HomeMy WebLinkAbout20181598_Att. 06 - 2014 Stantec Traffic Forecast_20160222Attachment 6
US 70, Havelock Bypass Traffic
Analysis Report
Havelock, North Carolina
� Stantec
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27606
July 9, 2014
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Table of Contents
Introduction and Study Area ........................................................................................................... 2
Figure1— Study Area Map ..................................................................................................... 3
ModelDevelopment ........................................................................................................................ 4
Roadway..................................................................................................................................... 4
TrafficControls ........................................................................................................................... 4
TrafficForecasts ......................................................................................................................... 4
Analysi s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Level-of-Service Criteria - Signalized Intersections ................................................................... 6
Level-of-Service Criteria - Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................... 6
Scenario 1: No-Build Year 2008 ................................................................................................. 7
Scenario 2: No-Build Year 2035 ............................................................................................... 10
Scenario 3: Build Year 2035 ..................................................................................................... 13
Scenario 4: Build Year 2035 with Improvements ..................................................................... 16
FreewayAnalysis .......................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 21
1 �Page
� Stantec
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Introduction and Study Area
The NCDOT predicts that future increases in traffic volume for the Havelock, North Carolina
area may lead to congestion along the US 70 (Main Street) corridor by the year 2035. This
congestion may result in low levels of service as well as unsafe traveling conditions for vehicles
along this section of the US 70 State Route. To determine the potential effects of such increases
in traffic volume, Stantec Consulting Services has performed a traffic capacity analysis and has
included a summary of the results in this report. This traffic capacity analysis is broken into
three main scenarios:
Scenario 1: No-Build 2008 (Existing road network with 2008 traffic volumes)
Scenario 2: No-Build 2035 (Existing road network with projected 2035 traffic volumes)
Scenario 3: Build 2035 (Existing road network with new US 70 Bypass running parallel,
with revised 2035 traffic volumes)
Scenario 4: Build 2035 with Improvements (Existing road network with new US 70
Bypass running parallel with revised 2035 traffic volumes and minor improvements
along existing US 70)
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 both determine US 70's LOS with no improvements being made along
the corridor. Scenario 3 analyzes US 70's LOS assuming some of the projected 2035 traffic
volumes will take the US 70 Bypass instead of currently existing US 70. Scenario 4 then
evaluates the 2035 Build scenario with minor roadway and signal improvements in order to
achieve LOS D or better at all intersections along existing US 70. The procedure used to obtain
these traffic volumes is explained in the traffic forecast section of this report. .
The study area consists of most signalized intersections along the US 70 (Main Street) corridor
spanning from Carolina Pines Blvd (north end) to Chatham Street (south end). This corridor is
approximately 10.5 miles long and generally travels north/ south, with side streets going
east/west and runs adjacent to the Havelock Military Base. Figure 1 displays an aerial of the
study area.
2�Page
� Stantec
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Figure 1- Study Area Map
3 �Pabe
� �t�rt���
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Model Development
Roadway
The first step in this traffic analysis was to determine the existing roadway geometry for traffic
analysis purposes. This includes roadway laneage, intersection geometries, posted speed limits,
and more. In order to do this, Stantec referred to GoogleMaps which provides high quality
images of the entire study area, updated in January 2014. These images provide up to date and
accurate displays of the existing roadway configuration. These images have been used in
combination with future traffic volumes in order to analyze all three scenarios.
Traffic Controls
In determining the traffic control settings such as signal timing and phasing settings, Stantec has
followed the NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines. These guidelines
provide standard values to ensure consistent traffic analysis. Such standards used in this US 70
corridor study include the use of recommended timing settings for minimum initial green,
recommended minimum cycle lengths by phase, setting of Peak Hour Factor (PHF) = 0.90, no
inclusion of Right-Turn-On-Red operations, and more. For signals which appeared on
GoogleMaps images to have protected-permissive phasing capabilities, such as a five-section
head, we used protected only phasing per NCDOT Congestion Management Guidelines.
Traffic Forecasts
The next step in conducting this traffic analysis was to determine the appropriate vehicular
volumes to be used in the study. The NCDOT prepared the US 70, Havelock Estimated Avera�e
Annual Daily Traffic Dia_rg ams for all scenarios (2008 Existing, 2035 No-Build, and 2035
Build). The 2035 Build traffic volumes also apply to Scenario 4(2035 Build with
Improvements). These diagrams include percent trucks, design hourly volume percentages,
directional splits, as well as other parameters for each movement at each intersection along this
section of the US 70 corridor. Using the "AADT breakout spreadsheet for two-way AADT to
Peak Hour Volumes" provided by NCDOT Congestion Management, Stantec converted the
average annual daily traffic to peak hourly volumes in order to be used to simulate worst-case
traffic conditions during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
4�Page
� Stantec
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed for the roadway network in the project study area. The traffic
analysis program Synchro° Version 8 was used to analyze all intersections according to methods
put forth by the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)3. The
Highway Capacity Manual defines capacity as "the maximum rate of flow at which persons or
vehicles can be reasonably expected to traverse a point or uniform section of a lane or roadway
during a specified time period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions, usually
expressed as vehicles per lane per hour."
Level-of-service (LOS) is a term used to describe different traffic conditions and is defined as a
"qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their
perception by motorists/ or passengers." LOS varies from Level A, representing free flow, to
Level F where traffic breakdown conditions are evident. Traffic conditions with LOS of E or F
are deemed unacceptable and represent significant travel delay, increased accident potential, and
inefficient motor vehicle operation. At an unsignalized intersection, the primary traffic on the
main roadway is virtually uninterrupted. Therefore, the overall delay for the intersection is
usually less than what is calculated for the minor street movements. The overall intersection
delay and the delay for the intersection's minor street(s) are reported in the summary tables of
this report. Generally, LOS D is acceptable for signalized intersections in suburban areas during
peak periods. With the current method of reporting LOS for unsignalized intersections, it is not
uncommon for some of the minor street movements to be operating at a LOS F during peak hour
conditions.
5 �Page
� Stantec
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Level-of-Service Criteria - Signalized Intersections
Level-of-Service Criteria
Signalized Intersections
Level-of-Seevice Stop�ed De�la�per Vehicle (sec)
A < 10.0
B > 10.0 and < 20.0
C >20.0 a��d < 35.0
D >35.0 and < 55.0
E >55.0 and < 80.0
F >g0.0
Level-of-Service Criteria - Unsignalized Intersections
Level-of-Service Criteria
Unsignalized Intersections
Lcvcl-of-Scrvicc Stoppcd Delay pci• Vcl�icic (scc)
A < 10.0
B > ] 0.0 and < 15
C > 15 and < 25
D >25 ancl < 35
E >35 and < 50
F >50
Summary tables from the analysis results concerning the LOS at study area intersections along
US 70 are displayed in tables 3 through 6. A results table and summary is provided for each
scenario.
r� � 6��'a�e
j[ ;- : : ;
{� .fL� �'�'�.��.��.��
��
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Sceax�ri� 1: �io-I3b�ild Year 2008
This scenario consists of the existing roadway network with 2008 AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes. Table 3 is a suinmary of the level of service analysis results for each peak hour.
Table 3: US 70, Havelock Bypass Level-of-Service Summary
2008 No Build Scenario
LOS (Delay in Seconds)
Intersection # Intersection
AM PM
# (1.0) # (0.7)
A (0.0) WB A (0.0) WB
1 US 70 at Chatham Street
A (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
D (29.8) SBL B (13.1) SBL
C (22.1) B (17.5)
2 US 70 at McCotter Blvd E(60.2) WB D(46.2) WB
C (25.1) NB B (16.2) NB
A (6.6) SB B (15.1) SB
B (18.6) C (31.3)
D (42.8) EB D (51.7) EB
3 US 70 at Nunn Street E(66.4) WB F(91.0) WB
B (14.5) NB C (20.9) NB
B (19.2) SB C (34.0) SB
A (3.9) A (5.0)
4 US 70 at Hollywood Blvd E(65.1) EB F(88.7) EB
A (3.2) NB A (4.9) NB
A (2.7) SB A (2.7) SB
B (16.3) B (16.9)
E (60.5) WB F (90.5) WB
5 US 70 at Cunningham Drive
B (12.0) NB B (12.0) NB
B (12.1) SB A (9.7) SB
B (13.5) A (9.1)
6 US 70 at Roosevelt Blvd D(52.5) WB D(35.5) WB
`� A (3.4) NB A (6.2) NB
A (9.7) SB A (4.3) SB
�I �>,�ige
� �t�it���
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
C (27.5) D (38.9)
US 70 at Miller Blvd / E(57.6) EB F(81.5) EB
7 D(35.0) WB E(64.7) WB
Fontana Avenue C(25.6) NB C(23.8) NB
B (19.5) SB D (33.2) SB
A (6.6) A (9.8)
E (61.9) EB F (87.9) EB
8 US 70 at Jackson Drive E(67.9) WB F(96.1) WB
A (4.6) NB A (7.7) NB
A (3.1) SB A (4.6) SB
B (16.2) B (10.8)
E (60.8) EB F (90.2) EB
US 70 at Holly Drive /
9 E(66.4) WB F(98.5) WB
Trader Avenue
A (9.5) NB A (7.7) NB
B (16.3) SB A (5.8) SB
B (16.2) B (19.3)
E (60.7) EB E (78.8) EB
10 US 70 at Chadwick Avenue �� E(65.0) WB F(93.5) WB
B (13.1) NB B (14.3) NB
B (13.1) SB B (14.9) SB
# (1.0) # (0.7)
� C (19.6) EB B (13.4) EB
11 US 70 at Church Road
B (14.5) NB B (11.0) NBL
# (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
B (10.5) B (11.8)
C (31.1) EB D (40.2) EB
12 US 70 at Stonebridge Trail � C(31.4) WB D(39.4) WB
A (9.1) NB B (12.2) NB
A (9.1) SB B (7.3) SB
# (0.8) # (0.6)
C (17.0) EB B (13.1) EB
13 US 70 at Ketner Blvd � B(10.3) WB B(10.1) WB
# (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
# (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
� St�t'1t�� 8 ��' a g e
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
D (36.9) D (39.0)
US 70 at Catawba Road / E(55.7) EB D(52.9) EB
14 - D(51.8) WB D(52.3) WB
Greenfield Heights Blvd
C (30.1) NB D (36.6) NB
C (32.8) SB C (31.5) SB
B (18.7) C (21.9)
15 US 70 at Slocum Road ;, C(27.1) WB C(34.5) WB
C (25.6) NB C (22.6) NB
B (13.0) SB B (12.8) SB
B (18.1) B (15.5)
US 70 at Pine Grove Road / D(51.0) EB D(43.6) EB
16 C� D(45.9) WB D(40.8) WB
Hickman Hill Loop g(11.1) NB B(14.2) NB
B (18.6) SB B (14.2) SB
#- 5ynchro does rtot pronide an orerall i�vter'section [eve! q/'ser•nice /or u�asig�ralized intcrsec�ions. Tlzere/ore, onl�� the oceru/[ delen� %ar� d�e
intersection is repm�ted.
As Table 3 shows, all intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM pealc
hours for the 2008 no build scenario. However, there are several approaches on the sidestreets
that operate at LOS E or F. The worst intersection appears to be US 70 at Catawba Road /
Greenfield Heights Blvd., which operates at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours. The
only other intersection to operate at LOS D is US 70 at Miller Blvd / Fontana Avenue, and it is
only at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The side street movements and mainline protected left
turns are generally the movements that experience higl�er delays and poorer levels of service,
while most of the mainline approaches operate at LOS C or better. Overall, the 2008 no build
analysis indicates that all intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service
during both peak hours.
JV _ 9��'��ge
(�, ��.sZdl��t�
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Scenario 2: No-Build Year 2035
This scenario consists of the existing roadway network with 2035 AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes. Table 4 is a summary of the level of service analysis results for each peak hour.
Table 4: US 70, Havelock Bypass Level-of-Service Summary
2035 No Build Scenario
LOS (Delay in Seconds)
Node # Intersection
AM PM
# (35.3) # (4.5)
� A (0.0) WB A (0.0) WB
� US 70 at Chatham Street
A (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
F (1035.0) SBL F (86.4) SBL
F (140.8) F (102.4)
F (139.8) WB F (168.1) WB
2 US 70 at McCotter Blvd
F (203.7) NB C (25.7) NB
B (18.7) SB F (138.4) SB
F (186.5) F (274.5)
E (69.3) EB D (52.8) EB
3 US 70 at Nunn Street F(250.5) WB F(351.9) WB
F (179.4) NB F (194.8) NB
F (194.5) SB F (355.7) SB
F (92.3) D (45.8)
E (79.3) EB F (133.1) EB
4 US 70 at Hollywood Blvd u A(9.1) NB E(69.7) NB
F (147.4) SB A (7.4) SB
F (91.7) F (84.3)
E (59.9) WB F (80.6) WB
5 US 70 at Cunningham Drive ;�
D(45.1)NB F(120.1)NB
F (130.8) SB C (26.1) SB
C (33.3) B (15.5)
6 US 70 at Roosevelt Blvd tJ F(94.9) WB F(83.2) WB
A (3.4) NB A (6.4) NB
D (38.2) SB A (3.9) SB
10�t'age
�,; ��.�a-a���
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
E (76.9) E (69.5)
US 70 at Miller Blvd / E(69.4) EB F(81.2) EB
7 E(56.5) WB E(70.7) WB
Fontana Avenue
D (49.4) NB E (74.9) NB
F (101.3) SB E (58.3) SB
D (47.4) C (24.5)
E (74.4) EB F (112.2) EB
8 US 70 at Jackson Drive F(99.7) WB F(186.9) WB
B (13.9) NB D (27.7) NB
E (67.2) SB A (6.4) SB
C (32.3) C (29.6)
F (91.6) EB F (107.2) EB
9 US 70 at Holly Drive /
; ; F (179.9) WB F (151.2) WB
Trader Avenue
B (17.3) NB D (36.9) NB
D (32.6) SB A (6.1) SB
D (48.5) D (43.6)
E (77.1) EB F (128.5) EB
10 US 70 at Chadwick Avenue F(83.9) WB F(167.2) WB
B(15.3)NB D(44.7)NB
E (66.4) SB C (24.1) SB
# (8.1) # (1.4)
11 US 70 at Church Road F(192.3) EB D(28.4) EB
F (52.5) NBL C (20.5) NBL
A (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
C (25.6) C (23.8)
E (63.3) EB F (128.0) EB
12 US 70 at Stonebridge Trail E(70.4) WB F(93.6) WB
B (15.5) NB C (23.4) NB
C (27.6) SB B (12.4) SB
# (1.6) # (1.6)
F (57.2) EB D (25.7) EB
13 US 70 at Ketner Blvd � B(11.5) WB C(31.1) WB
A (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
A (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
11���'��ge
�; ��.�i!`8���
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
F (103.7) F (109.7)
US 70 at Catawba Road / F(152.9) EB F(153.7) EB
14 F(90.4) WB F(82.7) WB
Greenfield Heights Blvd E(57.7) NB F(141.1) NB
F (120.0) SB D (47.5) SB
D (55.0) F (105.8)
15 US 70 at Slocum Road �; F(82.6) WB F(115.3) WB
E (72.1) NB F (138.8) NB
D (38.7) SB D (42.4) SB
F (101.7) C (30.1)
E (62.8) EB E (79.9) EB
US 70 at Pine Grove Road / I•�- j
16 �I F(85.1)WB F(154.1)WB
Hickman Hill Loop � g(16.9) NB C(32.4) NB
F (153.9) SB B (12.9) SB
# (522.2) # (350.0)
US 70 at Carolina Pines F(#ki##) WB F(###) WB
17 Blvd A(0.0) NB A(0.0) NB
B (13.5) SBL E (35.4) SB
#- Synchro cloes notpr�oi�ide an overall inte�•sectio» level ofservice for urrsigslalized intersections. The�•efor•e, oia/y tlie ove�•a/!
delay for t{ie intersection is reported.
### - SynchT�o indicated ar� err•or.for tlae delay for� this approacl�, meani��g that the delay is very high.
As illustrated in Table 4, eight (8) of the thirteen (13) signalized intersections operate at LOS E
or F during the AM and/or PM pealc hours. Of those that do not operate at an overall intersection
LOS F, all of them have approaches that are LOS E or F. In general, the highest delays are
experienced on the side street approaches.
It should be noted that the overall intersection levels of service are worst at the northern and
southern ends of the network, and improve in the central region of the corridor from Jackson
Drive to Ketner Blvd. At the north and south ends of the network, all four approaches (EB, WB,
NB, SB) experience poor LOS, but at most intersections throughout the central region from
Jackson Drive to Ketner Boulevard only the side streets movements (EB, WB) experience poor
levels of seivice.
�L 12��'age
(�, ��.c�v�l��t�
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Sc��a�-i� 3: �u�lc� Y�at� 2035
This scenario consists of the existing roadway network with 2035 AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes assuming that the US 70 Bypass is in place to divert traffic off the existing US 70.
Table 5 is a summary of the level of service analysis results for each peak hour.
Table 5: US 70, Havelock Bypass Level-of-Service Summary
2035 Build Scenario
LOS (Delay in Seconds)
Intersection # Intersection
AM PM
# (18.6) # (2.3)
1 US 70 at Chatham Street #(0.0) WB #(0.0) WB
A (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
F (479.4) SBL E (38.5) SBL
D (46.9) C (28.9)
E (78.6) WB E (73.9) WB
2 US 70 at McCotter Blvd �� E(55.3) NB C(23.0) NB
B (19.5) SB C (25.3) SB
D (49.6) F (101.7)
D (51.4) EB D (46.6) EB
3 US 70 at Nunn Street F(141.0) WB F(215.4) WB
D (36.5) NB D (47.8) NB
E (56.7) SB F (145.4) SB
B (10.3) A (7.3)
F (86.3) EB E (77.4) EB
4 US 70 at Hollywood Blvd -
A (4.1) NB A (7.3) NB
B (11.7) SB A (4.2) SB
C (23.9) C (24.8)
D (51.9) WB E (58.5) WB
5 US 70 at Cunningham Drive
C (26.1) NB C (22.8) NB
C (15.7) SB B (18.4) SB
13��'age
�; .s�'�.sZll��t�
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
A (9.9) A (9.2)
6 US 70 at Roosevelt Blvd C(32.1) WB C(30.3) WB
A (3.3) NB A (7.6) NB
A (8.9) SB A (4.4) SB
E (57.5) D (49.6)
US 70 at Miller Blvd / E(58.2) EB E(55.9) EB
7 5 D(38.7) WB D(47.9) WB
Fontana Avenue E(62.8) NB D(43.3) NB
E (63.2) SB E (56.2) SB
B (12.9) B (12.3)
E (66.3) EB E (72.3) EB
8 US 70 at Jackson Drive � F(86.9) WB E(79.7) WB
A (7.7) NB B (10.2) NB
A (8.6) SB A (5.9) SB
B (17.4) B (14.6)
US 70 at Holly Drive / E(65.1) EB E(71.0) EB
9 F(83.4) WB E(74.9) WB
Trader Avenue
� B (19.8) NB A (8.7) NB
A (7.4) SB B (13.3) SB
C (22.3) C (24.9)
E (60.6) EB E (61.5) EB
10 US 70 at Chadwick Avenue E(74.8) WB F(82.1) WB
B(12.1)NB C(20.2)NB
c �22.0� sg c (2a�� sa
# (3.1) # (1.3)
11 US 70 at Church Road � E(44.6) EB C(17.7) EB
C (19.6) NBL B (13.0) NBL
A (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
B (14.5) B (16.6)
D (36.5) EB D (53.2) EB
12 US 70 at Stonebridge Trail � D(40.2) WB D(50.6) WB
B (11.7) NB B (15.9) NB
B (12.6) SB B (11.0) SB
y 14�P�lge
�; ��.c�idl���
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
# (1.2) # (1.1)
C (24.2) EB C (16.5) EB
13 US 70 at Ketner Blvd B(11.0) WB B(11.4) WB
A (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
A (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
F (81.5) E (68.7)
US 70 at Catawba Road / F(115.0) EB F(81.0) EB
14 F(125.1) WB F(115.5) WB
Greenfield Heights Blvd E(65.4) NB E(77.8) NB
E (65.4) SB D (35.1) SB
D (42.4) E (52.2)
15 US 70 at Slocum Road tJ E(55.8) WB E(59.2) WB
E (59.0) NB D (51.9) NB
C (28.9) SB D (45.7) SB
C (26.6) B (19.2)
E (69.0) EB D (53.3) EB
US 70 at Pine Grove Road /
16 F(85.9) WB E(56.6) WB
Hickman Hill Loop
B (12.0) NB B (17.9) NB
C (26.6) SB B (15.8) SB
# (478.0) # (318.1)
US 70 at Carolina Pines F(###) WB F(###) WB
17
Blvd A(0.0) NB A(0.0) NB
B (14.7) SBL E (45.8) SBL
#- 5ynchro does ��ot pronide un overall iritersection [evel o/seTvice,/o�� amsig»alized intersections. There/ore. oiilv the overa![ delap,Jar the
intersection is re�orTed.
### - S7mchro indicated an er-ror for the de/cry� for t/�as approaclz, �avemirng thaX the delay as i,�e�y lligh.
Table 5 indicates that operations improve significantly with the proposed US 70 Bypass in place.
Only four (4) of the thirteen (13) signalized intersections studied operate at LOS E or F during
the AM and/or PM peak hours, as compared to eight (8) of the thirteen (13) at LOS E or F in the
no-build scenario. Additionally, mainline turning movement and side street delays are iinproved
at the unsignalized intersections.
Some of the most notable improvements occurred on the south end of the corridor, between
Chatham Street and Cunningham Drive. All of the intersections in this area operated at LOS F
during the AM peak hour for the no-build scenario, where all of the signalized intersections
15��'age
�,; ��.�a`����
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
improve to LOS D or better in the build alternative. Although the southbound left turn movement
at the unsignalized US 70 and Chatham Street intersection operates with a very high delay, this
delay was reduced by more than 50 percent (1035.0 seconds to 479.4 seconds) in the AM peak.
Scenario 4: Build Year 2035 with Improvements
This scenario consists of the improved roadway network with 2035 AM and PM peak hour
traffic volumes assuming that the US 70 Bypass is in place to divert traffic off the existing US 70
and minor improvements are made to existing US 70 in order to achieve LOS D or better at all
intersections.
The recommended improvements to the existing US 70 corridor are as follows:
US 70 at Chatham Street
• Insta112-phase signal
US 70 at Nunn Street
• Provide dual westbound exclusive left turn lanes
• Provide eastbound exclusive right turn lane
US 70 at Miller Boulevard/Fontana Boulevard
• Add eastbound right turn lane
US 70 at Catawba Road/Greenfield Heights Boulevard
• Add additional eastbound left turn lane — convert existing thru/left lane to thru only
• Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane
• Add additional westbound left turn lane — convert existing thru/left land to thru only
US 70/Carolina Pines Boulevard
• Insta112-phase signal
Table 6 provides a summary of the level of service analysis results for each peak hour.
16�Page
� Stantec
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Table 6: US 70, Havelock Bypass Level-of-Service Summary
2035 Build Scenario with Improvements
LOS (Delay in Seconds)
Intersection # Intersection
AM PM
C (33.9) A (9.4)
# (0.0) WB # (0.0) WB
1 US 70 at Chatham Street ;J
D (44.4) NB B (17.5) NB
F (151.2) SBL C (23.8) SBL
D (44.1) C (29.6)
F (92.2) WB E (75.8) WB
2 US 70 at McCotter Blvd �;
D (48.2) NB C (24.8) NB
B (19.2) SB C (25.1) SB
C (27.2) D (40.8)
D (50.2) EB F (363.5) EB
3 US 70 at Nunn Street � F(82.4) WB F(88.6) WB
C (21.4) NB B (16.0) NB
C (27.8) SB C (28.7) SB
A (9.0) B (10.2)
F (87.5) EB D (49.5) EB
4 US 70 at Hollywood Blvd
A (4.1) NB A (9.3) NB
A (9.4) SB A (9.8) SB
C (21.9) C (25.8)
D (50.5) WB E (58.5) WB
5 US 70 at Cunningham Drive s� C(21.7) NB C(26.2) NB
B (15.1) SB B (15.4) SB
B (1 0.1) A (9.4)
C (33.4) WB C (30.3) WB
6 US 70 at Roosevelt Blvd ;J
A (3.5) NB A (7.3) NB
A (8.8) SB A (5.5) SB
D (39.7) D (43.7)
D (36.3) EB C (27.1) EB
US 70 at Miller Blvd /
7 D(46.8) WB D(43.4) WB
Fontana Avenue
D (40.2) NB D (42.6) NB
D (37.6) SB E (55.5) SB
1 % I �> '�l � t;
�; ��.sZdl��t�
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
B (11.6) B (13.1)
E (63.6) EB E (72.3) EB
8 US 70 at Jackson Drive - F(81.6) WB E(79.7) WB
A (6.2) NB B (10.1) NB
A (7.8) SB A (8.2) SB
B (17.9) B (10.7)
E (64.9) EB E (71.0) EB
US 70 at Holly Drive /
9 v F(84.3) WB E(74.9) WB
Trader Avenue
A (9.6) NB A (5.5) NB
B (15.4) SB B (7.5) SB
C (20.6) C (25.3)
E (59.0) EB E (61.5) EB
10 US 70 at Chadwick Avenue - E(72.6) WB F(82.1) WB
B (19.6) NB B (17.3) NB
B (14.4) SB C (25.1) SB
# (3.1) # (1.3)
11 US 70 at Church Road � E(44.6) EB C(17.7) EB
C (19.6) NBL B (13.0) NBL
A (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
B (12.4) B (15.3)
E (55.3) EB C (33.9) EB
12 US 70 at Stonebridge Trail � E(62.6) WB C(31.9) WB
A (9.7) NB B (18.2) NB
A (7.1) SB A (7.8) SB
# (1.2) # (1.1)
C (24.2) EB C (16.5) EB
13 US 70 at Ketner Blvd � B(10.9) WB B(12.5) WB
A (0.0) NB A (0.0) NB
A (0.0) SB A (0.0) SB
D (50.7) D (42.1)
US 70 at Catawba Road / E(70.8) EB D(48.7) EB
14 E(73.7) WB E(67.0) WB
Greenfield Heights Blvd
E (56.2) NB D (47.1) NB
E (33.2) SB C (24.0) SB
�;. lgl�'�i�e
�1J ��.c�v�l��t�
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
D (36.7) D (48.9)
15 US 70 at Slocum Road � E(58.0) WB E(64.4) WB
D (39.2) NB D (46.7) NB
C (29.3) SB D (37.3) SB
C (30.3) B (19.6)
D (49.9) EB D (37.8) EB
US 70 at Pine Grove Road /
16 t; F(97.6) WB D(45.1) WB
Hickman Hill Loop B(11.8) NB B(19.5) NB
C (32.4) SB B (15.6) SB
C (26.8) C (22.4)
US 70 at Carolina Pines F(89.1) WB E(60.1) WB
17 Blvd � A(5.5) NB C(28.5) NB
C (33.9) SB A (6.6) SB
#- Svnch��o does not provide arx over•all i�atersection level ofservice for unsigrialized inte�sectrons. The��efore, onlv t{ze overall ctelat� fm� tlze
intersection is repo��ted.
### - Synchro i��cficceted an error f�r the de/ai� for dars a�proacb, �azeaning that the delm� is very higlz.
Table 6 indicates that operations improve noticeably when the improvements are added to the
existing US 70 corridor with the proposed US 70 Bypass in place. None of the signalized
intersections studied are expected to operate below LOS D during the AM and/or PM peak
hours, as compared to eight (8) of the thirteen (13) at LOS E or F in the 2035 No-Build scenario
and four (4) of the thirteen (13) in the Build scenario.
Some of the most notable improvements over the build with no improvements scenario occurred
on the north end of the corridor, at Catawba Road/Greenfield Heights Boulevard and Slocum
Road. These two intersections operated at or below LOS D in the build scenario, where in the
build with improvements scenario, they both operate at LOS D in both the AM and PM.
Additionally, the conversion of the US 70 and Chatham Street intersection from unsignalized to
signalized reduces the southbound left turn delay significantly, which alleviates congestion
upstream of the intersection.
Travel Times
The travel times, as generated by SimTraffic 8, in seconds, for the US 70 corridor are presented
below.
� 19��'age
�,; ��.�a`e���
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Table 7: US 70 Travel Time Summary
seconds
2008 Existing 2035 No Build
AM PM AM PM
NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB
901.0 992.9 909.3 979.8 2323.1 3649.2 2341.5 2360.7
2035 Build 2035 Build w/ Improvements
AM PM AM PM
NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB
1467.3 2276.6 1572.2 1523.1 1295.8 1697.8 1420.6 1173.6
As Table 7 shows, the travel times along the US 70 corridor are anticipated to more than double
by the design year if no changes to the existing roadway network are made. The travel times in
the No Build scenario are all above 2,300 seconds, with the AM southbound travel time above
3,600 seconds. The addition of the US 70 Bypass decreases the travel times along the existing
corridor, with the three (3) of the four (4) travel times for the Build scenario being below 1,600
seconds. The fourth travel time, again the AM southbound direction, is significantly greater than
the other three, in this case, over 2,200 seconds. When improvements to the existing corridor are
introduced in conjunction with the US 70 Bypass, the travel times decrease further. In the Build
with Improvements scenario, two (2) of the four (4) travel times are below 1,300 seconds, one
(1) is below 1,500 seconds, and one (1), the AM southbound time, is just below 1,700 seconds.
The high southbound travel times in the 2035 No-Build and 2035 Build scenarios, particularly in
the AM peak hour, are contributed to by the unsignalized traffic control being provided at the US
70 / Chatham Street intersection. The southbound lefts are unable to iind a gap to turn against the
>3000 vehicles per hour in the northbound thru lanes. If this intersection is signalized, as
recommended in the Build with Improvements scenario, the travel times along the corridor,
especially in the southbound direction improve significantly.
�� _ 20�[>age
(�, .s�'�.sZll��t�
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Freeway Analysis
The US 70 Havelock Bypass was analyzed using HCS software to calculate the Freeway Levels
of Service (LOS). The bypass was analyzed in two segments; from US 70 to west of SR 1756
(Lake Road) (Segment 1) and from east of SR 1756 (Lake Road) to US 70 (Segment 2). The
2035 AADT, and K and D factors were obtained from the NCDOT's traffic forecast for TIP No.
R-1051. According to HCS, in 2035, Segment 1 will experience a LOS B. Segment 2 is
predicted to operate at a LOS A in the study year. Both of these segments are predicted to
operate at acceptable levels of service in the year 2035.
Additionally, the travel time along the US 70 Bypass corridor is expected to be approximately
571 seconds, or 9.5 minutes. Even with the minor improvements in place on existing US 70, the
travel time along that corridor is expected to be more than double the Bypass travel time.
Conclusion
The results of Scenario 2(No-Build 2035) illustrate how heavily congested the US 70 corridor
will be if no additional improvements are made. A significant portion of the intersections are
expected to operate at LOS F. Additionally, even those intersections that are expected to operate
at an acceptable level of service, one or more movements or approaches is expected to operate at
LOS F. The addition of the US 70 Bypass will divert traffic off of US 70 and provide significant
improvements in overall operations. Although in the 2035 Build scenario there are still some
locations operating at an undesirable LOS, there are minor improvements that can be made to the
existing US 70 corridor in order to bring all levels of service up to a D or better. In either case,
the operations along the existing US 70 corridor are much improved over the 2035 No-Build
scenario.
The proposed Bypass is expected to operate with minimal delay, with an estimated travel time of
571 seconds (9.5 minutes), roughly half of the time estimated to travel along the existing US 70
corridor. This new facility will be a free-flowing, four-lane, divided highway with full control of
access. Most importantly, the new US 70 Bypass will provide increased safety for traveling
motorists and will create an attractive alternative for drivers who do not have a need to go
through the more downtown area of Havelock. The nature of the Bypass is such that there will be
21 �Page
� Stantec
US 70, HAVELOCK BYPASS CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT
limited development along the corridor and only three (3) total interchanges. This leads to an
average of approximately one (1) interchange every three (3) miles, which creates an
environment for a leisurely drive along the corridor with very few on- and off-ramps. The
entrance and exit ramps that are present will be spaced such that adequate merging and diverging
distances will be provided per NCDOT and AASHTO standards. The ample spacing between
interchanges also allows for a design that includes more than acceptable sight distances,
improving safety conditions on the freeway.
Recommendations to mitigate congestion along US 70 may include but are not limited to;
construction of the US 70 Bypass, increases in public transportation use within the study area
(including bicycles), consideration of alternative intersection design, and lane additions where
required.
22�Page
�i Stantec