,092
%
Difference
Household 10% -28% 12% -16% -35% -9%
Employment 1% -38% -9% -14% -46% -23%

Subsequent to the completion of Dr. Hammer’s top-down forecasting, Paul Smith completed a bottom-up
disaggregation process to create the 2005 Projections (as described in Section 3.2 of the Quantitative
Analysis Update). These 2005 Projections were then updated through various iterations by CRTPO (then
known as MUMPO) to eventually develop the 2009 Projections (as described in more detail in Section
3.2 of the Quantitative Analysis Update), which were used in the Quantitative Analysis Update.

The 2009 Projections were developed using updated household, population and employment targets at the
district level based on the following inputs:
• Interpolation and extrapolation of the previous projections (2005 Projections),
• NC State Data Center Demographic Projections (Summer 2007) and
• Hammer Report Five Year Forecasts.
These district level totals were then disaggregated to the TAZ level using the LUSAM workbook process.

Table 3 summarizes the 2014 and 2009 Projections for Mecklenburg and Union Counties and compares
the total households and total employment in each county in 2030 from each set of projections. The table
shows that for Mecklenburg County, the 2014 Projections of future households and employment in 2030
are similar to the 2009 Projections, differing by only 1% and -4 percent respectively. For Union County,
the 2014 Projections for 2030 households and employment differ from the 2009 Projections by -16
percent and -21 percent respectively.

E3-4
Table 3: Household and Employment Projections for 2030 for Mecklenburg and Union Counties
Mecklenburg Union
CRTPO (then known as
MUMPO) 2009 Projections
Households 512,041 118,886
Employment 988,580 130,193
CRTPO 2014 Projections Households 517,196 100,335
Employment 951,356 103,282
Difference Households 5,155 (18,551)
Employment (37,224) (26,911)
% Difference Households 1% -16%
Employment -4% -21%

Of note, however, is that while the forecasts of household and employment are substantially lower in Year
2030 in the 2014 Projections, substantial growth is still expected to occur between 2010 and 2030.

Table 4: Household Growth in Union County 2010-2030 from 2014 Projections
2010 2030 Raw Change % Growth Compounded Annual %
Growth
Households 67,862 100,335 32,473 48% 1.97%

Furthermore, a look at the Year 2040 forecasts from the 2014 Projections shows that the forecasts of
growth continue to occur in Union County and that the household growth is expected to nearly reach the
Year 2030 forecasted value from the 2009 Projections.

Table 5: Comparison of 2009 Projections Year 2030 and 2014 Projections Year 2040 for Union County
2009 Projections of
Year 2030
2014 Projections of
Year 2040
Difference % Difference
Households 118,886 115,220 (3,666) -3%
Employment 130,193 116,645 (13,548) -10%

Thus, at a county level, the new projections show similar levels of growth in households and employment
by 2030 for Mecklenburg County, but lower levels of growth in households and employment by 2030 in
Union County. Nevertheless, the new projections still show steady growth in Union County that
continues to 2040 and households in Year 2040 are expected to nearly reach the levels previously
forecasted for Year 2030 in the 2009 Projections.

Watershed Level Review of 2014 Projections
The 2013 Indirect and Cumulative (ICE) Quantitative Analysis Update for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
(Baker 2013) looked at impacts at a watershed level. In order to understand if the new 2014 Projections
might substantially alter the ICE conclusions, it is necessary to compare the 2009 and 2014 Projections at
the watershed level. To make this comparison some data processing was needed to assure accurate
E3-5
comparisons between the different projection versions. As documented in Section 3 of the ICE
Quantitative Analysis Update, the 2009 Projections were most representative of a No-Build Scenario
since the various methods used to develop the forecasts were not influenced by the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass. The 2014 Projections, however, were developed with the explicit expectation that the
Monroe Connector/Bypass would be constructed and open by 2020.3 Therefore, a direct comparison
between the two projection sets would be somewhat misleading. To make direct comparisons clearer, the
Baker team used the Adjusted 2009 Projections that were developed as described in Section 5.8 of the
ICE Quantitative Analysis Update as a basis for comparison. These projections were adjusted to
specifically incorporate the additional households and employment expected as a result of the project as
documented in Section 4.2 of the ICE Quantitative Analysis Update. By using the Adjusted 2009
Projections, a reasonable comparison between the 2009 and 2014 projections can be made.

To compare the two sets of projections at the watershed level, the TAZ level data was aggregated to the
watershed level for each set of TAZ forecasts. Baker staff completed the aggregation in ArcGIS using an
Intersect function to overlay the TAZs with the watersheds. Where a TAZ crossed a watershed boundary,
households were portioned to each watershed based on the percent of the area of the TAZ that fell in any
given watershed. For example, for the 2014 Projection TAZ analysis, only 70.9 percent of TAZ 10629 is
within the Fourmile Creek watershed boundary for the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA).
Therefore, when aggregating the totals for all TAZs within the Fourmile Creek watershed, only 70.9
percent of the households, population and employment were used for that TAZ.

Since the projections show similar results for Mecklenburg County as a whole and since residential
development is the main driver of land use change in the study area, the comparison of these projections
will focus on the differences in the household growth trends by watershed. The results of the aggregation
for each watershed and for the FLUSA overall for the Adjusted 2009 Projections is shown in Table 4.

3 Union County 2040 Population and Employment Projection Methodology, CRTPO, p 1
E3-6

Table 6: Household Forecasts from Adjusted 2009 Projections by Watershed
Watershed Household Forecasts from Adjusted 2009 Projections
2010 2030 Change % Change
Bakers Branch 79 117 38 48%
Bearskin Creek 4,779 5,879 1,100 23%
Beaverdam Creek 551 1,072 521 94%
Crooked Creek 10,471 14,110 3,639 35%
Fourmile Creek 8,186 9,955 1,769 22%
Goose Creek 6,694 16,057 9,363 140%
Gourdvine Creek 32 55 23 73%
Ivins Creek 9,391 9,761 369 4%
McAlpine Creek 27,487 29,064 1,577 6%
Rays Fork 1,617 4,258 2,641 163%
Richardson Creek (Lower) 2,289 6,958 4,670 204%
Richardson Creek (Middle) 2,020 3,602 1,582 78%
Richardson Creek (Upper) 2,881 5,833 2,952 102%
Salem Creek 1,230 4,377 3,147 256%
Sixmile Creek 1,474 1,211 (263) -18%
Stewarts Creek 5,948 14,745 8,797 148%
Twelvemile Creek 8,773 7,646 (1,127) -13%
Wide Mouth Branch 744 1,192 448 60%
Totals for FLUSA 94,647 135,891 41,244 44%
The 2009 Projections used a base year of 2005 and included forecasts for 2010, 2015, 2025 and 2035. 2030 Projections were
interpolated between 2025 and 2035. The 2010 values shown here are forecasted values and therefore differ from the 2014
Projections for 2010.

The results show overall household growth in the FLUSA would be about 44 percent, with the greatest
percentage growth coming in watersheds in the central and eastern portions of the study area, and the
greatest raw increase in households coming in Goose Creek and Stewarts Creek watersheds. In total, the
Adjusted 2009 Projections would add about 41,000 households to the FLUSA from 2010 to 2030.
Notably, two watersheds, Sixmile Creek and Twelvemile Creek would see decreases in total households
with the Adjusted 2009 Projections. The percentage change in households varies greatly across
watersheds with two watersheds showing changes around -15 percent, while six watersheds show change
of over 100 percent.

The results of the aggregation for each watershed for the 2014 Projections is shown in Table 5.

E3-7

Table 7: Household Forecasts from 2014 Projections by Watershed
Watershed Household Forecasts from 2014 Projections
2010 2030 Change % Change
Bakers Branch 70 101 31 45%
Bearskin Creek 4,713 6,017 1,303 28%
Beaverdam Creek 455 728 274 60%
Crooked Creek 10,789 16,040 5,251 49%
Fourmile Creek 8,680 11,281 2,602 30%
Goose Creek 6,236 8,490 2,253 36%
Gourdvine Creek 28 42 14 52%
Ivins Creek 9,143 11,843 2,700 30%
McAlpine Creek 26,862 31,785 4,923 18%
Rays Fork 1,147 1,625 479 42%
Richardson Creek (Lower) 1,888 2,538 650 34%
Richardson Creek (Middle) 1,603 1,912 310 19%
Richardson Creek (Upper) 2,151 2,888 736 34%
Salem Creek 1,014 1,502 488 48%
Sixmile Creek 1,482 2,079 597 40%
Stewarts Creek 5,129 7,102 1,974 38%
Twelvemile Creek 10,004 13,767 3,763 38%
Wide Mouth Branch 604 921 317 52%
Totals for FLUSA 91,996 120,661 28,666 31%

The 2014 Projections show less growth in households across the FLUSA with a 31 percent expected
increase in households for the entire study area and a raw increase of about 28,500. In the 2014
Projections, all watersheds see increases in households but the distribution of that growth is different than
in the Adjusted 2009 Projections. The greatest raw increases in households are in Crooked Creek,
McAlpine Creek and Twelvemile Creek watersheds. The percentage increases in households do not vary
nearly as much across watersheds in the 2014 Projections as they do in the Adjusted 2009 Projections.
Similar to the Adjusted 2009 Projections which had 16 of the 18 watersheds showing positive change in
households, all 18 watersheds in the 2014 Projections show positive change in households.

Table 6 provides a comparison of the total households in 2030 by watershed across both projections. The
raw differences are illustrated in the chart in Figure 1. The percentage differences are also shown in the
map in Figure 2, which is attached at the end of this memo.

E3-8

Table 8: Comparison of 2030 Households for Adjusted 2009 and 2014 Projection Versions
Households in 2030
Watershed Adjusted 2009 Projections 2014 Projections Difference % Difference
Bakers Branch 117 101 (16) -14%
Bearskin Creek 5,879 6,017 138 2%
Beaverdam Creek 1,072 728 (344) -32%
Crooked Creek 14,110 16,040 1,930 14%
Fourmile Creek 9,955 11,281 1,327 13%
Goose Creek 16,057 8,490 (7,567) -47%
Gourdvine Creek 55 42 (13) -23%
Ivins Creek 9,761 11,843 2,082 21%
McAlpine Creek 29,064 31,785 2,721 9%
Rays Fork 4,258 1,625 (2,632) -62%
Richardson Creek (Lower) 6,958 2,538 (4,421) -64%
Richardson Creek (Middle) 3,602 1,912 (1,690) -47%
Richardson Creek (Upper) 5,833 2,888 (2,945) -50%
Salem Creek 4,377 1,502 (2,875) -66%
Sixmile Creek 1,211 2,079 868 72%
Stewarts Creek 14,745 7,102 (7,643) -52%
Twelvemile Creek 7,646 13,767 6,121 80%
Wide Mouth Branch 1,192 921 (270) -23%
Total for FLUSA 135,891 120,661 (15,230) -11%

The household totals by watershed in 2030 are different in the 2014 Projections than in the Adjusted 2009
Projections. Seven of the 18 watersheds show more household growth in the 2014 Projections than in the
Adjusted 2009 Projections. These watersheds are generally in the central to western parts of the FLUSA.
The remaining eleven watersheds generally see lower household growth in the new 2014 Projections. In
raw numbers, the largest decreases in expected households in 2030 are in Goose Creek and Stewarts
Creek watersheds. Both watersheds now expect to see about 7,500 fewer households in the 2014
Projections of 2030 conditions compared to the Adjusted 2009 Projections of 2030 conditions. Overall,
the impression is that the Adjusted 2009 Projections expected low to modest growth in the western to
central portions of the FLUSA and higher growth rates in central and eastern portions of the FLUSA,
particularly, Stewarts Creek, Richardson Creek Lower, Salem Creek and Rays Fork Creek. Conversely,
the new 2014 Projections expect much more modest growth in the central and eastern portions of the
FLUSA and moderate to higher growth in the western portions.
E3-9

As noted in Section 3.5 of the Quantitative Analysis Update, the range of error for any future projection
of households is typically quite high. “For county level projections of 25 years, the typical mean
algebraic percentage errors are about 30 percent while for census tracts (which are typically larger than
TAZs) errors are typically 45 percent for the same period.4 Thus, despite the best efforts of researchers
and forecasters, the error rates for long-range projections are still quite high and thus any projection or
estimate of induced and cumulative effects must be considered the best estimate within a wide range of
error.” As noted in Table 6, for the entire FLUSA, the 2014 Projections of 2030 households are only
eleven percent lower than the Adjusted 2009 Projections. Thus, while these projections are different in
their totals and their geographic distribution, the overall difference is not unexpected given the range of
error likely in any forecasting process. It is also notable that the 2014 Projections show growth
continuing in the FLUSA at a consistent pace beyond 2030. The 2014 Projections final forecast year is
4 Smith, Stanely K., Tayman, Jeff, Swanson, David A. State and Local Population Projections: Methodology and
Analysis. Kluwere Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001. p 340
E3-10
2040, and the total households forecasted within the FLUSA in 2040 is 134,854, a growth of 42,858
households. This total is less than one percent less than the 2030 forecast of households from the
Adjusted 2009 Projections. Thus, on an overall study area level, the 2014 Projections show that the
growth forecasted in the 2009 Projections will still occur, it will just occur later in time.

In a new Build Scenario based on the 2014 Projections, these differences would likely result in lower
levels of developed land in the eleven watersheds with lower household totals and higher levels of
developed land in the seven watersheds with higher household totals. The percentage differences in
development for an updated Build Scenario would not be as large as the percentages noted in Table 6.
For example, in Bearskin Creek the 2014 Projections show about 2 percent more households than the
2009 Projections, but that would not lead to 2 percent more developed land compared to the estimate in
the Quantitative Analysis Update. The increase in developed land would be less than 2 percent once
density, infill and other factors are considered. Similarly, since the 2014 Projections indicate that the total
households in 2030 would 66 percent less in Salem Creek that the 2009 Projection, the total developed
land would be less in a new Build Scenario using the 2014 Projections. The adjustments for density,
potential infill development and other factors used in the conversion of household growth to land
development (see Section 4.1 of the Quantitative Analysis Update) would mean that the reduction in
developed land would be about 15 to 25 percent when compared to the results in the Quantitative
Analysis Update. Other watersheds would see similar shifts in the acres of developed land with the
magnitude of adjustment being about one-quarter to one-third of the household change noted in Table 6.
The 2014 Projections and Induced Growth Estimation
The 2014 Projections support an estimate of induced growth similar to that reported in the ICE analysis.
As documented in Section 4.1 of the Quantitative Analysis Update, the original 2009 Projections were
used as a baseline of growth in developing the No-Build Scenario, and induced growth was estimated and
added to develop a Build Scenario. The Adjusted 2009 Projections were then developed to create a
socioeconomic dataset that could be used in travel demand modeling to assess the indirect and cumulative
traffic impacts. Since the 2014 Projections explicitly include the growth and development distribution
associated with the Monroe Connector/Bypass, then a reverse method would likely be used if the
Quantitative ICE Analysis were to be redone.5 In that situation, the 2014 Projections would serve as a
basis for developing Build Scenario of land use in 2030, and estimates of the induced growth attributable
to the road would be developed and then subtracted from the Build Scenario to create a No-Build
Scenario in 2030.

The next methodological question would be how to assess the level of induced growth. The original ICE
Quantitative Analysis (Baker 2009) and the Updated Analysis (Baker 2013) both used the same
combination of four methods that were based on assessments of changes in accessibility, a build-out
analysis, scenario writing approach and the Hartgen Method (as documented in Section 4.2 of the
Quantitative Analysis Update). The build-out analysis and scenario writing approaches both relied
heavily on the recent land use plans from the jurisdictions in the study area and information gathered
5 Union County 2040 Population and Employment Projection Methodology, CRTPO, p 1
E3-11
during interviews with local planners. Since the bottom-up LUSAM process used in the development of
the 2014 Projections relied heavily on planner judgment, then similar methodologies would likely be
useful in any updated ICE analysis. Section 4.2 of the Quantitative Analysis Update documents clearly
state the estimate of induced growth that was added to create a Build Scenario. Thus, to evaluate how
induced growth estimates might change if the 2014 Projections were used, it is instructive to assess how
the change in projections might affect any of the four methods used.

First, the results of the accessibility analysis would not be affected by the changes in the projections, and
would therefore not change the conclusions regarding the likely location of most of the induced growth.

Second, the changes in the projections would affect how the build-out and scenario writing analyses were
conducted. In both of those analyses, the methodology was to estimate how much additional growth
might occur over and above what was occurring in the background (the No-Build Scenario). The new
methodology would estimate how much less growth might occur compared to what is expected to occur
in the background (Build Scenario). Since the overall level of development in 2030 is expected to be
lower based on the 2014 Projections, then the estimates of how much less growth might occur without the
road (i.e., the induced growth) would likely be reduced. As documented in Section 4.2 of the Quantitative
Analysis Update the state of the regional economy and the overall desirability of an area for development
are major factors that affect the potential for induced growth. The 2014 Projections (which presumably
represent a Build Scenario) shift much of the expected growth in Union County toward the western part
of the County. CRTPO worked with local Union County and town planners to develop the distribution of
growth within the county using its Land Use Allocation Model spreadsheet workbook system (LUSAM).
The CRTPO documentation of the LUSAM process indicates that in practice, the LUSAM model weighs
planner judgment at 40 percent.6 Thus, the shift in growth toward the western portions of the study area
suggests that central and eastern parts of the county are less desirable for development than was
previously thought. This would suggest that induced growth might be lower than previously estimated.
The one exception to this conclusion is in the Crooked Creek Watershed. In the Quantitative ICE Update,
that watershed was expected to see induced growth and the 2014 Projections suggest it will see more
growth than previously projected; therefore, it is possible that induced growth in that watershed might be
higher than previously estimated. Nevertheless, since the accessibility analysis suggests that travel time
improvements in that watershed would be minimal, it is unlikely that the estimate of induced growth
would increase dramatically. Other assumptions from these methodologies, such as the expected
availability of sewer and water, and the inclination of different jurisdictions toward different kinds of
development, would not change.

Lastly, the results of the Hartgen Analysis of interchange areas would potentially change with the new
2014 Projections. Since these new projections suggest the total number of households in Union County
and the FLUSA in 2030 would be lower than previously estimated, it is possible that traffic levels might
be lower at most of the interchange areas. In particular, in the areas where induced growth is most likely
(the eastern and central portions of the FLUSA) the new 2014 Projections show much lower household
6 Documentation LUSAM: Land Use Allocation Model, Union County, Metrolina Model Team, January 29,2014,
CRTPO, p 38
E3-12
totals than the 2009 Projections. As a result, traffic levels would likely be lower at these interchange
areas in 2030 than the prior forecasts indicated. This would possibly reduce the development potential of
interchange areas in the eastern and central portions of the FLUSA and therefore reduce the potential
induced growth at those interchange areas.

In summary, analysis of the 2014 Projections suggests that these new projections would result in
estimates of induced growth that would likely be similar or slightly lower with the exception of a possible
small increase in induced growth estimated for the Crooked Creek watershed.
The 2014 Projections and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Conclusions
Since the induced growth level would likely be similar in absolute level and geographic extent even with
the new 2014 Projections, the indirect land use effects of the project would still be limited to the
following watersheds:
• Crooked Creek
• Stewarts Creek
• Richardson Creek (Middle)
• Richardson Creek (Lower)
• Salem Creek
• Rays Fork.

Therefore, using the 2014 Projections would not change the conclusions regarding indirect impacts to
other watersheds. As noted above, the induced growth impacts on an absolute level might increase in the
Crooked Creek watershed, but that increase is likely to be small and would therefore still remain
relatively small. In the other watersheds, the induced growth on an absolute level is likely to be similar or
a little lower. Since these watersheds are all seeing less development overall in 2030, the relative indirect
impacts (i.e. the indirect increase in development relative to the overall level of development) would be
somewhat higher. In looking at these watersheds, there are no sensitive resources (such as endangered
species) in these watersheds and therefore the indirect effects are less critical. Four of the watersheds are
303(d) listed streams:
• Crooked Creek
• Stewarts Creek
• Richardson Creek (Middle)
• Richardson Creek (Lower).

For these watersheds, the cumulative effects are a greater concern because the overall increases in
impervious surface are the main driver of possible declines in water quality. For Stewarts Creek,
Richardson Creek (Middle) and Richardson Creek (Lower), the new 2014 Projections indicate less
development in 2030 than previously predicted, which means cumulative impacts would likely be lower.

For Crooked Creek watershed, the new 2014 Projections indicate more development in 2030 than
previously predicted which means cumulative impacts would likely be higher. Since there are no known
populations of federally protected species in streams within the Crooked Creek watershed, water quality
changes would not affect any federally protected species in aquatic habitats. However, Crooked Creek is
E3-13
home to known populations of Schweinitz’s sunflower. These populations have been identified and are
already being protected by NCDOT. As noted in Section 5.4 of the Quantitative Analysis Update:
“Crooked Creek watershed is identified in the 2008 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
as a watershed with habitat degradation, turbidity, fecal coliform and nutrient issues due to stormwater
runoff and construction. The analysis of benthic communities, however, showed good to good-fair
conditions for Crooked Creek in 2006, which was an improvement from previous studies.” Thus despite
recent development, conditions in Crooked Creek appear to be improving.

As to other watersheds, the following watersheds are expected to see more development in 2030 than
previously predicted solely because of changes in expectations associated with the 2014 Projections:
• McAlpine Creek
• Ivins Creek
• Fourmile Creek
• Sixmile Creek
• Twelvemile Creek
• Beaverdam Creek.

Since these differences are solely attributable to the changes in the underlying projections and because no
induced growth is expected in these watersheds, there are no indirect or cumulative effects expected in
these watersheds. It is notable that Sixmile Creek watershed would see higher development levels, given
that it is upstream of a critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter. However, as described above, the
changes in growth assumed in these watersheds is a result of changes in the assumptions regarding how
growth will spread across the region in general based largely on the density to distance gradient
assumptions used by Dr. Appold. Therefore, these changes are attributable to factors unrelated to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass.

The following watersheds are expected to see less development in 2030 than previously predicted solely
because of changes associated with the 2014 Projections which includes changes overall growth
expectations for the region, changes in assumptions regarding the density to distance gradient and
changes in planner expectations regarding growth distribution in the area in general:
• Goose Creek
• Bearskin Creek
• Richardson Creek (Upper)
• Wide Mouth Branch
• Bakers Branch.

Since these differences are solely attributable to the changes in the underlying projections and because no
induced growth is expected in these watersheds, there are no indirect or cumulative effects expected in
these watersheds. Furthermore, given that it is home to a critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter, it is
notable that Goose Creek watershed would see lower development levels.

Thus, despite the lower growth forecasted in the 2014 Projections and the difference in the distribution of
that growth, a reanalysis of the indirect and cumulative effects using the new 2014 Projections would
E3-14
likely lead to similar conclusions regarding the indirect and cumulative effects of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass. The one exception to this conclusion is for Crooked Creek watershed, where slightly
higher indirect effects and cumulative effects are likely due to the increase in expected development in the
watershed relative to the 2009 Projections. Finally, for five of the six watersheds where induced growth
is expected to occur, the 2014 Projections show lower household growth than the Adjusted 2009
Projections. Therefore, the Quantitative Analysis Update, which used the 2009 Projections, would reflect
a higher estimate of cumulative effects than would likely occur if it had used the 2014 Projections. Thus,
the Quantitative Analysis Update (Baker 2013) would reflect generally conservative (i.e. overestimated)
potential impacts from indirect and cumulative effects than the results of an analysis using the 2014
Projections might reveal. Since the conclusions regarding impacts to sensitive resources would be highly
unlikely to change and the overall assessment of impacts would likely show lower impacts, then using the
2014 Projections to develop a wholly new indirect and cumulative effects analysis would likely waste
time and resources.
E3-15

This page was intentionally left blank.
E3-16
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Goose Creek
Crooked Creek
Stewarts Creek
Salem Creek
Rays Fork
McAlpine Creek
Ivins Creek
Twelvemile Creek
Beaverdam Creek
Bearskin Creek
Richardson Creek (Lower)
Fourmile Creek
Wide Mouth Branch
Richardson Creek (Upper)
Richardson
Creek
(Middle)
Bakers Branch
Sixmile Creek
Gourdvine Creek
§¨¦485
£¤601
£¤74
£¤601

Difference Between
2030 Household
Projections
2009 and 2014
Projections
µ
0 2 41
Miles
Legend
Study Area
2030 Household Difference (%)
2009 vs 2014 Projections
72% - 80%
2% - 21%
-32% - -14%
-52% - -47%
-66% - -62%
Figure 2:
RPA Centerline
X Proposed Interchange
E3-17

Th
i
s

p
a
g
e

w
a
s

i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

l
e
f
t

b
l
a
n
k
.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-4
Review of the report titled, Review of Traffic
Forecasting: Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, November 2013,
prepared by The Hartgen Group for the Southern
Environmental Law Center

This page was intentionally left blank.
E4-1

Appendix A includes the meeting summary and PowerPoint slides used for discussion purposes
from a meeting held on January 31, 2014, with FHWA, NCDOT, and their consultants, as part of this
review process to consider the Hartgen Report.
Appendix B includes responses to each specific comment and topic raised in the Hartgen Report.
Appendix C is the 2012 NCDOT Superstreet Analysis Results (Reese, November 5, 2012) memo.
This memo is referenced in both Appendix A and Appendix B.
Appendix D includes the Hartgen report in its entirety with brackets denoting the numbered response
for each specific comment included in Appendix B.
Recommendation
As demonstrated in this memo and fully elaborated upon in its appendices, the NCDOT and its
project consultants carefully assessed and considered comments provided on the DSFEIS from Dr.
Hartgen and have determined that the traffic forecasts prepared for the project are relevant and are
to be used as part of the NEPA decision-making process. Therefore, we find that no further action is
required to respond to the Hartgen Report.
It should also be noted that many of the topics and arguments contained within the Hartgen Report
do not refute the applicability or validity of the project’s traffic forecasts, but are much broader
criticisms of the NEPA project process in general as it relates to travel demand modeling, traffic
forecasting, and traffic capacity analysis. Dr. Hartgen concludes his report in Item 10 by highlighting
his opinion that there should be “less reliance on traffic forecasts for transportation decision-making.”
Dr. Hartgen’s point that the forecasts are uncertain is well taken but tends to undermine his own
criticisms.
E4-2

Appendix A – Meeting Minutes and Discussion Slides
E4-3

This page was intentionally left blank.
E4-4

MEETING SUMMARY
(Final)
Date: January 31, 2014 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Project: STIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass
Attendees: John Sullivan, FHWA Brian Gardner, FHWA* Scott Jones, FHWA* George Hoops, FHWA Scott Slusser, NCDOJ Jennifer Harris, NCDOT - PDEA Jamal Alavi, NCDOT – TPB* Rick Baucom, NCDOT – Div 10* Spencer Franklin, HNTB *Participated via telephone
Bradley Reynolds, HNTB Jill Gurak, Atkins Jenny Noonkester, Atkins* Carl Gibilaro, Atkins Ken Gilland, Michael Baker Eng. Lorna Parkins, Michael Baker Eng.* Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Eng.* Nancy Scott, The Catena Group* Michael Wood, The Catena Group*

Purpose
The primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss how to respond to the main points presented in the
Review of Traffic Forecasting: Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft Supplemental Final EIS (The Hartgen Group, December 26, 2013) (Hartgen Report) which was attached to SELC’s comment letter on the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS dated January 6, 2014. The meeting discussion specifically focused on items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the ten primary points presented on page 3 of the Hartgen Report.
Discussion
The following summary is presented by item number as listed in the Hartgen Report, followed by a
summary of the general discussion at the end of the meeting. Hartgen Report Item #3 – “Traffic forecasts were not re-computed for some alternatives, thus possibly over-stating future Bypass traffic and under-stating traffic improvements for some alternatives. Some of the recently completed and planned future improvements to US 74 and their effect on traffic forecasts have not been included in the traffic forecasts, their effect on Bypass traffic therefore appears to be under-stated.”
• Dr. Hartgen states that “the standard for a speed study is the 85th percentile, not the average speed.” He then incorrectly applies speed study standards, saying that the INRIX data reported average (close to 50th percentile) operating speed on US 74 is 44 miles per hour (mph), and that using the 85th percentile would raise the current operating speeds on US 74 even further, probably to the 48-50 mph range. HNTB clarified that the 85th percentile is used to set speed limits and is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of the observed free-flowing vehicles are traveling. The value is based on observations of individual vehicles. Dr. Hartgen misuses the term by applying it to the INRIX data average values across many hours of the day,
Monroe Connector/Bypass Meeting
Monroe Connector/Bypass Meeting – 1/31/14 Page 1
E4-5
Page 2 of 4
including times when conditions are not free-flowing, to estimate average travel times on US 74. INRIX data is provided in averages, not by individual vehicle speeds, so it is inappropriate to attempt to calculate an 85th percentile (as used in speeds studies) using this data.
• HNTB noted that INRIX data and data from travel time runs (floating car studies) were directly compared using data from the exact same days and times. Some differences are expected in the travel speeds from the travel time runs compared to speeds from the INRIX data since vehicles traveling only a portion of the corridor would be included in the INRIX data. The travel time runs are for individual vehicles traveling the entire corridor. In the US 74 case, the INRIX average speeds were slightly higher than the travel time runs for the same day and time.
• FHWA would like HNTB to provide the responses to the Hartgen Report to Kevin Lacy (NCDOT State Traffic Engineer) for him to confirm our response that the methodology proposed by Dr. Hartgen is not appropriate. It was also suggested that citations from the ITE handbook be included.
• NCDOT did a study comparing operations of traditional intersections along US 74 to Superstreet intersections. The study showed some improvement with the Superstreets, but not significant improvement. FHWA asked for a table comparing the operational diagrams from the study, and giving a context for the level of service (LOS). FHWA asked how LOS factors into the purpose and need for the project. HNTB replied that LOS did not factor into the purpose and need, nor was it a measurement used in the analysis of alternatives. The purpose and need calls for a high-speed corridor (50 mph or higher). It was also pointed out that the currently proposed Superstreet improvements only affect a small percentage of the total project corridor (2 miles out of 20). NCDOT Division 10 has confirmed which intersections are included in the safety project. FHWA noted that to meet the purpose and need of a high-speed corridor, US 74 would have to have higher posted speed limits, but there are geometric constraints that would preclude this. Hartgen Report Item #5 – “The regional travel demand model (used to forecast Bypass traffic) and the traffic operations simulation model (used to study traffic flow on US 74) both appear to have been insufficiently calibrated.”
• The model is just one input into forecast development. The model is a regional tool while the traffic forecasts consider many other data sources, such as traffic counts, historic trends, etc. to develop a project-specific forecast.
• FHWA asked if the Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) has a report documenting how the Metrolina Regional Model (MRM) was calibrated. NCDOT-Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) stated that the MRM model is well calibrated for planning and conformity purposes and the base model was appropriately calibrated in accordance with accepted practice. The calibration report will be obtained and referenced.
• FHWA asked if there is anything to show how the MRM was used to develop the modeling specific to this project. FHWA recommended explaining what we did in developing the forecast – show what was done to calibrate the model and how we got to a project specific forecast. Verify what was done was valid. HNTB noted that the MRM model was used to determine growth rates and diversions, but raw data directly from the model is not the sole source of data for the forecasts. NCDOT-TPB will get the calibration report from CDOT. FHWA said we should focus on the fact that the model was approved for use by the MPO. Hartgen Report Item #6 – “The DSFEIS attempts to address the directive of the 4th Circuit Court, but leaves key questions regarding induced traffic unanswered.”
• HNTB stated that the issue of induced traffic is fully discussed in the traffic forecast memo (HNTB, November 2013). The project team did take a hard look – the new socio-economic (SE) data from the build condition in the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis was used to re-run the MRM model (going through the full 4-step process). NCDOT-Project Development and Environmental Analysis (PDEA) noted that Dr. Hartgen asked for a clear explanation of the process used in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS. HNTB said they could include additional information in the traffic forecast memo, or address this in the comment responses in the Final Supplemental Final EIS. It was decided to add it to the traffic forecast memo.
Monroe Connector/Bypass Meeting – 1/31/14 Page 2
E4-6
Page 3 of 4

• FHWA stated that the ICE maps in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS (Figures 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9) showing the differences between the no-build and build conditions were helpful. For traffic we need to say that there were changes in land use, but go on to explain that, based on our analysis, these changes would not lead to substantial changes in traffic forecasts (due to the location of growth, etc.). Highlight Section 5.8 of the ICE report and Figures 16 and 17. Make it clear in the response what was done and why. Hartgen Report Item #4 – “Traffic growth on US 74 has been flat from 2000 to 2012 and is inconsistent with population growth trends. The DSFEIS simply ignores these inconsistencies. Moreover, the forecast of population, which drive the traffic forecast, is based on a pre-Recession projection; recent population growth has slowed markedly. Essentially the entire justification for the project rests on traffic forecasts that ignore 12 years of recent history, recent economic upheaval, and slower population growth.”
• Baker pointed out that Dr. Hartgen has errors in his numbers for population growth. He also fails to consider the size differences in the areas he’s comparing. Almost half of the growth isn’t in the southwest quadrant as he contends; the entire western portion of Union County has seen growth. He also noted that short-term trends at the end of a major recession may not be completely indicative of future conditions is the project area. Based on data from the North Carolina State Demographics Unit, Mecklenburg and Union Counties are projected to grow more quickly than the vast majority of counties in North Carolina through the design year of the project.
• Dr. Hartgen focuses on growth only along the US 74 corridor, but he should consider surrounding corridors to get the full picture – people are using alternative corridors, possibly to avoid congestion on US 74. Baker presented a table showing increasing Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for connecting routes between Union and Mecklenburg Counties. FHWA asked that we include the raw numbers and absolute change, along with a map of count locations. NCDOT Division 10 confirmed that there have not been any work zones on US 74 recently that would have diverted major amounts of traffic to these alternate routes. Hartgen Report Item #7 – “Questions remain concerning details of the traffic forecasts. The three key assumptions of the traffic forecasts (growth of the area population, percentage diversion, and magnitude of long-distance travel) all appear to be overly optimistic.”
• NCDOT-TPB pointed out that a traffic forecast prepared as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and a traffic and revenue study are different studies done for different purposes and are expected to have different outputs. Also, the capacities for roadways in a regional model are derived differently than capacities used in traffic operations analyses.
• FHWA commented that the timeline developed by HNTB to show the progression of the traffic forecasts is helpful. Hartgen Report Item #9 – “External traffic forecasts are undocumented.”
• An external traffic survey is part of the MRM development. HNTB pointed out that through trips are inherently included in the traffic counts. One of the external count locations is within the project study area.
• FHWA stated that we need to know how we are going to address macroeconomic data and how the recession is being addressed. Baker responded that new SE data will be evaluated qualitatively to see where there are changes and the magnitude of those changes. Growth has not stopped forever, but it may take a few additional years to reach previously projected levels. General Discussion
• It was agreed that Dr. Hartgen is generally respected as a land use and transportation expert despite the errors in this report. His report references the project documents he reviewed and it is important to note that based on the list provided in the report, it appears he may not have reviewed the full body of documents prepared throughout the history of this project. The entire project document library continues to be available at: www.ncdot.gov/projects/monroeconnector/.
• While his report critiqued the traffic forecast prepared for the project, he did not raise any issues with the land use analysis in the ICE document. Dr. Hartgen did not challenge the Monroe Connector/Bypass Study’s use of his analyses from Beltways, Traffic and Sprawl: The Empirical
Monroe Connector/Bypass Meeting – 1/31/14 Page 3
E4-7
Page 4 of 4

Evidence, 1990- 1997 which stated that building of new roads does not necessarily create new growth.
• In his last observation, Dr. Hartgen notes that the traffic modeling and forecasting process is “fraught with uncertainty.” This confirms that there is a lot of variability in traffic forecasting, and deference should be given to the experts. This observation actually provides support for the analyses completed for the project.
Action Items:

• Responses to the Hartgen Report will be provided in a memo. The response memo will be included as an appendix to the Final Supplemental Final EIS.
• For response to #3, HNTB will add a table comparing the traditional intersections vs. superstreets to give context for LOS.
• HNTB will share the memo with responses to the Hartgen Report (specifically #3) with Kevin Lacy for review.
• For response to #3, HNTB will add a map showing the portion of the project area planned for superstreet improvements.
• For response to #5, NCDOT-TPB will get the model calibration report from CDOT. (Note: the model calibration report has been provided.)
• For response to #5, HNTB will detail and verify the methodology for using the MRM model as an input to the forecasts.
• For response to #6, HNTB will create “heat maps” from the forecast to show comparison between the build and no-build. Mr. Hoops will verify what Mr. Gardner and Mr. Jones want to see in these graphics.
• For response to #4, Baker will add a map of traffic count stations and include raw numbers and absolute change in the table they created.
• For response to #7, HNTB will add a reference to the Appold letter.
• For response to #9, HNTB will supplement with data from additional years. Baker will look at qualitative data from Appold and trends related to recession.

Monroe Connector/Bypass Meeting – 1/31/14 Page 4
E4-8
3.

T
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

U.
S
.

7
4

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

tr
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

M
o
n
r
o
e

Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
/
B
y
p
a
s
s

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

b
e

un
d
e
r
-
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
.

(
H
a
r
g
e
n
)

US

7
4

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

T
r
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

M
e
m
o

S
p
e
e
d

T
a
b
l
e
s

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

1
E4-9
3.

T
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

U
.
S
.

7
4

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

f
o
r

th
e

M
o
n
r
o
e

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
/
B
y
p
a
s
s

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

b
e

u
n
d
e
r
-
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

2
E4-10
2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

3
3.

T
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

U
.
S
.

7
4

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

f
o
r

th
e

M
o
n
r
o
e

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
/
B
y
p
a
s
s

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

b
e

u
n
d
e
r
-
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

E4-11
2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

4
Le
v
e
l

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

De
l
a
y

S
i
g
n
a
l

Co
n
t
r
o
l
Pe
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

De
l
a
y
St
o
p

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
LO
S

A
¾
Fr
e
e

f
l
o
w
¾
Fr
e
e
d
o
m

t
o

s
e
l
e
c
t

d
e
s
i
r
e
d

s
p
e
e
d

/
m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r

i
s

e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y

h
i
g
h
¾
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

c
o
m
f
o
r
t

l
e
v
e
l

&
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e

f
o
r

m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s

i
s

e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
<
1
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
<
1
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
LO
S

B
¾
St
a
b
l
e

f
l
o
w
¾
Ot
h
e
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

s
t
r
e
a
m

b
e
c
o
m
e

n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
e
¾
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

f
r
e
e
d
o
m

t
o

m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r

f
r
o
m

L
O
S

A
10
.
0

–
2
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
10
.
0

–
1
5
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
LO
S
C
¾
St
a
b
l
e

f
l
o
w
¾
Ma
n
e
u
v
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
/
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

s
p
e
e
d

a
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

ot
h
e
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
¾
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

c
o
m
f
o
r
t

a
n
d

c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e

d
e
c
l
i
n
e
s

n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
y
20
.
0

–
3
5
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
15
.
0

–
2
5
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
LO
S

D
¾
Hi
g
h

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

b
u
t

s
t
a
b
l
e

f
l
o
w
¾
Sp
e
e
d

a
n
d

f
r
e
e
d
o
m

t
o

m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r

a
r
e

s
e
v
e
r
e
l
y

r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
¾
Ge
n
e
r
a
l

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

c
o
m
f
o
r
t

/

c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e

i
s

p
o
o
r
¾
Sm
a
l
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
w
i
l
l

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

c
a
u
s
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
35
.
0

–
5
5
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
25
.
0

–
3
5
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
LO
S

E
¾
Un
s
t
a
b
l
e

f
l
o
w
¾
Sp
e
e
d

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

t
o

l
o
w
e
r

b
u
t

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

u
n
i
f
o
r
m

v
a
l
u
e
¾
Vo
l
u
m
e
s

a
t

o
r

n
e
a
r

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

l
e
v
e
l
¾
Co
m
f
o
r
t

a
n
d

c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e

a
r
e

e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y

p
o
o
r
¾
Sm
a
l
l

f
l
o
w

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
/
m
i
n
o
r

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
s

w
i
l
l

c
a
u
s
e

br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
s
55
.
0

–
8
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
35
.
0

–
5
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
LO
S

F
¾
Fo
r
c
e
d

o
r

b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n

f
l
o
w

¾
Vo
l
u
m
e
s

e
x
c
e
e
d

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
¾
Fo
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

u
n
s
t
a
b
l
e

q
u
e
u
e
s

¾
St
o
p
p
a
g
e
s

f
o
r

l
o
n
g

p
e
r
i
o
d
s

o
f

t
i
m
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
>
8
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
>
5
0
.
0

se
c
o
n
d
s
Le
v
e
l

o
f

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

*
P
e
r

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

M
a
n
u
a
l

2
0
1
0
,

V
o
l
u
m
e

3
,

E
x
h
i
b
i
t
s

1
8
-
4

&

1
9
-
1
.

E4-12

3.

T
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

U
.
S
.

7
4

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

f
o
r

th
e

M
o
n
r
o
e

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
/
B
y
p
a
s
s

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

b
e

u
n
d
e
r
-
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

5
-
D
e
n
o
t
e
s

L
O
S

E
/
F

f
o
r

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

&

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

V
/
C

r
a
t
i
o

>

0
.
8
5

E4-13
4.

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h

o
n

U
S

7
4

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

f
l
a
t

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
0

t
o

2
0
1
2
,

a
n
d

i
s

i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

wi
t
h

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
o
w
t
h
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

•
Dr
.

H
a
r
t
g
e
n

g
r
o
w
t
h

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s

a
r
e

e
r
r
o
n
e
o
u
s
.

Ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

a
r
e
a

2
0
0
0

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
on

20
1
0

Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
on

Differen ce Percent Change from 2000-10
Un
i
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

12
3
,
6
7
7

2
0
1
,
2
9
2

7
7
,
6
1
5

6
2
.
8
%

DS
A
-
U
n
i
o
n

C
o
.

p
a
r
t

66
,
5
7
6

1
0
2
,
3
5
7

3
5
,
7
8
1

5
3
.
7
%

DS
A
-
M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

Co
.

p
a
r
t

13
,
8
6
7

1
7
,
7
4
6

3
,
8
7
9

2
8
.
0
%

To
t
a
l

D
S
A

80
,
4
7
0

1
2
0
,
1
0
3

3
9
,
6
3
3

4
9
.
3
%

Un
i
o
n

N
O
N
-
D
S
A

p
a
r
t

57
,
1
0
1

9
8
,
9
3
5

4
1
,
8
3
4

7
3
.
3
%

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

6
E4-14
4.

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h

o
n

U
S

7
4

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

f
l
a
t

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
0

t
o

2
0
1
2
,

a
n
d

i
s

i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

wi
t
h

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
o
w
t
h
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

•
Dr
.

H
a
r
t
g
e
n

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

s
i
z
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

a
r
e
a
s

h
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
s
.

Ge
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

a
r
e
a

Ar
e
a

i
n

S
q

Mi
l
e
s

%
o
f

T
o
t
a
l

A
r
e
a

%

o
f

P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

G
r
o
w
t
h

Ca
p
t
u
r
e
d

2
0
0
0

t
o

2
0
1
0

Un
i
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

63
9
.
3

1
0
0
%

-

DS
A
-
U
n
i
o
n

C
o
.

p
a
r
t

17
6
.
6

2
8
%

4
6
%

Un
i
o
n

N
O
N
-
D
S
A

p
a
r
t

46
2
.
7

7
2
%

5
4
%

Ra
t
i
o

o
f

N
O
N
-
D
S
A

t
o

D
S
A

p
a
r
t

2.
6
2

2
.
6
2

1
.
1
7

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

7
E4-15
4.

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h

o
n

U
S

7
4

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

f
l
a
t

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
0

t
o

2
0
1
2
,

a
n
d

i
s

i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

wi
t
h

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
o
w
t
h
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

8
E4-16
4.

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

g
r
o
w
t
h

o
n

U
S

7
4

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

f
l
a
t

f
r
o
m

2
0
0
0

t
o

2
0
1
2
,

a
n
d

i
s

i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

wi
t
h

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

g
r
o
w
t
h
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

20
0
4

t
o

2
0
1
2

C
h
a
n
g
e

AA
D
T

AA
D
T

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
RO
U
T
E

L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N

A
A
D
T

%

C
h
a
n
g
e

2
0
1
2

2
0
1
0

2
0
0
6

2
0
0
4

11
9

U
S

7
4

W

O
F

S
R

1
3
6
5

3
,
0
0
0

5
.
6
%

5
7
,
0
0
0

5
4
,
0
0
0

5
8
,
0
0
0

5
4
,
0
0
0

27

N
C

1
6

N

O
F

S
R

1
3
4
6

5
,
0
0
0

2
1
.
7
%

2
8
,
0
0
0

25,000 23,000
3
N
C

2
1
8

W

O
F

S
R

1
5
3
9

1
,
7
0
0

2
6
.
2
%

8
,
2
0
0

8
,
2
0
0

8
,
7
0
0

6
,
5
0
0

17
8
3

S
R

1
3
6
5

N

O
F

S
R

1
5
2
4

7
0
0

3
3
.
3
%

2
,
8
0
0

3
,
6
0
0

2
,
9
0
0

2
,
1
0
0

18
2
4

S
R

1
4
6
0

N

O
F

S
R

1
0
0
9

5
5
0

6
4
.
7
%

1
,
4
0
0

1
,
1
0
0

8
2
0

8
5
0

17
9
4

S
R

1
5
0
1

W

O
F

S
R

1
5
2
4

3
,
0
0
0

2
0
.
0
%

1
8
,
0
0
0

2
0
,
0
0
0

1
8
,
0
0
0

1
5
,
0
0
0

12
9
4

S
R

3
4
6
8

S

O
F

S
R

3
4
4
0

1
,
0
0
0

9
.
1
%

1
2
,
0
0
0

1
2
,
0
0
0

1
2
,
0
0
0

1
1
,
0
0
0

35
1
8

S
R

1
0
0
4

W

O
F

S
R

1
5
2
4

2
,
0
0
0

1
4
.
3
%

1
6
,
0
0
0

1
5
,
0
0
0

1
5
,
0
0
0

1
4
,
0
0
0

34
8
1

S
R

3
4
4
5

E

O
F

S
R

3
4
4
0

2
,
1
0
0

2
7
.
3
%

9
,
8
0
0

1
1
,
0
0
0

1
1
,
0
0
0

7
,
7
0
0

To
t
a
l

19
,
0
5
0

1
4
.
2
%

1
5
3
,
2
0
0

151,420 134,150
To
t
a
l

w
/
o

N
C

1
6

14
,
0
5
0

1
2
.
6
%

12
5
,
2
0
0

1
2
4
,
9
0
0

1
2
6
,
4
2
0

1
1
1
,
1
5
0

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

9
E4-17
•
Pe
r

t
h
e

M
e
t
r
o
l
i
n
a

M
o
d
e
l

U
s
e
r
’
s

G
u
i
d
e

(
J
u
l
y

1
1
th
,
20
0
8
)
,

D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n

2
.
0
,

p
a
g
e

3
-
1
1
,

ex
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

s
u
r
v
e
y
s

a
n
d

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

w
e
r
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

t
o

“s
e
r
v
e

a
s

a

b
a
s
i
s

f
o
r

m
o
d
e
l

e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

s
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
,

an
d

c
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
a
r
g
e
t
s
.
”

•
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

fr
o
m

C
D
O
T

(
A
n
n
a

G
a
l
l
u
p
)

5.

T
h
e

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

T
r
a
v
e
l

M
o
d
e
l

a
n
d

t
h
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

m
o
d
e
l

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

h
a
v
e

be
e
n

i
n
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y

c
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
e
d
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

10
E4-18
2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

11
6.

T
h
e

D
S
F
E
I
S

l
e
a
v
e
s

u
n
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d

k
e
y

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l
.

(H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

E4-19
2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

12
6.

T
h
e

D
S
F
E
I
S

l
e
a
v
e
s

u
n
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d

k
e
y

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l
.

(H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

E4-20
2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

13
6.

T
h
e

D
S
F
E
I
S

l
e
a
v
e
s

u
n
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d

k
e
y

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l
.

(H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

E4-21
2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

14
6.

T
h
e

D
S
F
E
I
S

l
e
a
v
e
s

u
n
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d

k
e
y

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l
.

(H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

E4-22
•
Se
c
t
i
o
n

3
-
5
-
3

(
p
a
g
e
s

3
-
2
3

–

3
-
3
2
)

o
f

t
h
e

M
e
t
r
o
l
i
n
a

M
o
d
e
l

U
s
e
r
’
s

G
u
i
d
e

(
J
u
l
y

1
1
th, 2008),
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n

2
.
0
,

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

t
h
e

a
p
p
r
oa
c
h

f
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g

h
i
g
h
w
a
y

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

sp
e
e
d
s

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

M
R
M
.

7.

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
m
a
i
n

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

o
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

On
e

o
f

1
7

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

/

s
p
e
e
d

t
a
b
l
e
s

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

3
.
5
.
3

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

15
E4-23
•
Ta
b
l
e

f
r
o
m

M
o
n
r
o
e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t

Su
m
m
a
r
y

M
e
m
o

a
n
d

D
r
a
f
t

Qu
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

I
C
E

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

U
p
d
a
t
e
.

7.

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
m
a
i
n

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

o
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
.

(
H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

16
E4-24
Ye
a
r

20
0
3

20
0
4

20
0
5

20
0
6

20
0
7

20
0
8

20
0
9

20
1
0

MR
M

S
E

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

“T
o
p

D
o
w
n
”

D
r
.

H
a
m
m
e
r

“B
o
t
t
o
m

U
p
”

P
.

S
m
i
t
h

20
0
5

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
;

M
U
M
P
O

2
0
3
0

L
R
T
P

A
d
o
p
t
e
d

A
p
r
i
l

20
0
5
;

A
Q

C
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

MU
M
P
O

u
p
d
a
t
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

20
0
8

&

2
0
0
8

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

LU
S
A
M

M
o
d
e
l
s

20
0
9

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

L
U
S
A
M

M
o
d
e
l
s

MU
M
P
O

2
0
3
5

L
R
T
P

A
d
o
p
t
e
d

M
a
y

20
1
0
;

A
Q

C
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

MR
M

S
E

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

(
c
o
n
t
.
)

20
0
5

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
0
5
,

Co
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

M
U
M
P
O

2
0
3
0

L
R
T
P
,

MR
M

0
5

&

0
6

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

20
0
8

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
8
,

Co
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

R
F
A
T
S

2
0
3
5

L
R
T
P
,

MR
M

0
8

V
e
r
s
i
o
n
;

20
0
8

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
9
,

Co
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

N
o
n
e
,

Mo
d
e
l

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

N
o
n
e

20
0
9

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

2
0
0
9
,

Co
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

M
U
M
P
O

2
0
3
5

L
R
T
P
,

MR
M

0
9

&

1
1

V
e
r
s
i
o
n

Tr
a
f
f
i
c

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

20
0
7
/
2
0
3
0

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

(M
A
B
,

J
u
n
e

2
0
0
8
)
;

20
3
5

U
p
g
r
a
d
e

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

N
o
n
-
T
o
l
l

&

To
l
l

(
W
S
A
,

J
u
n
e

2
0
0
8
)
;

20
0
8

&

2
0
3
5

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
,

B
u
i
l
d

N
o
n
-
To
l
l

&

B
u
i
l
d

T
o
l
l

(
W
S
A

S
e
p
t
.

2
0
0
8
)

Tr
a
f
f
i
c

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t

In
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

E
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

&
R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s

20
1
3

A
l
t

3
A

B
u
i
l
d

T
o
l
l

(H
N
T
B
,

J
a
n
.

2
0
0
9
)
;

20
3
5

A
l
t

3

A

S
e
g
m
e
n
t

2

B
u
i
l
d

T
o
l
l

(H
N
T
B
,

J
u
l
y

2
0
0
9
)

20
0
8
/
2
0
3
5

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

U
p
d
a
t
e

(H
N
T
B
,

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
0
)
;

20
2
5

B
u
i
l
d

T
o
l
l

(H
N
T
B
,

A
u
g
.

2
0
1
0
)

Traffic & Revenue Studies T&R 2009 Update to Preliminary Study (WSA, April 2009) Final Comprehensive T&R Study (WSA, Oct. 2010)
Tr
a
f
f
i
c

F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t

&

S
E

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

17
E4-25
9.

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

f
o
r

U
.
S
.

7
4

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

r
o
a
d
s

i
s

n
o
t

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
.

(H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

•
MU
M
P
O

(
C
R
T
P
O
)

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

a

Dr
a
f
t

F
i
n
a
l

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

T
r
a
v
e
l

S
u
r
v
e
y

R
e
p
o
r
t

(
M
a
y
,

2
0
0
3
)
t
h
a
t

w
a
s

u
s
e
d

t
o

a
s
s
i
s
t

wi
t
h

t
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

M
R
M
1
1

a
n
d

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

M
R
M
0
5
,

0
6
,

0
9

m
o
d
e
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.

•
CR
T
P
O

i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g

a

n
e
w

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

t
r
a
v
e
l

s
u
r
v
ey
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

b
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

i
n

m
i
d
-
2
0
1
4
.

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

18
E4-26
9.

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

f
o
r

U
.
S
.

7
4

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

r
o
a
d
s

i
s

n
o
t

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
.

(H
a
r
t
g
e
n
)

2/
1
4
/
2
0
1
4

PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

D
R
A
F
T

-

F
o
r

i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y

19
•
Fi
g
u
r
e
s

f
r
o
m

Dr
a
f
t

F
i
n
a
l

E
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

T
r
a
v
e
l

S
u
r
v
e
y

R
e
p
o
r
t

(
M
a
y
,

2
0
0
3
)

E4-27

This page was intentionally left blank.
E4-28

Appendix B – Responses to Hartgen Report
E4-29

This page was intentionally left blank.
E4-30
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 1 of 44
Table 1. Hartgen Report – Detailed Comment/Response Summary

Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment
# Comment Response
3 P&N 1
The stated Purpose and Need for the Bypass appear to have been written narrowly so that
only alternatives on new alignment satisfy the stated Purpose and Need. See response to Comment #s 12 through 20.
3 Alternatives 2
The alternatives considered appear to be inappropriately biased against upgrades to U.S. 74. See response to Comment #s 21 through 29.
3 Traffic forecasts 3
Traffic forecasts for 2035 were not re-computed for some alternatives, thus possibly over-
stating future Bypass traffic and under-stating traffic improvements for some alternatives.
Some of the recently completed and planned future improvements to U.S. 74 and their effect
on traffic forecasts have not been included in the traffic forecasts, and their effect on Bypass
traffic therefore appears to be under-stated.
See response to Comment #s 30 through 36.
3 Traffic forecasts 4
Traffic growth on U.S. 74 has been flat from 2000 to 2012 and is inconsistent with population
growth trends. The DSFEIS simply ignores these inconsistencies. Moreover, the forecast of
population, which drives the traffic forecast, is based on a pre-Recession projection; recent
population growth has slowed markedly. Essentially the entire justification for the project rests
on traffic forecasts that ignore 12 years of recent history, recent economic upheaval, and slower
population growth.
See response to Comment #s 37 through 48.
3 Travel demand
modeling 5
The regional travel demand model (used to forecast Bypass traffic) and the traffic operations
simulation model (used to study traffic flow on U.S. 74) both appear to have been insufficiently
calibrated.
See response to Comment #s 49 through 54.
3 Induced traffic 6
The DSFEIS attempts to addresses the directive of the 4th Circuit Court, but leaves key questions
regarding induced traffic unanswered.
See response to Comment #s 55 through 59.
3 Traffic forecasts 7
Questions remain concerning details of the traffic forecasts. The three key assumptions of the
traffic forecasts (growth of the area population, percentage diversion, and magnitude of long-
distance travel) all appear to be overly optimistic.
See response to Comment #s 60 through 68.
3 Project costs 8
Project costs and cost-effectiveness are not sufficiently detailed. See response to Comment # 69.
3 Traffic forecasts 9
External traffic forecasts are undocumented. See response to Comment # 70.
3 Traffic forecasts 10
Inherent uncertainty in traffic forecasts has not been sufficiently considered. See response to Comment #s 71 and 72.
4 Traffic forecasts 11
In summary, based on these and other issues described below, my review finds that the traffic
forecasts presented in the DSFEIS are too uncertain and insufficiently supported to be the basis
for decision-making regarding the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
This comment/response table provides a thorough response to all individual comments and arguments raised in the Hartgen
Report. The traffic forecast results and conclusions made for this project are the product of a detailed, approved methodolo gy
and standard process used for project-level traffic forecasting and analysis in North Carolina, and meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 1502.24. Because the traffic forecasts attempt to predict the future, they are subject to uncertainty. The results
and conclusions have gone through a detailed review and update process to ensure that uncertainty was considered and
accounted for, as deemed reasonable and necessary, using the latest available data.
Also, see responses to Comment #s 12 through 72.

E4-31
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 2 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment
# Comment (Observation #1) Response
4 P&N 12
The stated Purpose and Need for the Bypass appear to have been written narrowly.
According to the DSFEIS, the purpose of the project is to: “improve mobility and capacity within
the project study area by providing a facility for the U.S. 74 corridor from near I-485 in
Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County that
allows for high-speed regional travel consistent with the designations of the North Carolina SHC
program and the North Carolina Intrastate System, while maintaining access to properties along
existing U.S. 74.” This statement implies that congestion within the study area is long-distance in
character, that a high-speed long-distance facility will increase study-area mobility, and that the
system designations of the Legislature are inviolate. None of these assumptions are the case.
Indeed, the North Carolina General Assembly has recently (2013) repealed the Intrastate System
legislation.
We disagree with the commenter’s suggested interpretation that the project’s purpose and need statement is too narrow.
We also disagree with the commenter’s interpretation that the purpose and need suggests that congestion within the study
area is long distance in character. We have responded previously to comments suggesting that the purpose and need is too
narrow in the Final EIS Section 3.3.1 (Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need) and responses to comments
1 and 2 from the SELC letter dated June 15, 2009 in Final EIS Appendix B (pages B3-25 through B3-26), particularly in regards
to providing for high-speed regional travel.
In summary, the term “high speed” as used in the EIS does not unduly narrow alternatives nor preordains any one particular
alternative. The term “high speed” is defined as 50 miles per hour, and this travel speed might be achieved by several
different types of facilities on any number of new location alignments or along existing roadways, for example: controlled‐
access freeways, superstreets, or even public transportation on dedicated right of way.
Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS explains the criteria used to determine the ability of alternative concepts to meet purpose and
need. These included the ability to enhance mobility and increase capacity, serve high -speed regional travel, and ability to
maintain access to properties along US 74. All three criteria were considered in the evaluation of alternatives. Table 2 -1 of
the Draft EIS shows that three alternative concepts met qualitative first screening criteria: 1) Improve Existing US 74
Controlled Access Highway, 2) New Location Highway, and 3) New Location/Improve Existing Roadways Hybrid.
The project’s purpose and need has remained consistent throughout the EIS process and has been clearly stated in the NEPA
documents and public meeting materials. As stated in the introduction to the Draft Supplemental Final EIS Section 1, “based
upon a review of new information and public and agency comments received to date, the purpose and need for the project
remain unchanged.”
As stated in Section 1.1.2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the purpose of the project is “to improve mobility and capacity
within the project study area by providing a facility for the US 74 corridor from near I-485 in Mecklenburg County to between
the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County that allows for high-speed regional travel consistent with the
designations of the North Carolina SHC program and the North Carolina Intrastate System, while maintaining access to
properties along existing US 74.” (SEE NOTE BELOW) The use of regional travel clearly delineates that the project purpose
and need is not specifically long-distance travel.
NOTE: The State legislation regarding the Intrastate System was recently repealed by the State Legislature in Session Law
2013-183, signed by the Governor on June 26, 2013. The Final Supplemental Final EIS includes an errata section (Appendix D)
updating the project purpose to remove reference to the NC Intrastate System. High speed travel is still designated for the
corridor in the NC Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) program, so the substantive statements of the project purpose remain
unchanged.
4 P&N 13
The DSFEIS focuses on the second and third stated purposes, not the first.
Focusing on the second and third purposes, and not the first, leads to the consideration of
alternatives that are largely on new alignment, that is, off existing U.S. 74’s current location.
This is inconsistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and
virtually all of transportation economics, in which the objective is to evaluate proposed projects by
their benefits versus their costs.
Consistent with 23 CFR 771.111 – Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, the purpose and need for the project was
developed with input from local officials, agencies and the public as described throughout the EIS. The project’s purpose and
need is consistent with 40 CFR 1502.23, which states that “The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and
need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” The purpose and need
statement also is consistent with the FHWA guidelines NEPA and Transportation Decision making (FHWA, Sept 1990), which
lists three key points relative to a purpose and need section of an EIS, which are: 1) justification of why the improvement must
be implemented, 2) as comprehensive and specific as possible, and 3) reexamined and updated as appropriate throughout the
project development process. Neither NEPA nor the transportation planning requirements under title 23, U.S.C. requires
proposed projects to be evaluated by their benefits versus cost.
E4-32
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 3 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment
# Comment (Observation #1) Response
The commenter’s assertion that the stated purpose element, “improve mobility and capacity within the project study area”,
was not adequately considered in the evaluation of alternatives is not correct. A multi -step, objective screening process was
used to evaluate alternatives to identify those to move forward for detailed study. Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final
EIS summarizes the extensive multi-step alternatives development process carried out during the preparation of the Draft EIS,
additional analyses conducted and documented in the Final EIS as a result of public and agency comments, and updates and
analyses conducted after the Final EIS.
The alternatives screening process is described in Section 2 of the Draft EIS and Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS.
As discussed in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS, for the first qualitative screening of alternatives:
“Each Alternative Concept was considered for its potential to meet the purpose and need for this project. The
screening criteria listed below were applied.
 Does the alternative address the need to improve mobility and capacity in the US 74 corridor?
 Is the alternative consistent with the NC Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) program and NC Intrastate
System (i.e., does it allow for high-speed regional travel)?
 Does the alternative maintain access to properties along existing US 74?”
The conclusion of the first qualitative screening of alternatives, which considered all three screening criteria, is summarized in
Section 2.2.3 and Table 2-1 of the Draft EIS. The second and third screenings, summarized in Section2 of the Draft EIS,
qualitatively and quantitatively compared the benefits and impacts (including costs) of preliminary alternatives to identify the
Detailed Study Alternatives.
The use of all three screening criteria does not result in an undue narrowing of alternatives. This is explained in detail in Final
EIS Section 3.3.1 (Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need) and responses to comments 1 and 2 from the
SELC letter dated June 15, 2009 in Final EIS Appendix B (pages B3-25 through B3-26), particularly relating to the inclusion of
providing high-speed regional travel in the project purpose.
Support for the high-speed component of the screening criteria is provided in Section II.8 of 23 CFR 450 Appendix A (Linking
the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes) which states, “The statement of purpose and need shall include a clear
statement of the objectives that the proposed action is intended to achieved, which may include: (a) Achieving a
transportation objective identified in an applicable statewide or metropolitan transportation plan; (b) supporting land use,
economic development, or growth objectives established in applicable Federal, State, local, or Tribal plans; and (c) serving
national defense, national security, or other national objectives, as established in Federal laws, plans, or policies.”
On page 3-10 of the Final EIS, it is explained that, “Maintaining access to properties along existing US 74 was included because
numerous industries, office, retail businesses, and institutions are located along the corr idor, many of which have US 74 as
their only access. US 74 is a critical commercial corridor for the economic vitality of Union County.”

4-5 Congestion 14
Congestion on US 74 is largely locally-based, not long-distance.
The DSFEIS says that congestion on U.S. 74 is uniform throughout the day and by direction:
“Based on these field travel time runs, corridor average travel speeds are approximately 40 mph
eastbound and westbound during all three peak p eriods.” The NCDOT travel time runs and
recent INRIX data show that travel speeds are essentially uniform by direction and AM peak-
lunch-PM peak (DOT 40 mph, INRIX 43-44 mph). This suggests that most of the traffic on U.S. 74 is
We disagree with the commenter’s interpretation that the DSFEIS says that congestion on U.S. 74 is uniform throughout the
day and by direction. The DSFEIS Table 1-2 (page1-7) summarized congestion for the morning peak hour, the lunch peak hour
and the afternoon peak hour. An evaluation of INRIX average travel speeds by hour shows that congestion varies throughout
the day and is not uniform.
Congestion on US 74 during the morning and afternoon peaks is largely affected by commuter traffic. Congestion throughout
the day is a result of the combination of long-distance regional trips, local commuter trips, and local access trips – including
E4-33
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 4 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment
# Comment (Observation #1) Response
locally-based traffic (otherwise the congestion would be more severe in peaks and nearer to
Charlotte, where traffic volumes are higher). A further observation is that there is a reduction in
traffic volume on U.S. 74 between Monroe and the M ecklenburg County line, also suggesting
that the traffic congestion around Monroe is locally-based, and is not headed to Charlotte. A
third point is that the location of the facility, about 2 miles north of U.S. 74, means that local
traffic on U.S. 74 would be unlikely to use the proposed Bypass as such use would require driving
farther and out of the way for many local short trips, and paying a toll, to save (or perhaps
even lose) travel time by using the Connector.

trips utilizing numerous crossing facilities. Regardless of trip type being local or regional, existing traffic congestion along the
corridor currently impairs the US 74 corridor from operating at 50 mph or its posted speed limits for much of the day.
Continued growth, both locally and regionally will further exacerbate existing congestion along the corridor for all types of
trips.
Travel time information presented in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS was updated for the Final Supplemental
Final EIS in Section 1.1.1 to include a review of INRIX data for all of 2013, as well as 2011 and 2012 (see Tables 1-2 and 1-3 in
the Final Supplemental Final EIS). The updated data resulted in the same conclusions as presented in the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS. Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 show that the US 74 corridor from I-485 to US 601 (Pageland Highway), which makes up 60
percent of the studied corridor, operates substantially below 50 mph and posted speed limits, both eastbound and
westbound, during all peak periods. For the portion of the corridor east of US 601 (Pageland Highway), average peak hour
speeds are at or slightly above the weighted average posted speed limit, both eastbound and westbound. All speeds are still
below the desired 50 mph for a high-speed corridor. Also as presented in the tables, contrary to the statement in this
comment, congestion is more pronounced nearer to Charlotte, where differences between posted speed limit s and INRIX
average speeds are greater for the segment from I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road, indicating more congestion.
The commenter states that there is a reduction in traffic volume on US 74 between Monroe and the Mecklenburg County line.
A review of NCDOT 2012 traffic count maps show that existing volumes along US 74 from Monroe to I-485 show higher
volumes near Monroe and similar or higher volumes near I -485, compared with lower volumes in areas in between. However,
average speeds throughout the corridor from I -485 to US 601 just east of Monroe show average speeds 4-14 mph below the
speed limits in the eastbound direction and 6-16 mph below the speed limits in the westbound direction.
All projections of land use, employment, and population growth incorporated into the MRM models utilized in developing
project-level traffic forecasts indicate that growth will continue to occur in Union County and throughout the project study
area in the future. Thus, the MRM models predict increased traffic growth along the US 74 corridor and facilities accessing it
with the result being increased traffic congestion in the future.
The fact that MRM model results show that future traffic assignments utilize both the existing corridor and the proposed
Bypass indicates that local trips would still utilize the existing US 74 corridor, depending on specific trip origin and destination,
as well as use the Bypass for trips where the value of time would indicate a trip made using the Bypass is more desirable tha n
using the existing corridor.
5 Traffic Volumes 15
Long-distance traffic is low in volume.
Traffic volumes on U.S. 74 fall off sharply at the eastern edge of Monroe, from about 38,000
ADT in the vicinity of the Medical Center, to just 24,000 ADT at eastern edge of the study area,
and about 19,000 ADT at Forest Hill Road, where the proposed Connector would rejoin U.S. 74.
Although no data on external traffic (leaving the study area) is provided, probably only 1/3 of the
19,000 ADT at the study area’s eastern edge is long-distance traffic (the ADT at the Anson
County line, further east, is just 13,000 and some of that is local). Even if 1/2 of the 19000 ADT
were to divert to the Bypass (an optimistic assumption), the resulting drop in traffic on U.S.
74 (about 8500) would be about 6-7%, less than the typical daily variation in traffic volume.
Therefore the primary justification for the Bypass, long-distance traffic, is also relatively low in
volume.
A project purpose is to improve mobility and capacity within the project study by providing a facility for the US 74 corrido r
from near I-485 in Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate and Marshville in Union County that allows for
high-speed regional travel. Facilitating long-distance travel is not a primary purpose of the project nor a criterion used to
screen alternatives. Nowhere in the project documentation is the primary justification for the Bypass noted as being “for long
distance traffic.” The Bypass is expected to provide a high speed option for all trip types – local, regional, and long-distance.
Traffic forecasts for the Bypass show variation between proposed interchanges, owing to the fact that varying levels of all
three trip types described are expected to occur depending on relative location between project termini. Speculation on
anticipated trip diversion to the Bypass using existing daily traffic data neglects any effects of increased future growth in the
area and increased congestion along the existing US 74 facility.
E4-34
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 5 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment
# Comment (Observation #1) Response
5 Congestion 16
The proposed Bypass is unlikely to reduce congestion on US 74.
The above two factors — most traffic on U.S. 74 is local, and long-distance traffic is quite low
and might not divert — suggest that it is almost entirely local traffic, not long distance traffic or
the lack of a high-speed bypass, that causes the present congestion on U.S. 74. If most congestion
is locally-based, then provision of a bypass will not alleviate it. It is therefore not likely that the
proposed Connector would significantly reduce congestion on U.S. 74 or improve mobility in the
study area.
We do not agree with the bulleted comment that the proposed bypass is unlikely to reduce congestion on U.S. 74. We also
don’t agree that it is unlikely that the proposed connector would improve mobility in the study area. These qualitative
comments offer little data or analysis in support of its conclusion. However, as described in Section 2.5.2 of the Draft
Supplemental EIS (under the heading Question 6 – How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on the US
74 Corridor?), the project’s traffic forecasts estimate that traffic volumes would be less along the existing US 74 corridor with
the Monroe Connector/Bypass in place, thereby improving traffic flow conditions along existing US 74 compared to the No -
Build scenario.
5 Funding 17
The DSFEIS misrepresents the availability of “sufficient’ funds.”
The DSFEIS states that “Similar to previous state and local TIPs and the conclusion in the Final
EIS, current fiscally constrained planning documents do not have sufficient funds available from
traditional sources in the foreseeable future to construct all priority projects in the state.”6 This
statement ignores the Governor’s new Strategic Tran sportation Investment (“STI”) Plan
(2013), an effort to prioritize and fund highway projects by worthiness. The statement
therefore pre-judges that the Monroe Bypass would not “pass muster” under the new statewide
transportation prioritization formula, and therefore needs more funds in the form of tolls. But
elementary transportation economics teaches that a project’s worthiness should be determined
WITHOUT regard to its funding sources. The Monroe Bypass should be subjected to the same
worthiness criteria as virtually all other projects in the state, and if found sufficiently worthy it
could then be funded without tolls. But no data on the project’s cost-effectiveness is provided.

The Monroe Connector/Bypass is the only yet-to-be-built road project presently authorized to
be directly funded by the NC General Assembly through the NC Turnpike Authority; other projects
previously permitted (the Garden Parkway, the Cape Fear Skyway, and the Mid-Currituck Bridge)
have been removed from toll-authorized funding.
This comment consists of the author’s opinion that the Monroe Connector/Bypass would not be a “worthy” project und er the
new Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) Law (House Bill 817). However, the STI law clearly excludes the Project and
therefore it is not subject to STI scoring. Specifically, the STI law is scheduled to be fully implemented after July 1, 2015.
Projects funded for construction before then will proceed as scheduled and are excluded from the STI law. The Monroe
Connector/Bypass project was funded for construction in 2011, therefore it is not subject to STI scoring. Additionally, the STI
Law expressly excludes the twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) that has been allocated to the Monroe
Connector/Bypass to be used to pay debt service or related financing expenses on revenue bonds or notes issued for
construction. The Final Supplemental Final EIS Section 2.4 includes current cost estimates for the Project.

6 Project termini 18
The DSFEIS misstates the end point of the project.
The DSFEIS states that “On the western end, the project would begin at I-485, another controlled-
access facility.” This is factually not the case (it ends on U.S. 74, about 1 mile from the present
I-485). Though the Draft recognizes the facility’s true end point elsewhere, this inaccurate
statement at the beginning of the document, in the summary of its purpose and need, wrongly
implies that the project extends the Interstate system by providing for long- distance travel,
whereas the project’s asserted justification is the reduction of congestion.
The western project terminus is I-485. As noted in Section 3.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative
(DSA D) follows existing US 74 for approximately one mile from just east of I-485 to east of Stallings Road (SR 1365). As shown
in Figures 3-4a and 3-4b in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative upgrades this approximately one-mile
segment of existing US 74 to a controlled-access highway facility with frontage roads to access adjacent properties.

6 Miscellaneous 19
The DSFEIS inappropriately introduces the issue of fairness.
The DSFEIS states: “Although Union County is the fastest growing county in the State, it is the only
county adjacent to Mecklenburg County that does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility
connecting it to Mecklenburg County.” This statement is factually incorrect. Union County is no
longer the fastest growing county in North Carolina. At least 10 counties, led by Onslow,
reported faster growth rates between 2010 and 2012 than Union County’s 3.3%, or
1.7/%/year. Also, Lancaster County, SC, adjacent to Mecklenburg County, has no high-speed
connection to Mecklenburg County.

The statement further implies wrongly that all “adjacent” counties to metropolitan areas
According to the North Carolina State Demographic Unit and ACS estimates, Union County is still among the fastest growing
counties in the region and is growing at a faster rate than the majority of counties in North Carolina. The quote in this
comment has been clarified with minor corrections included in the Errata section of the Final Supplemental Final EIS
(Appendix D). The quoted text, which comes from Section 1.1.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, should read: “Although
Union County is one of the fastest growing counties in the State, it is the only county having a major border with Mecklenburg
County that does not have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County.”
We do not agree with the commenter’s interpretation. This statement was not intended to imply anything other than a
statement of existing conditions regarding the region’s transportation network. This statement was not used as a criterion t o
evaluate the Monroe Connector/Bypass alternatives. The criteria used to evaluate the ability of alternatives to meet the
E4-35
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 6 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment
# Comment (Observation #1) Response
somehow deserve a high-speed “interstate-type” connection to the metropolitan county. This
criterion is not one used by the STI program to evaluate projects. The STI criteria require that
all highway projects be evaluated by cost-effectiveness and congestion reduction, among other
factors, but not by geographic proximity or design level. Further, NCDOT is already upgrading
existing U.S. 74 in Mecklenburg County to high-speed design standards, and this upgrade could
be continued into Union County. If this criterion were added to the STI, then counties
adjacent to Wake, Guilford, Forsythe, Cumberland, Buncombe, New Hanover, and Durham
should also have their connections upgraded and raised to “interstate- type.”
project’s purpose and need are stated in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS.

7 Weekend
Travel 20
Neither beach access nor weekend traffic is mentioned in the document.
It is commonly thought that travel times from Charlotte to the North Carolina beaches are
hampered by congestion on U.S. 74, and that as a result, beach- going weekend traffic is often
stuck in congestion between Charlotte and Monroe. Yet the DSFEIS does not study, review or
even mention local or long-distance weekend traffic. The proposed Monroe Bypass might serve an
additional unmentioned purpose of providing faster access across Union County for Charlotte-area
beach-goers — in other words, a major unmentioned beneficiary of the Bypass would be the
occasional (largely weekend) users from an adjacent county! If these factors are part of the
project’s justification, they must be spelled out and evaluated on their merits using appropriate
traffic analysis methods. This oversight demonstrates either unfamiliarity with an unstated key
“purpose and need” of the project, or (worse) implies that stating this additional purpose
would reduce the project’s political support.
Alternatives studied in the NEPA process were analyzed for their ability to meet purpose and need , as explained in Section
2.2.1 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS. Long-distance travel associated with beach and weekend travel was not part of the
project purpose and need. Therefore, this information was not needed to evaluate proposed alternatives for the project.
Although improving weekend travel to the beach is not a purpose of the project, some of these trips likely would benefit from
the construction of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass.

E4-36
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 7 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #2) Response
7 Alternatives 21
The alternatives considered appear to be inappropriately biased against US 74 upgrades.
NEPA requires that the alternatives considered for road projects include the “no- build” alternative, a
TSM/TDM alternative, and a variety of “build” alternatives. While the ranges of alternatives to be
considered vary widely from project to project, the intent of NEPA is to ensure that a wide range is
considered. Alternatives found to be viable must then be evaluated to equivalent levels of detail in
terms of benefits, impacts and costs. This does not appear to be the case for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass.
We disagree with the commenter’s suggestion that we did not appropriately evaluate alternatives as required under
NEPA. Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS summarizes the extensive multi-step alternatives development
process for a wide range of alternatives carried out during the preparation of the Draft EIS, additional analyses
conducted and documented in the Final EIS as a result of public and agency comment, and updates and analyses
conducted after the Final EIS. Figure 2-1a-b in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS is a graphic summary of the
alternatives evaluations conducted. Alternatives evaluated included transportation demand management (includes
measures such as flex-time, staggered work hours, and ridesharing), mass transit/multi-modal, improve existing US
74, new location, and combinations of improve existing roadways and new location.

7
Alternatives
& Purpose and
Need
22
The DSFEIS limits the alternatives to those that were judged to fit a biased Purpose and Need.
The DSFEIS describes the three-stage winnowing process used to identify feasible alternatives. In the
first step, a wide range of alternatives were considered, including:
 No-Build or No-Action Alternative
 Transportation Demand Management Alternative
 Transportation System Management Alternative
 Mass Transit and Multi-Modal Alternatives
 “Build” Alternatives, including Upgrading Existing Roadways and New Location Alternatives
The DSFEIS then states that three criteria, based on the purpose and need, were applied to each
alternative:
 Does the alternative address the need to enhance mobility and increase capacity in the U.S. 74
corridor?
 Is the alternative consistent with the NC Strategic Highway Corridor program and the NC
Intrastate System (i.e. does it allow for high- speed regional travel)?
 Does the alternative maintain access to properties along existing U.S 74
But as detailed above, because the stated “Purpose and Need” is biased toward inappropriate criteria, the
alternatives developed to meet those criteria are not judged on the right set of criteria.
See responses to Comment #s 12, 13, and 21.
8
Alternatives
& Purpose and
Need
23
Elimination of “frontage road” and “not maintaining property access” alternatives arbitrarily restricts the
options.
The DSFEIS eliminates several alternatives based on their asserted failure to provide access to existing
U.S. 74 properties. It notes that “However, as part of the purpose and need criteria for the project, there
is a need to maintain access to existing properties along existing U.S. 74, so frontage roads would be
needed for the Upgrade Existing U.S. 74 Alternatives under either a toll or non-toll scenario to provide
property access.” But the alternatives apparently do not include various “frontage road” options, either
separately or in combination with other features such as Superstreets, reversible lanes, or signal
optimization. Essentially, by restricting the review to those alternatives that are asserted to strictly meet
the biased Purpose and Need, the DSFEIS arbitrarily eliminates a wide range of other feasible options.
Partial frontage roads for some sections and not others are also not explored fully. Partial freeway
upgrades along with partial upgraded arterial treatment is another option that is clearly possible but
is not explored. Neither do the alternatives apparently consider options that take a minimal, or minor,
number of existing properties along existing U.S. 74, while the proposed Bypass would take 95
households, 47 businesses and 499 acres of active agricultural land. Failure to adequately consider “on-
current-alignment” options is also surprising as upgrades to U.S. 74 in Mecklenburg County include
on-current-alignment upgrades. If NCDOT could pursue this alternative to improve U.S. 74 in one county,
then why not in the adjacent county?
As discussed in Section 2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, and shown in Figure 2-1b of the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS, NCDOT thoroughly studied many improve existing US 74 alternatives, including Transportation System
Management (TSM), Superstreets, Standard Arterial Widening, Controlled Access Highway, and New
Location/Improve Existing Hybrid. Figure 2-1b of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS summarizes the alternative
concepts and decision points for improve existing US 74 alternatives. Figure 2-1b also lists other types of improve
existing US 74 alternatives considered, including TSM Alternative, superstreets, standard arterial widening, and new
location hybrids. As listed in Figure 2-1b, Preliminary Study Alternative G (PSA G) would improve existing US 74 to a
6-lane freeway with one-way frontage roads on either side to maintain access to adjacent properties.
PSA G was determined in the Draft EIS to have significant human environment impacts (including relocations of
businesses), substantial disruption during construction, and more impacts to streams compared to new location PSAs.
In response to agency comments requesting further study of PSA G, NCDOT developed Revised PSA G to reduce
impact and costs and improve operations. Additional evaluation of PSA G and Revised PSA G in the Draft EIS
determined neither would be reasonable or practicable and were eliminated from further consideration.

E4-37
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 8 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #2) Response
8-9 Tolling 24
Tolling availability further restricts the options to those off U.S. 74.
Tolling options are not permitted in North Carolina without the express approval of the Legislature.
As of this writing, only one un-built road, the Monroe Connector/Bypass, is presently approved for
tolling. The presence of the tolling option for the Monroe Connector/Bypass, not permitted for other
projects in the state, biases the review of alternatives towards those that rely on additional traffic-
generated revenue, rather than on the usual funding options. Although the DSFEIS states that “the
tolling aspect of the project had no influence on the concepts identified for detailed study and little
influence on the roadway preliminary design,” the screening process nevertheless eliminated all
options except tolling options: “All [25] PSAs [preliminary screening alternatives] assumed that toll
collection would be made using an open road tolling technology, which allows for tolls to be
collected at highway speeds and eliminates the need for conventional toll plazas.” This is either a
remarkable coincidence, or a result of a process that pre-judges the range of feasible options.
The purpose of the two statements noted by the commenter is to underscore the fact that conventional toll plazas
and their associated impacts were not considered because the NCDOT will operate the facility in an open road tolling
configuration utilizing electronic collecting not cash collection in the lane. As documented in Section 2 of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, a range of alternatives were rigorously considered for the project, including mass transit,
upgrading existing roadways and combinations of upgrading existing roads with new location segments, and multi‐
modal alternatives. Existing corridors considered for upgrading were US 74 (in its entirety or in part), Old Monroe
Road/Old Charlotte Highway, and Secrest Shortcut Road. These alternatives were found to not to meet the project
purpose and need, regardless of their ability or inability to be toll facilities, as reaffirmed in the Draft Supplemental
Final EIS.

9 Legislation 25
The DSFEIS ignores MAP-21’s focus on projects “within operational right-of-way.”
The new federal highway act, MAP-21, passed in August 2012, specifically streamlines the
environmental review process for projects “within the operational right-of-way.” This new law, not
mentioned in the DSFEIS, is intended to rapidly progress projects that have minimal or little
environment impact, speeding their construction. By ignoring this opportunity, the DSFEIS eliminates a
wide variety of options that could be progressed faster, and possibly cheaper, than the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass.
The project development process considered improvements within the operational right-of-way throughout the
alternatives development and screening projects, as shown in Table 2-1 of the Draft EIS and Section 2 of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS (as referenced above in Comment #s 21 to 23).
9-10 Alternatives 26
Other alternatives, particularly upgrading US 74 using “Superstreets,” providing frontage roads while
upgrading US 74 to freeway status, and/or consolidating intersections should have been evaluated.
The DSFEIS discusses the effectiveness of one lately-added alternative, “TSM Alternative Concept 2” that
would improve traffic flow on U.S. 74 over the short term (to 2015). The DSFEIS concludes that “by
implementing the improvements listed in Table 3-5 of the Final EIS, an overall Level-of- Service D in 2015
could be attained at the intersections along the U.S. 74 study corridor, except for the intersection of U.S.
74 at Rocky River Road (SR1514).” The DSFEIS relies on 2007 estimates projecting that implementing
these improvements would result in an average 2015 peak travel speed of between 29-30 mph.
However, after implementing just some of these solutions, NCDOT has observed average peak travel
speeds well above these projections, as high as 45 mph. This finding is then dismissed because the
alternative does not meet the need for “high speed travel” through the corridor, even though it is
estimated to result in improved operation (LOS D) on U.S. 74.

The DSFEIS also states that assuming the 2035 traffic volumes, the option is not feasible: “A comparison
of the year 2015 traffic volumes used in the U.S. 74 Corridor Study to the year 2035 No-Build volumes
developed in Revised Monroe Connector/Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memo (HNTB, March 2010),
shows that the volumes in 2035 along U.S. 74 would generally be significantly higher. Therefore, the
levels of service at the intersections in 2035 would be expected to degrade to below LOS D and travel
speeds based on the computer model also would decrease.” However, given the admitted success of the
recent improvements in improving LOS, the highly uncertain traffic forecasts (see below) and the flat
recent traffic counts (discussed below), this is clearly a premature conclusion.”
See responses to Comment #s 21, 23, and 40 in this table.
The DSFEIS summarized the US 74 Corridor Study’s Appendix IV estimated travel speed and time results for the 12.5 -
mile segment of US 74 from its intersection with US 601 South to Stallings Road. It appears that the commenter is
comparing those estimated speeds to INRIX average travel speeds collected in 2011, 2012 and August 2013, shown
for an 8.2-mile segment of the corridor from I-485 to Fowler Secrest Road shown in DSFEIS Tables 1-2 and 1-3. We
don’t believe that comparing predicted speeds to real-time travel speeds for segments of roads with differing lengths
and termini is appropriate.
A superstreet concept was considered at various stages of the EIS process. NCDOT’s analysis showed that the
concept would not meet the purpose and need of the project. No further analysis is needed to determine how much
the improvements might reduce the need. The NCDOT has implemented and plans to implement the superstreet
concept throughout the US 74 corridor in an effort to provide short-term improvements to mobility that, based on
analyses conducted for this project, will not provide long -term solutions to meet the Monroe Connector/Bypass’s
stated purpose and need due to future forecasted traffic growth along US 74.
As discussed in Section 2.4 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS , numerous TSM measures have been implemented
along existing US 74 by NCDOT as funds have become available and by developers of adjacent properties as they
improve their properties. Overall, improvements have been implemented at all 23 intersections along existing US 74
that were mentioned for improvement in the US 74 Corridor Study. As presented in Section1.2.4 of the Draft
Supplemental Final EIS and updated in Section 1.1.1 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS, existing average travel
speeds along US 74 within the project corridor are less than 50 mph during peak travel periods, even with
implementation of the TSM measures described in Section 2.4. TSM improvements, while providing some short term
benefits, would be overwhelmed by projected 2035 traffic in the corridor, and would not provide long‐term benefit
nor meet the purpose and need for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project.
E4-38
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 9 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #2) Response

10-11 Alternatives 27
An additional option, widening U.S. 74 without tolls, was also eliminated prematurely.
The DSFEIS also notes that based on questions raised by the Corps of Engineers, the option of an “on-
current location” was revisited. The review concluded that “[I]n the design year 2035, U.S. 74 under all
four scenarios is expected to exceed LOS D in the majority of the corridor…. The Superstreet 6-Lane
scenario option provided the highest corridor capacity compared to the other three scenarios.” This
statement finds that U.S. 74’s level of service will be unsatisfactory (LOS D is the NCDOT standard for
operation) with any of these options, but (in apparent conflict with its own recommendation for a Bypass)
NCDOT has moved to implement a “Superstreet” improvement along a 2.7 mile section of the existing
U.S. 74 through Indian Trail. Therefore it is unclear, to say the least, why a “Superstreet” option was
eliminated from the feasible alternatives. This appears to be a violation of NEPA which requires
comparable evaluation of viable options. At the least, prudence would dictate that the “Superstreet”
option now being implemented on a portion of U.S. 74 should be reviewed for effectiveness, and
additional Superstreet improvements be considered in combination with other improvements in the
corridor, BEFORE a decision to build the Bypass is made.
See response to Comment 26 in this table.
11 Alternatives 28
No discussion of “flexible work schedules” or “work -at-home” as an alternative.
Even though NCDOT’s own data show no large variations in travel time by time of day or direction, and
that most of the traffic using the facility is local, there is no discussion of other alternatives such as
staggered work schedules, increased work-at-home, or other similar options for reducing traffic loads at
specific intersections. The percentage of Union County residents working at home doubled from 3.4% in
2000, to 6.9% in 2012. The TDM alternatives considered did not significantly explore this issue.
See response to Comment 14.
Figure 2-1a-b in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS is a graphic summary of the alternatives evaluations conducted
throughout the NEPA process. Alternatives evaluated included Transportation Demand Management , which
(includes measures such as flex-time, staggered work hours, and ridesharing.
TDM Alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIS and determined to not meet the project’s purpose and need.
Additional discussion of the Qualitative First Screening for the TDM Alternative is provided in Final EIS Section 3.3.2
under Comment 3.
11 Alternatives 29
The DSFEIS does not contain key comparative data for all alternatives.
Most EISs contain detailed comparative data, by impact, for all viable alternatives, INCLUDING the no-
build and other “improve existing road” alternatives. This information is missing from the DSFEIS,
raising the question of whether it violates NEPA requirements that all alternatives be investigated
and described to an equivalent level of detail.
See response to Comment #21 in this table.
The Draft Supplemental Final EIS follows FHWA guidance for content of supplemental EISs. As explained in Section
P.3 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and
Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents) states:
“There is no required format for a supplemental EIS. The supplemental EIS should provide sufficient inf ormation
to briefly describe the proposed action, the reason(s) why a supplement is being prepared, and the status of the
previous draft or final EIS. The supplemental EIS needs to address only those changes or new information that are
the basis for preparing the supplement and were not addressed in the previous EIS (23 CFR 771.130(a)).”
As explained in the Preface, the Draft Supplemental Final EIS addresses current environmental conditions and focuses
on any changes that have occurred with regards to the project the alternatives analysis, the affected environment
and impacts, and any new issues or information identifies since the Final EIS was published. The results of this
analysis did not necessitate any changes to the proposed action.

E4-39
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 10 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #3) Response
11 Travel time and
traffic forecasts 30
Travel time improvements on US 74 and their effect on traffic
forecasts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass appear to be
under-estimated.
For a variety of reasons detailed below, the impacts of
improvements to U.S. 74 on traffic flow appear to have been
under-estimated. This likely over-states the expected diversion
to a future Bypass.
We disagree with the commenter’s suggestion that the impacts of recent improvements along existing US 74 have been underestimated and that this likely
overstates the expected diversion of traffic to a future Monroe Connector/Bypass. The commenter does not support his statements with any data for
consideration.
The DSFEIS listed all the operational improvements that have been on U.S. 74 within the project study area. We collected real -time traffic information from
INRIX. We have also collected information now for the entire 2013. We conducted speed studies to verify the ap propriate use of the INRIX data. The speed
studies showed that INRIX reported speeds slightly higher than our speed studies. However, we used the INRIX data and its hi gher reported speeds to show the
effect of the operational improvements on U.S. 74, so that we would not under-estimate the impact of those improvements.
11 Travel speeds 31
The DSFEIS uses the wrong speed criterion for setting road
performance.
There is no requirement that Interstate, NCSTI or STRAHNET
routes have operational travel speeds that are equal to the
posted speeds. If that were the case then virtually all of state-
owned urban arterials in North Carolina would need upgrades,
widenings or bypasses. NCDOT standards for LOS D
(moderate congestion) typically have traffic operating speeds
5-15 miles below the posted speed. Even if speeds are
accepted for a criterion, the standard for speed study is the
85th percentile, not the average speed. As, according to the
INRIX data, the reported average (close to 50th percentile)
operating speed on U.S. 74 is 44 mph, using the 85th
percentile would raise the current operating speeds on U.S.
74 even further, probably to the 48-50 mph range. This
reduces the need for the project and the potential time savings.
We disagree with this comment. The alternatives screening and development process does not use speed limits or level of service as criteria. Rather, a
screening criterion of 50 mph was used to define a high-speed facility. As summarized in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS and updated in
Section 1.1.1 of the Final Supplemental Final EIS, the INRIX data was compared to posted speed limits on existing US 74 to provide the public an indication of the
degree of congestion on existing US 74.
The travel time comparison document shows field-collected data and INRIX data produce similar results over the length of the corridor, with field -collected
average travel speeds ranging between 39 and 44 mph, approximately 6 to 10 percent lower than INRIX data for the exact time p eriod that the field data was
collected. The commenter’s analysis incorrectly uses an 85th percentile speed calculation of INRIX data and, as a result, incorrectly inflates INRIX travel speeds
and concludes/implies that current operating speeds are “probably to th e 48-50 mph range. This reduces the need for the project….” The commenter’s
incorrect analysis fails to account for the fact that field-collected travel speeds were collected and are available for comparison. The 85th percentile speed is
primarily used for establishing regulatory speed zones when adequate speed samples are available for free-flowing traffic. The commenter’s analysis incorrectly
estimates a US 74 corridor 85th percentile speed based the SDFEIS summary of average travel speeds for only three peak hours during the day instead of using
field-collected speed data for all periods throughout the day to develop a speed distribution curve along US 74. In reality, the US 74 corridor is an interrupted
flow, arterial facility consisting of 30 signalized intersections over 22.5 miles with stop-and-go conditions that generally “progresses” traffic in platoons from
signal to signal. The INRIX data clearly show multiple segments currently operating at speeds far below the commenter’s estimates of “48-50 mph”.
Also, see Comment #32 in this table.
12 Travel speeds 32
Possible misuse of speed measurement data.
The 2013 INRIX data show an average travel speed through the
corridor of 44 mph, 10% (4 mph) higher than the NCDOT’s
travel time runs. In other words, drivers now are averaging
faster speeds than the DOT speed-run tests. This 10%
difference is so large that it calls into question the accuracy of
the travel time savings from the model. Later it is noted that
the speed runs appear to be based on just three runs in each
direction/time period which is a very small sample. The INRIX
data, on the other hand, are based on observed speeds of
hundreds (perhaps thousands) of actual drivers over a 2-
month period, 24 hours a day, Tues-Thurs. This is a huge
amount of data that is a much more realistic description of
actual corridor operation than just a few speed runs.
Therefore, the INRIX actual operating speeds, not the travel
time runs or posted speeds, should be used as the basis for
the traffic forecasts on U.S. 74. Without this correction,
estimates of future traffic speeds on U.S. 74 (build and no-
build) will continue to be too low, and diversion to the proposed
See Comment #31 in this table.
The 2013 speed study was not conducted to calibrate the traffic simulation computer models (SimTraffic) used to predict travel speeds in 2007 for the draft EIS.
Instead, the 2013 travel speed study was used to determine if it was appropriate to use INRIX data to represent average week day travel speeds on U.S.74 in
2011, 2012 and 2013. Since there was only 10% (4 mph) difference between the speed study and the INRIX data; and the INRIX data reported higher sp eeds, we
used INRIX data to represent average travel speeds on U.S. 74 d uring peak hours after implementation of operational improvements on the road.
Regarding how speed data may affect the traffic forecasting process, link speed data used in the Metrolina Regional Model (MR M) includes posted and
estimated free flow speeds and produces estimated peak period travel speeds as an output. While recent spot intersection and signal timing improvemen ts on
US 74 may have improved local operations and increased travel speeds in the local vicinity of these improvements and these localized intersection
improvements would not change the traffic assignments in the model. No data is provided by the commenter that directly shows the need to update travel time
inputs in the MRM used for traffic forecasting or what effect that might have in the form of changes to traffic assignments from the model.
Ultimately, a project-level traffic forecast is forecasting the demand on a given facility, not the operations of that facility. AM and PM peak ho ur operating
speeds are not used as direct inputs into the MRM. The MRM uses comprehensive capacity settings that estimate the link capacity through the model based on
the link attributes” as part of the standard, approved modeling procedures (MRM User’s Guide, July 11, 2008). These link att ributes include: number of lanes,
speed limit, functional classification, intersection control, median type, area type and functional classification of crossin g streets. Travel speeds are inherently
calculated in this process to compute model demand and vehicle pat hs within the network.
E4-40
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 11 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #3) Response
Bypass will continue to be over-stated.
12-13 Value Of Time 33
The suggested diversion to the Bypass (40-50%) would require
a very high value of time.
Traffic diversion (assignment) models operate by assigning
traffic to the path with the shortest “generalized cost,”
considering travel time, reliability, congestion, and tolls. The
fundamental principle underlying most modeling systems is
that users choose that path which has the lowest generalized
cost, spreading out by route (and time-of-day in advanced
models) such that no traveler can improve his generalized
cost by changing paths. To estimate total generalized cost,
tolls must be converted into time units using a traveler value
of time, which is generally assumed to vary by location, trip
purpose and vehicle class. Values of time vary by region,
but most value-of-time studies put it at about ½ the average
wage rate, or about $9/hr. That is about ½ the prevailing
median wage rate for Union County, $18.48/hr. Using the
reported INRIX actual speeds for U.S. 74, the average 44-
mph travel time through the 19.7-mile U.S. 74 section
(between the approximate end points of the proposed Bypass)
is now about 26.9 minutes, and at 65 mph the average travel
time between the same points using the Bypass, would be
18.2 minutes. To be worth paying the proposed $2.58
average toll, the average savings in time (8.7 minutes)
would have to be worth about $17.80/hour. This is a high
value of time for traffic modeling, almost twice the commonly
used rate, and about twice the value of time that the NCDOT
found in its own stated preference survey. This means that, if
local residents value their travel time at less than
$17.80/hour, the traffic estimate for the Bypass is likely to
be significantly overstated. Another implication is that Bypass
use might be infrequent rather than regular, for trips when
time is valued highly, but not for most trips.
The commenter suggests that the estimated diversion of traffic to the Monroe Connector/Bypass is 40-50 percent, but does not provide a reference for these
values. The traffic forecasts used in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS predict a lower rate of traffic diversion. Table 2-8 in the Draft Supplemental EIS shows that
diversion from existing US 74 is estimated to be approximately 30 percent based on the 2035 traffic forecasts, and 19-30 percent based on raw output from
various MRM model versions.
All information and comparisons made by the commenter regarding trip diversion and value of time are simplified calculations for existing year conditions and
assumptions about current travel speeds. No information is provided by the commenter that addresses travel time savings in future scenarios, where
congestion is expected to increase on US 74, increasing the likelihood of diversion onto the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
The Final Report Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study (Wilbur Smith Associates, October 2010) was conducted at a
level of detail sufficient for use in support of project financing and incorporated a co mprehensive methodology, as described in the report. As discussed in the
Final Report Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study, surveys were conducted to provide value-of-time data for use in the
toll diversion modeling. Three methods of obtaining information were used. Interactive, notepad-based interviews were held at various employment centers,
shopping areas, and government offices. Interactive, internet-based surveys were also conducted along with an OD (origin-destination) study. Finally,
individuals were contacted to participate in a detailed stated preference survey.

13 Forecast 34
The DSFEIS downplays the effectiveness of prior and planned
actions on US 74.
The DSFEIS notes that some improvements to U.S. 74 have
been implemented. But these improvements have not been
incorporated into the 2035 traffic forecasts, which were
created in 2007 and have not been updated in the DSFEIS. In
fact these improvements post-date the 2035 forecasts —
occurring mostly between 2010 and the present — and so
have of course not been included. Additionally, the 2035
forecasts do not factor in additional improvements such as
See response to Comment #32 in this table.
While superstreet (or similar) type improvements may improve travel speed on US 74 in the short -term, the 2012 NCDOT Superstreet Analysis Results (Reese,
November 5, 2012) demonstrates that the planned superstreet improvements for a five intersection segment of US 74 near Indian Trail (which represents two
miles of the 20-mile corridor) may only provide travel speeds in this vicinity in the range of 25-35 mph, using 2007 traffic volume data, far below 45 mph posted
speeds. The NCDOT analysis also states the need for additional corridor improvements (six -lane widening) to preserve mobility in this area – with no
assumption that the Bypass will be built. This memo is included in Appendix C and referenced in Appendix A on Slides 2 thru 5 with an intersection study area
map and level of service reference table.
E4-41
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 12 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #3) Response
the four Superstreets that are now planned in the next couple
of years. It is likely that the improvements made so far
helped to improve the current operating speeds in the 44-
mph range, given that traffic volumes have not increased and
INRIX speeds show an increase over time. Additional future
improvements (e.g. partial Superstreet treatment, shutting
off some access, better signal timing, or even upgrading more
of U.S. 74 to freeway status) might also be equally effective.
But at the very least, the planned improvements should be
coded into the regional network and used as the basis for all
forecasts.
13 Operations 35
An inappropriate traffic forecast was used for the operations
simulation model.
Instead of using just one traffic forecast predicted to use U.S.
74 in the local simulation model (SIMTraffic, which estimates
future driving speeds based on a forecast of traffic), the
consultant should have also tested the operation of U.S. 74
with lower more-realistic future traffic volumes, as discussed
below.
As discussed in Section 1.8.2 of the Draft EIS, travel times along the existing US 74 corridor were estimated using a computer model (SimTraffic). INRIX data was
not available at the time of the Draft EIS, nor is data for 2007 currently available from INRIX. However, the EIS analysis is no longer relying on a traffic simulation
computer model to predict speeds on existing US 74, as INRIX data is available to provide an estimate of real -time speeds.
As described in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, NCDOT collected travel time information to update travel performance along the existing
corridor. Based on this data, which is from actual travel speeds as reported by INRIX, average travel speeds along the US 74 corridor are still below 50 mph,
Updated travel speed information for all of 2013 is included in Section 1.1.1 and Appendix E of the Final Supplemental Final EIS and continues to show that
current average travel speeds along the US 74 corridor are below 50 mph, even with the improvements made to the existing US 74 corridor.
See also response to Comment #30 in this table.
13-14 Forecast 36
Inconsistent traffic forecasts for U.S. 74 WEST of the project.
The DSFEIS asserts that “Year 2035 traffic volumes on U.S. 74
west of I-485 are projected to be lower with the proposed
project than under the No-Build alternative.” The difference is
about 7% lower, quite a large amount. This finding is
inconsistent with traffic modeling theory which predicts that
improvements in travel time caused by new roads will also
result in INCREASED traffic on major feeder roads leading to the
project, such as U.S. 74 just west of I-485. The NCDOT team
found a similar inconsistency in reviewing the Wilbur Smith
forecasts made in 2008. No explanation is given for this
new finding, but it may be due to the hidden
assumptions regarding induced land use or trip distribution.
We do not agree with the commenter’s suggested difference of 7 percent between 2035 No-Build and Build scenarios forecast volumes west of I-485. The
difference is forecasted to be less than 2 percent west of I-485; ((98,000-96,100)/98,000) = 2%, which would be within the tolerance range of the model and
could be considered equivalent.
The commenter also mischaracterizes the interoffice memorandum cited as reference 42 in the commenter’s document (Draft Monroe Bypass No-Build Traffic
Forecasts Summary, interoffice memo to Spencer Franklin, HNTB, May 6, 2013 [draft finalized November 8, 2013 with no changes]). This memorand um
documents the discrepancies found in the No-Build scenario forecasts reported in the Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe
Connector/Bypass (Wilbur Smith Associates, September 2008) that led to the corrected No-Build scenario forecasts documented in NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 &
R-2559 Revised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum (HNTB, March 2010). The memorandum cited in reference 42 does not
specifically discuss traffic volumes west of I -485.
The fact that the No-Build scenario forecasts prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates were corrected in a later document prepared by HNTB is not a new finding.
The correction is explained in Final EIS Appendix A – Errata. A related correction to the Final Air Quality Technical Memorandum (PBS&J, 2009) is explained in
Draft Supplemental Final EIS Appendix F – Errata. which did not change the discussion or conclusions presented in the Final Air Quality Technical Memorandum.

E4-42
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 13 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
14-16 Growth 37
Traffic growth on U.S. 74 has been flat from 2000 to 2012, and is
inconsistent with population growth.
Two central issues regarding the need for the Bypass is whether the
traffic on U.S.74 has been growing historically, and is likely to continue
to grow in the future.
Careful review of the statistics for growth and traffic in the corridor
suggest that neither is the case.
The DSFEIS reports incorrect population growth statistics for Union
County and selectively reports Union County growth rates. The DSFEIS
asserts that Union County is the fastest growing county in the state:
49% from 2000 to 2010, or 4.9%/year. This is factually incorrect. The
growth rate for Union County for 2000-2010 was 62.8%, but the growth
rate for the study area was 49.3%.45 Further, Union County is no
longer the fastest growing North Carolina county: As noted above, at
least 10 other NC counties have registered more rapid growth from
2010 to 2012, while the Union County’s growth rate has fallen sharply,
to just 1.7%/year. It is not uncommon for counties near larger
metropolitan areas to experience high “surges” of growth as the
metropolitan county growth spreads out, then to decline in growth rate
as growth moves elsewhere.
The DSFEIS notes that “According to the CRTPO [Charlotte area] 2035
Long-range Transportation Plan, the southern and eastern portions of
Mecklenburg County, which is the area along the Union County line, is
expected to be one of the most rapidly growing areas in the region.”
But the DSFEIS fails to mention that almost half of Union County’s
growth has been in the southwestern edge of the county, substantially
south of U.S. 74 and mostly outside of the Bypass corridor. The
following table demonstrates this growth pattern, using the DSFEIS
data from Appendix D (Updated Census Tables).
The commenter argues that the Draft Supplemental Final EIS incorrectly reports population growth statistics and selectively reports growth rates for Union
County. The commenter suggests that the Draft Supplemental Final EIS (pp.1-2 and 4-1) incorrectly states the growth rates for all of Union County versus the
growth rates for the study area (Demographic Study Area). However, a review of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS (pp. 1-4 and 4-1) shows that all growth
statistics and references are accurately. The commenter then proceeds to argue that the majority of growth in Union Cou nty has occurred outside the study
corridor, in the southwest quadrant of the county, and that this growth spurt is largely attributable to the one -time growth spurt of jobs in the Ballantyne
area of Mecklenburg County. The commenter cites the growth rates for Union County, the Union County portion of the DSA, the Mecklenburg County
portion of the DSA, the entire DSA and the portions of Union County outside the DSA. His conclusion is that the non -DSA portions of Union County have
grown twice as fast as the entire DSA (87.9% versus 49.3%, table pg. 15) and that this growth is concentrated in the southwest corner of Union County, cited
in the figure on page 16.
First, the commenter erroneously calculates the DSA-Union County part of the population for 2000 and the Union County NON-DSA part in his table and this
leads to errors in comparing the growth rates. Correct values for all are shown in the table below, which mimics the table o n page 15 of the commenter’s
document.

Table 1: Population Growth in Demographic Study Area (DSA) and Union County 2000 to 2010
Geographic area 2000 Population 2010
Population Difference Percent Change from
2000-10
Union County 123,677 201,292 77,615 62.8%
DSA-Union Co. part 66,576 102,357 35,781 53.7%
DSA-Mecklenburg Co. part 13,867 17,746 3,879 28.0%
Total DSA 80,470 120,103 39,633 49.3%
Union NON-DSA part 57,101 98,935 41,834 73.3%
Source: DSFEIS, Appendix D, Census Tables

The main error is overestimating the Union NON-DSA part growth from 2000 to 2010. Instead of being 87.9 percent as the commenter calculates, it is
actually 73.3 percent. Furthermore, in his report, the commenter compares this growth rate to the overall DSA growth rate, instead of comparing it to the
DSA-Union County part, which would be a fairer comparison of how growth has been spread across Union County. Comparing growth wi thin the DSA in
Union County to growth outside the DSA in Union County shows that those areas outside the DSA have growth faster (73.3% versus 53.7%) but not
exceptionally so. Additionally, the raw growth in population outside the DSA portion of Union County has outpaced the portio n within the DSA by only 6,000
people from 2000 to 2010.
Furthermore, the commenter fails to consider the different sizes of these areas. A more reasonable comparison of growth rates and change would have
considered the widely variable differences in size of these two areas. The portion of Union County within the DSA is about 1 76 square miles (28 percent of
the entire county) while the portion outside is 463 square miles (72 percent of the entire county). What is remarkable is that this relatively small part of the
county within the DSA has captured 46 percent of the growth from 2000 to 2010 or nearly twice the amount one might expect based on its area relative to
the rest of the county. As noted in the table below, despite being 2.6 times bigger, the NON -DSA portion of Union County only captured 17 percent more
population growth from 2000 to 2010 compared to the portion of Union County within the DSA.

E4-43
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 14 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response

The table shows that the portion of Union County outside the DSA
actually grew at almost twice the growth rate of the study area, almost
90% in just 10 years. The following figure (from the DSFEIS) shows the
present Union County road system and the proposed future land use.
Note that the growth in the southwest corner, between Indian Trail and
Marvin, is on the south side of U.S. 74, and is mostly OUTSIDE the
Bypass study area.
Most of this growth took place in the area south of Ballantyne (in
Mecklenburg County) over 10 miles from the proposed Bypass on the
south side of U.S. 74, and therefore would not be able to even use the
Bypass. Essentially the DSFEIS’ own data shows that recent growth has
been most rapid in areas NOT served by the proposed Bypass.
Therefore the rapid growth rate of Union County between 2000 and
2010, even if reported correctly, is irrelevant for evaluating the need
for the project.
Table 2: Comparison of Population Growth (2000 to 2010) and Size of DSA and Union County
Geographic area Area in Sq
Miles
% of Total
Area 2000 Population 2010
Population
% of Population Growth
Captured 2000 to 2010
Union County 639.3 100% 123,677 201,292 -
DSA-Union Co. part 176.6 28% 66,576 102,357 46%
Union NON-DSA part 462.7 72% 57,101 98,935 54%
Ratio of NON-DSA to DSA part 2.62 2.62 0.86 0.97 1.17
Source: DSFEIS, Appendix D, Census Tables

16 Commuting 38
Union County out-of-county commuting shares are declining, not
increasing.
The DSFEIS states that in 2006 about 61% of Union County workers
commuted outside of the County, but that in a more recent census
survey (2006-09), 50% of workers commuted outside. Such wild swings
in such a short time question the data’s validity, but even if true it
shows declining dependence, not increasing dependence , of Union
County on adjacent-county jobs.
The commenter cites the change in the percent of commuters who travel outside the County for work (61% in 2006 to 50% in 2009) as an indication that
Union County residents are becoming less dependent on jobs outside the county and therefore there will be less demand to driv e to Mecklenburg County
and that would reduce the need for any improvements to US 74 or adjacent corridors. As the commenter himself notes, such wild swings in these data
suggest it is unreliable to compare longitudinally for these data. A deeper look suggests that this substantial difference is attributable to the different data
sources used for each data point. The data point cited in the Draft EIS and Final EIS showing that 61 percent of Union County commuters traveled outside
Union County was derived from the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina and relied on data supplied via the Census Bureau Local
Employment Dynamics which builds upon state and federal reporting for unemployment insurance, the Quarterly Census of Employm ent and Wages,
Business Dynamics Statistics reports and other federal and state database systems to create a comprehensive assessment of local labor market conditions.
The data point cited in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS showing that 50 percent of Union County commuters traveled outside Union County was derived
from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 3 -Year Estimate for 2006-2009 and the ACS relies on broad surveys of the general population. Since
these data were collected in entirely different methods, they are not comparable.
A more reasonable comparison would be to look at longitudinal data from both sources. Based on the Employment Security Commi ssion of North Carolina
E4-44
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 15 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
Workforce In-Depth web tool (http://esesc23.esc.state.nc.us/WorkForceInDepth/), of the 83,179 workers in Union County, 57,875 (70%) commuted out of
the county to reach their jobs in 2011. This is an increase from the 61 percent (45,916 out of 75,325) reported in the 2006 report. Of those commuting
outside the county, 37,836 (65%) commuted to Mecklenburg County. This is a slight decline from the 68 percent (31,211 of 45,916) noted in the 2006
report.
The 2005 to 2007 ACS 3-Year Estimate of Workers by Place of Work (Table B08007) indicates that of the 82,960 workers in Union County, 41,632 (50%)
worked outside the county. The 2010 to 2012 ACS 3-Year Estimate of Workers by Place of Work (Table B08007) indicates that of the 91,002 workers in Union
County, 46,924 (52%) worked outside the county. Thus in both instances, the data show that the percentage of workers living in Union County but
commuting outside the county for work is increasing. While the estimates of that increase diverge based on the data source, both show an upward trend. It
is understandable that the commenter would reach his conclusion based on the data cited in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, but as detailed above, out-of-
county commuting shares are actually increasing.
16-17 Commuting 39
The DSFEIS selectively reports trends in commuting time.
The DSFEIS states that commute times for Union County residents
average 27.8 minutes, the highest of the region’s counties, implying
that the Bypass would somehow reduce them. The DSFEIS does NOT
mention, however, that commute times are improving, not worsening,
for all counties in the region, and that from 2000 to 2010 Union
county’s average commute time fell from 29.0 minutes to 27.8 minutes,
the largest drop of the region’s counties. Union County commute times
are improving, not worsening, and within county employment is
increasing, decreasing the share of long-distance commuting.
The commenter notes that changes in commute times cited in Appendix B to the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update
(Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., November 2013) are evidence that commute times are improving and that therefore there may not be a need for the
project. However, the commenter fails to note the specific caveat that is cited in Appendix B for the comparisons of 2000 to 2010 commute times. As it
specifically says on page 16 of that Appendix:
The raw differences [in the reported commute times] may be misleading due to changes in survey methods the Census has institu ted from 2000 to 2010,
specifically, the Census changed its methods in gathering data on this question. In Census 2000, questions regarding commute lengths and modes wer e
included on the “long form”, which 1 in 6 household received. For the 2010 Census, no “long form” was used and instead the Am erican Community Survey
has replaced it. The American Community Survey reaches fewer households but surveys annually. Since the survey methodology is different, direct
comparisons are less revealing.
Furthermore, the commute time data was specifically reviewed in the context of the overall growth trends for the county and the region and the conclusion s
of the analysis were that Union County had some of the highest average commute times and has continued to grow despite these conditions for several
years. Therefore, the conclusion was that increasing commute times were not a major constraint on future growth.
Lastly, while the raw drop in the minutes of commute time was the largest among the counties in the region, it is still only a 4% drop and as noted in
Response 15 above, the commenter’s conclusions regarding in-county employment and cross-county commute trends is inaccurate.
17-18 Traffic
Growth 40
Recent traffic growth on U.S. 74 has been flat.
In spite of Union County’s now-slowing population growth since 2000,
traffic on U.S. 74 has not increased substantially since 2000. The
following table shows the NCDOT traffic counts for various sections of
U.S. 74, and the DSFEIS forecast volumes.

From 2000 to 2012, U.S. 74 traffic growth has not increased substantially. The project level traffic No-Build and Build forecasts were completed in 2008 and
incorporated the most current available annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT’s) from 2005 and 2006 and collected field counts in 2007. These
forecasts accounted for half of the 12-year period in question. The commenter fails to note this in his assessment. In either case, project level forecasts
consider a longer time horizon than just 12 years and inherently account for both upturns and downturns in traffic growth by projecting out 20 to 30 years
into the future using approved population and socio-economic estimates. These estimates directly relate to model raw output volumes and future growth
rates used as a basis in forecasting future traffic demand on a given transportation facility.
Specific to the commenter’s table, he incorrectly compares raw model volumes to estimated (forecasted) volumes at the “East of Monroe”, to show an
inflated growth rate of 5.4% and uses this high-end growth rate to further substantiate his claim that “the implied percent changes from current volumes
range from 1.3 to 5.4% per year are 5-10 times faster than the recent 12-year history.” In his table, for the location “East of Monroe” where 2030 and 2035
raw model volumes are 32,200 and 41,500, respectively, he uses a forecast volume 60,600 (ID#25 from p. G-23) that is not aligned with the 2012 traffic
volumes for the 2030 and 2035 raw model volumes (ID# 26 G-23). However, had the commenter used the corresponding forecast volume of 39,700 (pp. G-
22 and G-23), a 2.0% annual growth rate would have been determined at this count location instead of 5.4%. See Table 4B below, Tables 2 and 5 of the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS, and the Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November, 2013, superseded by May, 2014) Appendix G.
Tables 4A and 4B show US 74 historical growth rates and future growth rate trends for multiple locations and time periods (4-year, 10, 12, 20, 25 and 32).
Overall, the historical data shows trends of longer-term sustained US 74 corridor growth rates that reasonably coincide with raw model volume growth rates
E4-45
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 16 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response

At the Mecklenburg-Union line, just west of the project end, the traffic
has grown just 0.15%/year (1.8% in 12 years), and has actually declined
since 2005. Near Monroe, growth has been modest, about 0.4%/year.
At the eastern edge of the project, traffic volumes are much lower and
have declined not increased, since 2000. The DSFEIS notes that its own
analysis of traffic counts from 2007 to 2012 also showed “zero change,”
but then the DSFEIS simply ignores this data and asserts that “Based on
2008 and 2035 No-Build traffic forecasts, (HNTB, March 2010), average
volumes along the U.S. 74 corridor are projected to increase
approximately 34 percent.” So the whole need for the project simply
ignores the last 12 years of history regarding traffic trends on U.S. 74.
“necessary” to reach forecasted No-Build volumes. In some cases, the growth rates are higher and some lower, but the overall trends are increasing at
reasonably foreseeable rates consistent with a holistic view of historical growth trends and planned population and socio -economic projections. Based on a
20-year period, all five locations on US 74 have increased in the range of 0.6% to 3.4% annually, wit h 3.4% at the Mecklenburg-Union line. Based on a more
recent 4-year period, US 74 at the Mecklenburg-Union line is growing 1.4% annually. Tables 3A and 3B illustrates that a 34 percent increase on US 74
corridor volumes (1.5% annually) from 2012 to 2035 is very realistic and is already occurring along the corridor as previously noted.

Table 3A: US 74 Growth Rates
Average Daily Traffic on U.S. 74 Parallel to the Proposed Monroe Bypass

AADT Station #

Count Location
Historical 1980-2005 1980-2012 1992-2012 2000-2012 2002-2012 2008-2012
1980 1992/
1993 2000 2002 2005 2008 2010 2012
25-year
Annual %
Change
32-year
Annual %
Change
20-year
Annual %
Change
12-year
Annual %
Change
10-year
Annual %
Change
4-year
Annual %
Change
8900119 Meck-Union Line 22,400 34,000 56,000 57,000 58,000 54,000 54,000 57,000 6.4% 4.8% 3.4% 0.1% 0.0% 1.4%
8900081 NW of Monroe n/a 33,000* 48,000 51,000 48,000 44,000 46,000 50,000 - - 2.7% 0.3% -0.2% 3.4%
8900096 East of Monroe n/a 23,000* 29,000 29,000 29,000 n/a 27,000 27,000 - - 0.9% -0.6% -0.7% 0.0%
8900073 W of Marshville n/a 17,000* 20,000 22,000 21,000 19,000 17,000 19,000 - - 0.6% -0.4% -1.4% 0.0%
8900039 Anson-Union Line n/a 11,000* 15,000 15,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 13,000 - - 1.0% -1.1% -1.3% -1.8%
* AADT not available for 1992. 1993 AADT and 19-year growth rate calculated.
Table 3B: US 74 Growth Rates
Average Daily Traffic on U.S. 74 Parallel to the Proposed Monroe Bypass

AADT
Station
#

Count Location
Historical DSFEIS Forecast MRM05v1.0
% Change,
(from 2012
AADT to
2035 NB
Forecast by
2035)
% Change,
(from 2012
AADT to
2035 NB
Forecast by
2040)
1980 1992/
1993 2000 2002 2005 2008 2010 2012
Raw
Model
2030
No-Build
Raw
Model
2035
No-Build
Estimated
Volume
2035
No-Build
Raw
Model
2000
No-Build
Raw
Model
2030
No-Build
30-year
Annual %
Change
8900119 Meck-Union Line 22,400 34,000 56,000 57,000 58,000 54,000 54,000 57,000 70,300 101,600 89,100 43,200 70,300 2.1% 2.4% 2.0%
8900081 NW of Monroe n/a 33,000* 48,000 51,000 48,000 44,000 46,000 50,000 40,000 66,200 65,000 34,174 39,965 0.6% 1.3% 1.1%
8900096 East of Monroe n/a 23,000* 29,000 29,000 29,000 n/a 27,000 27,000 32,200 41,500 39,700 21,038 32,156 1.8% 2.0% 1.7%
8900073 W of Marshville n/a 17,000* 20,000 22,000 21,000 19,000 17,000 19,000 23,000 21,000 31,600 15,221 25,846 2.3% 2.9% 2.4%
8900039 Anson-Union
Line n/a 11,000* 15,000 15,000 15,000 14,000 14,000 13,000 - - - n/a n/a - - -
* AADT not available for 1992. 1993 AADT and 19-year growth rate calculated.
The commenter cites flat growth trends along US 74 compared to higher population growth trends as evidence that traffic may not grow as qui ckly as
expected in the future. The commenter looks only at the AADT growth from NCDOT Traffic Count Maps for US 74 (from Anson County to Mecklenburg
County). While growth in traffic on US 74 has been relatively flat by strictly comparing the past 10-year or 12-year period, the commenter fails to consider
the effect that congestion on US 74 has had on shifting traffic growth to parallel corridors and sustained, positive growth rates comparing shorter and longer-
term time periods.
Table 4, below, shows the AADT trends for the major corridors between Union and Mecklenburg Counties for a 4-year (2008-2012), 10-year (2002-2012) and
20-year period (1993-2012). This shows that traffic growth has increased along all these routes between the counties and that the total AADT between the
counties has increased 17% (1.7% annually) to 81% (3.2% annually) over 10 and 20-year periods, respectively. Figure 2 in the memo gives a visual
representation of that growth and shows that the growth in AADT has not been limited to just one or two routes in the southwe st portion of Union County,
but has increased at count locations north of US 74 as well. Overall, the US 74 AADT segment just west of Stallings Road shows growth in the short-term (4-
E4-46
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 17 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
year period 2008-2012) of 1.4% annually and long-term (20-year period) of 2.4% annually. While growth in the medium-term 10-year period at this one
location along US 74 has been stagnant, overall growth rates comparing different time periods and paralleling routes show sustained long-term growth.
Therefore, while traffic increases have not perfectly matched population increases, they have certainly increased when one compares US 74 AADT at the
location the commenter references along with the overall travel between the counties screen lines.
It’s important to note that traffic forecasts are concerned with demand on a given facility. If that particula r facility is at or over capacity, it may not be
exhibiting increasing traffic volumes under existing conditions, though in fact, vehicle trips in the area are being diverted from the facility to avoid congestion
on it. Table 4 shows the AADT trends for the major corridors between Union and Mecklenburg Counties for 2002 to 2012. It shows that traffic growth has
increased along all these routes between the counties and that the total AADT between the counties has increased 1 7% (1.7% annually) over ten years.

Table 4: Change in Average Annual Daily Traffic at NCDOT Count Locations near Mecklenburg and Union County Line

ROUTE

Road Name

LOCATION
1992/1993
to 2012 Change
(20/19-Year Period)
2002 to 2012
Change
(10-Year Period)
2008 to 2012
Change
(4-Year Period)
AADT
AADT %
Change
Growth
Rate AADT %
Change
Growth
Rate AADT %
Change
Growth
Rate 2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002 1993 1992
US 74 Independence
Blvd W OF SR 1365 21,000 67.6% 3.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% 3,000 5.6% 1.4% 57,000 54,000 54,000 58,000 54,000 57,000 36,000 34,000
NC 16 Providence Rd N OF SR 1346 18,500 194.7% 10.2% 5,000 21.7% 2.2% 1,000 3.7% 3.7% 28,000 - - 25,000 23,000 23,000 9,500 -
NC 218 Fairview Rd W OF SR 1539 5,400 192.9% 10.2% 3,700 82.2% 8.2% 600 7.9% 2.0% 8,200 8,200 7,600 8,700 6,500 4,500 2,800 -
SR
1365 Stallings Rd N OF SR 1524 1,200 75.0% 3.9% 600 27.3% 2.7% -800 -22.2% -14.3% 2,800 3,600 - 2,900 2,100 2,200 1,600 -
SR
1460 Ridge Rd N OF SR 1009 -1,000 -41.7% -2.2% -100 -6.7% -0.7% 200 16.7% 4.2% 1,400 1,100 1,200 820 850 1500 2400 -
SR
1501 Idlewild Rd W OF SR 1524 12,700 239.6% 12.6% 5,000 38.5% 3.8% -2,000 -10.0% -2.5% 18,000 20,000 20,000 18,000 15,000 13,000 5,300 -
SR
3468
Weddington
Rd S OF SR 3440 7,800 185.7% 9.3% 4,300 55.8% 5.6% -1,000 -7.7% -1.9% 12,000 12,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 7,700 - 4,200
SR
1004 Lawyers Rd W OF SR 1524 2,000 14.3% 1.8% 2,000 14.3% 1.8% 1,000 6.7% 1.7% 16,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 14,000 - - -
SR
3445
Tilley Morris
Rd E OF SR 3440 2,100 27.3% 3.4% 2,100 27.3% 3.4% 2,300 30.7% 7.7% 9,800 11,000 7,500 11,000 7,700 - - -
Total 69,700 81.1% 4.2% 22,600 17.3% 1.7% 4,300 0.9% 0.7% 153,200 - 148,900 151,420 134,150 130,600 84,600 83,500*
Total w/o NC 16 51,200 66.7% 3.5% 17,600 16.4% 1.6% 3,300 0.2% 0.7% 125,200 124,900 121,900 126,420 111,150 107,600 75,100 74,000*
Source: NCDOT AADT Stations Shapefile (http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/trafficsurvey/)
* County Line Total volumes and associated calculations include closest available AADT’s for those segments where current year AADT is not available.

Table 5 compares 2012 AADT to general capacity ranges reaching LOS F for those facility types. Based on an individual review , all five higher volume facilities
(10,000 AADT or greater) are nearing or over general capacity estimates. Overall, all facilities combine for an average daily volume to capacity ratio of 0.83
or 83 percent of capacity. Generally, when a facility reaches 80 to 90 percent V/C, high levels of congestion, delay and reduced speeds are present. Table 5
illustrates a lack of additional available capacity from Mecklenburg/Union County.

E4-47
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 18 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response

Table 5: HCM 2010 General Facility-Type Daily Capacity Range Estimates

Daily Capacity Range Daily Volume to Capacity Range
ROUTE Road Name 2012 AADT High Low Average High Low Average
US 74 Independence Blvd 57,000 37,900 28,400 33,150 1.50 2.01 1.76
NC 16 Providence Rd 28,000 37,900 28,400 33,150 0.74 0.99 0.86
NC 218 Fairview Rd 8,200 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.41 0.55 0.48
SR 1365 Stallings Rd 2,800 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.14 0.19 0.16
SR 1460 Ridge Rd 1,400 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.07 0.09 0.08
SR 1501 Idlewild Rd 18,000 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.90 1.21 1.06
SR 3468 Weddington Rd 12,000 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.60 0.81 0.70
SR 1004 Lawyers Rd 16,000 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.80 1.07 0.94
SR 3445 Tilley Morris Rd 9,800 19,900 14,900 17,400 0.49 0.66 0.58

Total 153,200 215,100 161,100 188,100 0.71 0.95 0.83

Total w/o NC 16 125,200 177,200 132,700 154,950 0.71 0.94 0.83
** - Based on Service Volume Tables - HCM 2010 Page 10-13 and 16-27, assuming ranges of K=0.9 to 0.11 and D=0.55 to 0.60.
Based on this review of US 74 and all major county line facilities across multiple time periods, traffic volumes are growing overall. However, the lack of
sustained growth on US 74 in recent years is not surprising due to the lack of available capacity. The higher levels of projected traffic demand forecasted will
contribute to future growth along US 74 and other corridors. However, this additional demand may continue to be unserved, further substantiating the
need for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project and additional capacity to serve existing and projected demand.

E4-48
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 19 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response

As shown in Figure 1 below, national vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has declined since 2007 and therefore is a national trend and not just specific to the
Monroe Connector/Bypass area. However, the figure also shows recent increases in national VMT indicating signs of improvement.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/13dectvt/figure1.cfm

18 Traffic
Growth 41
In Appendix G to the DSFEIS, the data show projected 2035 traffic
volumes on U.S. 74 for the “no-build” alternative. The implied percent
changes from current volumes range from 1.3 to 5.4% per year are 5-10
times faster than the recent 12-year history. Nowhere in the document
is it explained how the traffic will grow 34% in 23 years when the past
12 years have shown “zero change” in traffic. One might argue that, yes
traffic growth has been flat recently, but as the Recession ends it will
accelerate. This argument fails to note that traffic has been flat since
2000, BEFORE the Recession. Failure to justify this highly optimistic
“kink” in the traffic forecast and failure to consider recent traffic
trends, while knowing that recent evidence indicates a huge change in
See response to Comment #39 and the commenter’s incorrect calculation and use of growth rates. The 5.4% growth rate is actually 2.0% which substantially
changes the commenter’s argument on unexplainable future growth rates.
The commenter also fails to acknowledge that the project level traffic forecasts were completed in 2008 and considered available AADT data thru 2005 and
collected field counts in 2007. The forecasts did not ignore this period of slowing growth but instead considered it as best as possible.
Socio-economic projections indicate that Union County in the project study area will experience growth into the future. The projections show increased
demand on major facilities such as US 74 and the proposed Monroe Bypass. Along US 74, 2000 to 2030 No-Build raw model volumes, which are inter-
related with socioeconomic projections, project approximately 1 to 2 percent annual growth. Based on known 2012 AADT volumes (with the understanding
the forecast was developed in 2007/2008, five years prior), an approximate 1 to 3 percent annual growth is “necessary” to reach estimated 2035 No-Build
volumes or 1 to 2 percent annual growth by 2040, five years later. Based on a review of overall growth rates (both historical AADT and projected socio-
economic rates), these growth rates seem reasonable and appropriate while accounting for periods of low and high growth. What does not seem reasonable
E4-49
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 20 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
prior trends, are serious oversights. or prudent is the commenter’s implication that a specific growth rate (approximately zero percent) over the past 12 years will continue or should be used as
the basis when socioeconomic projections and longer-term AADT’s show higher future growth rates. See Tables 4A and 4B in response to Comment #40 in
this table.
Chart 1 , plots historical AADT volumes/trend lines and model volume growth rates on US 74 just west of Stallings Road to clearly show the overall trend of
higher future traffic volumes and reasonable growth rates. The forecasted design year traffic demand is based on more than four data points at one location
during a period containing two economic recessions from 2000 to 2012, one being the Great Recession, which was the most significant economic recession
since the 1930’s. Chart 1 shows that periods of slow or stagnant growth were also experienced from 1980-1986 and 1989-1992. The long-term growth rates
incorporate and account for these periods. The model growth rate (slope) on US 74 at this location is actually less than all long-term projections further
substantiating growth rates are not overly optimistic and not accounting for slowdowns in traffic growth. The project-specific forecasts are based on data
including, but not limited to, the socioeconomic data and the travel demand model as dev eloped and approved by the MPO for future years, as well as traffic
counts and historic travel trends.
Chart 1: Traffic Volume Growth Rate for US 74 West of Stallings Road

Example Linear Growth Rate Calculation: 20-year Annual % Change (1992 to 2012) = ((57,000-34,000)/34,000)/(2012-1992) = 3.4%

18 Traffic
Growth 42
A serious inconsistency in the table is the magnitude of the traffic
forecasts themselves. NCDOT’s rated LOS D capacity of 6 -lane arterials
is about 55,000 ADT, but the forecast for U.S. 74 at the Mecklenburg
County line is 89,000 ADT, 60% higher than a 6-lane “no-build” could
The commenter makes an incorrect comparison when he suggests there is a “serious inconsistency” in the magnitude of the traffic forecasts. He supports
this incorrect assertion by stating that the planning-level LOS D capacity of a 6-lane arterial is about 55,000 ADT, but that the forecast for US 74 at the
Mecklenburg County line is 89,000 ADT, “60% higher than a 6-lane “no-build” could carry.” In fact, roadways can carry much more than a LOS D-level
capacity thresholds, as evidenced by the frequent occurrence of worse levels of service of LOS E and LOS F in congested areas.
E4-50
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 21 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
carry. Similarly, for the 4-lane section northwest of Monroe, the rated
capacity is about 40,500 ADT, but the forecast for the “no build” is 61%
higher, 65,000 ADT. As the congestion-decay equations of traffic
forecasting models generally limit flow rates to the rated capacity (they
spread out the traffic to “fit” within the road system), it is not clear
how these “no-build” forecasts for U.S. 74 could be 60% higher than
the rated capacities.
The MRM model includes capacity constraints, as described in the Metrolina Model User’s Guide (July 11, 2008). An excerpt from the Guide is included in
Appendix A in the slide titled “7. Questions Remain Concerning Details of Traffic Forecasts. (Hartgen)”. As noted, in the MRM, “capacities are calculated for
Level of Service (LOS) E and are calculated for each of the four time periods in the model. These capacities are used in conjunction with free-flow and loaded
speeds in the model to reflect the impacts of congestion on travel times and route choices in the model.” Many characteristic s are used to estimate
capacities and speeds for roadways in the MRM network, including but not limited to: number of lanes, speed limits, functional classification, and
intersection control.
However, it’s important to know that the MRM model does not limit the volumes it assigns to a roadway to the roadway’s estima ted capacity, as the
commenter incorrectly notes. In layman’s terms, the MRM model will assign traffic to a roadway up to its estimated capacity, then it wi ll begin to assign trips
to other routes. The capacity value simply triggers the model to consider alternate rou tes for trips that desire to take the original route. As alternate routes
for trips begin to ‘fill up’, the model will then resume assigning trips to the at-capacity routes, until all travel demand has been assigned. Therefore, in
congested urban areas, it is common for roadways in the MRM to have projected volumes greater than the capacity assigned in the model, as in real lif e,
these roadways experience, or will experience, LOS E or LOS F congested conditions.
18 Traffic
Growth 43
Another anomaly in the table is the large differences between the 2035
“raw volume” (model output) forecasts and the estimated 2035
volumes. These differences are quite large, and are 46-50% higher for
volumes east of Monroe. Although the DSFEIS cautions about the use
of raw volumes directly in forecasting, the process used to estimate the
estimated volumes is not adequately described. Differences of this
magnitude, particularly at the eastern edge of the project where long-
distance travel would be entering the region, and par ticularly on the
high side (favoring the Bypass) need to be fully justified.
The methodology of incorporating raw travel demand outputs into the final traffic forecast estimates is described in the Traffic Forecast for the No-Build
Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329 and NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-2559, Monroe Connector/Bypass Study, Martin/Alexiou/Bryson
(MAB), June 2008; Technical Memorandum for TIP Projects R-2559 & R-3329 US74 Upgrade Scenario, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), June 2008; Traffic
Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass, WSA, September 2008; and Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary,
HNTB, November, 2013, superseded by May, 2014.
The difference between raw volume (model output) and forecasted volumes is not an anomaly. The forecast process considers multiple data sources and
does not rely solely on raw model assignments. In the No-Build forecast (MAB), see Table 8 AADT location “HHHH” for the volume east of Monroe in
question for further explanation of AADT’s, field count data, model output, growth rates and selected forecast AADT. For this particular location, the existing
2007 AADT was higher than the 2000 raw model volume and slightly less than the 2030 model volume. In summary, an average final growth rate
(considering the model growth rate and historical growth rate) was applied to existing 2007 AADT to forecast future year volu mes. Variations between
existing field conditions and raw model volumes are not uncommon nor are they expected to match for each facility or segment along a given facility or
comparing different model/field-collected years. See referenced forecasts for additional details.
19-20 Traffic
Growth 44
Inconsistent historical growth data for population and traffic.
A fundamental inconsistency in the DSFEIS is the apparent
inconsistency between the population growth and the corridor traffic
growth. The recent history of population growth in the region is shown
in the following table:

As discussed previously and in more detail in Comment #s 37 thru 43 in this table, population and traffic growth rates have been increasing and continue to
increase based on a more thorough review of available data. While these growth rates may not trend at the same rate, they are both growing and should
not be described as inconsistent. Specific to US 74 corridor at the Mecklenburg/Union line, the 1980 to 2005 25-year growth rate available for the forecast
was 6.4% annually and the 1992 to 2012 20-year growth rate incorporating the Great Recession was 3.4% annually, see Table 4A in response to
Comment #40 in this table. Table 3 (found in Comment #40 response) also confirms that the average 10-year and 20-year growth rates for corridors
between Union and Mecklenburg Counties is 1.7% and 4.2% annually. These growth rates confirm a positive correlation with population growth rates. The
commenter also incorrectly compares county-wide population growth to location-specific traffic data sets and then inappropriately states that population
growth rates are occurring “about ten times the traffic growth rates”.
The Purpose and Need for the project has been established and re-confirmed by re-examining items such as US 74 existing corridor travel speeds and
population, socio-economic and MRM/CRTPO data that continue to project growth and increased demand. However, if one were to speculate and attempt
to answer the commenter’s question, the following answers may be contributing factors, but not necessary limited to these potential explanations:
1. The US 74 Corridor is at or over capacity. US 74 traffic and growth rates are slowing accordingly as demand continues to be unserved due to
roadway capacity limitations. US 74 traffic is seeking alternative routes for travel when given a choice as illustrated in higher growth rates on
competing facilities, per Table 3.
2. Population growth and traffic growth rates do not and do not have to trend precisely with each other. The data presented sho ws an overall positive
E4-51
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 22 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response

All of these population growth rates have been much faster, per year,
than the traffic growth rates shown above, about ten times the traffic
growth rates. The last item, the population of the study area, is
referred to several times as a key historical justification for the
project’s need. Yet, this raises a fundamental question: How can the
traffic growth on U.S. 74 be “zero growth” when Union County and
study area population is growing so fast?
This inconsistency is neither identified nor explained in the DSFEIS. It
has a number of possible explanations, for instance:
1. The current traffic congestion on U.S. 74 has actually slowed its
growth; with more capacity, it would have grown more.
2. The Recession slowed the traffic growth, but not the population
growth.
3. Population growth is largely in areas south and west of U.S. 74,
near the Mecklenburg line, and thus does not use U.S. 74. (This is
suggested by the sub-area discussion above).
4. Population growth is largely locally-based and does not use
regional highways.
5. Traffic data is misestimated, or population data is miscounted.
6. The traffic model used for forecasting does not capture the
reasons for travel behavior.
It is not appropriate for us here to determine the reasons for this
discrepancy.
Nevertheless, because the discrepancy impacts the validity of the
traffic forecasts (see discussion below) it must be researched and then
incorporated into the Purpose and Need for the project.
correlation between population and traffic growth. One potential contributor is that population located near the corridor, but not directly on the
corridor, is deciding to take alternative routes for many or all trip types.
3. It is plausible that the recession did reduce the amount of travel or number of trips and people still moved to Union County, but there were less job
and work-related trip growth.
4. Traffic growth is not directly tied to population growth and for this reason not all trips are “population” i.e. residential-based. The US 74 corridor
has many “built-out” commercial areas and is affected by commercial work and shopping-related trips and should not be considered to be directly
“tied” to population data.
5. All future traffic AADT data on US 74 is an “estimate” and the forecasts were developed by comparing/evaluating many points along US 74, other
roadways and considering the information available in its totality. The forecast does not focus solely on one or two select locations, time period, or
data results like the commenter’s questions.
6. Traffic is growing if viewed over all locations and periods of time (longer and shorter time periods), but not necessarily at selective points and
locations.
7. Historic traffic data trends do not drive future traffic forecasts data, but are one of many pieces of data considered along with socio-economic and
population projections.
We disagree with commenter’s statement and his creation of explanations designed to address and cast doubt on the project process for a question he
created. While population and socio-economic increases positively correlate to traffic growth, they do not have to trend perfectly together nor does
knowing this relationship for one specific location or point in time change the project need or conclusions. The commenter states that “It is not appropriate
for us here to determine the reasons for this discrepancy.”, but he continues to speculate and hypothesize. We find no discrepancies that require a change
or update to the Purpose and Need of the project.

20-23 Growth 45 The population forecasts used to forecast traffic are probably
significantly over-stated.
The commenter cites a number of reasons for why the population and household forecasts used in the travel demand modeling and the quantitative indirect
and cumulative effects analysis may be overstated. The commenter notes that a number of the Hammer Report assumptions may no longer be valid. First,
E4-52
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 23 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
The process used to estimate future traffic is described in the DSFEIS
and can be summarized as follows:
1. A Charlotte-region population forecast is estimated by reviewing
US growth.
2. County growth to each of 35 counties/sub-areas in the region is
allocated from the regional control total, using statistical
relationships from 227 counties in 29 regions nationwide.
3. County population growth and “population-chasing” employment
is then allocated to traffic analysis zones (“TAZs”) within counties,
using travel time to employment and other factors.
4. Non-population-chasing employment is estimated using expert
review.
5. “Induced” growth due to the presence of the Bypass is estimated
by a variety of methods.
6. TAZ-level population and employment forecasts, and non-
residential growth (in acres of development) are then converted to
trip ends, by purpose, and then to productions and attractions.
7. Although not explicitly discussed, external travel (leaving and
entering the study area) is presumably estimated separately.
8. Trips between origins and destinations are then estimated, by
purpose, and external travel origins and destination are added.
9. O-D pair trip flows, by time of day, are then assigned to the
network (“build” or “no-build”), adjusting for capacity, toll rates, and
value-of time.
10. The raw volumes (direct from the model) are then adjusted
further for local access and “balance.”
The process begins with estimates of likely population growth for the
region and its counties. Specifically, a Charlotte-region population
forecast is estimated by reviewing US growth, and then assigning
portions of that growth to each of the major regions of the US. In the
next step, the total regional growth is then allocated to 35 local
counties/sub-areas using historical statistical relationships from 227
counties in 29 regions nationwide. The DSFEIS reviewed this forecast,
prepared in 2003, finding it in substantial agreement with the 2010
Census estimate for Union County. It then went further, suggesting that
the Hammer forecasts are valid for the future because:
“Put more succinctly: ‘Why would Union County have such robust
growth in the absence of new transportation infrastructure?’ The short
answer is that the factors that caused Union County to experience
higher growth than any other regional county since 1990 are still in
place and are likely to continue to result in higher than average
growth.”
The Baker assessment then goes even further, putting the 2030
population forecasts for Union County (adjusted for “reconciliation”)
near the upper range of the Hammerforecasts.
While the Hammer study appeared to accurately predict the 2010
Census estimate of population, its accuracy for future years is
the commenter argues that the recent recession has dramatically altered future growth trends at the national level and those trends do not support Dr.
Hammer’s projections. Dr. Thomas Hammer conducted the Top-Down analysis and his report, Demographic and Economic Forecasts for the Charlotte
Region, documents his methodology and results. The commenter further argues that the fact the recession was so close to 2010 to negate any valuable
comparison between the projected population in 2010 and the actual Census count. While the recession has cast doubt on some of Dr. Hammer’s
assumptions, the projections he developed and that the MPO used were and are the adopted projections used for a variety of pl anning and air quality
conformity purposes for the region. Furthermore, Dr. Appold worked from the MPO projections in his Traffic and Revenue study and when asked to adjust
them, reduced them by only about 8% to adjust of the effects of the recession. Dr. Stephen J. Appold, had several roles that were of importance to this study
including assisting in the development of the regional growth projections used in the Traffic and Revenue study. This adjustment is within the range Dr.
Hammer produced and well within the typical range of error for long range projections of population and employment.
Second, the commenter suggests that Dr. Hammer’s assumption that the Charlotte region will outpace national growth trends is no longer valid since the
recent recession hit North Carolina and the Charlotte region particularly har d. While it is true that unemployment in North Carolina and the Charlotte region
peaked higher than the national rates, (10.6% nationally in January 2010, 11.9% for North Carolina in January 2010, 12.7% in the Charlotte area in February
2010), the trends for the region have returned to near the national average as of December 2013: 6.5% nationally, 6.6% in North Carolina and 6.9% in the
Charlotte area. While regional employment growth may not be as robust as during the boom years, regional employment has increased to 861,012 (as of
November 2013) from the trough during the recession of 760,290 in December 2009.
Third, the commenter suggests that the distribution of growth within the region in the future will not be as favorable to Union County as foreca sted and
argues that the boom of growth in Union County in the 2000’s is attributable almost entirely to the proximity to the Ballenty ne area of Charlotte and is
outside the study area. Again, the commenter’s conclusion is invalid as his analysis of the growth the study area compared to Union County as a whole is
flawed, as noted in Response 14. As the commenter notes, a sizeable portion of the growth within the county has been in the southwest area adjacent to
Mecklenburg County. Nevertheless, 46% of the growth from 2000 to 2010 occurred within the DSA even though this area is only 28% of the county . The
commenter is correct that growth as estimated from the American Community Survey between 2010 and 2012 has been much below the long-term
forecasted growth trends. However, two years of down growth, in the midst of one of the slowest growth periods in post -World War II experience does not
necessarily portend a long-term change in the overall growth patterns. Additionally, the commenter notes that the Charlotte region was hit very hard by the
recession and that unemployment levels in North Carolina have exceeded US averages. Furthermore, more recent data suggests growth may be returning as
the 2013 Census Population estimates shows Union County growing at a 2% rate from 2012 to 2013. Furthermore, Mecklenburg and Union County have
remained among the fastest growing counties in North Carolina from July 2010 to July 2013 (based on Census Bureau estimates). Therefore, it stands to
reason that when the economic recovery accelerates, growth in the Charlotte region would likely be above state averages and that growth in Union County
would be among the highest in the region.
Finally, the commenter argues that a highly unlikely “turn-around kink” in growth would be needed for Union County to reach the 2030 projected population
of 337,000. He cites that growth rates would need to average 3.4% per year compared to the recent average of 1.7%. Presumab ly the commenter is using
average annual growth rates for his calculations, whereas compound annual growth rates would be more appropriate. From 2010 to 2013, Union Coun ty
saw a compound annual growth rate of 1.7% per year. From 1990 to 2000, Union County’s compound annual growth rate was 3.9%. From 2000 to 2005 it
was 5.7%. From 2005 to 2010 it was 4.3%. To reach the projected 2030 population by 2030 would require a compound annual gro wth rate of 2.7% per year.
Thus it would not take a highly improbable “turn-around kink” in growth to reach the 2030 projected population, it would only require a return to growth
rates that average about 1% higher than the growth seen during the worst recession since World War II and about 2% lower than that seen during the boom
years of growth from 2000 to 2010.

E4-53
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 24 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
questionable. The Hammer study, prepared in 2003, made the
following critical (and as it turns out, wrong) assumptions:
1. The US will continue to grow as in the past. The Hammer study
essentially trends the US population and economic activity forward.
But the Recession of 2008-12 significantly slowed both in-migration
and US growth, employment was cut by over 4 million, and recent
US population increases (births – deaths + net in-migration) have
slowed too. The key relationship between population and
employment (percent of population that is employed) was also
weakened. The current growth rates for the US are now 1/3-1/2
what was estimated just 10 years ago, and the
employment/population ratio is the lowest in 50 years. Further,
virtually all of the 2000-2010 Census population growth for Union
County was already “in place” by 2009, when the Recession hit hard,
and so the 2010 census estimate was largely unaffected by the
Recession. But as noted above, the recent (2010-12population
growth rate for Union County has been much slower, just 1.7%/year.
2. The Charlotte region will continue to excel relative to other
regions.
The Hammer study assumed that the Charlotte region will continue
to exceed the national growth rates. But North Carolina and the
Charlotte region was very hard-hit in the Recession, with large banks
and other employers shedding jobs inordinately, and unemployment
remains significantly above the US and NC levels. This effect has
slowed the local employment growth to a crawl. This “inconvenient
truth” is ignored by the Baker review.
3. Union County will attract a relatively large share of regional
growth.
The Hammer study allocated growth to the region’s 35 county and sub-
county areas based on employment-population-economy relationships
developed from around the US. But in the 2000’s, most of the growth in
Union County was driven not by local county economic activity but by
proximity to Charlotte, particularly in the Ballantyne area, which is not
even in the study area. Essentially, Union County’s growth in population
was a “population” boom near to another county’s “job” boom, which
has now slowed. The Hammer study and the recent Baker review do
not discuss the location of that growth within Union County, and thus
overlook the fact that the most of the Union County growth has been
outside of the Bypass study area.

Dr. Hammer’s estimates were reviewed by the UNC Kenan School,
which found them to be too high. The Kenan review recommended an
8.7% reduction in the 2030 corridor growth for “national” trends, and a
re-allocation of some growth within the County to zones in the Bypass
corridor.
Therefore, Dr. Hammer’s forecast of population and employment for
E4-54
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 25 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
Union County is likely to be significantly over-stated, as are Baker
forecasts made from it.
Of course, in 2003-04 Dr. Hammer could not have foreseen the 2008-12
Recession or its disproportionate impact on banking sector
employment. That is exactly the point: If one is to believe Dr. Hammer’s
2030 forecast now, one must now assume an equally unlikely upward
“turn-around kink” in population for the region and particularly for
Union County. To reach the projected 337,000 population by 2030 from
its current (2012) level of 208,000, Union County would have to average
3.4% growth annually, twice its recent growth rate of 1.7%. Assuming
this would mean justifying the Bypass on an unsupported future turn-
around in growth for the Charlotte region, and a return to a rapid
growth spurt for Union County, events as unlikely as was the recent
Recession.
23
Socio-
economic
data
46
The Hammer population forecasts are then used to forecast traffic.
Unfortunately from a modeling perspective, Dr. Hammer’s assumptions
about future Union County population growth are also used as the
basis for the subarea allocation to zones (the Smith study and
refinements to it). The Smith study is described as allocating the
county-level population and “population chasing
employment” control totals to TAZs based on vacant residential acres
and travel time to employment. The DSFEIS apparently continues to
use the county-level control totals in making these TAZ allocations. In
other words, the higher-level population forecasts are then used to
estimate zonal population and employment, which are then used for
estimating local traffic growth. This means that, if the Hammer-based
forecasts of population growth by county are high, then the TAZ
forecasts will be high in the same proportion.
The commenter’s conclusions regarding how Dr. Hammer and Mr. Smith allocated population and employment from the region to the TAZ does not reflect
the extensive inputs and calculations that were used to develop the MRM model and serves as an overly broad generalization. See section 3.2 of the Indirect
and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (DSFEIS Appendix E).

The processes used to develop traffic forecasts are fully detailed in the Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary Memo (HNTB, November, 2013,
superseded by May, 2014).
23
Socio-
economic
data
47
The Smith re-study incredulously found no impact of the Bypass on
population growth.
According to the DSFEIS, the original Smith study completed in 2004,
allocated county-level control totals to TAZs using vacant residential
acres and travel time to employment. In 2012 Mr. Smith re-analyzed
the impact of the Bypass on population and “population-chasing
employment,” and found no change in growth forecasts for any of the
TAZs.
This result is not believable given the projected change in access that
the proposed Bypass would create, particularly in those TAZs both near
the Bypass and close to the Mecklenburg line. This suggests that the
original allocations prepared by Smith did not consider the key factors
that affect regional population growth. For example, the Smith study
The commenter is incredulous that the analysis of Paul Smith’s travel time to employment factor discussed in the Monroe Connector/Bypass (R-3329/R-
2559) Indirect and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., November 2013) (Quantitative ICE Update)shows that
that factor was unaffected by the presence of the Monroe Connector/Bypass in the travel time model used. The commenter concludes that Mr. Smith’s
model must be inadequate as it “did not consider that the whole study area growth might slow if US 74 became congested to the extent predicted elsewhere
in this DSFEIS”. Mr. Smith’s model was designed to try and capture a multitude of factors, including many factors the commenter suggests are critical:
“school quality, sewer and water availability, zoning density restrictions, improved road access, rising congestion on existi ng roads, crime rates, average
housing values and neighborhood incomes . . . .” (pp. 23-24). Specifically, Mr. Smith’s model included the availability of developable land (estimated using
available land and zoning restrictions), redevelopable land (estimated using zoning restrictions), water and sewer availability, recent population change,
growth policies, expert panel input and travel time to employment centers. Thus, most of the variables that the commenter cites were accounted for in Mr.
Smith’s analysis and those that were not directly accounted for (crime rates, neighborhood incomes, shopping and retail access) were among the
considerations of the expert panel during their input. However, it is important to note that as documented in Appendix B of the Quantitative ICE Update, the
presence or absence of a major highway such as the Monroe Connector/Bypass does not necessarily have a major impact on county -wide growth trends. In
fact, as documented by Dr. Hammer, such supply side considerations typically have v ery localized impacts on growth. The purpose of the re-analysis of Mr.
Smith’s travel time to employment center factor was to determine the extent, if any, that the inclusion of the Monroe Connect or/Bypass had on that factor
E4-55
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 26 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General
Topic
Comment
# Comment (Observation #4) Response
did not consider that the whole study area growth might slow if U.S. 74
became congested to the extent predicted elsewhere in this DSFEIS.
to determine the most reasonable use of the forecasts within the context of an indirect and cumulative effects analysis.
23-24 ICE 48
The revised DSFEIS shows a modest impact of the Monroe Bypass on
induced growth.
Later in the discussion, the Michael Baker team indicated
dissatisfaction with the Smith study on the precisely those grounds —
that it did not show a difference in development for the “build” vs. the
“no build” forecast. Among the obvious factors that might have been
included in a more careful assessment of potential growth would be
school quality, sewer and water availability, zoning density restrictions,
improved road access, rising congestion on existing roads, crime rates,
average housing values and neighborhood incomes, provisions for and
distance to shopping and retail, etc.
The Baker study then uses other methods to estimate induced
residential growth (about 1%). A method developed by this author
(Hartgen) in 2000 is also used to estimate induced commercial growth
at Bypass interchanges.
Other methods are also used to estimate the impact of the Bypass on
industrial, transportation, and other uses. Overall, the review found
modest estimates of induced growth, about 3.4% overall (a difference
of 3200 acres, “build” vs. “no-build” (128,200 vs. 125,000), from a base
of 95,200 acres of development. The report does not indicate what
markets this “nonresidential” growth would serve, but it seems unlikely
that they would be other than the nearby new population. However,
as noted below, this difference does not seem to have b een actually
used to make new traffic forecasts.
The commenter’s discussion in this section does not suggest that the conclusions on induced growth are incorrect. The commenter suggests that “the
Michael Baker team indicated dissatisfaction with the Smith study on the precisely those grounds — that it did not show a difference in development for the
“build” vs. the “no build” forecast”. The Michael Baker Team expressed no dissatisfaction with Mr. Smith’s work. The team simply used different methods
to assess the specific induced growth effects of the one project in question. These methods were naturally different than the met hods used by Mr. Smith in
a regional growth disaggregation modeling process. See response to Comment #43 in this table for additional discussion of traffic forecasts.

E4-56
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 27 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response
24 Calibration 49
The Regional Travel Model and the traffic operations model
appear to have been insufficiently calibrated.
It is widely agreed that the use of a traffic model in forecasting
first requires that it is well calibrated, that is, it matches
reasonably well existing traffic counts, travel times, and speeds in
the base year. This elementary step is intended to ensure
that the model, when used for forecasting, will not require
inordinate adjustments to raw traffic forecasts.
Standards for model calibration accuracy are detailed nationally.
The general rule of for regional model calibration accuracy is
that estimated base-year traffic for roads with volumes over
50,000 ADT should be within ±20% of observed counts, and
within ±30% of observed counts for roads with volumes between
50,000 and 10,000 ADT, with most roads showing considerably
less error. And of course, if a specific project is being studied,
such as U.S. 74, estimated base-year traffic volumes on that road
should be close to actual ground counts. In addition to this
limited standard, for major studies such as this one good practice
is also to calibrate the models by cut-line in-out balance,
geographic region, road functional class, time-of-day and
direction to a similar or tighter level of accuracy, for greater
confidence in forecasting. In addition, travel times and speeds
through the base-year network should correspond closely to
observed field data.
The Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model (MRM) was developed as the primary tool for evaluating existing and future travel demand in the greater
Charlotte area. The MRM is governed by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) throug h an Executive Committee and a Planning & Oversight Committee. The
region’s four MPOs and two RPOs are signatories to the MOA, along with the N orth Carolina and South Carolina Departments of Transportation.
The MRM base year models used for the traffic forecasts were/are appropriately calibrated to standards that allow their use for region-wide applications.
Per the Metrolina Model User’s Guide (July 11th, 2008), Documentation Revision 2.0, page 3-11, Table 3.1, notes a minimum of 10 extensive surveys and
studies were performed at a cost of nearly $2.5 million to “serve as a basis for model equations, settings, and calibration t argets”. The Metrolina Regional
Travel Demand Model Technical Documentation, dated May 31, 2006 and developed by the Charlotte Department of Transportation Planning Division, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (Transportation Planning Branch) and AECOM Consultants provides details of the MR M calibration process in
the model calibration report.
The traffic forecast documents discuss in detail the modifications, adjustments, and enhancements made to the MRM to allow for its appropriate use in t he
project-level traffic forecast process. (See Traffic Forecast for the No-Build Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329 and NCDOT State TIP Project
No. R-2559, Monroe Connector/Bypass Study, Martin/Alexiou/Bryson (MAB), June 2008; Technical Memorandum for TIP Projects R-2559 & R-3329 US74
Upgrade Scenario, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), June 2008; Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass, WSA, September
2008.)
25 Calibration 50
The calibration of the Metrolina Regional Model (“MRM”) used
for this study has not been demonstrated.
In prior documentation of the regional modeling effort for this
study, the consultant (Wilbur Smith Associates, now CDM
Smith) states that: “The base-year model was calibrated in the
immediate project area to achieve the best traffic volume
assignments compared to observed traffic counts and observed
speeds from speed-delay runs conducted for the traffic and
revenue analysis. . . . The base year 2008 model was run using
inputs supplied by the MPO.... A series of traffic assignments
were compared with ground counts supplied by the NCDOT and
those collected specifically for the traffic and revenue
study...Adjustments were made to input network speeds and trip
tables in the study area in order to improve the calibration of
the model in comparison with ground counts for the specific
corridor area. After calibration was obtained, a series of traffic
Beyond the level of effort involved in creating and calibrating the Base Year MRM models, the Monroe Connector/Bypass project -level traffic forecasts were
developed based on data including, but not limited to, traffic counts, historic travel trends, the MUMPO Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the
calibrated MRM, and existing roadway network operations. Thus, additional information was utilized in producing base year pr oject-level forecasts that
were better “calibrated” to local traffic conditions along US 74.
The individual data sources are not intended to be traffic forecasts and do not include the level of detail ultimately develo ped in the traffic forecast. For
example, the MRM does not include all the roadways within the study area. Therefore, those roadways are included in the traffic forecast through analyzing
traffic counts or other available data sources. Another example of source data are Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volum es, which are developed by
annualizing traffic counts collected at one point in time. The Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary Memorandum (HNTB, November, 2013,
superseded by May, 2014) summarizes the traffic forecasts and references historical traffic data, socioeconomic data and MRM data developed throughout
the Monroe Connector/Bypass project development process and concludes that the project forecasts are still valid for the purp oses for which they were
developed and used.
E4-57
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 28 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response
assignments to the highway network were made for years of
2008, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 under No-Build, Toll-free, and
Tolled conditions.” This statement admits the presence of initial
calibration errors which were (apparently) “improved” by changes
to network speed and trip tables. But no data comparing
“observed” vs. “estimated” or “improved” traffic is provided, no
chart showing either regional or study area agreement by link type
or volume is provided, and no calibration statistics by cut-line are
given. No reference is made to time-of-day or directional
agreement. As the MRM was not updated for the DSFEIS, the
possibility of remaining errors, such as those caused by inadequate
calibration, is a distinct possibility.
25 Calibration 51
The current DSFEIS does not discuss calibration.
The DSFEIS contains no discussion of calibration, but instead
asserts that prior modeling is adequate for the purpose of
environmental assessment. Therefore, one is left to assume that
the current traffic forecasts are based on an adequately
calibrated model, which as noted above has not been
demonstrated. Given that recent traffic has not grown to the
extent forecast in 2008, the MRM should probably have been re-
calibrated.
See response to Comment #49 in this table.
25-26 Calibration 52
Errors in calibration will be carried forward into future estimates.
If the original MRM was not adequately calibrated, traffic
forecasts are in serious doubt as calibration errors on specific
road links are therefore carried forward into future tests.
Essentially, if traffic for a specific road section is over-estimated
in the base year, it is likely to be also over-estimated in the
future year as well. The problem is particularly severe for
calibration of U.S. 74 traffic volumes, which, as noted below, are
clearly open to question since U.S. 74 apparently was modeled
with too-high volumes, and with too-slow speeds relative to
actual INRIX travel speeds. The accuracy of traffic forecasts for
new roads is also open to question. This also affects estimates of
traffic diversion and revenue for toll roads. In addition, errors in
calibration carried forward in forecasts, are also likely to impact
other key elements of the EIS, particularly noise, air quality and
stream runoff, bringing large portions of the EIS into serious
question. In short, the use of poorly calibrated traffic models to
make forecasts is a serious mistake in traffic modeling that must
be corrected BEFORE the resulting traffic forecast can be used in
See responses to Comment #s 49 and 50 in this table.
E4-58
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 29 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response
decision- making.
26-27 Calibration 53
The traffic operations simulation model (SIMTraffic) also appears
not to be well calibrated.
The study uses a traffic operations simulation model (SIMTraffic)
to simulate traffic operations for existing and no-build future
traffic on U.S. 74. Good planning practice dictates that these
models also be “calibrated” in the field, that is, they replicate
existing travel times and speeds before being used for
forecasting. According to the consultant’s documentation, in
2008 calibration was undertaken by driving 4 runs through the
project section, 2 in the AM and 2 in the PM peaks. The reported
(average of the 2 runs in each direction?) travel times in 2008
was 41 minutes (30 mph) eastbound in the PM peak, and 40
minutes (30 mph) westbound in the AM peak. The SIMTraffic
model for the same conditions yielded 47 minutes, at 29 mph
(westbound) and 50 minutes at 24 mph eastbound, that is, the
SIMTraffic tests showed significantly higher travel times and
(according to the consultant) “slightly lower speeds” than the
travel time runs. The consultants attributed these differences
to different input traffic volumes (the SIMTraffic volumes were
taken from the regional travel demand model and were higher
than the 2007 field volumes), and so the consultant considered
the SIMTraffic model “calibrated.” The following table
summarizes their findings:

The consultant’s conclusion that this is adequate calibration is
not believable. First, the use of just 4 travel time runs to prepare
a baseline for calibration is wholly inadequate, as traffic varies
considerably just day-to-day, let alone on weekends or by time-
of-day or direction. A much larger set of runs, perhaps 30 for
each time/direction, would be needed for statistical accuracy
and for obtaining data for travel time reliability (see discussion
See response to Comment #35 in this table.

E4-59
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 30 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response
below). Further, setting aside the obvious miscalculation of speed
(47 minutes through a 19.7- mile section is 25 mph, not 29
mph), the large differences in travel time between the field
runs and the simulation model could not possibly have been
caused by different traffic volumes as the volumes were virtually
unchanged between 2007 and 2008. Either the traffic
volumes used to calibrate the model were way too high — a
serious error as one should always use field- measured volumes
for calibration — or the model’s performance was understated.
Either way, the SIMTraffic model clearly underestimated the
2007 speeds on U.S. 74.
27-28 Calibration 54
Further, recent analysis (in early 2013) of new travel time runs on
U.S. 74 and INRIX data also suggests that speeds on U.S. 74 are
significantly higher now than in 2007. NCDOT re-did the travel
time runs on U.S. 74 in March 2013, this time with (apparently)
three runs in each direction/time period. They found average
speeds of 39.1-43.9 mph, about 10 miles per hour faster than
the runs made in 2007! In other words, the NCDOT’s own tests
showed that travel speeds had improved significantly between
2007 and 2012. Using a new source of data provided by INRIX,
which tracked the speeds of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of
actual road users between January 1 and Feb 28, 2013, the INRIX
analysis also found that the actual operating speeds were
even higher — between 44.2 and 44.9 mph, than in the upward-
revised field runs. Both these sources say the same thing: Travel
speeds on the present U.S. 74 have improved substantially over
the past 7 years, and are MUCH HGHER (by 10-15 mph) than
the speeds used to calibrate the SIMTraffic operations model.
No explanation is given for these findings, but they are likely
a combination of poor initial model calibration and recent
improvements to U.S. 74 to smooth and speed its operation.
Errors of this magnitude in calibration cannot be ignored. If not
revised to accurately reflect current operating conditions, the
SIMTraffic model used for studying flow on U.S. 74 is likely to
significantly overstate congestion and travel time through the
section, and therefore overstate the potential for diversion to a
proposed Bypass.
To correct the above problems, several steps should be
undertaken. First, road capacities should be updated in both the
simulation model and the regional travel model. The new
Highway Capacity Manual (2010) revises procedures for
As described in Section 1.2.4 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, FHWA and NCDOT collected new travel time information to update travel performance
along the existing corridor and did not use a computer model to evaluate travel performance along the existing corridor. Based on the data, which is from
actual travel speeds as reported by INRIX for 2011, 2012, and 2013, average travel speeds along the US 74 corridor are still below 50 mph.
As stated in response to Comment #35, improvements made along the US 74 corridor between 2007 and 2013 likely contribute to the speed improvements
that the commenter notes. However, the 2013 INRIX data, see 2013 eastbound and westbound speed tables and diagrams below, that he bases his own
assertions on also shows quite clearly that multiple segments of US 74 have reported speeds in the 20-35 mph range for multiple hours throughout a typical
weekday (see the INRIX US 74 Corridor Travel Speeds memorandum (HNTB, April, 2014)).
Whether or not there is a perceived “magnitude of error” in the SimTraffic model does not refute the fact that travel speeds along the corridor are lower,
when examined at the segment level, than at the “gross” corridor-level as presented by the commenter. It is also vital to note that any calibration
procedures or perceived errors in a traffic simulation model used for evaluating the performance of alternatives at any time in the project process has NO
bearing on calibration procedures used in the development or validation of travel demand models used in the traffic forecast. The models, and calibration
procedures for each, are two entirely different things. No input or result from a SimTraffic microsimulation model was used to predict diversion to a
proposed Bypass – this would be a feature utilized in a travel demand model. The commenter appears confused about the proper application and processes
of travel demand models versus microsimulation models
For comments related to the commenter’s discussion of road capacities and travel demand model calibration, see details in response to Comment #s 49 and
50.
E4-60
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 31 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response
calculation of capacity for both arterials and for freeways, which
in some cases results in higher capacity estimates. Failure to
use the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual in such cases would
therefore bias the traffic forecasts against the no-build alternative
by underestimating its ability to carry traffic.
Second, the regional travel model should be calibrated sufficiently
to show (at the very least) FHWA-standard agreement with
existing volumes by direction and time of day.
Third, the simulation operation model should be re-calibrated
to show close agreement with INRIX travel times and speeds
through the section, also by direction and time of day. These
elemental steps must be undertaken BEFORE either model is
used in forecasting.

E4-61
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 32 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response

E4-62
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 33 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #5) Response

E4-63
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 34 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #6) Response
28 Induced
Travel 55
The DSFEIS leaves unanswered key questions regarding induced
travel.
The DSFEIS describes methods and results for an estimate of
“induced land use development.” This estimate, about 3.4% (an
increase of development from 125,000 acres “no-build” to 128,200
acres “build,” compared with a base-year value of 95,200 acres),
includes induced-growth impacts for residential, commercial,
industrial, and other land uses. A variety of methods are used to
make this estimate, including one developed by this reviewer
(Hartgen) in 2000, a review of estimated industrial land use
impacts, and a review of development forecasts in the original EIS.
The NCDOT considered how changes in socio-economic data related to the project’s indirect and cumulative effects could affect the traffic forecasts for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass. This question is considered in detail in the Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary Memorandum, HNTB
(November, 2013, superseded by May, 2014). 2030 Build MRM11v1.1 model runs using 2009 Socioeconomic (SE) data and 2009 ICE SE data were prepared
to assess potential impacts to raw model output volumes using the four-step modeling process.
As discussed in Section 2.5.2 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the most current version of the MRM (MRM
11v1.1) available at the time of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS to see how raw model output would change between the 2009 socioeconomic (SE) data
used in the model and a modified 2009 SE data set that includes the potential induced growth forecasts from the Monroe Connector/Bypass (R-3329/R-
2559) Indirect and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., November 2013) (Quantitative ICE Update). After
extensive review of model outputs, it was determined that changes in SE data (between the bas eline SE and ICE SE data sets) caused relatively minor
changes in raw output traffic volumes in the MRM model runs. Maps 16 thru 19 from the Quantitative ICE Update comparing 2030 No-Build and Build land
use scenarios are referenced on slides 11 thru 14 in Appendix A. Based on the comparison of 2030 Build MRM11v1.1 model runs using 2009 SE data and
2009 ICE SE data, the volume changes and percent changes are not substantial. The change in VMT and VHT in Union County is 3 percent and 4 percent
respectively, while changes in Mecklenburg County and across the MRM network are approximately zero percent. It was concluded that the se minor
variations in raw model daily volume assignment will not affect the conclusions of the traffic forecasting development pro cess. It was concluded that since
the travel demand model outputs are just one of many factors considered in the development of a project specific traffic fore cast, it can be reasonably
concluded that changes in the socioeconomic data due to potential ind uced growth from the Monroe Connector/Bypass would not substantially or
significantly alter the future Build scenario traffic forecasts for the project study area.
As documented in the Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November, 2013, superseded by May, 2014), MRM14v1.0 output
provided by CRTPO (Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization formerly MUMPO) on February 3, 2014 was considered. The raw model daily
volume assignment data from a run of MRM06v1.1, that was used in the development of the No-Build and Build traffic forecasts used in the May 2010 FEIS,
was compared to a model run using the MRM14v1.0 (with 2013 SE data). Overall corridor VMT results indicate that, even with an updated model network
(MRM14v1.0), SE data (2013), and methodology, the Monroe Connector/Bypass is still generally attracting similar levels of dema nd as MRM06v1.1 and 2005
SE data used in the 2030 Build forecast. In addition, the MRM14v1.0 is predicting more demand for the existing US 74 corridor. Thus, it is reasonable to
conclude that the MRM14v1.0 assigns similar magnitudes of raw travel demand model daily volume assignment to the Monroe Connector/Bypass and US 74
compared to MRM06v1.1.
Indirect and cumulative impacts to traffic are also considered in Section 5.8 of the Monroe Connector/Bypass (R-3329/R-2559) Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., November 2013). The evaluation concludes that overall, induced growth impacts of
the proposed project will add to the total volume of traffic in Union County and to the total vehicle miles traveled and vehi cle hours traveled. Roads that
connect to the Monroe Connector/Bypass will likely see some increases in traffic. However, the increases in traffic are modest and would not likely create
substantial congestion issues within the design year of the project, particularly given that the impacts will be spread acros s the many miles of transportation
facilities throughout Union County. Thus, the traffic impacts of induced growth do not appear to be substantial enough to re sult in indirect or cumulative
effects to roadway congestion or overall traffic levels.
As documented in the Review of Draft CRTPO Socioeconomic Projections Memorandum (Baker, March 20, 2014), the Charlotte Regional Transportation
Planning Organization (CRTPO) socioeconomic projections developed for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) was compared to the projections
used in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Quantitative Analysis Update (Quantitative Analysis Update) for the Monroe Connector/Bypass (R-3329/R-
2559) completed by Baker in November of 2013. This comparison determined that a reanalysis of the indirect and cumulative effects using the new 2014
Projections would likely lead to similar conclusions regarding the indirect and cumulative effects of the Monroe Connector/By pass.
E4-64
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 35 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #6) Response
28 Land Use
Forecasts 56
Are there different land use forecasts for each alternative?
The documentation of the changes in land use forecasts do
not specifically address the question of whether separate land
use forecasts were prepared for all alternatives, or (more likely)
for just one Build alternative, a generic “corridor” alternative, and
the No-build. This raises the question of whether, for modeling
purposes, the induced impacts of other alternatives (e.g., an “on-
current alignment” upgrade of U.S. 74) should also have been
studied.
The commenter is incorrect. It is not necessary to study in detail the induced impacts of alternatives that have been eliminated from detailed study, such as
the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives.
A qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment (HNTB, February 2009) was prepared for the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs), as summarized in
Section 7 of the Draft EIS. The qualitative assessment identified areas of potential growth or land use change under the No‐Build and New Location
scenarios. There would be no substantial differences between new location Detailed Study Alternatives.
In addition, see response to Comment #55 in this table.
28 Land Use
Forecasts 57
Are the land use forecasts carried into the modeling, through trip
generation, trip distribution and assignment steps?
Nowhere in the material submitted is it specifically stated that
the different land use forecasts were then used to re-estimate
trip generation, trip distribution, and then assignments of
estimated traffic. This might be implied by the discussion of
“raw model volumes,” but the report does not actually explain
how the adjusted volumes were calculated. Elsewhere (Appendix
C- 3, section 6.7) the description of the method seems to
imply that standard traffic forecasting methods (trip generation,
distribution, and assignment) were NOT used in the revised EIS.
So, which is it? Was a standard 4-step model used for the
DSFEIS, or not?
Specific model modifications and runs completed for the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects analysis are described in response to Comment #55 in
this table.
As documented in the Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November, 2013, superseded by May, 2014), a standard 4-step model
approach, using the Metrolina Regional Model, MRM11v1.1 as the base model, was used to develop raw trip generation, trip distribution, and then daily
volume assignment. The raw model daily volume assignment were developed and compared for the 2035 No-Build and Build conditions utilizing the
appropriate available socioeconomic data sets (2005 SE, 2008 Interim, 2009 SE and 2009 ICE SE data). Based on a direct comparison of these raw model
daily volume assignments It is reasonable to conclude that the differences between these sets of socioeconomic data would not substantially change the
traffic forecast.

29 Model
Assignment 58
Do the trip distribution and assignment steps in the traffic
forecast for the “no-build” alternative now exclude “project-
induced travel” development and exclude the Bypa ss in the No-
build forecast?
It is still not clear if the land use, trip generation, trip distribution
and assignment steps described in the DSFEIS include the
project’s effect. For instance, even if the land use forecasts were
found to be the same for “build” and “no-build” scenarios, the
trip distributions from them would certainly NOT be the same
since they undoubtedly included the Bypass in distributing trips
between TAZs. If the trip distributions for the no-build alternative
included the proposed Bypass in the network, then that
would incorrectly forecast the traffic using the no-build network.
The No-Build MRM model runs did not initially include the effects of induced travel/development, as those effects were captured in s eparate model runs for
the Build Alternative as described in response to Comments #55 and #56 above.

29 Induced
Development 59
If not, how do the traffic forecasts actually reflect the induced
development?
The DSFEIS needs to state clearly, in professional “modeling”
language that can be reviewed by independent experts, exactly
how the revised traffic forecasts for the “build” and the “no build”
See response to Comment #55 in this table.
E4-65
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 36 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #6) Response
were prepared.

E4-66
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 37 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #7) Response
29 Traffic
Forecasts 60
Questions remain concerning details of traffic forecasts.
The extensive coverage of induced traffic issues in the DSFEIS does
not contain a commensurate discussion of the traffic forecasting
method itself, so the reader is left to understand that the
assumptions in the original traffic model forecast remain valid.
See response to Comment #s 61 through 68 in this table.
Exhibit 1 provides a timeline of project-related socioeconomic projections, traffic forecasts and traffic & reven ue studies.
Exhibit 1: Traffic Forecast & Socioeconomic Projections Timeline

29-30 Land Use
Forecasts 61
Was the MRM used with the updated ICE land use forecasts to
estimate future traffic volumes?
The DSFEIS states that changes were made to land use to
account for the induced effects, and “then the [Metrolina
Regional] Model was run…” implying that the full generation-
distribution-assignment sequence was used. The technical
documentation further reports an 3.5% increase of VMT in
The question of “if the traffic forecasts that were used in the May 2010 FEIS are still valid” was documented in the Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast
Summary (HNTB, November, 2013, superseded by May, 2014). Based on that assessment of 2012 NCDOT AADT volumes, the Metrolina Regional Travel
Demand Model (MRM06v1.1, MRM11v1.1 and MRM14v1.0), a comparison of available socioeconomic data sets (2005 SE, 2008 Interim, 2009 SE and 2009
ICE SE data), and existing US 74 corridor travel time runs, it was determined the No-Build and Build traffic forecasts used in the May 2010 FEIS are still valid
for the purposes they were used and the development of additional project level traffic forecasts were not required.
E4-67
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 38 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #7) Response
Union County as a result. But elsewhere, the Traffic Forecast
Memo Appendix (Nov. 8, 2013) states: “This approach uses the
original accepted forecasts and base data assumptions to
mathematically calculate traffic estimates and redistributions of
traffic for conditions not included or known at the time of the
initial forecast. This methodology is appropriate because the
differences being considered do not change the original
forecast, assumptions, methodology or base data. The
interpolation and extrapolation process is a method for
developing new data points for years not considered in the base
forecast but within the range of volumes established by the
base forecast.” And at a later point the documentation says:
“Based on a meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning
Branch (TPB) on March 21,2013 and the document Guidelines to
Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic Forecast 2 (NCDOT
TPB, February 24, 2009), the current Build traffic forecasts meet
the guidelines that indicate the existing forecast is valid and an
updated forecast is not warranted. All of these guidelines are
met since no new alternatives have been identified, the
current let date of the project is less than the Future Forecast
Year plus 20 years, the study area is not experiencing growth
not previously considered in the forecast, and the traffic
forecast is not five years older than the Base Year.” These
different statements make it unclear as to exactly whether new
traffic forecasts were prepared using the MRM, or by some other
method, or not at all.
30 Truck
percentage 62
Truck percentages.
It is well known that truck traffic forecasting is one of the weakest
elements of traffic modeling. For proposed toll roads, the issue
is doubly important as trucks constitute typically 5-10% of
traffic but pay 20-40% of toll revenue. Nowhere in the report
does it clearly state the assumptions for truck forecasts, but most
studies generally use current truck percentages and apply
them to future ADT estimates. This simple “take down
percent” for regional truck forecasts is probably inappropriate if
it has not been updated since the Recession, because the
Recession significantly affected truck travel too.
See pages C3-4 and C3-5 of the Draft Supplemental Final EIS regarding projected truck traffic on the project and existing US 74.

30 Time of day
percent 63
Time of day percentages.
In standard modeling practice, time-of-day percentages (so-
called K factors for peak hour travel) are assumed to be about 9-
Then NCDOT methodology was followed in the traffic forecasting process for the Monroe Bypass by using ground count data to in itially develop the
associated K Factors”. Model data was not directly used in the development of the K Factors, although the MRM assigns traffi c in multi-hour (peak period,
off peak) blocks of time to account for peak hour spreading effects.
E4-68
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 39 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #7) Response
10 percent of ADT, based on historical traffic counts. However,
in many regions peak periods are lengthening as commuters
shift start times to avoid congestion, and work trips are declining
as a percentage of total travel. In more advanced models these
effects are accounted for by feedbacks between time-of-day
assumptions and traffic assignment. The MRM does not
apparently account for such trends, either through feedbacks or
by increasing the length of peak hours.
Per the Project Level Traffic Forecasting Administrative Procedures Handbook (NCDOT, May 2011), “Design K Factor (K) – The K factor is the DHV expressed
as a percentage of the AADT, or K=DHV/AADT. K factors differ by location and facility type. NCDOT has automatic traffic recorders located throughout the
state which count traffic for all hours of the year. From these counts, the K factor can be calculated. Typically the K factor is estimated by examining traffic
counts taken for the specific forecast, and additionally comparing with related sites which do have automated traffic recorder stations.”

30 Traffic and
revenue 64
The value of time used for modeling is unclear.
The Traffic and Revenue Study states the values of time for trip
classes, $7- 22/hr for trucks, and $7-8/hr for cars. These values
seem low for both cars and trucks, given national studies.
Elsewhere in this review we note that a high value of time,
about $18/hr, would seem to be necessary to create substantial
diversion. A high value of time for trucks would similarly be
needed for substantial truck diversion. As the estimated toll for
trucks on the proposed Bypass would be over $10, the value of
time for trucks would seem to be too low to induce much
diversion
The Final Report Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass Comprehensive Traffic & Revenue Study (Wilbur Smith Associates, October 2010) clearly discusses
value of time used in the study. The commenter alludes to the fact that the traffic and revenue study values for time seem low, which would be a
conservative way to approach the issue so as not to over-predict trip diversion. The commenter then returns to his estimation of a high value of time
necessary to create diversion, but only referencing current travel conditions. No analysis is made by the commenter for future conditions when US 74 would
be more congested and the time savings would be much greater – regardless of the value placed on time savings.
31 Travel time 65
The reliability of travel time has not been considered in diversion
or benefits.
Recent research on travel time reliability (the value that travelers
place on the certainty of arriving within a given time window)
suggests that this value is quite high, perhaps higher than the
value of time itself. Several national studies have developed
guidelines for including reliability in traffic forecasting, and
how improved operations affect reliability. These methods
have not been incorporated into the analysis of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass or its alternatives.
Travel time reliability is not currently a metric that is required to be incorporated or replicated in the travel demand modeling or traffic forecasting process in
North Carolina. However, its use as a metric to assess project benefits would add to the viability of the Build Alternat ive, since reliability of travel times
decreases in congested conditions that are predicted for the existing US 74 corridor in the No-Build scenario.
31 Capacity 66
Road capacities have not been updated.
The DSFEIS forecasts rely on regional networks that use
estimates of highway capacity from the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual. The new Highway Capacity Manual generally
raises highway capacities for various road classes, and
significantly changes the capacity estimation and level-of-
service procedure for urban and rural arterials such as U.S. 74. In
particular, the new method for estimating capacity for signalized
arterials includes signal progression, access points, and traffic
volumes, all of which are obviously relevant for study of U.S.
74. These updated capacities have apparently not been used in
Development of the MRM travel demand model is based on the latest available information and factors other than the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
HCM 2010 information was not readily available until 2012, after the model was developed. In either case, the commenter is overstating the changes
between HCM 2000 and 2010 with regards to certain capacity methodologies and does not provide an explanation for his opinion that the incorporation of
the HCM 2010 would have an effect on the MRM results.
E4-69
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 40 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #7) Response
the traffic modeling. If the estimates of capacity for U.S. 74 are
too low, the effect would be to over-state future congestion
estimates on U.S. 74, and thus over-state diversion to the Bypass,
and also under-state the viability of other alternatives.
31 Capture Rate 67
Market capture rates (40-50%) seem very high.
While the percentage of non-local traffic was not calculated
as part of the traffic forecasts for the project, given that less
than half of the traffic on U.S.
74 is appears to be non-local, the overall capture rate of around
50% suggested by the traffic forecasts seems very optimistic
indeed. Assuming a generous capture rate of 50% of non-local
trips, an overall capture rate less than 25% seems more likely,
and even that might be too high if the diverters are infrequent
rather than every-day diverters, as the forecast assumes.
See response to Comment #33 in this table.
31 Traffic
forecast 68
Earlier errors in the 2030 and 2035 traffic forecasts reduce
confidence in current estimates.
The report notes that earlier traffic forecasts, by Wilbur
Smith Associates (now CDM Smith) contained errors resulting
in higher traffic forecasts. This revelation raises questions about
whether the current traffic estimates can also be trusted.
We disagree with the commenter’s assertion. For the Draft Supplemental Final EIS, NCDOT systematically re-visited all of the traffic forecasts to determine
whether they were still valid and reliable. Based on additional review, analysis and comparison, it was determined that the existing traffic forecasts remain
valid and reliable and it was unnecessary to perform new traffic forecasts, as explained in Section 2.5.2 and Appendix G of t he Draft Supplemental Final EIS.

E4-70
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 41 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #8) Response
32 Costs 69
Project cost and cost-effectiveness are not detailed.
Environmental impact statements generally contain comparative
estimates of cost for viable alternatives. The DSFEIS reports an
estimated cost range of $845-923 million (in year of
expenditure, assuming award in October 2014 and opening in
October 2018). But the discussion of costs for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass is incomplete:
 If the construction of the road is delayed significantly,
which might happen given environmental and
financing issues, this cost estimate is likely to be
higher.
 No data is provided for maintenance and operation
costs after construction but during service life,
converted to present worth, for various alternatives.
 No costs are shown for other alternatives, particularly
those for various upgrades of U.S. 74. This appears to
violate NEPA regulations that require comparable
evaluation of viable alternatives.
 No data is provided on the relative cost-effectiveness of
the alternatives. Most EISs show costs, benefits and
cost-effectiveness, using such measures as benefit-
cost ratios, for various alternatives, not just for the
recommended alternative.
 The DSFEIS contains no summary table that compares
the impacts, costs, benefits, and other features of the
viable alternatives.
The NCDOT undertook a detailed investigation of the project cost information included in the Draft Supplemental Final EIS and determined the values shown
should be revised to most accurately reflect remaining project costs. The Draft Supplemental Final EIS cost data did not consider the design build contract
awarded, the work completed, or the right of way purchased since the original 2010 Final EIS. The delays experienced by the project were also not
considered. Updated costs are presented in the Final Supplemental Final EIS. The assertion that the cost was not considered for the other project
alternatives studied is simply incorrect. Construction costs were developed and compared for all preliminary study alternatives as presented in Table 2-4 of
the 2009 Draft EIS.
The NCDOT’s original approach to financing the project is documented in the Monroe Connector/ Bypass Project Initial Financial Plan, submitted to FHWA on
September 27, 2011. It is important to note the Initial Financial Plan was developed after the issuance of the previous Record of Decision (ROD) and the
procurement and opening of design-build contract price proposal to construct the project. Due to the legal challenge, the previous ROD has been rescinded
and the project construction has been put on hold. The ultimate impact to the project schedule is still undetermined at this time. Therefore, the
information needed to determine the true impact to the financial plan is not available.
Based on the cost information developed for the Final Supplemental Final EIS, funds will be available in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) to
cover the estimated increase in the project cost.
Regarding monetary cost-benefit ratios and analysis, as stated in 40 CFR 1502.23: “For purposes of complying with the Act [NEPA], the weighing of the
merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important
qualitative considerations.” An exception is cited in 23 CFR 650.809 for moveable span bridges: “If there are social, economic, environmental or engineering
reasons which favor the selection of a movable bridge, a cost benefit analysis to support the need for the movable bridge shall be prepared as a part of the
preliminary plans.” A movable span bridge is not proposed as part of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.

E4-71
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 42 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #9) Response
32-3 External
Trips/Trucks 70
External traffic forecasts for U.S. 74 and other roads is not
discussed.
In modeling terminology, “external traffic” is that traffic which
leaves, enters or goes through the study area. The issue of how
to forecast external traffic is particularly severe for proposed
projects on the edges of regions, such as the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass, which ends at the far eastern edge of the
MRM coverage area. Specifically, the traffic on U.S. 74 just east
of the proposed project terminus is treated as “external” traffic,
and therefore is not forecast directly using the MRM. Instead,
external traffic is forecast separately using a variety of
methods such as trend-lining, statewide modeling, or inter-
regional modeling. It is then typically added to the internal
(within the Model) forecast of trip ends, or is added to trip OD
matrices, or is added directly to network volumes as a “pre-
load.” In each case, the separate treatment of external traffic is
in addition to that of within-region traffic modeling. In some
cases, such as on U.S. 74 just east of the project, external traffic
could be as much as 30-40% of traffic volume. This includes
truck traffic, which is often a significant portion of smaller-region
external traffic.
In the case of the proposed Bypass, our review of recent traffic
count history at the far eastern edge of the region (Union-Anson
County line) shows that the external traffic has actually been
declining in recent years.

Neither the DSFEIS nor the earlier documentation we looked at
contains references to external traffic, leaving the reader
completely in the dark as to how it was forecast, whether the
current count history was considered or the 2009-12
Recession was accounted for. However, given the huge changes
in recent US economic activity, it is likely that any forecasts of
external traffic prepared before the Recession would now have to
be substantially revised.
As part of the MRM development process, the Metrolina Region External Travel Survey (May 2003 ) was conducted. One of the data collection points was
located at US 74, east of Wesley Chapel Road, which lies within the project study area. The results of this study were used in the development of the MRM
to develop the travel demand model.
The MRM was used in the development of project-specific forecasts to calculate future growth within the study area (i.e. 2035). While recent growth trends
have been slightly impacted by the recession, future long-term growth trends are still projected to increase over existing conditions, further substantiating
the need for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project. It is important to note that the traffic volumes are not forecasted to gro w evenly along the corridor.
The west end of the study area is forecasted to grow almost three times faster than the east end. It is to be expected that growth rates will fluctuate from
year to year.
The commenter incorrectly draws conclusions based on four data points over a 12-year period. As described in the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Project Level Traffic Forecasting Administrative Procedures Handbook, dated May 3, 2011, long-term (20 years) historical travel data should be considered.
This was done in the development of the project level traffic forecasts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project. (See Table 3 of the Traffic Forecast for the
No-Build Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329 and NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-2559, Monroe Connector/Bypass Study,
Martin/Alexiou/Bryson (MAB), June 2008; Technical Memorandum for TIP Projects R-2559 & R-3329 US74 Upgrade Scenario, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA),
June 2008; Exhibit 3 of the Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass, WSA, September 2008). The MAB and WSA forecast
considered over 600 data points over a 26 year period and over 500 data points over a 20 year period respectively in the development of their project level
traffic forecasts, cited above.
E4-72
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 43 of 44

Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #10) Response
33-34 Modeling
Uncertainty 71
Considerable uncertainty exists in traffic modeling.
Traffic modeling and forecasting is a craft, not an art or a science. The process is fraught with uncertainty
throughout because each step in the process involves the use of critical and generally not-verifiable
assumptions concerning the nature of growth or traffic. Uncertainties in the myriad assumptions that must
be made in virtually all of its steps have the effect of making “output” uncertainties substantial.
The DSFEIS supporting documents recognize this uncertainty, but only for land use inputs, noting that
errors in population and land use forecasts can be very high. “For county level projections of 25 years, the
typical mean algebraic percentage errors are about 30 percent while for census tracts (which are
typically larger than TAZs) errors are typically 45 percent for the same period. Thus, despite the best
efforts of researchers and forecasters, the error rates for long-range projections are still quite high and thus
any projection or estimate of induced and cumulative effects must be considered the best estimate within a
wide range of error. The accuracy of projected growth under any future scenario could be affected by many
variables. These include individual owner or developer actions, the timing of or changes in utility provision,
changes in local or state regulations on land use and, most importantly, changes in national or regional
economic conditions. While the potential for error is high, the techniques used by the MPO are the best
available and provide the best available data for projecting population and employment conditions in
the future.” Such “input” errors and also errors in model calibration are also carried forward into traffic
forecasts. However, just because the techniques of land use forecasting are the “best available” does not
mean that their results can be trusted for decision-making.
In addition to large errors in inputs, and errors in calibration (discussed above) recent studies have found
wide variations in the accuracy of modeled traffic forecasts, and the errors can be either an “under” or an
“over” forecast. A study of 20-year traffic forecasts for Minnesota found that freeway traffic was under-
forecast by about 5%, while forecasts for other roads were over-forecast by 14-29%. On the other hand, a US
national review of toll road forecasts found that for 15 US toll roads, the actual traffic averaged 35%
under the predicted traffic. In England, the Department for Transport found that 90% of major road traffic
forecasts were within 43% of actual traffic — a very wide spread for policy making. In another study of 104
toll roads worldwide, Bain found that after correcting for “optimism bias” the average 20-year- out actual
traffic was about 20% under the predicted traffic. Also worldwide, Flyvbjerg and colleagues found in a
review of 258 road and transit projects that the actual road traffic averaged about 17% under the
forecast traffic, but actual costs were 250% over the forecast cost, with toll roads in particular having
larger errors. In short, the limited reviews so far have found that the average error in 20-year forecasts
of road traffic range from ±20% upwards to ±30-40%, with most actual traffic coming in substantially
under the forecast traffic. The errors are also substantially higher for toll roads, leading some observers to
suggest that “optimism bias” may be substantially inherent in forecasts prepared on behalf of project
advocates. This author (Hartgen) has recently reviewed the topic and has found that the overall accuracy
of traffic forecasts is likely to be so large that he recommends considerable caution in their use and less
reliance on traffic forecasts for transportation decision-making.
Discussion provided in this section by the commenter supports the overall project process and comment
responses discussed in previous sections. The traffic results and conclusions made for this project are not certain,
since they are forecasts of the future, but they are the product of a detailed, approved methodology and
standard process used for project-level traffic forecasting and analysis in North Carolina, and meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 1502.24. The results and conclusions have gone through a detailed review and
update process to ensure that uncertainty was considered and accounted for, as deemed reasonable and
necessary, using the latest available data.
E4-73
Monroe Connector/Bypass NCDOT STIP R-3329 and R-2559

Page 44 of 44
Hartgen
Report
Page
General Topic Comment # Comment (Observation #10) Response
34-35 Modeling
Uncertainty 72
The DSFEIS partially recognizes this uncertainty (at least in inputs) and employs sensitivity tests to
evaluate the range of its results. However, the range of variation in the assumptions (for instance
assumption concerning population forecasts, a 20% difference for value-of-time, a 30% difference in
economic growth, the use of electronic toll collection, and 5% difference in fuel prices) do not seem to be
extreme enough given recent history.
The recent experiences of South Carolina’s Southern Connector, in bankruptcy, the New York court case
regarding toll-road forecasts in Detroit and Alabama, and North Carolina’s Triangle Expressway — built 6-
lanes wide but carrying just 20,000 ADT near I-40 and 4,000-6,000 ADT elsewhere — all encourage
extreme caution in the use of traffic and revenue forecasts for decision-making, particularly for proposed
toll roads where project risk is shifted to distant investors, or if fiscal failure occurs, to the People of North
Carolina.
The range of variation applied in sensitivity tests of variables employed in the traffic and revenue forecasts for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass follows toll industry standards for evaluation of projected traffic demand, given a
conservative range of potential variation. It is the commenter’s own opinion, with no citation to any published
source or reference, that these sensitivity ranges are not “extreme” enough to encapsulate what would be a
multitude of possible outcomes.
Proper caution has been exercised through the traffic and revenue forecast, project-level traffic forecast, and in
all travel demand models utilized for the project to capture, to the extent practicable, all potential unknowns
related to variation in the forecast. The commenter’s example of the Triangle Expressway as a “cautionary tale”
related to traffic forecasting for toll facilities – using data showing what he alludes to be “low” traffic volumes –
completely ignores the fact that the facility has only recently been open to traffic and has shown steady increases
in traffic volumes and transponder sales while meeting or exceeding projections for both.

E4-74

Appendix C – 2012 NCDOT Superstreet Analysis Results
(Reese, November 5, 2012)
E4-75

This page was intentionally left blank.
E4-76
E4-77
Sean M. Epperson
November 5, 2012
Page 2 of 2

1). Base year analysis results and general recommendations comparing the two scenarios are shown
in the following attachments:

1. Geometric recommendations
2. Arterial, intersection, and intersection approach levels of service (LOS) and volume-to-
capacity (v/c) ratios
3. Maximum queuing along the corridor
4. Table comparing network operations

The superstreet analysis indicates some approaches would continue to operate at LOS F with some
intersections operating over capacity (v/c > 1) and some significant queuing, but improved corridor
operations can be attained with implementation of a superstreet without significant geometric
improvements. Regardless of whether a superstreet is installed, widening of US 74 will be needed in
the near future as traffic volumes grow along this corridor, but a superstreet can be installed in the
existing median now with any future US 74 widening to the outside. In addition, superstreets
separate and reduce conflict points providing improved safety compared to traditional all-movement
intersections.

Therefore compared to the existing all-movement intersections, we recommend implementation of
a superstreet along this corridor. Compared to traditional intersections, a superstreet can improve
both current conditions and future traffic operations when US 74 is widened to a six-lane section.

If you have questions regarding this analysis, or if additional analysis or information is needed,
please contact me or Congestion Management Project Design Engineer Mohammad S. Islam, P.E., at
[phone].

MPR/msi

Attachments

cc: J. S. Cole, P.E.,
J. K. Lacy, P.E., C.P.M.
D. D. Galloway, P.E.
M. P. Butler, P.E.
J. H. Dunlop, P.E.
M. S. Islam, P.E.

E4-76E4-78
E4-79
E4-80
E4-81
US

7
4

f
r
o
m

S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s

R
o
a
d

t
o

S
a
r
d
i
s

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
o
a
d

-

S
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
s
/
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

-

U
n
i
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
%

C
h
a
n
g
e
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
%

C
h
a
n
g
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s

E
x
i
t
e
d

(
v
e
h

/

h
r
)
7
,
4
7
9
8
,
3
1
5
11
.
1
8
%
7,
6
6
0
8,
2
9
8
8.33%
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s

E
n
t
e
r
e
d

(
v
e
h

/

h
r
)
8
,
2
0
9
8,
7
6
3
6.
7
5
%
8,
2
1
9
8,
8
3
1
7.45%
Tr
a
v
e
l

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
m
i
)
17
,
0
9
9
23
,
2
0
2
35
.
6
9
%
16
,
9
5
5
22
,
6
3
0
33.47%
Tr
a
v
e
l

T
i
m
e

(
h
r
)
1,
3
4
0
1,
0
6
2
-2
0
.
7
6
%
1,
5
5
1
1,
0
9
4
-29.50%
To
t
a
l

D
e
l
a
y

(
h
r
)
1,
0
0
0
58
6
-4
1
.
3
5
%
1,
2
1
1
62
9
-48.07%
To
t
a
l

S
t
o
p
s
31
,
4
9
2
34
,
2
8
1
8.
8
6
%
28
,
0
8
2
37
,
0
7
2
32.01%
Fu
e
l

U
s
e
a
g
e

(
g
a
l
)
77
9
88
5
13
.
6
9
%
82
3
88
3
7.40%
Pe
r

V
e
h
.

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
m
i
)
2.
2
9
2.
7
9
22
.
0
5
%
2.
2
1
2.
7
3
23.21%
Pe
r

V
e
h
.

T
i
m
e

(
h
r
)
0.
1
8
0.
1
3
-2
8
.
7
3
%
0.
2
0
0.
1
3
-34.92%
Pe
r

V
e
h
.

D
e
l
a
y

(
h
r
)
0.
1
3
0.
0
7
-4
7
.
2
5
%
0.
1
6
0.
0
8
-52.06%
Pe
r

V
e
h
.

S
t
o
p
s
4.
2
1
4.
1
2
-2
.
0
9
%
3.
6
7
4.
4
7
21.86%
Pe
r

V
e
h
.

F
u
e
l

(
g
a
l
)
0.
1
0
0.
1
1
2.
2
6
%
0.
1
1
0.
1
1
-0.85%
Sy
n
c
h
r
o

U
S

7
4

E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
36
.
0
35
.
4
-1
.
6
7
%
21
.
8
27
.
1
24.31%
Sy
n
c
h
r
o

U
S

7
4

W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d

Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l

S
p
e
e
d

(
m
p
h
)
20
.
5
24
.
9
21
.
4
6
%
26
.
9
33
.
8
25.65%
Ba
s
e

Y
e
a
r

F
u
l
l

N
e
t
w
o
r
k

(
4
-
L
a
n
e
)

D
e
l
a
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

(
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
ona
l

v
s

S
u
p
e
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
)
AM
PM
Co
n
g
es
t
i
o
n

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
S
P
-
2
0
1
2
-
3
5
)

-

O
c
t
o
b
e
r

1
7
,
2
0
1
2
US

7
4

S
i
m
T
r
a
f

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
.
x
l
s
E4-82

Appendix D – Review of Traffic Forecasting: Monroe
Connector/Bypass Draft Supplemental Final EIS (Hartgen
Report) with brackets denoting the numbered response
E4-83

This page was intentionally left blank.
E4-84
Review of Traffic Forecasting:
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Draft Supplemental Final EIS, November 2013
By
David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E.
The Hartgen Group
9700 Research Drive, Suite 150
Charlotte NC 28262
www.hartgengroup.net
December 26, 2013
A Report Prepared for the
Southern Environmental Law Center
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
www.southernenvironment.org
E4-85
2
Review of Traffic Forecasting: Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft
Supplemental Final EIS, November 2013
Contents
Summary of Review 2
1. Purpose and Need 4
2. Alternatives Considered 7
3. Improvements to U.S. 74 11
4. Traffic and Population Trends 14
5. Model Calibration 24
6. Induced Travel 28
7. Details of Traffic Forecasts 29
8. Costs and Cost-effectiveness 32
9. External Travel 32
10. Uncertainty 33
Reviewer Qualifications 36
Summary of Review
The Monroe Connector/Bypass is proposed as 4 to 6 lane high-speed connector
that would be sited about 1-2 miles north of present U.S. 74, its primary alternative. It
would begin on U.S. 74 about 1 mile southeast of the present I-485, bypass Monroe, and
re-join U.S. 74 about 1 mile west of Marshville, in eastern Union County. The
approximate length is 19.7 miles. The project is estimated to cost $ 845-$923 million,
funded partially by tolls. Construction would start in October 2014, with a planned
opening in 2018. The following map shows the general location of the proposed road.
Proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass, Union County
E4-86
3
The Southern Environmental Law Center has asked me to review the Draft
Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (“DSFEIS”) for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass, dated November 2013,1 with particular focus on the traffic forecasts
for the proposed Connector and U.S. 74. This memorandum documents my review of the
methods used in forecasting traffic on the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass and U.S.
74 as described in the DSFEIS and other documents.
A summary of my primary observations regarding the DSFEIS is as follows:
1.The stated Purpose and Need for the Bypass appear to have been written
narrowly so that only alternatives on new alignment satisfy the stated Purpose
and Need.
2.The alternatives considered appear to be inappropriately biased against
upgrades to U.S. 74.
3.Traffic forecasts for 2035 were not re-computed for some alternatives, thus
possibly over-stating future Bypass traffic and under-stating traffic
improvements for some alternatives. Some of the recently completed and
planned future improvements to U.S. 74 and their effect on traffic forecasts
have not been included in the traffic forecasts, and their effect on Bypass
traffic therefore appears to be under-stated.
4.Traffic growth on U.S. 74 has been flat from 2000 to 2012 and is inconsistent
with population growth trends. The DSFEIS simply ignores these
inconsistencies. Moreover, the forecast of population, which drives the traffic
forecast, is based on a pre-Recession projection; recent population growth has
slowed markedly. Essentially the entire justification for the project rests on
traffic forecasts that ignore 12 years of recent history, recent economic
upheaval, and slower population growth.
5.The regional travel demand model (used to forecast Bypass traffic) and the
traffic operations simulation model (used to study traffic flow on U.S. 74)
both appear to have been insufficiently calibrated.
6.The DSFEIS attempts to addresses the directive of the 4th Circuit Court, but
leaves key questions regarding induced traffic unanswered.
7.Questions remain concerning details of the traffic forecasts. The three key
assumptions of the traffic forecasts (growth of the area population, percentage
diversion, and magnitude of long-distance travel) all appear to be overly
optimistic.
8.Project costs and cost-effectiveness are not sufficiently detailed.
9.External traffic forecasts are undocumented.
10.Inherent uncertainty in traffic forecasts has not been sufficiently considered.
1 NCDOT, Monroe Connector/Bypass Administrative Action, Draft Supplemental Final Environmental
Impact Statement (Nov.13, 2013), available at www.ncdot.gov/projects/monroeconnector/download/.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
E4-87
4
In summary, based on these and other issues described below, my review finds
that the traffic forecasts presented in the DSFEIS are too uncertain and insufficiently
supported to be the basis for decision-making regarding the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
My qualifications for this review include 23 years in transportation planning and
traffic forecasting at New York DOT, 18 years as Professor of Transportation Studies at
UNC Charlotte, and seven years as president of The Hartgen Group, a transportation
planning consultancy. In addition, I am familiar with the U.S. 74 corridor. The
Appendix to this memo provides a brief overview of my qualifications. The remainder of
this memo discusses my findings in more detail.
1.The stated Purpose and Need for the Bypass appears to have been written
narrowly.
According to the DSFEIS, the purpose of the project is to: “improve mobility
and capacity within the project study area by providing a facility for the U.S. 74
corridor from near I-485 in Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate
and Marshville in Union County that allows for high-speed regional travel consistent
with the designations of the North Carolina SHC program and the North Carolina
Intrastate System, while maintaining access to properties along existing U.S. 74.”2
This statement implies that congestion within the study area is long-distance in
character, that a high-speed long-distance facility will increase study-area mobility,
and that the system designations of the Legislature are inviolate. None of these
assumptions are the case. Indeed, the North Carolina General Assembly has recently
(2013) repealed the Intrastate System legislation.
t The DSFEIS focuses on the second and third stated purposes, not the
first.
Focusing on the second and third purposes, and not the first, leads to the
consideration of alternatives that are largely on new alignment, that is, off
existing U.S. 74’s current location. This is inconsistent with the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and virtually all of
transportation economics, in which the objective is to evaluate proposed
projects by their benefits versus their costs.
t Congestion on U.S. 74 is largely locally-based, not long-distance.
The DSFEIS says that congestion on U.S. 74 is uniform throughout the day
and by direction: “Based on these field travel time runs, corridor average
travel speeds are approximately 40 mph eastbound and westbound during all
three peak periods.”3 The NCDOT travel time runs and recent INRIX data
show that travel speeds are essentially uniform by direction and AM peak-
lunch-PM peak (DOT 40 mph, INRIX 43-44 mph). This suggests that most of
the traffic on U.S. 74 is locally-based traffic (otherwise the congestion would
be more severe in peaks and nearer to Charlotte, where traffic volumes are
2 DSFEIS at 1-3 (underlining added).
3 Id. at 1-7.
11
12
13
14
E4-88
5
higher). A further observation is that there is a reduction in traffic volume on
U.S. 74 between Monroe and the Mecklenburg County line, also suggesting
that the traffic congestion around Monroe is locally-based, and is not headed
to Charlotte. A third point is that the location of the facility, about 2 miles
north of U.S. 74, means that local traffic on U.S. 74 would be unlikely to use
the proposed Bypass as such use would require driving farther and out of the
way for many local short trips, and paying a toll, to save (or perhaps even
lose) travel time by using the Connector.
t Long-distance traffic is low in volume.
Traffic volumes on U.S. 74 fall off sharply at the eastern edge of Monroe,
from about 38,000 ADT4 in the vicinity of the Medical Center, to just 24,000
ADT at eastern edge of the study area, and about 19,000 ADT at Forest Hill
Road, where the proposed Connector would rejoin U.S. 74.5 Although no data
on external traffic (leaving the study area) is provided, probably only 1/3 of
the 19,000 ADT at the study area’s eastern edge is long-distance traffic (the
ADT at the Anson County line, further east, is just 13,000 and some of that is
local). Even if 1/2 of the 19000 ADT were to divert to the Bypass (an
optimistic assumption), the resulting drop in traffic on U.S. 74 (about 8500)
would be about 6-7%, less than the typical daily variation in traffic volume.
Therefore the primary justification for the Bypass, long-distance traffic, is also
relatively low in volume.
t The proposed Bypass is unlikely to reduce congestion on U.S. 74.
The above two factors — most traffic on U.S. 74 is local, and long-distance
traffic is quite low and might not divert — suggest that it is almost entirely
local traffic, not long distance traffic or the lack of a high-speed bypass, that
causes the present congestion on U.S. 74. If most congestion is locally-based,
then provision of a bypass will not alleviate it. It is therefore not likely that
the proposed Connector would significantly reduce congestion on U.S. 74 or
improve mobility in the study area.
t The DSFEIS misrepresents the availability of “sufficient funds.”
The DSFEIS states that“Similar to previous state and local TIPs and the
conclusion in the Final EIS, current fiscally constrained planning documents
do not have sufficient funds available from traditional sources in the
foreseeable future to construct all priority projects in the state.”6 This
statement ignores the Governor’s new Strategic Transportation Investment
(“STI”) Plan (2013), an effort to prioritize and fund highway projects by
worthiness. The statement therefore pre-judges that the Monroe Bypass
would not “pass muster” under the new statewide transportation prioritization
formula, and therefore needs more funds in the form of tolls. But elementary
4 ADT, Average Daily Traffic, is an estimate of traffic volume, in vehicles per day, widely used in
transportation planning.
5 NCDOT, Traffic Count Maps (2012), available at www.ncdot.org.
6 DSFEIS at 1-1 (underlining added).
14
15
16
17
E4-89
6
transportation economics teaches that a project’s worthiness should be
determined WITHOUT regard to its funding sources. The Monroe Bypass
should be subjected to the same worthiness criteria as virtually all other
projects in the state, and if found sufficiently worthy it could then be funded
without tolls. But no data on the project’s cost-effectiveness is provided.
The Monroe Connector/Bypass is the only yet-to-be-built road project
presently authorized to be directly funded by the NC General Assembly
through the NC Turnpike Authority; other projects previously permitted (the
Garden Parkway, the Cape Fear Skyway, and the Mid-Currituck Bridge) have
been removed from toll-authorized funding.
t The DSFEIS misstates the end point of the project.
The DSFEIS states that“On the western end, the project would begin at I-485,
another controlled-access facility.”7 This is factually not the case (it ends on
U.S. 74, about 1 mile from the present I-485). Though the Draft recognizes
the facility’s true end point elsewhere, this inaccurate statement at the
beginning of the document, in the summary of its purpose and need, wrongly
implies that the project extends the Interstate system by providing for long-
distance travel, whereas the project’s asserted justification is the reduction of
congestion.
t The DSFEIS inappropriately introduces the issue of fairness.
The DSFEIS states: “Although Union County is the fastest growing county in
the State, it is the only county adjacent to Mecklenburg County that does not
have a high-speed interstate-type facility connecting it to Mecklenburg
County.”8 This statement is factually incorrect. Union County is no longer
the fastest growing county in North Carolina. At least 10 counties, led by
Onslow, reported faster growth rates between 2010 and 2012 than Union
County’s 3.3%, or 1.7/%/year.9 Also, Lancaster County, SC, adjacent to
Mecklenburg County, has no high-speed connection to Mecklenburg County.
The statement further implies wrongly that all “adjacent” counties to
metropolitan areas somehow deserve a high-speed “interstate-type”
connection to the metropolitan county. This criterion is not one used by the
STI program to evaluate projects. The STI criteria require that all highway
projects be evaluated by cost-effectiveness and congestion reduction, among
other factors, but not by geographic proximity or design lever. Further,
NCDOT is already upgrading existing U.S. 74 in Mecklenburg County to
high-speed design standards, and this upgrade could be continued into Union
County. If this criterion were added to the STI, then counties adjacent to
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 US Census, Certified County Population Estimates, 2012, available at
http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_estimates/county_
estimates.shtm.
17
18
19
E4-90
7
Wake, Guilford, Forsythe, Cumberland, Buncombe, New Hanover, and
Durham should also have their connections upgraded raised to “interstate-
type.”
t Neither beach access nor weekend traffic is mentioned in the document.
It is commonly thought that travel times from Charlotte to the North Carolina
beaches are hampered by congestion on U.S. 74, and that as a result, beach-
going weekend traffic is often stuck in congestion between Charlotte and
Monroe. Yet the DSFEIS does not study, review or even mention local or
long-distance weekend traffic.10 The proposed Monroe Bypass might serve an
additional unmentioned purpose of providing faster access across Union
County for Charlotte-area beach-goers — in other words, a major
unmentioned beneficiary of the Bypass would be the occasional (largely
weekend) users from an adjacent county! If these factors are part of the
project’s justification, they must be spelled out and evaluated on their merits
using appropriate traffic analysis methods. This oversight demonstrates either
unfamiliarity with an unstated key “purpose and need” of the project, or
(worse) implies that stating this additional purpose would reduce the project’s
political support.
2.The alternatives considered appear to be inappropriately biased against U.S. 74
upgrades.
NEPA requires that the alternatives considered for road projects include the “no-
build” alternative, a TSM/TDM alternative, and a variety of “build” alternatives.
While the ranges of alternatives to be considered vary widely from project to project,
the intent of NEPA is to ensure that a wide range is considered. Alternatives found to
be viable must then be evaluated to equivalent levels of detail in terms of benefits,
impacts and costs. This does not appear to be the case for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass.
t The DSFEIS limits the alternatives to those that were judged to fit a
biased Purpose and Need.
The DSFEIS describes the three-stage winnowing process used to identify
feasible alternatives.11 In the first step, a wide range of alternatives were
considered, including:
t No-Build or No-Action Alternative
t Transportation Demand Management Alternative
t Transportation System Management Alternative
t Mass Transit and Multi-Modal Alternatives
t “Build” Alternatives, including Upgrading Existing Roadways and
New Location Alternatives[12]
10 Traffic counts, speed runs and traffic forecasts in the study are for weekday traffic only.
11 DSFEIS at 2-2.
12 Id.
19
20
21
22
E4-91
8
The DSFEIS then states that three criteria, based on the purpose and need,
were applied to each alternative:
t Does the alternative address the need to enhance mobility and
increase capacity in the U.S. 74 corridor?
t Is the alternative consistent with the NC Strategic Highway Corridor
program and the NC Intrastate System (i.e. does it allow for high-
speed regional travel)?
t Does the alternative maintain access to properties along existing U.S.
74?[13]
But as detailed above, because the stated “Purpose and Need” is biased toward
inappropriate criteria, the alternatives developed to meet those criteria are not
judged on the right set of criteria.
t Elimination of “frontage road” and “not maintaining property access”
alternatives arbitrarily restricts the options.
The DSFEIS eliminates several alternatives based on their asserted failure to
provide access to existing U.S. 74 properties. It notes that “However, as part
of the purpose and need criteria for the project, there is a need to maintain
access to existing properties along existing U.S. 74, so frontage roads would
be needed for the Upgrade Existing U.S. 74 Alternatives under either a toll or
non-toll scenario to provide property access.”14 But the alternatives
apparently do not include various “frontage road” options, either separately or
in combination with other features such as Superstreets,15 reversible lanes, or
signal optimization. Essentially, by restricting the review to those alternatives
that are asserted to strictly meet the biased Purpose and Need, the DSFEIS
arbitrarily eliminates a wide range of other feasible options. Partial frontage
roads for some sections and not others are also not explored fully. Partial
freeway upgrades along with partial upgraded arterial treatment is another
option that is clearly possible but is not explored. Neither do the alternatives
apparently consider options that take a minimal, or minor, number of existing
properties along existing U.S. 74, while the proposed Bypass would take 95
households, 47 businesses and 499 acres of active agricultural land.16 Failure
to adequately consider “on-current-alignment” options is also surprising as
upgrades to U.S. 74 in Mecklenburg County include on-current-alignment
upgrades. If NCDOT could pursue this alternative to improve U.S. 74 in one
county, then why not in the adjacent county?
t Tolling availability further restricts the options to those off U.S. 74.
Tolling options are not permitted in North Carolina without the express
approval of the Legislature. As of this writing, only one un-built road, the
Monroe Connector/Bypass, is presently approved for tolling. The presence of
13 Id. at p. 2-3 (underlining added).
14 Id. at 2-4.
15 So-called “Superstreets” are arterials that are upgraded for higher speeds and flows by a variety of
engineering/designs that restrict some movements and limit some conflicts.
16 DSFEIS at 3-4 to 3-5.
22
23
24
E4-92
9
the tolling option for the Monroe Connector/Bypass, not permitted for other
projects in the state, biases the review of alternatives towards those that rely
on additional traffic-generated revenue, rather than on the usual funding
options. Although the DSFEIS states that “the tolling aspect of the project
had no influence on the concepts identified for detailed study and little
influence on the roadway preliminary design,”17 the screening process
nevertheless eliminated all options except tolling options:“All [25] PSAs
[preliminary screening alternatives] assumed that toll collection would be
made using an open road tolling technology, which allows for tolls to be
collected at highway speeds and eliminates the need for conventional toll
plazas.”18 This is either a remarkable coincidence, or a result of a process that
pre-judges the range of feasible options.
t The DSFEIS ignores MAP-21’s focus on projects “within operational
right-of-way.”
The new federal highway act, MAP-21, passed in August 2012, specifically
streamlines the environmental review process for projects “within the
operational right-of-way.”19 This new law, not mentioned in the DSFEIS, is
intended to rapidly progress projects that have minimal or little environment
impact, speeding their construction.20 By ignoring this opportunity, the
DSFEIS eliminates a wide variety of options that could be progressed faster,
and possibly cheaper, than the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass.
t Other alternatives, particularly upgrading U.S. 74 using “Superstreets,”
providing frontage roads while upgrading U.S. 74 to freeway status,
and/or consolidating intersections should have been evaluated.
The DSFEIS discusses the effectiveness of one lately-added alternative, “TSM
Alternative Concept 2” that would improve traffic flow on U.S. 74 over the
short term (to 2015).21 The DSFEIS concludes that “by implementing the
improvements listed in Table 3-5 of the Final EIS, an overall Level-of-
Service[22] D in 2015 could be attained at the intersections along the U.S. 74
study corridor, except for the intersection of U.S. 74 at Rocky River Road (SR
17 Id. at 2-4.
18 Id. at 2-6.
19 Public Law No. 112-141, 1316.
20 The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (“MAP–21,” PL112–141, 126 Stat. 405) was
signed into law on July 6, 2012. Sections 1316 and 1317 require the Secretary of Transportation to
promulgate regulations designating two types of actions as categorically excluded under 23 C.F.R.
771.117(c) from the requirement under 40 C.F.R. 1508.4 to prepare an environmental assessment (“EA”) or
environmental impact statement (“EIS”): (1) Any project (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)) within an
existing operational right-of-way. Proposed rules implementing this requirement were issued on Feb 28,
2013 (FR 78:40, p. 13609 ff).
21 DSFEIS at 2-9.
22 Level of service (LOS) is a term referring to the quality of operational service provided to road users,
given traffic, design and environmental circumstances. It varies from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (stop-
and-go traffic).LOS D (moderate congestion) is the generally accepted NCDOT level that balances cost
and motorist delay.
24
25
26
E4-93
10
1514).”23 The DSFEIS relies on 2007 estimates projecting that implementing
these improvements would result in an average 2015 peak travel speed of
between 29-30 mph.24 However, after implementing just some of these
solutions, NCDOT has observed average peak travel speeds well above these
projections, as high as 45 mph.25 This finding is then dismissed because the
alternative does not meet the need for “high speed travel” through the
corridor, even though it is estimated to result in improved operation (LOS D)
on U.S. 74.
The DSFEIS also states that assuming the 2035 traffic volumes, the option is
not feasible: “A comparison of the year 2015 traffic volumes used in the U.S.
74 Corridor Study to the year 2035 No-Build volumes developed in Revised
Monroe Connector/Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memo (HNTB, March
2010), shows that the volumes in 2035 along U.S. 74 would generally be
significantly higher. Therefore, the levels of service at the intersections in
2035 would be expected to degrade to below LOS D and travel speeds based
on the computer model also would decrease.”26 However, given the admitted
success of the recent improvements in improving LOS, the highly uncertain
traffic forecasts (see below) and the flat recent traffic counts (discussed
below), this is clearly a premature conclusion.
t An additional option, widening U.S. 74 without tolls, was also eliminated
prematurely.
The DSFEIS also notes that based on questions raised by the Corps of
Engineers, the option of an “on-current location” was revisited. The review
concluded that “[I]n the design year 2035, U.S. 74 under all four scenarios is
expected to exceed LOS D in the majority of the corridor…. The Superstreet
6-Lane scenario option provided the highest corridor capacity compared to
the other three scenarios.”27 This statement finds that U.S. 74’s level of
service will be unsatisfactory (LOS D is the NCDOT standard for operation)
with any of these options, but (in apparent conflict with its own
recommendation for a Bypass) NCDOT has moved to implement a
“Superstreet” improvement along a 2.7 mile section of the existing U.S. 74
through Indian Trail.28 Therefore it is unclear, to say the least, why a
“Superstreet” option was eliminated from the feasible alternatives. This
appears to be a violation of NEPA which requires comparable evaluation of
viable options. At the least, prudence would dictate that the “Superstreet”
option now being implemented on a portion of U.S. 74 should be reviewed for
effectiveness, and additional Superstreet improvements be considered in
23 DSFEIS at 2-9.
24 Seeid.
25 Id. at 1-7 – 1-8.
26 Id. at 2-9.
27 Id. at 2-10.
28 Id. at 2-11.
26
27
E4-94
11
combination with other improvements in the corridor, BEFORE a decision to
build the Bypass is made.
t No discussion of “flexible work schedules” or “work-at-home” as an
alternative.
Even though NCDOT’s own data show no large variations in travel time by
time of day or direction, and that most of the traffic using the facility is local,
there is no discussion of other alternatives such as staggered work schedules,
increased work-at-home, or other similar options for reducing traffic loads at
specific intersections. The percentage of Union County residents working at
home doubled from 3.4% in 2000, to 6.9% in 2012.29 The TDM alternatives
considered did not significantly explore this issue.
t The DSFEIS does not contain key comparative data for all alternatives.
Most EISs contain detailed comparative data, by impact, for all viable
alternatives, INCLUDING the no-build and other “improve existing road”
alternatives. This information is missing from the DSFEIS, raising the
question of whether it violates NEPA requirements that all alternatives be
investigated and described to an equivalent level of detail.
3.Travel time improvements on U.S. 74 and their effect on traffic forecasts for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass appear to be under-estimated.
For a variety of reasons detailed below, the impacts of improvements to U.S. 74
on traffic flow appear to have been under-estimated. This likely over-states the
expected diversion to a future Bypass.
t The DSFEIS uses the wrong speed criterion for setting road performance.
There is no requirement that Interstate, NCSTI or STRAHNET routes have
operational travel speeds that are equal to the posted speeds.30 If that were the
case then virtually all of state-owned urban arterials in North Carolina would
need upgrades, widenings or bypasses. NCDOT standards for LOS D
(moderate congestion) typically have traffic operating speeds 5-15 miles
below the posted speed. Even if speeds are accepted for a criterion, the
standard for speed study is the 85th percentile, not the average speed. As,
according to the INRIX data, the reported average (close to 50th percentile)
operating speed on U.S. 74 is 44 mph, using the 85th percentile would raise
the current operating speeds on U.S. 74 even further, probably to the 48-50
mph range. This reduces the need for the project and the potential time
savings.
29 US Census, at
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_B08101
&prodType=table, for 2012;
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SF3_P030&pr
odType=table, for 2000.
30 DSFEISat 1-6.
27
28
29
30
31
E4-95
12
t Possible misuse of speed measurement data.
The 2013 INRIX data show an average travel speed through the corridor of 44
mph, 10% (4 mph) higher than the NCDOT’s travel time runs.31 In other
words, drivers now are averaging faster speeds than the DOT speed-run tests.
This 10% difference is so large that it calls into question the accuracy of the
travel time savings from the model.32 Later it is noted that the speed runs
appear to be based on just three runs in each direction/time period33 which is a
very small sample. The INRIX data, on the other hand, are based on observed
speeds of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of actual drivers over a 2-month
period, 24 hours a day, Tues-Thurs.34 This is a huge amount of data that is a
much more realistic description of actual corridor operation than just a few
speed runs. Therefore, the INRIX actual operating speeds, not the travel time
runs or posted speeds, should be used as the basis for the traffic forecasts on
U.S. 74. Without this correction, estimates of future traffic speeds on U.S. 74
(build and no-build) will continue to be too low, and diversion to the proposed
Bypass will continue to be over-stated.
t The suggested diversion to the Bypass (40-50%) would require a very
high value of time.
Traffic diversion (assignment) models operate by assigning traffic to the path
with the shortest “generalized cost,” considering travel time, reliability,
congestion, and tolls. The fundamental principle underlying most modeling
systems is that users choose that path which has the lowest generalized cost,
spreading out by route (and time-of-day in advanced models) such that no
traveler can improve his generalized cost by changing paths.35 To estimate
total generalized cost, tolls must be converted into time units using a traveler
value of time, which is generally assumed to vary by location, trip purpose
and vehicle class. Values of time vary by region, but most value-of-time
studies put it at about ½ the average wage rate, or about $9/hr. That is about
½ the prevailing median wage rate for Union County, $18.48/hr.36
Using the reported INRIX actual speeds for U.S. 74, the average 44-mph
travel time through the 19.7-mile U.S. 74 section (between the approximate
end points of the proposed Bypass) is now about 26.9 minutes, and at 65 mph
the average travel time between the same points using the Bypass, would be
31 Id.
32 Id. at 1-7.
33 The data are for March 19-21, 2013. See Memorandum from Bradley Reynolds, HNTB, to Jennifer
Harris, NCDOT, RE: U.S. 74 Travel Time Comparison (April 18, 2013, updated Oct. 24, 2013).
34 DSFEISat 1-6.
35 In traffic modeling this is referred to as “user equilibrium,” or “stochastic user equilibrium” if
probabilistic route choices are made. The Metrolina Regional Model used in this study is operated with
TransCAD software, which is a quite sophisticated package, but many of its advanced features appear not
to have been used in the study.
36 US Department of Commerce, Southeast Division, County employment and wages in North Carolina, 4th
Quarter 2012, available at http://www.bls.gov/ro4/qcewnc.htm. Calculated as $739 per week/40 hrs/week.
32
33
E4-96
13
18.2 minutes.37 To be worth paying the proposed $2.58 average toll, the
average savings in time (8.7 minutes) would have to be worth about
$17.80/hour.38 This is a high value of time for traffic modeling, almost twice
the commonly used rate, and about twice the value of time that the NCDOT
found in its own stated preference survey. This means that, if local residents
value their travel time at less than $17.80/hour, the traffic estimate for the
Bypass is likely to be significantly overstated. Another implication is that
Bypass use might be infrequent rather than regular, for trips when time is
valued highly, but not for most trips.
t The DSFEIS downplays the effectiveness of prior and planned actions on
U.S. 74.
The DSFEIS notes that some improvements to U.S. 74 have been
implemented.39 But these improvements have not been incorporated into the
2035 traffic forecasts, which were created in 2007 and have not been updated
in the DSFEIS. In fact these improvements post-date the 2035 forecasts —
occurring mostly between 2010 and the present — and so have of course not
been included. Additionally, the 2035 forecasts do not factor in additional
improvements such as the four Superstreets that are now planned in the next
couple of years. It is likely that the improvements made so far helped to
improve the current operating speeds in the 44-mph range, given that traffic
volumes have not increased and INRIX speeds show an increase over time.40
Additional future improvements (e.g. partial Superstreet treatment, shutting
off some access, better signal timing, or even upgrading more of U.S. 74 to
freeway status) might also be equally effective. But at the very least, the
planned improvements should be coded into the regional network and used as
the basis for all forecasts.
t An inappropriate traffic forecast was used for the operations simulation
model.
Instead of using just one traffic forecast predicted to use U.S. 74 in the local
simulation model (SIMTraffic, which estimates future driving speeds based on
a forecast of traffic), the consultant should have also tested the operation of
U.S. 74 with lower more-realistic future traffic volumes, as discussed below.
t Inconsistent traffic forecasts for U.S. 74 WEST of the project.
The DSFEIS asserts that “Year 2035 traffic volumes on U.S. 74 west of I-485
are projected to be lower with the proposed project than under the No-Build
alternative.”41 The difference is about 7% lower, quite a large amount. This
37 19.7 miles*60 min/hr/44 miles/hr = 26.9 min; 19.7*60/65 = 18.2 minutes.
38 $2.58*60 min/hour/8.7 minutes = $17.80. The value of time would have to be even higher for shorter
trips that have to go out-of-the-way to use the Bypass, but might be lower accounting for congestion on
U.S. 74.
39 DSFEIS at 2-11.
40 Id. at 1-6.
41 DSFEIS, Appendix F, Errata (underlining added).
33
34
35
36
E4-97
14
finding is inconsistent with traffic modeling theory which predicts that
improvements in travel time caused by new roads will also result in
INCREASED traffic on major feeder roads leading to the project, such as U.S.
74 just west of I-485. The NCDOT team found a similar inconsistency in
reviewing the Wilbur Smith forecasts made in 2008.42 No explanation is
given for this new finding, but it may be due to the hidden assumptions
regarding induced land use or trip distribution.
4.Traffic growth on U.S. 74 has been flat from 2000 to 2012, and is inconsistent
with population growth.
Two central issues regarding the need for the Bypass is whether the traffic on U.S.
74 has been growing historically, and is likely to continue to grow in the future.
Careful review of the statistics for growth and traffic in the corridor suggest that
neither is the case.
t The DSFEIS reports incorrect population growth statistics for Union
County and selectively reports Union County growth rates. The DSFEIS
asserts that Union County is the fastest growing county in the state: 49% from
2000 to 2010, or 4.9%/year.43 This is factually incorrect. The growth rate for
Union County for 2000-2010 was 62.8%,44 but the growth rate for the study
area was 49.3%.45 Further, Union County is no longer the fastest growing
North Carolina county: As noted above, at least 10 other NC counties have
registered more rapid growth from 2010 to 2012, while the Union County’s
growth rate has fallen sharply, to just 1.7%/year.46 It is not uncommon for
counties near larger metropolitan areas to experience high “surges” of growth
as the metropolitan county growth spreads out, then to decline in growth rate
as growth moves elsewhere.
The DSFEIS notes that “According to the CRTPO [Charlotte area] 2035
Long-range Transportation Plan, the southern and eastern portions of
Mecklenburg County, which is the area along the Union County line, is
expected to be one of the most rapidly growing areas in the region.”47 But the
DSFEIS fails to mention that almost half of Union County’s growth has been
in the southwestern edge of the county, substantially south of U.S. 74 and
mostly outside of the Bypass corridor.48 The following table demonstrates this
growth pattern, using the DSFEIS data from Appendix D (Updated Census
Tables).
42 C. Scheffler, Monroe Bypass no-build traffic forecast summary, interoffice memo to Spencer Franklin,
NCTA (May 6, 2013).
43 DSFEIS at 1-2.
44 2010 US Census, available at www.census.gov.
45 DSFEIS at 4-1.
46 US Census, population counts, 2012. (207,896-201,294)/201,294/2 = 1.7%/year.
47 DSFEIS at 1-1.
48 US Census, 2010, and DSFEIS, Appendix D, Updated Census Tables.
36
37
E4-98
15
Population Growth, 2000-2010, Union County and Study Area49
Geographic area 2000
Population
2010
Population
Difference
Percent
Change
from
2000-10
Union County 123,677 201,292 77,615 62.8
DSA-Union Co. part 66,603 102,357 35,745 53.7
DSA-Mecklenburg Co.
part
13,867 17,746 3,879 28.0
Total DSA 80,470 120,103 39,633 49.3
Union NON-DSA part 43,207 81,189 37,982 87.9
The table shows that the portion of Union County outside the DSA actually
grew at almost twice the growth rate of the study area, almost 90% in just 10
years. The following figure (from the DSFEIS) shows the present Union
County road system and the proposed future land use. Note that the growth in
the southwest corner, between Indian Trail and Marvin, is on the south side of
U.S. 74, and is mostly OUTSIDE the Bypass study area.
49 DSFEIS at Appendix D (Updated Census Tables).
37
E4-99
16
Most of this growth took place in the area south of Ballantyne (in
Mecklenburg County) over 10 miles from the proposed Bypass on the south
side of U.S. 74, and therefore would not be able to even use the Bypass.
Essentially the DSFEIS’ own data shows that recent growth has been most
rapid in areas NOT served by the proposed Bypass. Therefore the rapid
growth rate of Union County between 2000 and 2010, even if reported
correctly, is irrelevant for evaluating the need for the project.
t Union County out-of-county commuting shares are declining, not
increasing.
The DSFEIS states that in 2006 about 61% of Union County workers
commuted outside of the County, but that in a more recent census survey
(2006-09), 50% of workers commuted outside.50 Such wild swings in such a
short time question the data’s validity, but even if true it shows declining
dependence, not increasing dependence,of Union County on adjacent-county
jobs.
t The DSFEIS selectively reports trends in commuting time.
The DSFEIS states that commute times for Union County residents average
27.8 minutes, the highest of the region’s counties, implying that the Bypass
50 DSFIES at 1-4.
37
38
39
E4-100
17
would somehow reduce them.51 The DSFEIS does NOT mention, however,
that commute times are improving, not worsening, for all counties in the
region, and that from 2000 to 2010 Union county’s average commute time fell
from 29.0 minutes to 27.8 minutes, the largest drop of the region’s counties.52
Union County commute times are improving, not worsening, and within-
county employment is increasing, decreasing the share of long-distance
commuting.
t Recent traffic growth on U.S. 74 has been flat.
In spite of Union County’s now-slowing population growth since 2000, traffic
on U.S. 74 has not increased substantially since 2000.The following table
shows the NCDOT traffic counts for various sections of U.S. 74, and the
DSFEIS forecast volumes.
Average Daily Traffic on U.S. 74 Parallel to the Proposed Monroe Bypass
Historical DSFEIS Forecast
Count Location
2000200520102012
12-year
Annual
Percent
Change
Raw
Model
2030
No
Build
Raw
Model
2035
No
Build*
Estimated
Volume
2035
No Build*
2035
Annual
Percent
Change,
from
2012
Meck.-Union Line 56000 58000 5400057000 0.15 70300 101600 89000 2.4
NW of Monroe 48000 48000 4600050000 0.35 40000 66200 65000 1.3
East of Monroe 26000 27000 2400027000 0.32 32200 41500 60600 5.4
W of Marshville 20000 21000 1700019000 -0.4 23000 21000 31600 2.9
Anson-Union Line 15000 15000 1400013000 -1.1 - -
*Source: NCDOT, Traffic Count Maps, and DSFEIS, Traffic Forecast Summary,
November 8, 2013, Appendix G.53
At the Mecklenburg-Union line, just west of the project end, the traffic has
grown just 0.15%/year (1.8% in 12 years), and has actually declined since
2005. Near Monroe, growth has been modest, about 0.4%/year. At the
eastern edge of the project, traffic volumes are much lower and have declined
51 Michael Baker Consultants, Monroe Connector/Bypass, Union County Growth Factors Technical
Report, at 16 (November 2013).
52 US Census, 2000 and 2010.
53 DSFEIS at G-21– G-23.
39
40
E4-101
18
not increased, since 2000. The DSFEIS notes that its own analysis of traffic
counts from 2007 to 2012 also showed “zero change,”54 but then the DSFEIS
simply ignores this data and asserts that “Based on 2008 and 2035 No-Build
traffic forecasts, (HNTB, March 2010), average volumes along the U.S. 74
corridor are projected to increase approximately 34 percent.”55 So the whole
need for the project simply ignores the last 12 years of history regarding
traffic trends on U.S. 74.
In Appendix G to the DSFEIS, the data show projected 2035 traffic volumes
on U.S. 74 for the “no-build” alternative. The implied percent changes from
current volumes range from 1.3 to 5.4% per year are 5-10 times faster than the
recent 12-year history. Nowhere in the document is it explained how the
traffic will grow 34% in 23 years when the past 12 years have shown “zero
change”in traffic.56 One might argue that, yes traffic growth has been flat
recently, but as the Recession ends it will accelerate. This argument fails to
note that traffic has been flat since 2000, BEFORE the Recession. Failure to
justify this highly optimistic “kink” in the traffic forecast and failure to
consider recent traffic trends, while knowing that recent evidence indicates a
huge change in prior trends, are serious oversights.
A serious inconsistency in the table is the magnitude of the traffic forecasts
themselves. NCDOT’s rated LOS D capacity of 6-lane arterials is about
55,000 ADT,57 but the forecast for U.S. 74 at the Mecklenburg County line is
89,000 ADT, 60% higher than a 6-lane “no-build” could carry. Similarly, for
the 4-lane section northwest of Monroe, the rated capacity is about 40,500
ADT,58 but the forecast for the “no build” is 61% higher, 65,000 ADT. As the
congestion-decay equations of traffic forecasting models generally limit flow
rates to the rated capacity (they spread out the traffic to “fit” within the road
system), it is not clear how these “no-build” forecasts for U.S. 74 could be
60% higher than the rated capacities.
Another anomaly in the table is the large differences between the 2035 “raw
volume” (model output) forecasts and the estimated 2035 volumes. These
differences are quite large, and are 46-50% higher for volumes east of
Monroe. Although the DSFEIS cautions about the use of raw volumes
directly in forecasting, the process used to estimate the estimated volumes is
not adequately described. Differences of this magnitude, particularly at the
eastern edge of the project where long-distance travel would be entering the
region, and particularly on the high side (favoring the Bypass) need to be fully
justified.
54 Id. at 4-20.
55 Id. at 1-13.
56 Id. at G-9.
57 NCDOT, Transportation Planning Branch, LOS D [traffic volume] standards for systems planning
(October 14, 2011). Calculated for “boulevards,” piedmont area, suburban location, 45 mph.
58 Id.
40
41
42
43
E4-102
19
t Inconsistent historical growth data for population and traffic.
A fundamental inconsistency in the DSFEIS is the apparent inconsistency
between the population growth and the corridor traffic growth. The recent
history of population growth in the region is shown in the following table:
Population Growth, 2000-2010*
Area20002010Percent
Change
2000-10
Percent
Change/year
Union County 123,677201,29262.86.3
Mecklenburg
County
695,454919,62832.23.2
Project Study Area 80,470120,10349.34.9
*Source DSFEIS, Appendix D, Updated Census Tables.
All of these population growth rates have been much faster, per year, than the
traffic growth rates shown above, about ten times the traffic growth rates. The
last item, the population of the study area, is referred to several times as a key
historical justification for the project’s need. Yet, this raises a fundamental
question: How can the traffic growth on U.S. 74 be “zero growth” when
Union County and study area population is growing so fast?
This inconsistency is neither identified nor explained in the DSFEIS. It has a
number of possible explanations, for instance:
1.The current traffic congestion on U.S. 74 has actually slowed its
growth; with more capacity, it would have grown more.
2.The Recession slowed the traffic growth, but not the population
growth.
3.Population growth is largely in areas south and west of U.S. 74, near
the Mecklenburg line, and thus does not use U.S. 74. (This is
suggested by the sub-area discussion above).
4.Population growth is largely locally-based and does not use regional
highways.
5.Traffic data is misestimated, or population data is miscounted.
44
E4-103
20
6.The traffic model used for forecasting does not capture the reasons for
travel behavior.
It is not appropriate for us here to determine the reasons for this discrepancy.
Nevertheless, because the discrepancy impacts the validity of the traffic
forecasts (see discussion below) it must be researched and then incorporated
into the Purpose and Need for the project.
t The population forecasts used to forecast traffic are probably
significantly over-stated.
The process used to estimate future traffic is described in the DSFEIS59 and
can be summarized as follows:
1.A Charlotte-region population forecast is estimated by reviewing US
growth.60
2.County growth to each of 35 counties/sub-areas in the region is
allocated from the regional control total, using statistical relationships
from 227 counties in 29 regions nationwide.61
3.County population growth and “population-chasing” employment is
then allocated to traffic analysis zones (“TAZs”) within counties, using
travel time to employment and other factors.62
4.Non-population-chasing employment is estimated using expert
review.63
5.“Induced” growth due to the presence of the Bypass is estimated by a
variety of methods.64
6.TAZ-level population and employment forecasts, and non-residential
growth (in acres of development) are then converted to trip ends, by
purpose, and then to productions and attractions.65
7.Although not explicitly discussed, external travel (leaving and entering
the study area) is presumably estimated separately.66
8.Trips between origins and destinations are then estimated, by purpose,
and external travel origins and destination are added.67
9.O-D pair trip flows, by time of day, are then assigned to the network
(“build” or “no-build”), adjusting for capacity, toll rates, and value-of-
time.68
59 DSFEIS Section 2 (Alternatives Considered) and Appendix G (Traffic Forecast Summary)
60 DSFEIS at 2-15, 4-25; see also Hammer, Demographic and Economic Forecasts for the Charlotte Region
(2003).
61 DSFEIS at 2-15, 4-25; see also Hammer, Demographic and Economic Forecasts for the Charlotte Region
(2003).
62 DSFEIS at 2-15, 4-25.
63 Id. at 2-15, 4-25.
64 Id. at 2-17–2-18, 4-27, 4-29.
65 Id. at 2-15, 4-25 – 4-27.
66 There is no reference to external travel in any of the documents we reviewed.
67 DSFEIS at 2-15; Comprehensive Traffic & Revenue Study (October 2010) at Chapter 3.
68 Id. at 2-15; Comprehensive Traffic & Revenue Study (October 2010) at Chapter 3.
44
45
E4-104
21
10.The raw volumes (direct from the model) are then adjusted further for
local access and “balance.”69
The process begins with estimates of likely population growth for the region
and its counties. Specifically, a Charlotte-region population forecast is
estimated by reviewing US growth, and then assigning portions of that growth
to each of the major regions of the US.70 In the next step, the total regional
growth is then allocated to 35 local counties/sub-areas using historical
statistical relationships from 227 counties in 29 regions nationwide.71 The
DSFEIS reviewed this forecast, prepared in 2003, finding it in substantial
agreement with the 2010 Census estimate for Union County.72 It then went
further, suggesting that the Hammer forecasts are valid for the future because:
“Put more succinctly: ‘Why would Union County have such robust growth in
the absence of new transportation infrastructure?’ The short answer is that
the factors that caused Union County to experience higher growth than any
other regional county since 1990 are still in place and are likely to continue to
result in higher than average growth.”73 The Baker assessment then goes
even further, putting the 2030 population forecasts for Union County
(adjusted for “reconciliation”) near the upper range of the Hammer
forecasts.74
While the Hammer study appeared to accurately predict the 2010 Census
estimate of population, its accuracy for future years is questionable. The
Hammer study, prepared in 2003, made the following critical (and as it turns
out, wrong) assumptions:
1.The US will continue to grow as in the past. The Hammer study
essentially trends the US population and economic activity forward.
But the Recession of 2008-12 significantly slowed both in-migration
and US growth, employment was cut by over 4 million, and recent US
population increases (births – deaths + net in-migration) have slowed
too. The key relationship between population and employment
(percent of population that is employed) was also weakened. The
current growth rates for the US are now 1/3-1/2 what was estimated
just 10 years ago, and the employment/population ratio is the lowest in
50 years. Further, virtually all of the 2000-2010 Census population
growth for Union County was already “in place” by 2009, when the
69 Id. at 2-15 to 2-16.
70 Id. at 2-15, 4-25; see also Hammer, Demographic and Economic Forecasts for the Charlotte Region
(2003).
71 DSFEIS at 2-15, 4-25; Indirect and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Effects Quantitative Analysis
Update (November 2013) at 32; see also Hammer, Demographic and Economic Forecasts for the Charlotte
Region (2003).
72 Michael Baker Consultants, Monroe Connector/Bypass, Union County Growth Factors Technical Report
(November 2013).
73 Id. at 5.
74 Id.
45
E4-105
22
Recession hit hard, and so the 2010 census estimate was largely
unaffected by the Recession. But as noted above, the recent (2010-12
population growth rate for Union County has been much slower, just
1.7%/year.
2.The Charlotte region will continue to excel relative to other regions.
The Hammer study assumed that the Charlotte region will continue to
exceed the national growth rates.75 But North Carolina and the
Charlotte region was very hard-hit in the Recession, with large banks
and other employers shedding jobs inordinately, and unemployment
remains significantly above the US and NC levels. This effect has
slowed the local employment growth to a crawl. This “inconvenient
truth” is ignored by the Baker review.
3.Union County will attract a relatively large share of regional growth.
The Hammer study allocated growth to the region’s 35 county and
sub-county areas based on employment-population-economy
relationships developed from around the US.76 But in the 2000’s, most
of the growth in Union County was driven not by local county
economic activity but by proximity to Charlotte, particularly in the
Ballantyne area, which is not even in the study area.Essentially,
Union County’s growth in population was a “population” boom near
to another county’s “job” boom, which has now slowed. The
Hammer study and the recent Baker review do not discuss the location
of that growth within Union County, and thus overlook the fact that the
most of the Union County growth has been outside of the Bypass study
area.
Dr. Hammer’s estimates were reviewed by the UNC Kenan School, which
found them to be too high. The Kenan review recommended an 8.7%
reduction in the 2030 corridor growth for “national” trends, and a re-allocation
of some growth within the County to zones in the Bypass corridor.77
Therefore, Dr. Hammer’s forecast of population and employment for Union
County is likely to be significantly over-stated, as are Baker forecasts made
from it.
Of course, in 2003-04 Dr. Hammer could not have foreseen the 2008-12
Recession or its disproportionate impact on banking sector employment. That
is exactly the point: If one is to believe Dr. Hammer’s 2030 forecast now, one
must now assume an equally unlikely upward “turn-around kink” in
population for the region and particularly for Union County. To reach the
projected 337,000 population by 2030 from its current (2012) level of
208,000, Union County would have to average 3.4% growth annually, twice
its recent growth rate of 1.7%. Assuming this would mean justifying the
Bypass on an unsupported future turn-around in growth for the Charlotte
75 Hammer, Demographic and Economic Forecasts for the Charlotte Region (2003), at 6.
76 Id. at 6-7.
77 Quantitative ICE Report at 43.
45
E4-106
23
region, and a return to a rapid growth spurt for Union County, events as
unlikely as was the recent Recession.
t The Hammer population forecasts are then used to forecast traffic.
Unfortunately from a modeling perspective, Dr. Hammer’s assumptions about
future Union County population growth are also used as the basis for the sub-
area allocation to zones (the Smith study and refinements to it). The Smith
study is described as allocating the county-level population and “population-
chasing employment” control totals to TAZs based on vacant residential acres
and travel time to employment.78 The DSFEIS apparently continues to use the
county-level control totals in making these TAZ allocations.79 In other words,
the higher-level population forecasts are then used to estimate zonal
population and employment, which are then used for estimating local traffic
growth. This means that, if the Hammer-based forecasts of population growth
by county are high, then the TAZ forecasts will be high in the same
proportion.
t The Smith re-study incredulously found no impact of the Bypass on
population growth.
According to the DSFEIS, the original Smith study completed in 2004,
allocated county-level control totals to TAZs using vacant residential acres
and travel time to employment.80 In 2012 Mr. Smith re-analyzed the impact
of the Bypass on population and “population-chasing employment,” and found
no change in growth forecasts for any of the TAZs.81 This result is not
believable given the projected change in access that the proposed Bypass
would create, particularly in those TAZs both near the Bypass and close to the
Mecklenburg line. This suggests that the original allocations prepared by
Smith did not consider the key factors that affect regional population growth.
For example, the Smith study did not consider that the whole study area
growth might slow if U.S. 74 became congested to the extent predicted
elsewhere in this DSFEIS.
t The revised DSFEIS shows a modest impact of the Monroe Bypass on
induced growth.
Later in the discussion, the Michael Baker team indicated dissatisfaction with
the Smith study on the precisely those grounds — that it did not show a
difference in development for the “build” vs. the “no build” forecast.82 Among
the obvious factors that might have been included in a more careful
assessment of potential growth would be school quality, sewer and water
availability, zoning density restrictions, improved road access, rising
78 DSFEIS at 2-15, 4-25.
79 Id. at 2-15, 4-25.
80 DSFEIS, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Effects Quantitative Analysis Update (Nov.
2013).
81 Id. at 41.
82 Id. at p. 52.
45
46
47
48
E4-107
24
congestion on existing roads, crime rates, average housing values and
neighborhood incomes, provisions for and distance to shopping and retail, etc.
The Baker study then uses other methods to estimate induced residential
growth (about 1%). A method developed by this author (Hartgen) in 2000 is
also used to estimate induced commercialgrowth at Bypass interchanges.83
Other methods are also used to estimate the impact of the Bypass on
industrial, transportation, and other uses. Overall, the review found modest
estimates of induced growth, about 3.4% overall (a difference of 3200 acres,
“build” vs. “no-build” (128,200 vs. 125,000), from a base of 95,200 acres of
development.84 The report does not indicate what markets this “non-
residential” growth would serve, but it seems unlikely that they would be
other than the nearby new population. However, as noted below, this
difference does not seem to have been actually used to make new traffic
forecasts.
5.The Regional Travel Model and the traffic operations model appear
to have been insufficiently calibrated.
It is widely agreed that the use of a traffic model in forecasting first requires that it is
well calibrated, that is, it matches reasonably well existing traffic counts, travel times,
and speeds in the base year. This elementary step is intended to ensure that the
model, when used for forecasting, will not require inordinate adjustments to raw
traffic forecasts.
Standards for model calibration accuracy are detailed nationally. The general rule of
for regional model calibration accuracy is that estimated base-year traffic for roads
with volumes over 50,000 ADT should be within ±20% of observed counts, and
within ±30% of observed counts for roads with volumes between 50,000 and 10,000
ADT, with most roads showing considerably less error.85 And of course, if a specific
project is being studied, such as U.S. 74, estimated base-year traffic volumes on that
road should be close to actual ground counts. In addition to this limited standard, for
major studies such as this one good practice is also to calibrate the models by cut-line
in-out balance, geographic region, road functional class, time-of-day and direction to
a similar or tighter level of accuracy, for greater confidence in forecasting. In
addition, travel times and speeds through the base-year network should correspond
closely to observed field data.
83 Id. at 59.
84 DSFEIS at 4-30.
85 Federal Highway Administration, Travel Model Reasonableness Checking Manual, Travel Model
Improvement Program (2010).
48
49
E4-108
25
t The calibration of the Metrolina Regional Model (“MRM”) used for this
study has not been demonstrated.
In prior documentation of the regional modeling effort for this study,86 the
consultant (Wilbur Smith Associates, now CDM Smith) states that:“The
base-year model was calibrated in the immediate project area to achieve the
best traffic volume assignments compared to observed traffic counts and
observed speeds from speed-delay runs conducted for the traffic and revenue
analysis. . . . The base year 2008 model was run using inputs supplied by the
MPO. . . . A series of traffic assignments were compared with ground counts
supplied by the NCDOT and those collected specifically for the traffic and
revenue study...Adjustments were made to input network speeds and trip
tables in the study area in order to improve the calibration of the model in
comparison with ground counts for the specific corridor area. After
calibration was obtained, a series of traffic assignments to the highway
network were made for years of 2008, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030 under No-
Build, Toll-free, and Tolled conditions.”87 This statement admits the presence
of initial calibration errors which were (apparently) “improved” by changes to
network speed and trip tables. But no data comparing “observed” vs.
“estimated” or “improved” traffic is provided, no chart showing either
regional or study area agreement by link type or volume is provided, and no
calibration statistics by cut-line are given. No reference is made to time-of-
day or directional agreement. As the MRM was not updated for the DSFEIS,
the possibility of remaining errors, such as those caused by inadequate
calibration, is a distinct possibility.
t The current DSFEIS does not discuss calibration.
The DSFEIS contains no discussion of calibration, but instead asserts that
prior modeling is adequate for the purpose of environmental assessment.
Therefore, one is left to assume that the current traffic forecasts are based on
an adequately calibrated model, which as noted above has not been
demonstrated. Given that recent traffic has not grown to the extent forecast in
2008, the MRM should probably have been re-calibrated.
t Errors in calibration will be carried forward into future estimates.
If the original MRM was not adequately calibrated, traffic forecasts are in
serious doubt as calibration errors on specific road links are therefore carried
forward into future tests. Essentially, if traffic for a specific road section is
over-estimated in the base year, it is likely to be also over-estimated in the
future year as well. The problem is particularly severe for calibration of U.S.
74 traffic volumes, which, as noted below, are clearly open to question since
U.S. 74 apparently was modeled with too-high volumes, and with too-slow
speeds relative to actual INRIX travel speeds. The accuracy of traffic
forecasts for new roads is also open to question. This also affects estimates of
86 Wilbur Smith Associates, Traffic forecasting for TIP Projects R-3229 and R-2559 Monroe
Connector/Bypass (Sept. 19, 2008).
87 Id. at 9 (underlining added).
50
51
52
E4-109
26
traffic diversion and revenue for toll roads. In addition, errors in calibration
carried forward in forecasts, are also likely to impact other key elements of the
EIS, particularly noise, air quality and stream runoff, bringing large portions
of the EIS into serious question. In short, the use of poorly calibrated traffic
models to make forecasts is a serious mistake in traffic modeling that must be
corrected BEFORE the resulting traffic forecast can be used in decision-
making.
t The traffic operations simulation model (SIMTraffic) also appears not to
be well calibrated.
The study uses a traffic operations simulation model (SIMTraffic) to simulate
traffic operations for existing and no-build future traffic on U.S. 74. Good
planning practice dictates that these models also be “calibrated” in the field,
that is, they replicate existing travel times and speeds before being used for
forecasting. According to the consultant’s documentation, in 2008 calibration
was undertaken by driving 4 runs through the project section, 2 in the AM and
2 in the PM peaks.88 The reported (average of the 2 runs in each direction?)
travel times in 2008 was 41 minutes (30 mph) eastbound in the PM peak, and
40 minutes (30 mph) westbound in the AM peak.89 The SIMTraffic model for
the same conditions yielded 47 minutes, at 29 mph (westbound) and 50
minutes at 24 mph eastbound, that is, the SIMTraffic tests showed significantly
higher travel times and (according to the consultant) “slightly lower speeds”
than the travel time runs.90 The consultants attributed these differences to
different input traffic volumes (the SIMTraffic volumes were taken from the
regional travel demand model and were higher than the 2007 field volumes),
and so the consultant considered the SIMTraffic model “calibrated.”91 The
following table summarizes their findings:
Travel Time Calibration Runs on U.S. 74, 2008 (PBSJ)
Travel Time
Runs
SIMTraffic
MinutesSpeedMinutesSpeed
Westbound PM Peak 41 30 47 29
Eastbound AM Peak 40 30 50 24
The consultant’s conclusion that this is adequate calibration is not believable.
First, the use of just 4 travel time runs to prepare a baseline for calibration is
wholly inadequate, as traffic varies considerably just day-to-day, let alone on
88 PBSJ, Draft Existing and Year 2030 No-Build Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum (March
2008), at 12.
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 Id.
52
53
E4-110
27
weekends or by time-of-day or direction. A much larger set of runs, perhaps
30 for each time/direction, would be needed for statistical accuracy and for
obtaining data for travel time reliability (see discussion below). Further,
setting aside the obvious miscalculation of speed (47 minutes through a 19.7-
mile section is 25 mph, not 29 mph), the large differences in travel time
between the field runs and the simulation model could not possibly have been
caused by different traffic volumes as the volumes were virtually unchanged
between 2007 and 2008. Either the traffic volumes used to calibrate the
model were way too high — a serious error as one should always use field-
measured volumes for calibration — or the model’s performance was
understated. Either way, the SIMTraffic model clearly underestimated the
2007 speeds on U.S. 74.
Further, recent analysis (in early 2013) of new travel time runs on U.S. 74 and
INRIX data also suggests that speeds on U.S. 74 are significantly higher now
than in 2007. NCDOT re-did the travel time runs on U.S. 74 in March 2013,
this time with (apparently) three runs in each direction/time period. They
found average speeds of 39.1-43.9 mph, about 10 miles per hour faster than
the runs made in 2007!92 In other words, the NCDOT’s own tests showed that
travel speeds had improved significantly between 2007 and 2012. Using a new
source of data provided by INRIX, which tracked the speeds of hundreds
(perhaps thousands) of actual road users between January 1 and Feb 28, 2013,
the INRIX analysis also found that the actual operating speeds were even
higher — between 44.2 and 44.9 mph, than in the upward-revised field runs.
Both these sources say the same thing: Travel speeds on the present U.S. 74
have improved substantially over the past 7 years, and are MUCH HGHER
(by 10-15 mph) than the speeds used to calibrate the SIMTraffic operations
model. No explanation is given for these findings, but they are likely a
combination of poor initial model calibration and recent improvements to U.S.
74 to smooth and speed its operation.
Errors of this magnitude in calibration cannot be ignored. If not revised to
accurately reflect current operating conditions, the SIMTraffic model used for
studying flow on U.S. 74 is likely to significantly overstate congestion and
travel time through the section, and therefore overstate the potential for
diversion to a proposed Bypass.
To correct the above problems, several steps should be undertaken. First, road
capacities should be updated in both the simulation model and the regional
travel model. The new Highway Capacity Manual (2010)93 revises procedures
for calculation of capacity for both arterials and for freeways, which in some
cases results in higher capacity estimates. Failure to use the 2010 Highway
92 Memorandum from Bradley Reynolds, HNTB, to Jennifer Harris, NCDOT, RE: U.S. 74 Corridor Travel
Time Improvement (April 8, 2013).
93 Transportation Research Board, HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 2010, National Research Board (2010).
53
54
E4-111
28
Capacity Manual in such cases would therefore bias the traffic forecasts
against the no-build alternative by underestimating its ability to carry traffic.
Second, the regional travel model should be calibrated sufficiently to show (at
the very least) FHWA-standard agreement with existing volumes by direction
and time of day.
Third, the simulation operation model should be re-calibrated to show close
agreement with INRIX travel times and speeds through the section, also by
direction and time of day. These elemental steps must be undertaken
BEFORE either model is used in forecasting.
6.The DSFEIS leaves unanswered key questions regarding induced travel.
The DSFEIS describes methods and results for an estimate of “induced land use
development.”94 This estimate, about 3.4% (an increase of development from 125,000
acres “no-build” to 128,200 acres “build,” compared with a base-year value of 95,200
acres), includes induced-growth impacts for residential, commercial, industrial, and
other land uses.95 A variety of methods are used to make this estimate, including one
developed by this reviewer (Hartgen) in 2000, a review of estimated industrial land
use impacts, and a review of development forecasts in the original EIS.96
However, some additional questions remain. Among them are:
t Are there different land use forecasts for each alternative?
The documentation of the changes in land use forecasts do not specifically
address the question of whether separate land use forecasts were prepared for
all alternatives, or (more likely) for just one Build alternative, a generic
“corridor” alternative, and the No-build. This raises the question of whether,
for modeling purposes, the induced impacts of other alternatives (e.g., an “on-
current alignment” upgrade of U.S. 74) should also have been studied.
t Are the land use forecasts carried into the modeling, through trip
generation, trip distribution and assignment steps?
Nowhere in the material submitted is it specifically stated that the different
land use forecasts were then used to re-estimate trip generation, trip
distribution, and then assignments of estimated traffic. This might be implied
by the discussion of “raw model volumes,” but the report does not actually
explain how the adjusted volumes were calculated. Elsewhere (Appendix C-
3, section 6.7) the description of the method seems to imply that standard
traffic forecasting methods (trip generation, distribution, and assignment)
were NOT used in the revised EIS. So, which is it? Was a standard 4-step
model used for the DSFEIS, or not?
94 DSFEIS at 4-29.
95 Id. at 4-30.
96 Id. at 4-29.
54
55
56
57
E4-112
29
t Do the trip distribution and assignment steps in the traffic forecast for
the “no-build” alternative now exclude “project-induced travel”
development and exclude the Bypass in the No-build forecast?
It is still not clear if the land use, trip generation, trip distribution and
assignment steps described in the DSFEIS include the project’s effect. For
instance, even if the land use forecasts were found to be the same for “build”
and “no-build” scenarios, the trip distributions from them would certainly
NOT be the same since they undoubtedly included the Bypass in distributing
trips between TAZs. If the trip distributions for the no-build alternative
included the proposed Bypass in the network, then that would incorrectly
forecast the traffic using the no-build network.
t If not, how do the traffic forecasts actually reflect the induced
development?
The DSFEIS needs to state clearly, in professional “modeling” language that
can be reviewed by independent experts, exactly how the revised traffic
forecasts for the “build” and the “no build” were prepared.
7.Questions remain concerning details of traffic forecasts.
The extensive coverage of induced traffic issues in the DSFEIS does not contain a
commensurate discussion of the traffic forecasting method itself, so the reader is left
to understand that the assumptions in the original traffic model forecast remain valid.
This raises numerous questions regarding various issues, including:
t Was the MRM used with the updated ICE land use forecasts to estimate
future traffic volumes?
The DSFEIS states that changes were made to land use to account for the
induced effects, and “then the [Metrolina Regional] Model was run…”
implying that the full generation-distribution-assignment sequence was used.97
The technical documentation further reports an 3.5% increase of VMT in
Union County as a result.98 But elsewhere, the Traffic Forecast Memo
Appendix (Nov. 8, 2013) states: “This approach uses the original accepted
forecasts and base data assumptions to mathematically calculate traffic
estimates and redistributions of traffic for conditions not included or known at
the time of the initial forecast. This methodology is appropriate because the
differences being considered do not change the original forecast,
assumptions, methodology or base data. The interpolation and extrapolation
process is a method for developing new data points for years not considered
in the base forecast but within the range of volumes established by the base
forecast.”99 And at a later point the documentation says: “Based on a
meeting with NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (TPB) on March 21,
97 DSFEIS Appendix C-3, at Section 6-7.
98 C. Scheffler, op. cit. Table 5.
99 DSFEIS at G-9.
58
59
60
61
E4-113
30
2013 and the document Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated
Traffic Forecast 2 (NCDOT TPB, February 24, 2009), the current Build
traffic forecasts meet the guidelines that indicate the existing forecast is valid
and an updated forecast is not warranted. All of these guidelines are met
since no new alternatives have been identified, the current let date of the
project is less than the Future Forecast Year plus 20 years, the study area is
not experiencing growth not previously considered in the forecast, and the
traffic forecast is not five years older than the Base Year.”100 These different
statements make it unclear as to exactly whether new traffic forecasts were
prepared using the MRM, or by some other method, or not at all.
t Truck percentages.
It is well known that truck traffic forecasting is one of the weakest elements of
traffic modeling. For proposed toll roads, the issue is doubly important as
trucks constitute typically 5-10% of traffic but pay 20-40% of toll revenue.
Nowhere in the report does it clearly state the assumptions for truck forecasts,
but most studies generally use current truck percentages and apply them to
future ADT estimates. This simple “take down percent” for regional truck
forecasts is probably inappropriate if it has not been updated since the
Recession, because the Recession significantly affected truck travel too.
t Time of day percentages.
In standard modeling practice, time-of-day percentages (so-called K factors
for peak hour travel) are assumed to be about 9-10 percent of ADT, based on
historical traffic counts. However, in many regions peak periods are
lengthening as commuters shift start times to avoid congestion, and work trips
are declining as a percentage of total travel. In more advanced models these
effects are accounted for by feedbacks between time-of-day assumptions and
traffic assignment. The MRM does not apparently account for such trends,
either through feedbacks or by increasing the length of peak hours.
t The value of time used for modeling is unclear.
The Traffic and Revenue Study states the values of time for trip classes, $7-
22/hr for trucks, and $7-8/hr for cars.101 These values seem low for both cars
and trucks, given national studies. Elsewhere in this review we note that a
high value of time, about $18/hr, would seem to be necessary to create
substantial diversion. A high value of time for trucks would similarly be
needed for substantial truck diversion. As the estimated toll for trucks on the
proposed Bypass would be over $10,102 the value of time for trucks would
seem to be too low to induce much diversion.
100 Id. at 14.
101 Comprehensive Traffic & Revenue Study (October 2010), at 6-3, 4-9.
102 Id. at Figure 6-3.
61
62
63
64
E4-114
31
t The reliability of travel time has not been considered in diversion or
benefits.
Recent research on travel time reliability (the value that travelers place on the
certainty of arriving within a given time window) suggests that this value is
quite high, perhaps higher than the value of time itself. Several national
studies103 have developed guidelines for including reliability in traffic
forecasting, and how improved operations affect reliability. These methods
have not been incorporated into the analysis of the Monroe Connector/Bypass
or its alternatives.
t Road capacities have not been updated.
The DSFEIS forecasts rely on regional networks that use estimates of
highway capacity from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual.104 The new
Highway Capacity Manual generally raises highway capacities for various
road classes, and significantly changes the capacity estimation and level-of-
service procedure for urban and rural arterials such as U.S. 74. In particular,
the new method for estimating capacity for signalized arterials includes signal
progression, access points, and traffic volumes, all of which are obviously
relevant for study of U.S. 74. These updated capacities have apparently not
been used in the traffic modeling. If the estimates of capacity for U.S. 74 are
too low, the effect would be to over-state future congestion estimates on U.S.
74, and thus over-state diversion to the Bypass, and also under-state the
viability of other alternatives.
t Market capture rates (40-50%) seem very high.
While the percentage of non-local traffic was not calculated as part of the
traffic forecasts for the project, given that less than half of the traffic on U.S.
74 is appears to be non-local,105 the overall capture rate of around 50%
suggested by the traffic forecasts seems very optimistic indeed. Assuming a
generous capture rate of 50% of non-local trips, an overall capture rate less
than 25% seems more likely, and even that might be too high if the diverters
are infrequent rather than every-day diverters, as the forecast assumes.
t Earlier errors in the 2030 and 2035 traffic forecasts reduce confidence in
current estimates.
The report notes that earlier traffic forecasts, by Wilbur Smith Associates
(now CDM Smith) contained errors resulting in higher traffic forecasts.106
This revelation raises questions about whether the current traffic estimates can
also be trusted.
103 For instance, Kittleson and Associates, Evaluating Alternative Operations Strategies to Improve Travel
Time Reliability, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report S2-L11, Transportation
Research Board (2013), available at www.trb.org.
104 See Transportation Research Board, HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL 2000, National Research Council
(2000).
105 See Part 1, above.
106 See, e.g., C. Scheffler, op. cit. Table 5.
65
66
67
68
E4-115
32
8.Project cost and cost-effectiveness are not detailed.
Environmental impact statements generally contain comparative estimates of cost
for viable alternatives. The DSFEIS reports an estimated cost range of $845-923
million (in year of expenditure, assuming award in October 2014 and opening in
October 2018).107 But the discussion of costs for the Monroe Connector/Bypass is
incomplete:
t If the construction of the road is delayed significantly, which might happen
given environmental and financing issues, this cost estimate is likely to be
higher.
t No data is provided for maintenance and operation costs after construction but
during service life, converted to present worth, for various alternatives.
t No costs are shown for other alternatives, particularly those for various
upgrades of U.S. 74. This appears to violate NEPA regulations that require
comparable evaluation of viable alternatives.
t No data is provided on the relative cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. Most
EISs show costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness, using such measures as
benefit-cost ratios, for various alternatives, not just for the recommended
alternative.
t The DSFEIS contains no summary table that compares the impacts, costs,
benefits, and other features of the viable alternatives.
9.External traffic forecasts for U.S. 74 and other roads is not discussed.
In modeling terminology, “external traffic” is that traffic which leaves, enters or
goes through the study area. The issue of how to forecast external traffic is
particularly severe for proposed projects on the edges of regions, such as the proposed
Monroe Connector/Bypass, which ends at the far eastern edge of the MRM coverage
area. Specifically, the traffic on U.S. 74 just east of the proposed project terminus is
treated as “external” traffic, and therefore is not forecast directly using the MRM.
Instead, external traffic is forecast separately using a variety of methods such as
trend-lining, statewide modeling, or inter-regional modeling. It is then typically
added to the internal (within the Model) forecast of trip ends, or is added to trip OD
matrices, or is added directly to network volumes as a “pre-load.” In each case, the
separate treatment of external traffic is in addition to that of within-region traffic
modeling. In some cases, such as on U.S. 74 just east of the project, external traffic
could be as much as 30-40% of traffic volume. This includes truck traffic, which is
often a significant portion of smaller-region external traffic.
In the case of the proposed Bypass, our review of recent traffic count history at
the far eastern edge of the region (Union-Anson County line) shows that the external
traffic has actually been declining in recent years.
107 DSFEIS at 3-10.
69
70
E4-116
33
U.S. 74 Average Daily Traffic at the Union-Anson County Line
Count Location 2000200520102012
12-year Percent
Change per year
Anson-Union Line 15000150001400013000-1.1
Source: NCDOT Traffic Count Maps, available at www.NCDOT.gov.
Neither the DSFEIS nor the earlier documentation we looked at contains references to
external traffic, leaving the reader completely in the dark as to how it was forecast,
whether the current count history was considered or the 2009-12 Recession was
accounted for. However, given the huge changes in recent US economic activity, it is
likely that any forecasts of external traffic prepared before the Recession would now
have to be substantially revised.
10.Considerable uncertainty exists in traffic modeling.
Traffic modeling and forecasting is a craft, not an art or a science. The process is
fraught with uncertainty throughout because each step in the process involves the use
of critical and generally not-verifiable assumptions concerning the nature of growth
or traffic. Uncertainties in the myriad assumptions that must be made in virtually all
of its steps have the effect of making “output” uncertainties substantial.
The DSFEIS supporting documents recognize this uncertainty, but only for land use
inputs, noting that errors in population and land use forecasts can be very high. “For
county level projections of 25 years, the typical mean algebraic percentage errors are
about 30 percent while for census tracts (which are typically larger than TAZs)
errors are typically 45 percent for the same period. Thus, despite the best efforts of
researchers and forecasters, the error rates for long-range projections are still quite
high and thus any projection or estimate of induced and cumulative effects must be
considered the best estimate within a wide range of error. The accuracy of projected
growth under any future scenario could be affected by many variables. These include
individual owner or developer actions, the timing of or changes in utility provision,
changes in local or state regulations on land use and, most importantly, changes in
national or regional economic conditions. While the potential for error is high, the
techniques used by the MPO are the best available and provide the best available
data for projecting population and employment conditions in the future.”108 Such
“input” errors and also errors in model calibration are also carried forward into traffic
forecasts. However, just because the techniques of land use forecasting are the “best
available” does not mean that their results can be trusted for decision-making.
108 Quantitative ICE Analysis, at 78 (underlining added).
70
71
E4-117
34
In addition to large errors in inputs, and errors in calibration (discussed above) recent
studies have found wide variations in the accuracy of modeled traffic forecasts, and
the errors can be either an “under” or an “over” forecast. A study of 20-year traffic
forecasts for Minnesota found that freeway traffic was under-forecast by about 5%,
while forecasts for other roads were over-forecast by 14-29%.109 On the other hand, a
US national review of toll road forecasts found that for 15 US toll roads, the actual
traffic averaged 35% under the predicted traffic.110 In England, the Department for
Transport found that 90% of major road traffic forecasts were within 43% of actual
traffic — a very wide spread for policy making.111 In another study of 104 toll roads
worldwide, Bain found that after correcting for “optimism bias” the average 20-year-
out actual traffic was about 20% under the predicted traffic.112 Also worldwide,
Flyvbjerg and colleagues found in a review of 258 road and transit projects that the
actual road traffic averaged about 17% under the forecast traffic, but actual costs
were 250% over the forecast cost, with toll roads in particular having larger errors.113
In short, the limited reviews so far have found that the average error in 20-year
forecasts of road traffic range from ±20% upwards to ±30-40%, with most actual
traffic coming in substantially under the forecast traffic. The errors are also
substantially higher for toll roads, leading some observers to suggest that “optimism
bias” may be substantially inherent in forecasts prepared on behalf of project
advocates. This author (Hartgen) has recently reviewed the topic and has found that
the overall accuracy of traffic forecasts is likely to be so large that he recommends
considerable caution in their use and less reliance on traffic forecasts for
transportation decision-making.114
The DSFEIS partially recognizes this uncertainty (at least in inputs) and employs
sensitivity tests to evaluate the range of its results. However, the range of variation in
the assumptions (for instance assumption concerning population forecasts, a 20%
difference for value-of-time, a 30% difference in economic growth, the use of
electronic toll collection, and 5% difference in fuel prices) do not seem to be extreme
enough given recent history.
The recent experiences of South Carolina’s Southern Connector, in bankruptcy, the
New York court case regarding toll-road forecasts in Detroit and Alabama, and North
Carolina’s Triangle Expressway — built 6-lanes wide but carrying just 20,000 ADT
109 David Levinson and Parvithra Parthasarathi, Post-construction evaluation of traffic forecast accuracy.
TRANSPORT POLICY, (Elsevier), 2010.
110 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Estimating toll road demand and revenue,
SYNTHESIS 364, Transportation Research Board (2006), available at www.trb.org.
111 Department for Transport (United Kingdom), TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GUIDANCE: TREATMENT OF
UNCERTAINTY IN MODEL FORECASTING (2013), available at www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/index/php.
112 R Bain, On the reasonableness of traffic forecasts, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND CONTROL (2011)
available at www.tecmagazine.com.
113 B Flyvbjerg et. al., MEGAPROJECTS AND RISK; AN ANATOMY OF AMBITION, Cambridge University Press
(2003).
114 D. Hartgen, Hubris or humility? Accuracy issues for the next 50 years of travel demand modeling,
Transportation 40:6 (November 2013), available at www.springer.com/11116.
71
72
E4-118
35
near I-40 and 4,000-6,000 ADT elsewhere — all encourage extreme caution in the
use of traffic and revenue forecasts for decision-making, particularly for proposed toll
roads where project risk is shifted to distant investors, or if fiscal failure occurs, to the
People of North Carolina.
72
E4-119
36
Qualifications of the Reviewer
November 2012
David T. Hartgen
Emeritus Professor of Transportation Studies, UNC Charlotte
President, The Hartgen Group Inc.
QUALIFICATIONS
x Senior manager with 45 years experience in state and federal government, academia
and consulting.
x Hands-on consulting, management and policy in transportation issues.
x National reputation for high-quality, objective analysis of transportation issues.
x Extensive expertise in a wide range of complex transportation issues.
EXPERTISE
Economic Development
Beltways and economic development Land pricing and road access
Traffic impacts of site development Commercial development along Interstates
Business views of transportation Economic sector and industry targeting
Truck traffic and routing Regional economic performance
Regional productivity and competitiveness Regional distribution systems
Congestion and highway capacity Evaluation of road proposals
Transportation Funding
Comparative performance of highway systems Legislation and road performance
Condition of state and municipal road systems Bridge condition and performance
Needs and funding options for road systems International performance
Airports and Ports
Impacts of commercial airports Characteristics of air travelers
General aviation airport impacts Port competitiveness
Transit
Light rail transit evaluation Transit system comparative assessment
Transit system performance Transit route location assessment
Visions, trends and costs Transit rider characteristics
Sprawl, Growth, and Travel
Sprawl and road investment Travel patterns in numerous cities
Travel demand modeling Travel behavior, carpooling, transit use
Forecasts of travel and congestion Regional demographic forecasts
Environment, Energy and Organizational Change
Environmental impacts Air quality and greenhouse gas analysis
Transportation energy and pricing Electric vehicles and natural gas fuels
Organizational change and planning Information technology
E4-120
37
EXPERIENCE
January 2007-Present: President, The Hartgen Group, Charlotte, NC. Consultancy
in transportation performance, congestion, financing, transit operations, accessibility and
regional productivity, greenhouse gas assessment, funding options. Extensive national,
state and local studies. www.hartgengroup.net.
January 1989–December 2006:Professor of Transportation Studies, UNC
Charlotte. Professor, Department of Geography and Earth Sciences; Adjunct Professor,
Civil Engineering, 1989-2000; Associate, Urban Institute, 1989-2000.
x Academic: Graduate courses in Transportation Policy, Analysis Methods, Impacts,
GIS, Public Transportation, Transportation Planning, and Management and Finance.
Numerous research studies and student theses.
x Leadership: Organized, initiated and directed Interdisciplinary Transportation
Studies Center, 1991-March 2000. Research, workshops, conferences, reports.
Extensive nationwide media contact.
x Research: Traffic forecasts, road system performance, highway impacts, site
evaluation, economic impacts, school locations, transportation system performance,
household travel, trade, air quality, passenger security, electric and natural gas
vehicles, airport impacts, transit performance, motor sports impacts, highway system
condition and needs, sprawl and road investments.
August 1987 - December 1988.Principal Transportation Analyst, New York State
Department of Transportation, Albany, NY, 12232
x Information technology plan for the New York State Department of Transportation.
x Testimony on emergency evacuation plans for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
on Long Island.
February 1981 - July 1987.Director, Transportation Statistics and Analysis,New
York State Department of Transportation, Albany, NY 12232.
x Leadership: Directed 60-person office responsible for data collection, systems
planning and forecasting. Revitalized an extensive highway and traffic data system
into information system. Designed and implemented new methods of rapidly
assessing highway condition, cut data delivery time by 90% and improved accuracy
and reliability.
x Research: Principal investigator on 6 federal studies of traffic, forecasts, and energy.
Implemented demonstrations of employer and community-based ridesharing.
Updated NYS household trip generation rates. Transit fare sensitivity, financing, and
project benefit-costs. Integrated corporate database. Infrastructure needs assessment
model to forecast repair needs. Canal information system.
x Academic: Adjunct Professor, SUNY-Albany, Department of Geography, 1984-
1988. Student intern program with local universities. Guest lectures at numerous
universities in US and Europe.
May 1984 - March 1985. Policy Analyst, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC 20590.
E4-121
38
x Evaluated highway information needs for FHWA and the States. Recommended
improvements to FHWA planning-related data systems.
x Reviewed pavement initiatives studies, long-term monitoring of pavements.
Developed bridge and highway condition deterioration models.
July 1967-- February 1981.Transportation Analyst, New York State Department of
Transportation, Albany NY 12232.
x Designed and developed transportation plans, traffic models, and planning methods.
Directed staff of 10-15 analysts. 68 papers and reports.
x Adjunct Professor, Union College, 1976-79; Syracuse University, 1974.
PROFESSIONAL
x Board of Directors, Cabarrus County Chamber of Commerce; Charlotte Transit
Advisory Committee, Cabarrus County Planning and Zoning Board.
x Active in national organizations. Transportation Research Board. US Co-Editor,
Transportation (Springer Academic Publications). Professional Engineer, Maine
(retired). Scholar, John Locke Foundation. Adjunct Scholar, Reason Foundation.
EDUCATION
x Ph.D., Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, 1973
x M.S., Civil Engineering, Northwestern University, 1967
x B.S., Civil Engineering, Duke University, 1966
RECOGNITION
x Walter P. Murphy Fellowship, Northwestern University, 1966-67
x Profiled in Transportation Research News, National Academy of Sciences,
November 1978
x Profiled in the Charlotte Observer, November 1991
x Outstanding paper, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences,
1993
x Profiled in the Charlotte Business Journal, March 29, 1993
x Op-ed profile, Charlotte Observer, December 1, 1997
x Scholar, John Locke Foundation, 1999
x Scholar, Reason Foundation, 2005
x Member Emeritus, Transportation Research Board Committee on Travel Behavior,
2002
PUBLICATIONS
355 publicationsand reports on a wide range of transportation issues. Selected
recent:
x Comparative Performance of State Highways, 20th Report. In press, Reason
Foundation, 2012.
x Review of Wake County (NC) Transit Plan, John Locke Foundation, May 2012.
x Are Highways Crumbling? ALEC Conference, May 2012. In press, Reason
Foundation, 2012.
E4-122
39
x Employers’ Views of Traffic Congestion. In press, Transportation Research Board,
2012.
x Wisconsin State Highway System Needs and Resources. Wisconsin Policy Research
Inst., May 2011.
x Greenhouse Gases and Transportation Policies. Reason Foundation, Sept. 2011.
x Comparative Performance of State Highway Systems, 19th Report. Reason
Foundation, Sept. 2010
x Distributing Transportation Funds. Testimony, Joint Oversight Comm., NC Gen
Assembly, Apr 2010
x How Traffic Congestion Affects Regional Economic Performance. Reason
Foundation, Oct 2009.
x North Carolina Transportation Issues. Presentation at the John Locke Foundation,
Feb. 23, 2009.
x Comparative Transportation Performance of Canadian Provinces. Fraser Inst.,
Vancouver BC, 2008.
x Mega-region Growth and Transportation Readiness. Urban Land Institute, 2008.
x Assessment of Charlotte’s Light Rail Line. John Locke Foundation, 2008.
x Economic Impacts of Highways in South Carolina. Report to SCDOT, 2007.
x National Study of Highway Congestion. Reason Foundation, 2006.
x Performance of North Carolina Transit Systems. John Locke Foundation, Spring
2006.
x Cost-Effectiveness of North Carolina Highway Projects. John Locke Foundation,
Spring 2005.
x Highways and Sprawl in North Carolina. John Locke Foundation, September 2003.
x Highways and Sprawl in Ohio. Buckeye Institute, January 2003.
x Guidelines for Highway Needs Studies. Eno Foundation, Transportation Quarterly,
Spring 2003.
x Performance: A Point-counterpoint Exchange. Eno Foundation, Transportation
Quarterly, 2002.
x The Charlotte Region: A Distribution Powerhouse. Ventures Business Magazine,
March 2001.
x North Carolina Highway Performance, Needs and Funding. John Locke Foundation,
October 2000.
x New York State Highway Needs. Associated General Contractors of NY, 1999.
x Arkansas State Highway Needs. Governor’s Citizens Highway Council, June 1998.
CONTACT:
8711 High Ridge Lane The Hartgen Group
Concord, NC 28027 9700 Research Drive, Suite 150, Charlotte NC 28262
704-784-2974 980-237-1398
Cell 704-785-7366 [e-mail]
E4-123

This page was intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-5
Appold Letter (May 29, 1013)

This page was intentionally left blank.
E5-1
E5-2
E5-3
E5-4
E5-5

This page was intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-6
MUMPO letter to Kym Hunter (April 16, 2013)

This page was intentionally left blank.
E6-1
E6-2

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-7
FHWA Conformity Determination for CRTPO 2040 MTP
(May 2, 2014)

This page was intentionally left blank.
E7-1
E7-2
E7
-
3
E7
-
4

APPENDIX E APPENDICES

May 2014 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS

APPENDIX E-8
FHWA Memos
1. Prior Concurrence on Combined Final Supplemental Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision
(FSFEIS/ROD) for the Monroe Connector Bypass ........ E8-1

2. Review of Forecasting and Analysis in Support of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass Project .......................................... E8-3

3. Prior Concurrence on Combined FSFEIS/ROD – Monroe
Connector Bypass ....................................................... E8-9

This page was intentionally left blank.
E8-1
E8-2
E8-3
E8-4
E8-5
E8-6
E8-7
E8-8
E8-9
E8-10
E8-11
E8-12
E8-13
E8-14
E8-15
E8-16
E8-17
E8-18
E8-19
E8-20
E8-21
E8-22
E8-23
E8-24
E8-25
E8-26
E8-27
E8-28