The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181192_No-Build Traffic Analysis Report - December 2009_20151201SOUTHERN AND EASTERN WAKE FREEWAY (S.T.I.P. PROJECTS R-2721, R-2828, and R- 2829) FINAL 2008 EXISTING, 2011 AND 2035 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORT PREPARED FOR: �� o;� r,-i a:� •�; r, i. i r� r. ; � Turnpike Authority 5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400 Raleigh, N.0 27612 PREPARED BY: HNTB North Carolina, PC 343 East Six Forks Road Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 December 2009 NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY SOUTHERN AND EASTERN WAKE FREEWAY (S.T.I.P. PROJECTS R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829) FINAL 2008 EXISTING, 2011 AND 2035 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared For: �NOR1H CFROLINA Turnpike Authority 5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400 Raleigh, N.0 27612 Prepared by: HNTB North Carolina, PC 343 Easf Six Forks Road Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 December 2009 ae��e'(N CA.p��4ri r O �` O� FEssja•.�/� �'; �° 9�;-9 '4 SEAL �: �0 34318 ' : 9 � �tic ti`��' � � �O'' !N • p`. � � a" �..F)' � R EV�..•. /2-9_ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of Report ........................................................................................ 1 2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS/NETWORK ........................................ 1 3.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................. 3 4.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................ 4 4.1 2008 No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis ........................................................ 4 4.2 2011 No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis ........................................................ 6 4.3 2035 No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis ........................................................ 8 5.0 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 9 TABLES Table 1. 2008 No-Build LOS and V/C Ratios Results .................................................. 5-6 Table 2. 2011 No-Build LOS and V/C Ratios Results .................................................. 6-7 Table 3. 2035 No-Build LOS and V/C Ratios Results .................................................. 8-9 /_111X►`_I�►1 A. Figures Figure 1- Traffic Capacity Analysis Study Area Figure 2- NCLOS Facility Types - 2008 Figure 3- NCLOS Facility Types - 2011 Figure 4- NCLOS Facility Types - 2035 Figures 5-1 to 5-10 - 2008 LOS and V/C Ratios Figures 6-1 to 6-11 - 2011 LOS and V/C Ratios Figures 7-1 to 7-11 - 2035 LOS and V/C Ratios B. NCLOS Results and Facility Descriptions C. Meeting Minutes :� . Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are studying ways to improve travel in southern and eastern Wake County. The Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway Project is approximately 27.8 miles in length and is being considered as a possible candidate toll facility. The results of this planning-level traffic capacity analysis will be used by the NCTA and NCDOT for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies. 1.2 Purpose of Report The purpose of this No-Build planning-level traffic capacity analysis is to identify existing and projected roadway facility operations and deficiencies for the major roadways surrounding the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway project under 2008, 2011 and 2035 No-Build conditions. The results of the analysis will be used to support the development of the Purpose and Need Statement for the project. A study area map and figures are located in Appendix A. The traffic capacity analysis was based on the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway Final Traffic Forecast Report prepared by HNTB in February 2009. This forecast is endorsed by the NCDOT and FHWA. This traffic capacity analysis references all forecast volumes for the 2008 No-Build, 2011 No-Build, and 2035 No-Build scenarios. The figures in Appendix A include all forecast volumes as provided in the traffic forecast. HNTB utilized North Carolina Level of Service Software (NCLOS) 2.0 to determine segmental roadway level of service and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for the No-Build scenarios. 2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS/NETWORK There are several major roadways in the study area, which includes portions of Durham, Wake and Johnston Counties. The existing major roadways included in the traffic forecast include: I-40, I-540, NC 540, I-440, US 64 Bypass (Knightdale Bypass), US 70 Bypass (Clayton Bypass), and US 1/64. Refer to Figure 1 for a map of the study area. Figures 2, 3, and 4 provide the facility type for each study area roadway for 2008 No- Build, 2011 No-Build, and 2035 No-Build, respectively. Roadway facility types were based on field observations and NCDOT functional classification maps. Descriptions of the major roadways within the study area are as follows: I-40: I-40 is the primary freeway corridor for regional connectivity between Raleigh, RTP, Durham and Chapel Hill in the Triangle. I-40 varies from a four-lane to an eight- 1 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) lane freeway in the traffic forecast study area. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph) through the traffic forecast study area. 1-440 (Cliff Benson Beltline): I-440 is an existing loop freeway around the City of Raleigh, featuring four-lane and eight-lane cross-sections in the vicinity of the traffic forecast study area, with auxiliary lanes in vicinity of surface street interchanges. The posted speed limit is 60 mph. US 1/64: US 1/64 is an existing controlled access freeway that serves regional traffic in Cary and Apex. US 1/64 has a six-lane cross section in the traffic forecast study area, with auxiliary lanes near interchanges and improved interchange configurations at Walnut Street and Cary Parkway (NCDOT STIP Project U-3101). The posted speed limit is 65 mph. I-540: I-540 is an existing loop freeway around the northern portions of Wake County. It currently spans from I-40 on the western side of Wake County to the US 64 Bypass near Knightdale in eastern Wake County. The facility features a six-lane cross section in the study area, with auxiliary lanes at interchanges and a posted speed limit of 65 mph. NC 540: NC 540 is an existing freeway facility that is an extension of I-540 in western Wake County from I-40 to NC 55 near RTP. This segment of NC 540 from NC 55 to NC 54 features a six-lane cross section with a posted speed limit of 65 mph. It is currently a Non-Toll facility but is scheduled to become a Toll facility upon the completion of the Triangle Expressway. US 64 Bypass: US 64 Bypass is an existing controlled access freeway in the traffic forecast study area providing access to areas of east Wake County to I-440 and further to I-95. In the traffic forecast study area, US 64 Bypass has a six-lane cross-section, with auxiliary lanes at interchanges and a posted 65 mph speed limit. US 70 Bypass (Clayton Bypass): US 70 Bypass is an existing controlled access freeway in the traffic forecast study area providing access to areas of Johnston County to I-40. In the traffic forecast study area, the Clayton Bypass has a four-lane cross- section, with auxiliary lanes at interchanges and a posted speed limit of 65 mph. Other sizeable roadways that are in the study area include NC 147, US 1, US 401, NC 55, US 70, NC 42, NC 50, Ten-Ten Road (SR 1010), Timber Drive (SR 2812) and Hammond Road (SR 2026). These existing thoroughfares are primarily multi-lane facilities with 35, 45, or 55 mph speed limits in the study area and provide regional connectivity and access throughout Wake County, with interchange connections to the major roadways described above. 2 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) 3.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY HNTB conducted Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) mainline segmental capacity analyses for each facility segment for 2008 No-Build, 2011 No-Build, and 2035 No-Build scenarios in the following manner: • The traffic capacity analysis was based on the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway Final Traffic Forecast Report prepared by HNTB in February 2009. • The traffic forecast report assumes high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes along I-40 and NC 147 in 2035 based on the adopted 2030 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The 2035 No-Build did not include analysis of the additional HOV lanes or HOV traffic volumes along I-40 and NC 147 to provide a consistent facility comparison between scenarios. • North Carolina Level of Service (NCLOS) software, Version 2.0, was used to determine segmental roadway levels of service (LOS) and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for all scenarios. The approved traffic forecast is a link-level forecast as is appropriate for the purposes of developing the Purpose and Need Statement for this study. This analysis includes the mainline freeway segments. • The analysis criteria and input values for each roadway type (freeway, multi-lane highway, 2-lane highway, and arterial) are based on field-observed data collection, the approved traffic forecast and engineering judgment. • Roadway LOS and V/C ratios were analyzed for all scenarios. Study area roadways were divided into facility segments with specific capacity thresholds based on varying roadway characteristics as defined by NCLOS software. 4.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS In Tables 1, 2 and 3, the highest forecasted AADT for each facility segment was compared to the corresponding NCLOS capacity volumes to determine the worst case LOS for that facility segment. The tables show the facility segment, NCLOS identification, and comparison to the NCLOS volume capacity. The NCLOS volume capacity is the maximum AADT before the facility exceeds roadway capacity and reaches LOS F. LOS E is typically reached when volumes are at or near capacity. LOS D or better indicates that the facility segment is operating at acceptable LOS with excess capacity. The corresponding V/C ratio provides a direct comparison between the forecasted AADT and NCLOS facility segment capacity. It should be noted that due to the limitations of the NCLOS software the V/C ratios for certain facility types will not directly correspond to the LOS result. NCLOS results and roadway criteria are provided in Appendix B. 3 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) 4.1 2008 No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Generally, in the 2008 No-Build scenario, the majority of study area roadway facilities, 23 of 37 facility segments, operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e. LOS D or better). The remaining, 14 of the 37 facility segments currently operate with roadway capacities at LOS E or F. Facilities that currently have segments operating near or over capacity include I-40, I-540, US 1/64, NC 147, NC 42, NC 50, and Ten-Ten Road. In 2008, a roadway segment along I-40 from Wade Avenue to US 1/64 has the highest expected V/C ratio of 1.35. Table 1 provides a summary of the V/C and LOS results for facility segments. Figure 5 shows a LOS overview of the entire study area and Figures 5.1 — 5.10 show individual facility segment AADT, V/C, and LOS for the study area roadways. 4 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) Table 1- 2008 No-Build V/C and LOS Results Facility From To NCLOS ID 2008 NCLOS V/C LOS Se ment AADT * Ca acit ** I-40 NC 55 NC 147 F5 118,700 117,300 1.01 F I-40 NC 147 Wade Ave. F9 166,900 157,500 1.06 F I-40 Wade Ave. US 1/64 F14 104,900 77,700 1.35 F I-40 US 1/64 Lake W�heeler F5 116,100 117,300 0.99 E I-40 Lake W�heeler Rock Quarry Rd. F9 118,000 157,500 0.75 C I-40 Rock Q�uarry �-440 F11 106,700 198,100 0.54 C I-40 I-440 US 70 F13 102,100 77,700 1.31 F I-40 US 70 NC 210 F2 60,200 78,600 0.77 D NC 147 I-40 Cornwallis Rd. F4 68,800 73,000 0.94 E I-540 I-40 Lumley Rd. F8 95,900 106,200 0.90 E I-540 US 64 Bypass US 64 Business F6 38,000 91,100 0.42 B NC 540 I-40 NC 55 F15 24,300 88,500 0.27 A I-440 I-40 Jone R�ranklin F12 92,600 117,300 0.79 D I-440 I-40 US 64 Bypass F9 95,600 157,500 0.61 C I-440 US 64 Bypass US 64 Business F5 87,400 117,300 0.75 D US 64 Bypass I-440 I-540 F6 59,200 91,100 0.65 C US 64 Bypass I-540 US 64 Business F7 59,000 90,700 0.65 C Clayton I-40 NC 42 F3 18,300 69,600 0.26 A Bypass US 1/64 Tryon Rd. I-40 F10 117,700 120,200 0.98 E US 1 New Hill Tryon Rd. F1 48,000 81,300 0.59 C Holleman Rd. Ten-Ten Rd US 1 Holly Springs Rd. Ten-Ten 1 26,100 22,700 1.15 F Ten-Ten Rd Holly S�prings NC 50 Ten-Ten 2 17,500 23,800 0.74 B NC 55 US 1 Main St. MLH 6 47,000 52,200 0.90 D NC 55 Main St. Wake Chapel Rd. MLH 3 25,000 53,600 0.47 B NC 55 Wak RC�hapel US 401 NC 55 1 13,700 15,300 0.90 D US 401 NC 55 NC 42 MLH 2 36,300 71,500 0.51 C NC 42 US 401 Old Dr�u�g Store 2 LH 2 11,500 28,600 0.40 E NC 42 Old Dr�u�g Store I-40 NC 42 1 28,000 26,400 1.06 F NC 42 I-40 Bratton Dr. NC 42 2 13,300 40,700 0.33 D NC 42 Bratton Dr. Clayton Bypass 2 LH 1 14,500 40,900 0.35 E Timber Dr. US 70 NC 50 Timber 22,300 32,600 0.68 C Hammond Rd. I-40 US 70 Hammond 24,800 39,900 0.62 C US 70 I-40 Tryon Rd. MLH 4 61,300 98,700 0.62 C US 70 Tryon Rd. I-40 MLH 1 32,900 65,800 0.50 C US 70 I-40 Guy Rd. MLH 2 51,100 71,500 0.71 D 5 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) Facility From To NCLOS ID 2008 NCLOS V/C LOS Se ment AADT * Ca acity** NC 50 Cleveland Rd New Rand Rd 2 LH 3 23,000 28,600 0.80 E NC 50 New Rand Rd US 70 NC 50 1 11,500 18,800 0.61 B ' Highest AADT along facility segment is reported. �� Maximum LOS E volume before facility exceeds capacity and reaches LOS F. 4.2 2011 No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Under the 2011 No-Build scenario, the scheduled roadway widening improvement along I-40 from Wade Avenue to US 1/64 (STIP I-4744) and the new toll facilities of Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Freeway (NC 540) (collectively known as the Triangle Expressway) are included in the traffic capacity analysis. In general, traffic volumes increase incrementally throughout the study area with minimal effects on roadway LOS. Of the 40 facility segments, 24 are expected operate at acceptable LOS. However, 16 of the 40 facility segments are predicted to operate with roadway capacities at LOS E or F. Facilities that have segments predicted to operate near or over capacity include I-40, I-540, US 1/64, NC 147, NC 42, NC 50, NC 55, and Ten-Ten Road. The new facilities of Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Freeway are expected to operate at LOS A with a 2011 opening year. These facilities are expected to divert traffic and provide alternate routes to I-40, I-540, US 1/64, and NC 55. In 2011, a roadway segment along Ten-Ten Road from US 1 to Holly Springs Road has the highest expected V/C ratio of 1.38. Table 2 provides a summary of the V/C and LOS results for facility segments. Figure 6 shows a LOS overview of the entire study area and Figures 6.1 - 6.11 show individual facility segment AADT, V/C, and LOS for the study area roadways. Table 2- 2011 No-Build V/C and LOS Results Facility From To NCLOS ID 2011 NCLOS V/C LOS Se ment AADT * Ca acit ** I-40 NC 55 NC 147 F5 123,400 117,300 1.05 F I-40 NC 147 Wade Ave. F9 172,900 157,500 1.10 F I-40 Wade Ave. US 1/64 F14 115,700 117,300 0.99 E I-40 US 1/64 Lake W�heeler F5 124,900 117,300 1.06 F I-40 Lake aheeler Rock Quarry Rd. F9 125,300 157,500 0.80 D I-40 Rock Q�uarry �-440 F11 110,300 198,100 0.56 C I-40 I-440 US 70 F13 104,000 77,700 1.34 F I-40 US 70 NC 210 F2 61,600 78,600 0.78 D NC 147 I-40 Cornwallis Rd. F4 69,000 73,000 0.95 E I-540 I-40 Lumley Rd. F8 100,300 106,200 0.94 E I-540 US 64 Bypass US 64 Business F6 43,000 91,100 0.47 B NC 540 I-40 Triangle Pkwy F15 39,400 88,500 0.45 B I-440 I-40 Jone R�ranklin F12 92,900 117,300 0.79 D I-440 I-40 US 64 Bypass F9 103,100 157,500 0.65 C 6 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) Facility From To NCLOS ID 2011 NCLOS V/C LOS Se ment AADT * Ca acity** I-440 US 64 Bypass US 64 Business F5 90,400 117,300 0.77 D US 64 Bypass I-440 I-540 F6 64,100 91,100 0.70 C US 64 Bypass I-540 US 64 Business F7 67,300 90,700 0.74 D Triangle Pkwy. I-40 NC 540 F16 13,200 110,700 0.12 A McCrimmon NC 540 Morrisville MLH 5 10,300 96,000 0.11 A Pkw Carpenter Rd. NC 540 Triangle Pkwy NC 55 (South) F15 25,000 88,500 0.28 A Clayton I-40 NC 42 F3 38,600 69,600 0.55 C Bypass US 1/64 Tryon Rd. I-40 F10 124,600 120,200 1.04 F US 1 New Hill Tryon Rd. F1 72,000 81,300 0.89 D Holleman Rd. Ten Ten Rd US 1 Holly Springs Rd. Ten Ten 1 31,300 22,700 1.38 F Ten Ten Rd HollyR�prings NC 50 Ten Ten 2 22,000 23,800 0.92 E NC 55 US 1 Main St. MLH 6 47,300 52,200 0.91 D NC 55 Main St. Wake Chapel Rd. MLH 3 31,100 53,600 0.58 C NC 55 Wak RC�hapel US 401 NC 55 1 15,700 15,300 1.03 F US 401 Broad St. NC 42 MLH 2 40,200 71,500 0.56 C NC 42 NC 55 Old Dr�u�g Store 2 LH 2 14,200 28,600 0.50 E NC 42 Old Dr�u�g Store I-40 NC 42 1 29,900 26,400 1.13 F NC 42 I-40 Bratton Dr. NC 42 2 15,700 40,700 0.39 D NC 42 Bratton Dr. Clayton Bypass 2 LH 1 16,300 40,900 0.40 E Timber Dr. US 70 NC 50 Timber 22,400 32,600 0.69 C Hammond Rd. I-40 US 70 Hammond 25,800 39,300 0.66 C US 70 I-40 Tryon Rd. MLH 4 59,200 98,700 0.60 C US 70 Tryon Rd. I-40 MLH 1 34,100 65,800 0.52 C US 70 I-40 Guy Rd. MLH 2 54,900 71,500 0.77 D NC 50 Cleveland Rd New Rand Rd 2 LH 3 25,700 28,600 0.90 E NC 50 New Rand Rd US 70 NC 50 1 11,500 18,800 0.61 A ' Highest AADT along facility segment is reported. " Maximum LOS E volume before facility exceeds capacity and reaches LOS F. 7 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) 4.3 2035 No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Under the 2035 No-Build scenarios, additional scheduled roadway improvements included in the traffic capacity analysis include widening I-40 from US 70 to NC 42 (STIP I-5111) and widening Ten-Ten Road from US 1 to Graham Newton Road. In general, traffic volumes increase substantially throughout the study area with noticeable effects on roadway LOS. Of the 40 facility segments, only 12 are expected to operate at acceptable LOS. In 2035, 29 of the 40 identified study area facility segments are predicted to operate at LOS E or F. However, 25 of these 29 facilities are expected to operate over capacity at LOS F. Facilities that have segments predicted to operate near or over capacity include I-40, I-540, US 1/64, US 1, US 64 Bypass, US 70, NC 147, NC 42, NC 50, NC 55, Ten-Ten Road, Timber Road, and Hammond Road. The facilities of Triangle Parkway and Western Wake Freeway are expected to operate at LOS B and LOS C in 2035, respectively. These facilities are expected to divert traffic and provide alternate routes to I-40, I-540, US 1/64, and NC 55. In 2035, a roadway segment along Ten-Ten Road from Holly Springs Road to NC 50 has the highest expected V/C ratio of 2.45. Table 3 provides a summary of the V/C and LOS results for facility segments. Figure 7 shows a LOS overview of the entire study area and Figures 7.1 - 7.11 show individual facility segment AADT, V/C, and LOS for the study area roadways. Table 3- 2035 No-Build V/C and LOS Results Facility From To NCLOS ID 2035 NCLOS V/C LOS Segment AADT'` Capacity** I-40 NC 55 NC 147 F5 128,200 117,300 1.09 F I-40 NC 147 Wade Ave. F9 175,600 157,500 1.11 F I-40 Wade Ave. US 1/64 F14 150,000 117,300 1.28 F I-40 US 1/64 Lake W�heeler F5 170,100 117,300 1.45 F I-40 Lake W�heeler Rock Quarry Rd. F9 182,400 157,500 1.16 F I-40 Rock Q�uarry I-440 F11 151,500 198,100 0.76 D I-40 I-440 US 70 F13 114,400 77,700 1.47 F I-40 US 70 NC 210 F2 74,600 118,600 0.63 C NC 147 I-40 Cornwallis Rd. F4 93,600 73,000 1.28 F I-540 I-40 Lumley Rd. F8 164,000 106,200 1.54 F I-540 US 64 Bypass US 64 Business F6 57,700 91,100 0.63 C NC 540 I-40 Triangle Pkwy F15 88,100 88,500 1.00 E I-440 I-40 Jone R�ranklin F12 137,000 117,300 1.17 F I-440 I-40 US 64 Bypass F9 154,900 157,500 0.98 E I-440 US 64 Bypass US 64 Business F5 126,700 117,300 1.08 F US 64 Bypass I-440 I-540 F6 110,300 91,100 1.21 F US 64 Bypass I-540 US 64 Business F7 125,100 90,700 1.38 F 8 ��INTB Southe�n and Easte�n Wake F�eeway Final No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Report (Decembe� 2009) Facility From To NCLOS ID 2035 NCLOS V/C LOS Se ment AADT * Ca acity** Triangle Pkwy. I-40 NC 540 F16 40,200 110,700 0.36 B McCrimmon NC 540 Morrisville MLH 5 30,000 96,000 0.31 B Pkwy Carpenter Rd. NC 540 Triangle Pkwy NC 55 (South) F15 60,100 88,500 0.68 C Clayton I-40 NC 42 F3 61,100 69,600 0.88 D Bypass US 1/64 Tryon Rd. I-40 F10 163,600 120,200 1.36 F US 1 New Hill Tryon Rd. F1 101,500 81,300 1.25 F Holleman Rd. Ten Ten Rd US 1 Holly Springs Rd. Ten Ten 1 64,200 45,400 1.41 F Ten Ten Rd HollyR�prings NC 50 Ten Ten 2 58,300 23,800 2.45 F NC 55 US 1 Main St. MLH 6 53,100 52,200 1.02 F NC 55 Main St. Wake Chapel Rd. MLH 3 66,000 53,600 1.23 F NC 55 Wake C�hapel US 401 NC 55 1 14,200 15,300 0.90 D US 401 NC 55 NC 42 MLH 2 55,900 71,500 0.78 D NC 42 US 401 Old Dr�u�g Store 2 LH 2 26,500 28,600 0.93 E NC 42 Old Dr�u�g Store I-40 NC 42 1 37,000 26,400 1.40 F NC 42 I-40 Bratton Dr. NC 42 2 22,300 40,700 0.55 D NC 42 Bratton Dr. Clayton Bypass 2 LH 1 26,800 40,900 0.66 E Timber Dr. US 70 NC 50 Timber 55,200 32,600 1.69 F Hammond Rd. I-40 US 70 Hammond 40,900 39,300 1.04 F US 70 I-40 Tryon Rd. MLH 4 75,600 98,700 0.77 D US 70 Tryon Rd. I-40 MLH 1 57,700 65,800 0.88 D US 70 I-40 Guy Rd. MLH 2 76,500 71,500 1.07 F NC 50 Cleveland Rd New Rand Rd 2 LH 3 36,600 28,600 1.28 F NC 50 New Rand Rd US 70 NC 50 1 31,200 18,800 1.66 F " Highest AADT along tacility segment is reported. ** Maximum LOS E volume before facility exceeds capacity and reaches LOS F. 5.0 SUMMARY Utilizing the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway Final Traffic Forecast Report prepared by HNTB in February 2009 and North Carolina Level of Service Software (NCLOS) 2.0, the planning-level traffic capacity analysis demonstrates that many of the major roadways in the study area are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service and over capacity in the 2008 and 2011 No-Build scenarios. In the 2035 No- Build scenario, the majority of roadways in the study area are expected to operate at LOS E or F. This No-Build planning-level traffic capacity analysis identifies existing and projected roadway facility operations and deficiencies for the major roadways surrounding the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway project under 2008, 2011 and 2035 No-Build conditions. The results of the analysis will be used to support the development of the Purpose and Need Statement for the project. 9 ��INTB N W E S Legend Analysis Links 2008 Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 2 NCLOS Facility Types - 2008 HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 3 NCLOS Facility Types - 2011 HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 4 NCLOS Facility Types - 2035 HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5 2008 LOS & V/C Ratios HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network �----I �_ _ � Counties � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I ; � �urnp�Ke N►uinor�iy Miles N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network � _ J Counties � Study Area Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-3 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network � _ J Counties � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I ; � �urnp�Ke �►utnor�ty Miles Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-4 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network � _ J Counties � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles ,� �urnp�Ke N►uinoriiy Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-5 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network �__ � � Counties I I—I Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles ; � �urnp�Ke �►utnvr�ty Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capactiy Analysis Figure 5-6 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network i --- i I i Counties �---J � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I ; � �urnp�Ke �►utnor�ty Miles Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-7 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network � _ � Counties I � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I � iurnp�Ke �►uinor�ty Miles Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-8 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network � _ J Counties � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles � �urnpiKe Hutnvr�iy Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-9 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network i ---:I I , Counties I-_-_J � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I � �urnpiKe �+►uinoriiy Miles Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 5-10 2008 LOS and V/C Ratio HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network j_ _ J Counties � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I ;� � �urnp�Ke �►uinoriiy Miles Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 6 2011 LOS & V/C Ratios HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty N W E S Legend �- � _ J Counties 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles ,� �urnp�Ke N►uinoriiy N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I ; � �urnpiKe Huinor�iy Miles N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC -� �urnp�Ke �►utnor�iy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC �urnpiKe f+►utnoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 ' Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend �_ _ � Counties 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC ;� �urnpiKe Eautnority 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend �_ _ J Counties 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC iurnp�Ke Huinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 ' Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend � ---� �_ _ � Counties 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC ;� �urnp�Ke �►utnor�ty 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles / � / HNTB, North Carolina, PC 343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC �urnp�Ke �►uinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 � � Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC ;'' I llf'1'1pIK@ Hllt�'lOClt�/ 343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC ;'' IUI'11pIK@ Hllt�'lOClt�/ 343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway No-Build Traffic Capacity Analysis Figure 7 2035 LOS & V/C Ratios HNTB Project # 46816 Date: December 2009 N W E S Legend 2008 Highway Network i li Counties I_ _ J � Study Area 0 1 2 3 4 5 I I Miles � iurnp�Ke Hutnonty N W E S Legend �- � _ J Counties 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles ,� �urnp�Ke N►uinoriiy N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I ; � �urnpiKe Huinor�iy Miles N W S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC ;� � �urnp�Ke N►utnvr�iy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC ;� iurnpiKe �+►uinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend �_ _ � Counties Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC -' ` IUCI1pIK@ HUZtl01'Itj/ 343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend �_ _ J Counties 2011 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC � �urnp�Ke �►uinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend �_ _ � Counties 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC -� �urnpiKe �►uinor�ty 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles / � / HNTB, North Carolina, PC 343 East Six Forks Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC -, �urnp�Ke �►uinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W E S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC -� , �urnp�Ke �►uinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 N W S Legend Ir � Counties ----� 2035 Highway Network � Study Area 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 I I Miles HNTB, North Carolina, PC � iurnpiKe �►uinoriiy 343 East Six Forks Road, suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27609 NCLOS Software Facility Descriptions Arterials: Also know as urban streets, arterials serve longer through trips while also providing access to adjacent commercial, residential and industrial land uses. Collector streets are included under this facility type for the purpose of the HCM and this program. High-Speed: Area with very low surrounding density with no on-street parking and very little pedestrian activity. Typified by either multilane divided or two-lane roadways with shoulders. Principal Arterial: A major surface street with serves relatively long trips between major points and through-trips entering, leaving and passing through the urban area. Mobility (speed) is very important whereas access is of minor importance. Typically used to connect important activity centers and major traffic generators. Suburban: An area with a mixture of densities for housing and employment. Principal Arterial: A major surface street with serves relatively long trips between major points and through-trips entering, leaving and passing through the urban area. Mobility (speed) is very important whereas access is of minor importance. Typically used to connect important activity centers and major traffic generators. Minor Arterial: A functional category of a street allowing trips of moderate length within a relatively small geographical area. Although mobility (speed) is important for minor arterials, their main function is to provide access. They also are typically used to connect principal arterials to one another. Intermediate: An area with characteristics in between those of an urban area and a suburban area. Typically, the roadway is multilane, either divided or undivided, with two travel lanes per direction and some pedestrian and parking activity along the roadway. Principal Arterial: A major surface street with serves relatively long trips between major points and through-trips entering, leaving and passing through the urban area. Mobility (speed) is very important whereas access is of minor importance. Typically used to connect important activity centers and major traffic generators. Minor Arterial: A functional category of a street allowing trips of moderate length within a relatively small geographical area. Although mobility (speed) is important for minor arterials, their main function is to provide access. They also are typically used to connect principal arterials to one another. Urban: An area typified by high densities of developments or concentrations of population, drawing people from several areas within a region. Principal Arterial: A major surface street with serves relatively long trips between major points and through-trips entering, leaving and passing through the urban area. Mobility (speed) is very important whereas access is of minor importance. Typically used to connect important activity centers and major traffic generators. Minor Arterial: A functional category of a street allowing trips of moderate length within a relatively small geographical area. Although mobility (speed) is important for minor arterials, their main function is to provide access. They also are typically used to connect principal arterials to one another. 2 Lane Hiqhwavs: An undivided roadway with two travel lanes, one for use by traffic in each direction. In order to pass a slow moving vehicle, drivers must maneuver into the opposing lane while taking into consideration oncoming traffic. At times, an additional passing lane may be added in one direction in order to improve opportunities for passing. Passing lanes also can be provided in both directions of travel at the same location, resulting in a short section of four-lane undivided highway with improved passing opportunities in both directions. Multi-Lane Hiqhwavs: Typically have a total of four or six lanes, counting both directions, often with medians or two-way left-turn lanes (TWLTL), although they can be undivided as well. Usually located in suburban communities leading into central cities or along high- volume rural corridors connecting two cities or large trip producers. Multi-lane highways often have traffic signals but successive signals are typically not within 2.0 miles of each other (< 2.0 miles would usually be considered an arterial) Freewavs: A continuously divided highway with full access control, two or more travel lanes in each direction, and uninterrupted traffic flow provided through the use of grade separated interchanges. There are no signalized or stop-controlled at-grade intersections, and direct access to and from adjacent property is not permitted. NCLOS Individual Segment Capacity Analysis Results Facility From E Wake Frw I-40 E Wake Frwy Cornwallis Rd E Wake Frw US 70 E Wake Frwy Rock Quarry Rd E Wake Frwy Auburn Kni htdal< E Wake Frwy Poole Rd Cla ton Bypass I-40 Clayton Bypass Cornwallis Rd US 1 NC 751 US 1 W Wake Fnvy US 1 NC 55 US 1 Ten Ten Rd US 1/64 Tryon Rd US 1/64 Cary Pkwy US 1/64 Walnut St Ten Ten Rd US 1 Ten Ten Rd Penn Rd Ten Ten Rd Jessie Dr Ten Ten Rd Kildaire Farm Rd Ten Ten Rd Holly Springs Rd Ten Ten Rd Graham Newton F Ten Ten Rd Blaney Franks Rd Ten Ten Rd Lake Wheeler Rd Ten Ten Rd US 401 Ten Ten Rd Fann Brown Rd Ten Ten Rd Old Stage Rd Ten Ten Rd Rand Rd Ten Ten Rd Sauls Rd NC 50 Cleveland Rd NC 50 S Wake Frwy NC 50 Ten Ten Rd NC 50 Rand Rd NC 50 Buffaloe Rd NC 50 New Bethel Rd NC 50 New Rand Rd NC 50 Timber Dr NC 50 Lakeside Dr Hammond Rd I-40 Hammond Rd Rush St Hammond Rd Tryon Rd Hammond Rd Mechanical Blvd Timber Dr US 70 Timber Dr Foxwood Dr Timber Dr Grovemont Rd Timber Dr Vandora Springs Timber Dr Aversboro Rd S Saunders St I-40 S Saunders St Pecan St Wilminaton St Rush St To Rd 'v Rd US 64 Bypa Cornwallis F NC 42 W Wake Fn NC 55 Ten Ten Rd Tryon Rd Cary Pkwy Walnut St I-40 Penny Rd Jessie Dr lolly Springs Rd �raham Newton I laney Franks Rc ake Wheeler Rd iS 401 anny Brown Rd dd Stage Rd ;and Rd auls Rd IC 50 Wake Frwy en Ten Rd :and Rd uffaloe Rd lew Bethel Rd lew Rand Rd imber Dr akeside Dr iS 70 ;ush St ryon Rd 1echanical Blvd iS 70 oxwood Dr �rovemont Rd 50 an St ;h St m Rd NCLOS Individual Segment Capacity Analysis Results NCLOS ID 2008 AADT Capacity V/C LOS 2011 AADT Capacity F18 F18 F18 F18 F18 F18 F3 18300 69600 026 A 30200 6961 F3 16400 69600 0.24 A 38600 6961 F1 21100 81300 026 A 27600 8131 F1 21100 81300 0.26 A 38700 5131 F1 41000 81300 0.50 C 75100 8131 F1 48000 51300 0.59 C 72000 5131 F10 87800 120200 0.73 D 95100 12021 F10 117700 120200 0.98 E 124600 12021 F10 81000 120200 0.67 C 84500 12021 Ten Ten 1 26100 22700 1.15 F 31300 2271 Ten Ten 1 19800 22700 0.87 D 23500 2271 Ten Ten 1 15500 22700 0.70 B 23800 2271 Ten Ten 1 15800 22700 0.70 B 20400 2271 Ten Ten 2 17500 23800 0.74 B 22000 2381 Ten Ten 2 12300 23800 0.52 A 19000 2381 Ten Ten 2 13200 23800 0.55 A 17200 2381 Ten Ten 2 15000 23800 0.63 B 17800 2381 Ten Ten 2 16200 23800 0.68 B 21200 2381 Ten Ten 2 12500 23800 0.53 A 19500 2381 Ten Ten 2 13200 23800 0.55 A 18500 2381 Ten Ten 2 13200 23800 0.55 A 17000 2381 Ten Ten 2 13200 23800 0.55 A 16700 2381 2LH 3 15000 28600 0.52 E 18400 2861 2LH 3 15000 28600 0.52 E 18400 2861 2LH 3 13000 28600 0.45 D 13400 2861 2LH 3 23000 28600 0.80 E 25700 2861 2LH 3 19000 28600 0.66 E 22100 2861 2LH 3 19400 28600 0.68 E 20500 2861 NC 50 1 19400 18800 1.03 F 20500 1881 NC 50 1 19400 18800 1.03 F 11500 1881 NC 50 1 19400 18800 1.03 F 11500 1881 Hammond 23600 39900 0.59 C 24200 3931 Hammond 24800 39900 0.62 C 25800 3931 Hammond 20900 39900 0.52 C 21200 3931 Hammond 20900 39900 0.52 C 21200 3931 Timber 22300 32600 0.68 C 17700 3261 Timber 22300 32600 0.68 C 17700 3261 Timber 21300 32600 0.65 C 22400 3261 Timber 14100 32600 0.43 B 15500 3261 Timber 16200 32600 0.50 B 11700 3261 MLH 4 57300 98700 0.58 C 59200 9871 MLH 4 52100 98700 0.53 C 59200 9871 MLH 4 61300 98700 0.62 C 54500 9871 0.55 0.34 0.48 0.92 0.89 0.79 1.04 0.70 1.38 1.05 1.05 0.90 0.92 0.80 0.72 0.75 0.89 0.82 0.78 0.71 0.70 0.64 0.64 0.47 0.90 0.77 0.72 1.09 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.66 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.69 0.48 0.36 0.60 0.60 0.55 2035 AADT 61100 54000 69100 94400 101500 129100 163600 107700 64200 45600 45600 49500 58300 36900 26100 24900 29300 32600 30000 27200 24500 24000 24000 19500 36600 32900 31200 31200 31200 31200 35000 40900 37400 37400 29200 29200 37100 48600 55200 71100 70500 75600 O.S8 0.66 0.85 1.16 1.25 1.07 1.36 0.90 1.41 1.00 1.00 1.09 2.45 1.55 1.10 1.05 1.23 1.37 1.26 1.14 1.04 0.84 0.84 0.68 1.28 1.15 1.09 1.66 1.66 1.66 0.97 1.04 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 1.14 1.49 1.69 0.72 0.71 0.77 NCLOS Individual Segment Capacity Analysis Results Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification Terrain Type: Street Class: 2LH 1 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Two Lane Highway Rural Level I Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 6 No Passing Zones: 20.00 % Access Points/Mile: 10 Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 9:23:13AM On: 5/7/2009 0.90 0.07 0.60 LOS A B C D D Organization: HNTB Truck/Bus Percent: 7.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % BFFS(mph): 50 Max AADT 0 0 2,800 10,000 40,900 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification Terrain Type: Street Class: 2LH 2 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Two Lane Highway Rural Level I Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 6 No Passing Zones: 20.00 % Access Points/Mile: 10 Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 9:24:04AM On: 5/7/2009 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D D Organization: HNTB Truck/Bus Percent: 6.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % BFFS(mph): 50 Max AADT 0 0 2,000 7,000 28,600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification Terrain Type: Street Class: 2LH 3 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Two Lane Highway Rural Level I Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 6 No Passing Zones: 20.00 % Access Points/Mile: 10 Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At:10:16:15AM On: 5/7/2009 0.90 0.10 0.70 LOS A B C D D Organization: HNTB Truck/Bus Percent: 6.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % BFFS(mph): 55 Max AADT 0 2,000 7,000 13,700 28,600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: Fl SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:45:29PM On: 5/4/2009 12 2 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.08 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 16.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 24,500 40,100 57,700 72,200 81,300 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F10 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:21:21PM On: 5/5/2009 12 3 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 14.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 36,800 60,300 86,400 107,000 120,200 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F11 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:22:24PM On: 5/5/2009 12 5 1.00 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 61,900 101,300 144,200 176,900 198,100 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F12 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:23:1 OPM On: 5/5/2009 12 2 1.00 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 6.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 24,500 40,000 57,800 72,900 82,300 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F 13 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 3:07:47PM On: 5/6/2009 12 3 0.50 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 36,900 60,400 86,100 105,900 118,600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F14 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 3:08:11PM On: 5/6/2009 12 2 1.00 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 23,100 37,800 54,600 68,800 77,700 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F15 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 3:08:32PM On: 5/6/2009 12 3 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.11 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 27,100 44,400 63,600 78,800 88,500 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F16 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 3:08:S1PM On:S/6/2009 12 3 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 9.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 34,000 55,600 79,600 98,600 110,700 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F17 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 3:09:07PM On: 5/6/2009 12 3 0.50 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.11 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 27,700 45,300 64, 600 79,400 88,900 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F18 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 3:09:21PM On:S/6/2009 12 3 0.50 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 15.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 28,500 46,600 66,500 81, 700 91, 600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F2 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:47:25PM On: 5/4/2009 12 2 0.50 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 24,000 39,300 56,400 70,000 78,600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F3 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:48:15PM On: 5/4/2009 12 2 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 7.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 21,000 34,400 49,400 61,800 69,600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F4 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:49:48PM On: 5/4/2009 12 2 1.00 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 9.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 21, 700 35,500 51,200 64,600 73,000 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: FS SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:51:19PM On: 5/4/2009 12 3 1.00 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 35,500 58,100 83,600 104,300 117,300 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F6 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:52:13PM On: 5/4/2009 12 3 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 15.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 27,900 45,700 65,500 81,100 91,100 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F7 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:52:56PM On: 5/4/2009 12 3 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 16.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 27,800 45,500 65,200 80,700 90,700 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F8 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 439:58PM On: 5/5/2009 12 3 0.75 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 32,500 53,300 76,300 94,500 106,200 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: F9 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Freeway Suburban Level Lane Width(ft): Number of Lanes: Interchanges/Mile: Lat. Clearance(ft): Grade Length(mi): Grade Percent: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 4:19:59PM On: 5/5/2009 12 4 1.00 6 0.00 0.00 % 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB RV Percent: 0.00 % Truck/Bus Percent: 18.00 % Driver Population: 1.00 Max AADT 48,400 79,300 113,500 140,300 157,500 Facility Name Project Name: Hammond SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Suburban Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class II Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 9:19:25AM On: 5/7/2009 2 2.50 3.00 120 0.55 0.90 0.09 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 0 0 27,400 3 8,100 39,900 HNTB 12.00 % 45 3 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: MLH 1 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Multi-Lane Highway Suburban Level Number of Lanes: 2 Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 10 Access Points/Mile: 25.00 Median Type: Divided Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 5:09:45PM On: 5/4/2009 0.90 0.09 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB Driver Population: 1.00 Truck/Bus Percent: 7.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % Max AADT 18,900 30,900 44,700 60,100 65,800 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: MLH 2 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Multi-Lane Highway Suburban Level Number of Lanes: 2 Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 10 Access Points/Mile: 25.00 Median Type: Divided Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 5:18:53PM On: 5/5/2009 0.90 0.09 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB Driver Population: 1.00 Truck/Bus Percent: 8.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % Max AADT 20,500 33,600 48,500 65,300 71,500 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: MLH 3 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Multi-Lane Highway Suburban Level Number of Lanes: 2 Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 10 Access Points/Mile: 25.00 Median Type: Divided Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 5:11:59PM On: 5/4/2009 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB Driver Population: 1.00 Truck/Bus Percent: ll.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % Max AADT 15,400 25,200 36,400 49,000 53,600 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: MLH 4 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Multi-Lane Highway Suburban Level Number of Lanes: 3 Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 10 Access Points/Mile: 25.00 Median Type: Divided Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 5:13:07PM On: 5/4/2009 0.90 0.09 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB Driver Population: 1.00 Truck/Bus Percent: 7.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % Max AADT 28,400 46,400 67,000 90,200 98,700 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: MLH 5 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Multi-Lane Highway Suburban Level Number of Lanes: 3 Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 10 Access Points/Mile: 25.00 Median Type: Divided Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 1:40:31PM On: 5/6/2009 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: HNTB Driver Population: 1.00 Truck/Bus Percent: 9.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % Max AADT 27,600 45,100 65,200 87,700 96,000 Facility Name Project Name: Region Type: Facility Type: Classification: Terrain Type: MLH 6 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Piedmont Multi-Lane Highway Suburban Level Number of Lanes: 2 Lane Width(ft): 12 Lat. Clearance(ft): 10 Access Points/Mile: 25.00 Median Type: Undivided Grade Length(mi): 0.00 Grade Percent: 0.00 % PHF: K Factor: D Factor: 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Printed At: 9:11:28AM On: 5/14/2009 Organization: HNTB Driver Population: 1.00 Truck/Bus Percent: ll.00 % RV Percent: 0.00 % Max AADT 14,900 24,400 35,300 47,500 52,200 Facility Name Project Name: NC 42: 1 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Intermediate Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class III Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At:10:25:33AM On: 5/7/2009 2 0.62 5.00 120 0.50 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 0 0 400 22,000 26,400 HNTB 5.00 % 35 3 Facility Name Project Name: NC 42: 2 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Intermediate Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class III Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At:10:26:22AM On: 5/7/2009 2 0.59 5.00 120 0.50 0.90 0.07 0.60 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 0 0 0 31, 700 40, 700 HNTB 5.00 % 35 3 Facility Name Project Name: NC 50: 1 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Suburban Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class II Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 8:46:04AM On: 5/7/2009 1 3.20 1.00 120 0.55 0.90 0.10 0.70 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 11, 700 14,100 15,200 16,800 18,800 HNTB 5.00 % 45 3 Facility Name Project Name: NC 55: 1 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Intermediate Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class III Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At:10:06:48AM On: 5/7/2009 1 1.20 4.00 120 0.50 0.90 0.10 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 0 0 10,800 14,400 15,300 HNTB 15.00 % 35 4 Facility Name Project Name: Ten Ten: 1 (2035) SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Suburban Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class II Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 8:37:13AM On: 5/7/2009 2 3.60 1.00 120 0.55 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 22,400 35,200 37,600 40,900 45,400 HNTB 5.00 % 45 3 Facility Name Project Name: Ten Ten: 1 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Suburban Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class II Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 8:33:34AM On: 5/7/2009 1 3.60 1.00 120 0.55 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 11,100 17,500 18,800 20,500 22,700 HNTB 5.00 % 45 3 Facility Name Project Name: Ten Ten: 2 SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Suburban Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class II Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 838:29AM On:S/7/2009 1 10.40 1.00 120 0.55 0.90 0.10 0.55 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 14,900 17,900 19,300 21,200 23,800 HNTB 5.00 % 45 3 Facility Name Project Name: Timber SE Wake Capacity Analysis Region Type: Piedmont Facility Type: Arterial Design Category: Suburban Functional Category: Minor Arterial Street Class: Class II Number of Lanes: Segment Len.(mi) Signals/Mile: Cycle Length(s): g/C Ratio: PHF: K Factor: D Factor: Printed At: 9:20:25AM On: 5/7/2009 2 4.00 2.00 120 0.55 0.90 0.11 0.65 LOS A B C D E Organization: Prop. Lt: FFS(mph): Arival Type: Max AADT 0 20,500 28,900 30,500 32,600 HNTB 12.00 % 45 3 HNTB North Carolina, PC 343 E. Six Forks Road The HNTB Companies Suite 200 Engineers Architects Planners Raleigh, NC 27609 FINAL Project Name Date of Meetinq Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway 4/7/09 HNTB Project # 46816 From: John Grant. P.E. Purpose of Meetinq Discuss scope/methodology of the planning-level traffic capacity analysis. MEETING MINUTES Present: Renee Roach, P.E. Benjetta Johnson, P.E. Doumit Ishak Missy (Dickens) Pair, P.E. Tracy Roberts, AICP Spencer Franklin, P.E. Bradley Reynolds, P.E. John Grant, P.E. Telephone (919) 546-8997 Facsimile (919) 546-9421 www.hntb.com Location NCDOT Transportation Mobility and Safety Conference Room 161 Time 2:00 p.m. I■ ■ �� NCDOT-Transportation Mobility and Safety NCDOT-Transportation Mobility and Safety (Congestion Management) NCDOT-Transportation Mobility and Safety (Congestion Management) NCDOT-Project Development and Environmental Analysis HNTB-NCTA General Engineering Consultant (GEC) HNTB-NCTA GEC HNTB-NCTA GEC HNTB-NCTA GEC The following summarizes the meeting held on April 7, 2009 with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to discuss the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway scope/methodology for the planning-level traffic capacity analysis. The results of the analysis will be used to support development of purpose and need far the proposed Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway project. Introductions • Introductions were conducted around the room. Each of the attendees introduced themselves and stated their role on the project and signed the attendance sheet. Mr. Roberts discussed the project background and stated the objective of the meeting was to reach agreement on the scope and methodology of the planning-level traffic capacity analysis for the proposed Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway project. The results of the analysis will be used to support development of the purpose and need for the project. Mr. Roberts explained that the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) has not officially adopted Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway as a candidate toll project, but that this is anticipated later this year. However, should the project remain with NCDOT as a non-toll project, the results of the planning-level capacity analysis could also be used by NCDOT for their own National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies (as is the case with the previously-completed traffic forecast referenced below). The intent is that work products developed by NCTA could be used by either NCDOT or NCTA. Mr. Franklin mentioned that the planning-level capacity analysis will utilize the approved Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway Final Traffic Forecast Report prepared by HNTB on behalf Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway April 7, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 of NCTA in February 2009. A hard copy of the report was provided to Ms. Johnson at the meeting. Planning-Level Traffic Capacity Analysis • Mr. Grant mentioned that the analysis will be performed in accordance with the "NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines" revised 2-15-2006. Any deviations from these guidelines will be discussed with NCDOT and explained in the memorandum. • Mr. Grant stated that North Carolina Level of Service (NCLOS) software, Version 2.0, will be used to determine segmental roadway levels of service and volume-capacity ratio for all scenarios because the approved traffic forecast is a link-level farecast does not have detailed directional movements. • Mr. Grant mentioned that the analysis will only include the mainline freeway segments and not the ramp merge, ramp diverge, and weaving elements. NCLOS is not capable of providing this level of detailed analysis and no capacity analyses will be performed for collector-distributor (CD) roadways as NCLOS is not designed for this application. • Mr. Grant mentioned that the analysis criteria for each roadway (freeway and arterial) will be established for the analysis and provided in the inemorandum. The initial analysis assumptions and scenarios were included with the agenda (attached) and Mr. Grant discussed these assumptions. These input values will be based on field-observed data collection, the approved traffic forecast and engineering judgment. • Mr. Grant mentioned that roadway levels of service and volume-capacity ratios will be analyzed for a11 routes included in the traffic %recast. • Mr. Grant showed a similar example of a traffic operations technical memorandum for an NCTA project. The Gaston East-West Connector Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum was coinpleted by PBS&J in Septeinber 2008 and the approach and methodology in that memorandum will be used as an example for the Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway traffic capacity analysis. • Mr. Grant mentioned that a crash data request will be submitted to NCDOT and that a separate crash analysis report will be completed during development of the purpose and need. Mr. Grant is coordinating the scope of the crash data request with Brian Mayhew of NCDOT. Update: NCTA submitted the request for crash data to NCDOT on April 1 S, 2009. NCDOT agreed to provide the crash data by May 1 S, 2009. • Ms. Pair asked if safety would be included as a need for the project. Mr. Roberts responded that it is unlikely to be included as a need but that crash data would still be collected. Ms. Pair was in agreement that anticipated new location projects, such as Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway, generally do not have a safety component of the purpose and need due to the difficulty in demonstrating that safety improvements on existing roads would be provided by new location proj ects. Wrap-up • Mr. Reynolds asked if anyone had questions or concerns with the proposed scope and methodology to be used for the planning-level capacity analysis. All meeting attendees were in agreement with the assumptions, approach and scenarios as discussed. Action Items o HNTB mailed a copy of the latest NCLOS software (Version 2.0) to Ms. Benjetta Johnson, P.E. on Apri120, 2009. Southern and Eastern Wake Freeway April 7, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 o HNTB will prepare draft meeting minutes and distribute to all attendees for comment. After the comments are addressed, HNTB will submit final meeting minutes. The foregoing constitutes our understanding of the matters discussed and the conclusions reached. If there are any questions, corrections, omissions, or additional comments, please advise John Grant (HNTB) within five working days after receipt of these minutes. cc: Attendees Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Project File