20181598_Att. 29 - Monroe Connector,Bypass Draft_20160222

Attachment 29
�
2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED --
Section 2 summarizes the extensive multi-step alternatives development process carried out during the preparation of
the Draft EIS, additional analyses conducted and documented in the Final EIS as a result of public and agency
comment and updates and analyses conducted after the Final EIS. This section consolidates information from the
Draft EIS, Final EIS, and technical reports developed during the course of project studies. DSA D remains the Preferred
Alternative, as noted in Section 2.6 and discussed in Section 3 of this Draft Supplemental Final EIS.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
The NCDOT followed an alternatives screening process for the Monroe Connector/Bypass, and
incorporated additional comparative and detailed analyses as part of the Final EIS and after the
Final EIS, including those following comments received from the public and resource agencies. A
typical alternatives screening process for a transportation project starts with an initial qualitative
screening of a large number of alternatives. Further screenings refine the remaining alternatives
and implement progressively more detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria.
As defined in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO)
Defining the Purpose and Need and Determining the Range of Alternatiues for Transportation
Projects — Practitioner's Handbool (August 2007), the term "alternatives screening" is commonly
used to refer to the process for reviewing a range of preliminary alternatives or concepts and
deciding which ones to carry forward for detailed study. The primary function of an alternatives
screening process is to determine reasonableness as a means of separating the unreasonable
alternatives (which can be eliminated without detailed study) from reasonable alternatives that
must be carried forward for detailed study. As was the circumstances of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass, if there are many reasonable alternatives, the screening process also can be used
as the basis for defining a range that represents the full spectrum of reasonable alternatives.
The development and evaluation of alternatives for determination of the Detailed Study Alternatives
(DSA) included in the Draft EIS is documented in detail in the Alternatiues Deuelopment and
Analysis Report (PBS&J, April 2008), and further studies of existing US 74 are documented in the
Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatiues Study (HNTB, April 2009), incorporated by reference and
available on the project Web site (www.ncdot.gov/projects/monroeconnectorn. Additional studies of
improving existing US 74 conducted after the Final EIS are documented in the US 74 Corridor
Analysis Scenarios (HNTB, December 2010). This Draft Supplemental FEIS summarizes results of
that work.
The following subsections summarize the process used to identify the Detailed Study Alternatives in
the Draft EIS (Section 2.2); additional analyses conducted and included in the Final EIS as a result
of public and agency comment (Section 2.3); and updates and analyses conducted after the Final
EIS (Section 2.4). The majority of the public comments received on alternatives are related to the
alternative analysis, including comments received after the Final EIS, and many of these comments
are related to the alternatives for upgrading existing US 74. The history of the evaluation of the
Improve Existing US 74 Alternative also is summarized in a table in Appendix B. Section 2.5
summarizes a review of traffic forecasts and operations analyses for the Build Alternatives. Finally,
Section 2.6 provides a conclusion regarding the entire extensive alternatives development and
evaluation process. The entire alternatives development process is depicted in the flow chart in
Figure 2-la-b at the end of this section. Appendix B includes figures showing the alternative
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-1

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�.,��u.��
corridors for Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatives and New Location Alternatives referenced in
Figure 2-la-b.
2.2
2.2.1
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING FOR THE DRAFT EIS
PROCESS OVERVIEW AND SCREENING RESULTS
Screening Process
Exhibit 2-1 broadly depicts the overall alternatives evaluation process used to develop the Detailed
Study Alternatives included in the Draft EIS, and the time frame for the screenings. The chart
simplifies the extensive screening procedure used for the Monroe Connector/Bypass, involving
several levels of study and analysis to narrow down a reasonable set of alternatives for detailed
study in the Draft EIS. As the chart shows, the initial screening was conducted in three steps.
EXHIBIT 2-1. Alternatives Evaluation Process for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
Mvnroe CannectorlBypass
Alternati�es Screening Process
pefine renge af Alternative Concepts.
Qualitative first Screening
�etermine if Alternative Concepts meet the
projed's purpase and need.
De�elop Prellminary Corridar Segments.
QualitaHve Second ScreeninR
Compare Preliminary Lorridor Segmerts and
eliminate those which are unreasonable,
impractical, or have higher impacts.
Comhine remaining Preliminary Corridar
Segments to farm endpvint-twendpoint
Preliminary Study Alternati�es
�uantitative 7hird Screening
Calculate impac[s to the human and
naturel environments for the Preliminary
Study Alternatives. Identily
Oetailed Study AlternaHves {pSAs}
hased on design consideratians,
impacts, and agency�public input.
Comparative Analysis of DSAs
Develop functional engineering designs for
the DSAs, estimate projert costs, and
evaluate envimnmental impacts in Oraft EIS.
lst Qualitative Screening — evaluated the ability of an alternative concept to meet the project's
purpose and need based on the established screening criteria. The lst Qualitative Screening
evaluated the range of alternative concepts suggested in the FHWA Technical Aduisory T 6640.8A
(1987) that should be considered when determining reasonable alternatives. These are:
• No-Build or No-Action Alternative
• Transportation Demand Management Alternative
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-2

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w+�v.�•�
• Transportation System Management Alternative
• Mass Transit and Multi-Modal Alternatives
• Build Alternatives, including Upgrading Existing Roadways and New Location Alternatives
The following three evaluation criteria were based on the purpose and need and applied to the
analysis of each alternative concept:
Does the alternative address the need to enhance mobility and increase capacity in the US 74
corridor?
• Is the alternative consistent with the NC Strategic Highway Corridor program and the
NC Intrastate System (i.e. does it allow for high-speed regional travel)?
• Does the alternative maintain access to properties along existing US 74?
2nd Qualitative Screenin� — compared Preliminary Corridor Segments on new location and along
existing US 74 and other roadways, and eliminated those which were determined unreasonable,
impractical, and/or had higher impacts.
3rd Quantitative Screenin� — calculated and compared impacts to the human and natural
environments for the Preliminary Study Alternatives and identified the Detailed Study Alternatives
based on design considerations, impacts, and agency/public input.
Public and Agencv Input
The public and local, state, and federal environmental resource and regulatory agencies were
involved throughout the project development process. Numerous opportunities for involvement were
provided to solicit and obtain input and comment, beginning at the initial development of the
project's purpose and need, and continuing through the determination of the range of reasonable
alternatives for detailed study (and beyond). Comments were accepted at any time, with formal
opportunities provided at milestones in the process. The plan to involve the public and agencies in
the process is included in the Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan (October 2007) for the project
and summarized in Section 2 and Section 9 of the Draft EIS.
Agencies were involved in the technical process of both purpose and need and alternatives
development and screening via monthly agency coordination meetings (Turnpike/Environmental
Agency Coordination, or TEAC, meetings). Input from agencies was requested as the screening
criteria were developed and reiined. At the TEAC meetings, NCDOT requested and received
agreement from participating agencies on vital elements of the project's purpose and need and
subsequent alternatives development and detailed study alternatives identification.
In June 2007, over 25,000 newsletters were distributed to solicit public involvement beginning early
in the process. The purpose and need for the project was presented at Citizens Informational
Workshops held on June 25 and 26, 2007. There was agreement on existing and future need, and
strong support of the project purpose by the publicl. Following support of the project purpose and
need, project alternatives were then presented to both the public and agencies, as documented in
Section 2 of the Draft EIS.
� Per the Summary of the Citizens Informational Workshop Comment Forms (July 2007), over 90% of respondents
agreed with the proposed project purposes of 1) improving mobility 2) providing high-speed regional travel, and 3)
maintaining property access.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-3

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w+�v.�•�
Tollin4
Tolling was a consideration in the alternatives development process beginning with the 2na
Qualitative Screening. However, as discussed below, the tolling aspect of the project had no
influence on the concepts identified for detailed study and little influence on the roadway
preliminary design.
In the lst Qualitative Screening, which evaluated alternative concepts' abilities to meet purpose and
need, tolling was not a consideration. Non-toll alternatives considered included upgrading existing
US 74 by widening, upgrading existing US 74 to a Superstreet design, TSM Alternatives, and TDM
Alternatives. Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternatives (the mass transit component likely would
include user fees) also were considered. These were eliminated from detailed study for reasons
unrelated to the ability to toll.
Concepts that passed through the lst Qualitative Screening were Improve Existing US 74
(controlled-access highway), New Location Roadway (controlled-access highway), and New
Location/Improve Existing Roadways Hybrid (controlled-access highway). These concepts were
determined to be the only ones that could meet the project's purpose and need (either tolled or non-
tolled).
As discussed in Section 2.3.2.5 of the Draft EIS, the NCTA determined that the Monroe
Connector/Bypass is f"inancially feasible with the collection of tolls. In the Charlotte Regional
Transportation Planning Organization's (CRTPO's) 2035 LRTP, tolling has been identified as a
funding source for this project. Using tolls, the NCDOT can provide the funding needed to construct
the project many years earlier than with traditional funding sources. Using tolls as a funding
mechanism for construction and maintenance allows needed capacity to be added when budget
shortfalls would otherwise prevent or delay completion of critical projects.
In the 2nd Qualitative Screening, tolling was considered in the design of the Preliminary Corridor
Segments. All alternative concepts that made it through the first qualitative screening to the second
qualitative screening are concepts that could involve tolling in their designs. The FHWA
memorandum titled NEPAAnalysis of Toll Roads (October 2004) states that an MPO may identify
toll revenues as a funding source for a highway in its transportation plan when all other public funds
are committed for other projects and not available (as is the case for the Monroe Connector/Bypass).
The memo goes on to say that the NEPA document for such projects does not need to consider non-
toll alternatives since the planning process demonstrated that these alternatives are not
economically feasible.
State law prohibits tolling of existing roadways and requires a free alternate route (NCGS 136-
89.197). To accommodate this, constructing the project along an existing roadway corridor would
require frontage roads to provide the free alternate route. However, as part of the purpose and need
criteria for the project, there is a need to maintain access to existing properties along existing US 74,
so frontage roads would be needed for the Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatives under either a toll or
non-toll scenario to provide property access. Also, as discussed in Draft EIS Section 2.5.1.3, there
are minimal differences between a roadway design with and without an electronic toll collection
(ETC) system as proposed with this project.
Results of Alternatives Screenina in Draft EIS
lst Qualitative Screening — Concepts eliminated in the lst Qualitative Screening were the TSM
concept, the mass transit/multi-modal concept, and transportation demand management concepts
(measures such as carpooling, telecommuting, and shifting work schedules to off peak hours). The
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-4

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��«��v.�.�
results revealed that only a controlled-access highway type facility (either on new location or an
upgrade of existing roadways, or combination of new location and upgrade existing) would fulfill the
identified needs and meet the purpose of the project.
The reasons for the conclusions are detailed in the Alternatiues Development and Analysis Report
(PBS&J, April 2008) and Section 2.2.2 of the Draft EIS. These conclusions were reviewed and
remain valid.
The No-Build (or No-Action) alternative served as the baseline comparison for the design year
(2035). This alternative assumes that the transportation systems for Union and Mecklenburg
Counties would evolve as currently planned in the MUMPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan,
but without major improvements to the existing US 74 corridor from near I-485 to between the
towns of Wingate and Marshville. Since the Draft EIS, the MUMPO 2035 LRTP has been released;
however, the 2035 LRTP does not include any additional projects within the project area that would
change the conclusions presented in the Draft EIS regarding the No-Build Alternative.
2nd Qualitative Screening — Section 2.3 of the Draft EIS summarizes the 2nd Qualitative Screening.
The 2nd Qualitative Screening consisted of a series of assessment steps to determine which
Preliminary Corridor Segments to include in the 3rd Quantitative Screening. This 2nd screening
included four steps:
1. Establish a project study area to develop Preliminary Corridor Segments.
This study area was reeualuated for this Draft Supplemental Final EIS and remains
valid.
2. Assess Individual Preliminary Corridor Segments
• Preliminary Corridor Segments include new location corridors and corridors along
existing roadways (including existing US 74 and a corridor south of existing US 74).
These are shown in Appendix B.
• Segment eliminated if it had likely substantial impacts to the natural and/or human
environment.
• Segment carried forward if it provided a route where no other similar options existed
and/or if additional information and evaluation were needed to determine if the
Preliminary Corridor Segment would be viable and reasonable.
3. Assess and Compare Relative Preliminary Corridor Segments
• This evaluation focused on four areas where several options existed to provide the
same route. These four areas are shown in Figure 2-4a-e of the Draft EIS.
• Segments were eliminated that had greater impacts to the natural and/or human
environment compared to other corridor segments in the same area that provided a
similar function.
4. Consolidate Corridor Segments into Preliminary Study Alternatives (shown in Appendix B)
The 2nd Qualitative Screening resulted in the elimination of ten corridor segments and consolidation
of several others (see Figure 2-5 of the Draft EIS for the Preliminary Corridor Segments that passed
through to the evaluation in the 3=d Quantitative Screening).
3rd Quantitative Screening - The Preliminary Corridor Segments retained after the 2nd Qualitative
Screening were combined to form 25 Preliminary Study Alternatives (PSAs). The purpose of the 3ra
screening was to identify those Preliminary Study Alternatives that should be carried forward for
detailed study in the Draft EIS. Sixteen DSAs were identiiied, as discussed in Section 2.22.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-5

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w��v.��
For the PSAs, design criteria and conceptual alignments were developed within the 1,000-foot
corridors and preliminary impacts were quantiiied for the PSAs to compare and evaluate them. The
screening criteria included factors such as cost, residential and business relocations, stream and
wetland impacts, potential impacts to protected species, and other human and natural environment
impact screening factors. These factors, listed in Table 2-3 in the Draft EIS, were identified with
input from local, regional, and federal agency representatives and staff and the public.
All PSAs assumed that toll collection would be made using an open road tolling technology, which
allows for tolls to be collected at highway speeds and eliminates the need for conventional toll plazas.
Subsequent to the 3rd Quantitative Screening, additional evaluation of PSA G(Improve Existing
US 74) was included in the Draft EIS in response to agency comments requesting additional
information regarding upgrading existing US 74. NCDOT further assessed PSA G and also
developed and assessed a Revised PSA G(reduced impact compared to PSA G), as documented in
Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternatiues Study (HNTB, April 2009) and summarized in Sections 2.4.4.2
and 2.4.4.3 of the Draft EIS. The additional evaluations confirmed that PSA G and Revised PSA G
would still not be reasonable or practicable, and therefore, they were not considered as detailed
study alternatives.
2.2.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES IN THE DRAFT EIS
The 16 endpoint-to-endpoint detailed study alternatives (DSAs) listed in Table 2-1, and shown in
Appendix B, were selected for further detailed study based upon the outcome of the alternatives
screening process described above.
As previously noted, despite its inability to meet the project purpose and need, the No-Build
Alternative was still retained to provide a baseline for comparison with the DSAs in accordance with
NEPA regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (Technical Advisory T 6640.8A;
Section V.E.1).
Based on the information considered in the Draft EIS, the FHWA and NCDOT identified DSA D as
the Recommended Alternative, as discussed in Section 2.8 of the Draft EIS and shown in
Figure 2-8a-c of the Draft EIS. The FHWA and NCDOT identified a Recommended Alternative as a
way of giving readers of the Draft EIS an indication of the agencies' thinking at the time.
TABLE 2-1: Detailed Stud Alternatives
DSA DSA Segments* Length (miles)
A 18A, 21, 22A, 31, 36, 36A, 40 20.6
B 18A, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, 40 20.5
C 2, 21, 22A, 31, 36, 36A, 40 19.7
D 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36A, 40 19.6
A1 18A, 21, 22A, 31, 34, 34B, 40 20.5
B1 18A, 21, 30, 31, 34, 346, 40 20.5
C1 2, 21, 22A, 31, 34, 34B, 40 19.6
D1 2, 21, 30, 31, 34, 34B, 40 19.6
A2 18A, 21, 22A, 31, 36, 36B, 41 20.6
B2 18A, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36B, 41 20.5
C2 2, 21, 22A, 31, 36, 36B, 41 19.7
D2 2, 21, 30, 31, 36, 36B, 41 19.6
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-6

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z=cw��v.��
TABLE 2-1: Detailed Stud Alternatives
DSA DSA Segments* Length (miles)
A3 18A, 21, 22A, 31, 34, 34A, 41 20.5
B3 18A, 21, 30, 31, 34, 34A, 41 20.4
C3 2, 21, 22A, 31, 34, 34A, 41 19.6
D3 2, 21, 30, 31, 34, 34A, 41 19.6
*Preliminary Corridor Segments 0, 1, 1A, 42, and 43 were combined with
other segments during development of the DSAs. DSA Segments 34A, 34B,
36A, and 366 were added within existing DSA Segment corridor limits during
preparation of the functional design plans to allow combinations of all DSA
Segments to form end-to-end alternatives. DSA Segment descriptions can be
found in Figure 2-1 and Section 2.5 of the Draft EIS.
2.3 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
IN THE FINAL EIS
After the Draft EIS comment period ended, the FHWA and NCDOT identified a Preferred
Alternative (DSA D), as documented in the Final EIS, based on consultation with local
transportation planning agencies, and state and federal environmental resource and regulatory
agencies, as well as consideration of agency and public comments received on the Draft EIS and at
the public hearings. The Preferred Alternative is discussed in Section 3 of this Draft Supplemental
Final EIS.
During the comment period for the Draft EIS, comments were received requesting additional
information on the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative, Mass Transit/Multi-
Modal Alternatives, and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives. Additional
information on the TDM Alternative and the Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternative from the
Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (2008) was provided in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EIS,
and is reproduced below. Minor updates are provided below for the existing conditions for the TDM
Alternatives and Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternatives, but these updates do not change the
decision to eliminate these alternatives from detailed study.
One additional TSM Alternative concept was evaluated and documented in Section 3.3.2 of the Final
EIS. This additional analysis from the Final EIS is summarized below. Other studies conducted on
the TSM Alternatives after the Final EIS are summarized in Section 2.4.
TDM Alternatives
The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) promotes ridesharing to employment destinations in the
Charlotte area by providing a car rideshare matching service and a vanpool program. The CATS
vanpool program had 78 vanpools at the time the Final EIS was published, with two originating in
Union County - one in Indian Trail and one in Waxhaw. Currently there are 76 vanpools, with three
originating in Union County - two in Indian Trail and one in Waxhaw (CATS website:
http://cha rmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/com m uti ng/va n pool/Pages/cu rrent.aspx).
CATS also promotes employer programs for managing travel demand. As reported in the Final EIS,
there were 57 companies participating in CATS Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC)
Program. Currently there are 62 participating companies (CATS website:
http://cha rmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/com m uti ng/ETC/Pages/defa u It.aspx).
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-7

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w+�v.�•�
The TDM Alternative was eliminated from further study because it does not meet the project's
purpose and need, as discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EIS. TDM measures would provide
increased transportation choices in the area, however, only a small percentage of travelers would
take advantage of these options. TDM measures would not provide for high-speed regional travel,
enhanced mobility, nor increased capacity for the majority of travelers in the US 74 corridor.
Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternatives
The Mass Transit Alternative concept would include bus or rail passenger service. The Multi-Modal
Alternative concept would combine mass transit with existing roadway improvements under the
TSM Alternatives, as described in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EIS.
Separate studies of mass transit are being undertaken in Mecklenburg County by CATS. Plans and
existing services in Union County, and between Union County and Mecklenburg County, are
described below. Neither Union County nor the City of Monroe operates a public transportation
system, with the exception of on-demand paratransit services. There are no plans to begin other
public transportation services in the near future.
As reported in the Final EIS, CATS operates an express bus service to and from Uptown Charlotte
(Route 74X), stopping at three park and ride lots in Union County. The first is located at Union
Towne Shopping Center off US 74 in Indian Trail. The second is located at the K-Mart at 2120 West
Roosevelt Boulevard (US 74) in Monroe, and the third one is located at Christ Bible Teaching Center
at 1103 Unarco Road off (US 74) in Marshville. CATS still operates this express service, but it no
longer stops at the Christ Bible Teaching Center (CATS Web site:
http://cha rmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/Bus/routes/Pages/defa u It.aspx).
CATS is planning a major expansion of its mass transit service throughout Mecklenburg County. In
November 1998, Mecklenburg County citizens approved a local sales tax (one-half percent) to
support implementation of the 2025Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan, which identified five major
mass transit corridors. One of these corridors, the Southeast Corridor, has a study area that extends
from Center City Charlotte southeast along US 74 to Central Piedmont Community College just
south of I-485 in Mecklenburg County. This project is also known as the LYNX Silver Line, and
there are currently no plans to extend the project into Union County.
As discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the Final EIS, the Mass Transit and Multi-Modal Alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration.
TSM Alternatives
A TSM Alternative was studied and included in the Draft EIS. This TSM Alternative Concept 1
considered minor operational and physical improvements to increase capacity along existing US 74
consisting of traffic signal timing optimization, access control measures (e.g. driveway consolidation,
closing median breaks), and intersection improvements such as adding intersection turn lanes and
extending turn lanes to accommodate longer queues. This alternative concept could also include
converting existing lanes on US 74 to high occupancy vehicle (HO� lanes. This alternative was
eliminated from detailed study in the Draft EIS (Section 2.2.2.3 of Draft EIS).
As part of the comments received on the Draft EIS, it was brought to the attention of NCTA that
NCDOT Division 10 conducted a study of the existing US 74 corridor titled US 74 Corridor Study
(Stantec, July 2007). Study goals were "to identify and develop improvements that, where possible,
would provide a LOS [level of service] of D or better at each signalized intersection for projected 2015
trafiic volumes. Because of development along the study corridor and agency budgetary constraints,
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-8

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��«��v.�.�
LOS goals were not attainable at all locations. Where LOS goals could not be attained, reasonable
improvements were recommended within the study constraints."
It is clearly stated in the US 74 Corridor Study executive summary that the purpose of the study
was to provide recommendations for interim and immediate actions until such time as the Monroe
Connector/Bypass was constructed. The study itself notes that "this vital transportation corridor
(US 74) will be in critical need of additional through lanes on US 74 or alternate routes will need to
be identified to meet the demands of the public" (page iv).
The information from this study, including a description of the improvements studied, and the
results, were incorporated into TSM Alternative Concept 2, as discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the Final
EIS, summarized below.
TSM Alternative Concept 2 is an enhancement of Concept 1. Improvements included in Concept 2
are those labeled Long Term Improvements in the US 74 Corridor Study (July 2007). By long term
improvements, the authors of that study meant improvements to be implemented by 2015. The
improvements include closing median openings, converting US 74 to a Superstreet from Stallings
Road (SR 1365) to Unionville-Indian Trail Road (SR 1367), a distance of about 2.7 miles, and a series
of intersection improvements. These improvements are listed in Table 3-5 of the Final EIS.
The US 74 Corridor Study concluded that by implementing the improvements listed in Table 3-5 of
the Final EIS, an overall LOS D in 2015 could be attained at the intersections along the US 74 study
corridor, except for the intersection of US 74 at Rocky River Road (SR 1514). However, these
improvements would not result in high-speed travel through the corridor in 2015. With the
improvements listed in the table, average travel speeds in 2015 for the eastbound direction in the pm
peak were estimated to be 30 mph along the Superstreet design and 29 mph for the remainder of the
corridor evaluated. Travel times were calculated using computer modeling and reported in Appendix
IV and Appendix VII (Superstreet Design Area) of the US 74 Corridor Study. A review of the travel
time tables shows one consistent anomaly across all tables. This anomaly occurs for the segment
from Faith Church Road to Unionville-Indian Trail Road, where average travel speeds are reported
as well above speed limits (e.g. 101.4 mph, 127.8 mph). This anomaly was removed from the travel
time reported here.
A comparison of the year 2015 traffic volumes used in the US 74 Corridor Study to the year 2035 No-
Build volumes developed in Revised Monroe Connector/Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memo
(HNTB, March 2010), shows that the volumes in 2035 along US 74 would generally be significantly
higher. Therefore, the levels of service at the intersections in 2035 would be expected to degrade to
below LOS D and travel speeds based on the computer model also would decrease.
TSM Alternative Concept 2 was eliminated from further consideration, as discussed in Section 3.3.2
of the Final EIS.
Since the Final EIS, many of the recommended improvements from the US 74 Corridor Study have
been implemented by NCDOT, as discussed in Section 2.4 under the subheading "TSM Measures
Implemented along Existing US 74".
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-9

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w��v.��
2.4 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
AFTER THE FINAL EIS
After the Final EIS, additional consideration was given to Improve Existing US 74 Alternatives as
part of the Section 404 jurisdictional resources individual permit process. In addition, as part of the
updates to all information conducted for this Draft Supplemental Final EIS, data was collected on
improvements that have been made to existing US 74 in the project study area since the Final EIS.
These improvements are TSM-type improvements. The additional analyses for the Improve Existing
US 74 Alternatives and the TSM-type measures that have been implemented along the corridor are
discussed below.
Appendix B includes a table that summarizes the history of Improve Existing US 74 alternatives in
the project development process for the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
Improve Existing US 74 Alternatives
In response to questions from the USACE on the Section 404 jurisdictional resource individual
permit application NCDOT prepared a 2035 comparative planning level analysis of four Upgrade
Existing US 74 corridor scenarios to determine if upgrading US 74 would provide acceptable corridor
levels of service in the design year 2035 (US 74 CorridorAnalysis Scenarios, HNTB, December
2010). A total of four scenarios were analyzed: 1) No-Build, 2) Superstreet Existing, 3) Widen to
6-Lane (No Superstreet), and 4) Superstreet 6-Lane. The third option assumed widening the entire
US 74 corridor to a 6-lane section while maintaining other existing roadway characteristics.
The results of the comparative analysis showed that in the design year 2035, US 74 under all four
scenarios is expected to exceed LOS D in the majority of the corridor. Exceeding the maximum
volume LOS D threshold indicated that the segment is expected to operate at LOS E or F and
experience heavy congestion, queuing and unstable traffic flow. The Superstreet 6-Lane scenario
option provided the highest corridor capacity compared to the other three scenarios, and the best
projected levels of service and travel speeds. However, 65 percent of the corridor is expected to
operate at LOS F, and to operate with greatly reduced average travel speeds (well below the speed
limit) under this scenario. For these reasons, these alternatives were not considered to be
reasonable and feasible.
TSM Measures Implemented alon4 Existin4 US 74
In recent years, approximately 45 TSM measures have been implemented along existing US 74 by
NCDOT as funds have become available and by developers of adjacent properties as they improve
their properties. Overall, improvements have been implemented at all 23 intersections along
existing US 74 that were mentioned for improvement in the US 74 Corridor Study. Table 2-2 lists
the improvements made within the existing US 74 corridor since the July 2007 publication of the
US 74 Corridor Study. Whether an improvement was made before or after May 2010 (the date the
Final EIS was published) and whether the improvement is included as a recommendation in the
US 74 Corridor Study also are noted in the table.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-10

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z=cw��v.��
TABLE 2-2: US 74 Improvements Implemented Since July 20071
US 74 Corridor Completed
Intersection Improvement Study Prior to After
Recommendation May 2010Z May 2010
Signal Timing Optimized Y X
Stallings Road Re-configured lane assignments on NB
Stallings Rd. to have one left turn and one N X
left turn/thru/right turn lane
Signal timing optimized Y X
Indian Trail —Fairview Road
Incorporated 7-phase signal N X
Signal timing optimized Y X
Added 2nd left turn lane for US 74E6 Y X
Unionville - Indian Trail Road Re-configured lane assignments on NB
Unionville-Indian Trail Rd. to have one left Y X
turn/thru lane and one thru/right turn
lane
Signal timing optimized Y X
Faith Church Road / Added 2nd left turn lane for US 74E6 N X
Harris Teeter Dist Center Added 2nd left turn lane on Faith Church
Road N X
Signal timing optimized Y X
Wesley Chapel - Stouts 8-Phase signal Y X
Road/Sardis Church Road Added 2nd left turn lane on Wesley Y X
Chapel-Stouts Road
Added right turn lane on US74E6 Y X
Added right turn lane on US74W6 N X
Signal timing optimized Y X
Chamber Drive
Added right turn lane on US74W6 N X
Signal timing optimized Y X
Rocky River Road Added right turn lane on N X
Rocky River Road SB
Signal timing optimized Y X
Added 2nd left turn lane for US 74E6 N X
Poplin Place/ Added right turn lane on US74W6 N X
Wellness Blvd. Re-configured lane assignments on Poplin
PI. to have one left turn lane, one left turn N X
/thru lane and one right turn lane
Signal timing optimized Y X
Hanover Drive US 74WB left turn lane storage extended
to 275 feet Y X
Signal timing optimized Y X
Dickerson Boulevard Added 2nd left turn lane on Dickerson N X
Blvd. NB
US 74WB left turn lane storage increased N X
1. July 2007 is the date the US 74 Corridor Study was published.
2. May 2010 was the date of the Final EIS.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-11

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w��v.��
In addition to the improvements shown in Table 2-2, the NCDOT has also implemented a closed-
loop signal system and optimized signal timings at the following intersections since the Final EIS
was published, consistent with the recommendations included in the US 74 Corridor Study:
• Fowler Secrest Road/John Moore Road
• Rolling Hills Drive / Carroll Street
• Roland Drive / Round Table Road
• Williams Road
• Secrest Shortcut Road
• Stafford Street
• Boyte Street
• Morgan Mill Road
• Walkup Avenue
• Sutherland Avenue
• Venus Street / Dove Street
• Franklin Street
• US 601 South
The NCDOT also installed or modified directional crossovers (which only allow vehicles to make a
specific movement such as eastbound US 74 to a destination on the north side of the roadway) at the
following locations, consistent with the recommendations included in the US 74 Corridor Study:
2nd & 4th median openings west of Chamber Drive
East of Poplin Place (into shopping center)
Finally, NCDOT converted the crossover between Dickerson Boulevard and Hanover Drive to a
directional crossover, consistent with the recommendation of the US 74 Corridor Study.
One major long-term improvement recommended in the US 74 Corridor Study, constructing a
superstreet facility for the intersections of US 74 with Stallings Road, Indian Trail-Fairview Road,
and Unionville-Indian Trail Road, has not yet been implemented. In August 2013, NCDOT awarded
$6.1 million in funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program to convert four intersections
on US 74 in Indian Trail (Indian Trail-Fairview Road, Unionville-Indian Trail Road, Faith Church
Road, and Sardis Church Road) to superstreet facilities. These improvements are scheduled for
construction in late 2015.
Even with the implementation of the improvements described above, US 74 experiences congestion
during peak travel periods as highlighted in Section 1.2.4. Existing average speeds along US 74 are
less than posted speed limits and less than 50 mph during peak travel periods. TSM improvements,
while providing some short-term benefit, would continue to not meet the purpose and need for the
Monroe ConnectorBypass project.
2.5 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSES
2.�$.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As part of the alternatives analysis process, FHWA and NCDOT relied upon several trafiic studies.
The traffic studies include traffic forecasts (Section 2.5.2) and traffic operations analyses
(Section 2.5.3). General descriptions for forecasts and operations analyses are provided below.
A"traffic forecast" provides projected traffic volumes for a given year. Traffic volumes are
provided as annual average daily traffic (AADT) on various roadways. Forecasts are based
on consideration of a variety of data. For this project, this data includes, but is not limited
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-12

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w+�v.�•�
to: traffic counts, historic travel trends, the MUMPO Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP), the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model (MRM), and existing road network
operations. These individual data sources are not themselves traffic forecasts, and do not
include the level of detail ultimately developed in the traffic forecast for a particular project.
For example, the MRM may not include all of the roadways within a study area. Therefore,
these roadways are included in the trafiic forecast through analyzing traffic counts or other
available data sources. Another example is traffic count data collected at one point in time
and then annualized to compare to travel trends throughout the year.
• An "operations analysis" is based on the traffic forecasts. The operations analysis estimates
congestion levels for roadway segments and intersections, which are typically measured in
level of service (LOS). Other measures, such as volume/capacity (v/c) ratios, also are
sometimes used.
A number of traffic forecasts and operations analyses were prepared for build and no-build
Alternative scenarios, including several scenarios for upgrading US 74. Traffic forecasts and traffic
operations analyses used in the Draft EIS are discussed in Sections 1.8.3 and 1.8.4 for the No-Build
scenario, and in Section 2.6 of the Draft EIS for the Build scenario. Section 2.4.4.3 of the Draft EIS
discusses upgrading existing US 74 to a toll facility, including trafiic forecasts and operations.
In the Final EIS, Section 1.1.8 provides additional background information for the No-Build scenario
traffic operations analysis discussed in Section 1.8.3 of the Draft EIS. Final EIS Section 2.3.5 notes
traffic operations and traffic volumes were reevaluated for the Build condition based on the refined
functional design of the Preferred Alternatives' interchanges at the US 74 Frontage Road,
Unionville-Indian Trail Road, and Austin Chaney Road (SR 1758). Final EIS Appendix A— Errata
corrects an error in Draft EIS Table 2-7 regarding the 2035 No-Build Alternative forecasts (further
explained in Section 2.5.2 — Question 4).
For this Draft Supplemental Final EIS, Section 2.4 discusses additional traffic operations analyses
conducted for various alternatives for improving existing US 74 (superstreets and widening
scenarios).
2.5.2 TRAFFIC FORECASTS
As part of this Draft Supplemental Final EIS, the various traffic forecasts prepared for the project
were given an in-depth hard look considering new data and updated regional travel demand models,
and NCDOT guidance contained in Guidelines to Determine When to Request an Updated Traffic
Forecast (NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, February 24, 2009). The review is presented in
the memorandum titled, Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November
2013), included in Appendix G. The memorandum answers the following questions. A summary of
the answer to each question is provided below, with full details in the memorandum.
1. What trafiic forecasts were developed during the Monroe Connector/Bypass project
development process and what were they used for?
2. How could updated socioeconomic (SE) data sets affect the No-Build scenario and Build
scenario traffic forecasts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project?
3. How could changes in socioeconomic data related to the project's indirect and cumulative
effects affect the traffic forecasts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass?
4. Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purposes they were used?
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-13

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��c��cw�•�
5. Are the current Build scenario traffic forecasts still valid for the purposes they were used?
6. How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect the traffic on the US 74 corridor?
Question 1- What traffic forecasts were developed during the Monroe
Connector/Bypass project development process and what were they used for?
Numerous traffic forecasts - and interpolations, extrapolations, and redistributions of these
forecasts - have been developed and used for different purposes during the Monroe Connector/Bypass
development process. Table 2-3 provides a listing and description of each forecast and the uses of
each forecast. Methods used to develop the forecasts are included in each of the listed traffic forecast
documents. Additionally, traffic and revenue studies were developed to support the project
financing, but these are revenue forecasts, not project-level traffic forecasts, so are not included in
the table.
TABLE 2-3: Summary of Monroe Connector/Bypass Project Traffic Forecasts
Date/Prepared Forecast
Document Name Used in NEPA process? / Notes
By Years/Scenarios
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic Forecast for the No-Build
Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP 1 une 2008
Document 2007 & 2030
Project No. R-3329 and NCDOT Martin/AlexioU/ Yes Supplemented by Document F.
A State TIP Project No. R-2559, BI'yson No-Build
Monroe Connector/Bypass Study
2035 Used to evaluate Upgrade US 74
Technical Memorandum for TIP lune 2008
Document Upgrade Existing: Preliminary Study Alternatives
Projects R-2559 & R-3329 U574 Wilbur Smith Yes
g U rade Scenario Non Toll and Toll PSA G and Revised PSA G in the
P9 Associates (WSA) for upgrade Draft EIS.
No-Build found in error, not used
2008 & 2035 for any analysis and replaced by
Document Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects September 2008 No-Build No/ Document F(see Final EIS
R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe
� Connector/eypass WSA Build Non-Toll Yes Appendix A).
Build Toll Build cases used in technical
studies for Draft EIS and Final EIS.
TRAFFIC FORECAST INTERPOLATIONS, EXTRAPOLATIONS, AND REDISTRIBUTIONS
Only used to represent opening
year traffic volumes on the April
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Document January 2009 2013 2009 Public Hearing maps. Not
Alternative 3A - 2013 AADT Build No
� To115cenario HNTB Build Toll used for any project analysis or
presented in any NEPA
document.
Developed to account for a minor
Document 2035 euild Toll Forecast, July 2009 2035 change in frontage road
E Segment 2(Alternative 3AJ HNTB Build Toll Yes configuration at western
terminus of project.
NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R- Corrects and replaces the No-
Document 2559 Revised Monroe Connector March 2010 2008 & 2035 Yes Build forecast in Document � and
F Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast HNTB No-Build supplements Document A.
Memorandum
Monroe Connector/ Bypass Vear Prepared for the design-build
Document August 2010 2025
2025 Build Toll Alternative 3A No teams for use in their design
G Traffic Volume Projections HNTB Build Toll preparation.
A— Utilized MRM Version MRMOS and 2005 socioeconomic (SE) data (SE_Year_taz2934)
B thru G— Utilized MRM06 and 2005 SE data (SE_Vear_taz2934)
D, E and G— Based on interpolation or redistribution of B
F— Based on interpolation and extrapolation of A
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-14

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��c��cw�•�
Traffic forecast interpolations, extrapolations, or redistributions of the original traffic forecasts were
developed for conditions or years not included in the initial traffic forecasts. This approach uses the
original forecasts and base data assumptions to mathematically calculate traffic estimates and
redistributions of traffic for conditions not included or known at the time of the initial forecasts.
This methodology is appropriate when the differences being considered, such as different forecast
years or minor differences in project geometry, do not change the original forecast, assumptions,
methodology or base data.
Question 2- How could updated socioeconomic data sets affect the No-Build
scenario and Build scenario traffic forecasts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass
project?
Socioeconomic (SE) data sets are used in the Met�•olina Regional Trauel Demand Model (MRM) as
input to the model. The two key components of the MRM model are the set of SE data projections
input to the MRM (population and employment data by geographic areas called traffic analysis zones
[TAZ]), and the modeled transportation network (locations and capacities of roads, including the
presence [build] or absence [no-build] of the Monroe ConnectorBypass, and transit). Exhibit 2-1
illustrates the major components of the MRM.
Exhibit 2-1: Components of the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model
,
- �- . .
1 ��-
3. Mode Split 4. Trip Assignment
• Given trip origins and destinations, how • How will the trips be made across the
will travelers get around via the available transportation network?
travel modes?
The MRM model output is an important, but not the only, input to the traffic forecasts developed for
the project (see Section 2.5.1). The MRM is developed and maintained by the Charlotte
Department of Transportation (CDOT) and is frequently updated, so over time a number of MRM
versions and SE data sets are created. The travel demand model and SE data development process
is described in detail in the Monroe Connector/Bypass Quantitatiue Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Analysis Update (Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., November, 2013).
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-15

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��c��cw�•�
In order to consider if the updates to the
SE data set that have occurred since the
traffic forecasts were prepared would affect
the No-Build Scenario and Build Scenario
traffic forecasts, two sets of SE data were
used with the current version of the MRM,
MRMllvl.l, to test the sensitivity of the
MRM output to different SE data sets. For
this comparison, the MRM was run with two
inputs for the transportation network (blue
oval in Exhibit 2-1), the No-Build Scenario
and the Suild Scenario, and two inputs for MRM conditions modeled for Question 2
the SE data (orange oval in Exhibit 2-1).
The two SE data sets input to the MRM were the SE data included in the MRM for the original
forecasts (called 2005 SE Data), and the latest SE data set (called 2009 SE Data).
The outputs from the MRM are travel demand model daily traffic volumes for the roadway links in
the MRM. This raw model output (output straight from the model) is one of the factors that go into
creating a traffic forecast, as discussed in Section 2.5.1. Raw model output is an important factor in
developing traffic forecasts by, but not limited to, determining growth rates from base year to future
year scenarios, traffic volume orders of magnitude, volume trends along facilities, and future year
volumes for new location facilities.
It is important to note that a travel demand model is not an exact measure of existing or future
traffic volumes, but is a tool to generally measure impacts of growth and development and help
forecast travel characteristics at the planning level. Travel demand models employ a mathematical
approach to understanding how changes in land use, population, and area employment may impact
the transportation system. The MRM encompasses multiple counties in two states and was
developed and calibrated as a tool to evaluate existing and future travel deinands on a regional
basis.
Raw model volumes for specific roadway links can be extracted from the regional model, but
inherently have levels of variability based on the nature and purpose of the MRM. The accuracy of
raw model volumes for existing and future conditions is based on a variety of factors which include
existing and future roadway network detail, existing calibration parameters, and accuracy of future
land use, population, and area employment estimates. Therefore, it is not appropriate to directly
compare raw model daily volumes to balanced traffic forecast volumes. However, raw model output
from the MRM can be used to determine trends and as validation of the applicability of results from
the project's traffic forecasts since those forecasts use MRM model results as one of the factors in
developing the forecasts.
To help answer Question 2, the raw model output from the MRM was extracted for segments along
the Monroe Connector/Bypass and segments along existing US 74. To make the comparisons, this
data was then converted to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by multiplying the daily volume along a
segment by the length of the segment. The VMTs were then added together to arrive at a total
corridor VMT for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and a total corridor VMT for existing US 74 for each
of the four model configurations used in this comparison. Because individual segment traffic
volumes directly output from the MRM model have inherently higher degrees of variability,
comparing the overall corridor VMTs and percent changes is more appropriate in identifying general
trends in traffic patterns that may affect project traffic forecasts. The inherent variability of MRM
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-16

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��c��cw�•�
output for individual links can be based on different segment lengths, different socioeconomic growth
assumptions in TAZs, different model networks and link characteristics, and different model
methodologies for trip distribution and assignment from one MRM version to another.
Table 2-4 presents the effects of varying the SE data sets on MRM model output using VMT.
TABLE 2-4: Effects of Socioeconomic Data Sets on Travel Demand Model O
Corridor
Monroe
Connector/Bypass
Existing US 74
2035 No-Build Scenarios
Using MRM11v1.1
Corridor VMT Corridor VMT
2005 SE Data Set 2009 SE Data Set
n/a
921,340
n/a
965,940
% Change
n/a
5%
2035 Build Scenarios
Using MRMllvl.l
Corridor VMT Corridor VMT �o Change
2005 SE Data Set 2009 SE Data Set
798,990 822,160 3 %
VMT—vehicle miles traveled (road segment volume x length)
Source: Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November 2013)
743,790 � 782,050 � 5%
As shown in Table 2-5, using the 2009 SE data resulted in an increase of 5 percent in VMT along
existing US 74 under both the Build and No-Build scenarios and a 3 percent increase along the
Monroe Connector/Bypass compared to the 2005 SE data. Changes in the MRM model output are to
be expected and appropriate when comparing various socioeconomic data that are based on a variety
of different information, assumptions, time periods, and horizon years. This comparison shows that
even while differences exist between various socioeconomic data, the resulting VMTs are generally
consistent.
In summary, a comparison of the effects of the 2005 SE Data and the 2009 SE Data show that model
output and VMTs are within 5 percent along existing US 74 and 3 percent along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass. Keeping in mind that MRM model output is just one factor that goes into a traffic
forecast, it is reasonable to conclude that the differences between the SE data sets would not
substantially change the traffic forecast.
Question 3- How could changes in socioeconomic data related to the project's
indirect and cumulative effects affect the traffic forecasts for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass?
In the litigation related to this project (see Section P.4.5), the Plaintiffs challenged the traffic
forecasts in the Draft EIS and Final EIS because the No-Build scenario traffic forecasts and the
Build Scenario traffic forecasts used an MRM model that included the same set of SE data that did
not account for alleged differences in the data that might result from constructing the project versus
not constructing the project. The Defendants (FHWA and NCDOT) contended that the induced
growth potential of the project would not change the socioeconomic data to a degree that would
significantly alter the traffic forecasts, noting that raw model output from the MRM is just one of
many inputs that go into a project's traffic forecasts.
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-17

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��c��cw�•�
However, for this Draft Supplemental Final EIS, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the most
current version of the MRM (MRM11v1.1) to see how raw model output would change between the
most current 2009 SE Data and a modified 2009 SE Data set (2009 ICE SE Data) that includes the
potential induced growth forecasts from the Monroe Connector/Bypass QuantitatiUe Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Analysis Update (Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., November, 2013).
The MRM model was run with one set of
SE data (2009 SE Data) for the 2030 No-Build
scenario and two sets of SE data (2009
SE Data and 2009 ICE SE Data) for the Build
scenario. The year 2030 was used because this
is the evaluation year used in the Monr-oe
Connector/Bypass Quantitatiue Indirect and
Cumulatiue Effects Analysis Update.
Table 2-5 presents the effects of the 2009 ICE
SE Data on MRM model output using VMT.
VMTs were calculated for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass corridor and the existing MRM conditions modeled for Question 3
US 74 Corridor. Regional VMTs for Union
County, Mecklenburg County and the entire MRM model area also were evaluated for the Build
Scenario to fully consider the potential effects of the 2009 ICE SE Data on the transportation
network of the MRM.
TABLE 2-5: Effects of the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Socioeconomic Data on Travel
Demand Model Output
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
% Change % Change o
Corridor VMT Corridor VMT Corridor VMT / Change
Corridor 2030 No-euild 2030 Build Column 1 to 2030 Build �olumn 1 to Column 2 to
Column 2 Column 3
MRM11 MRM11 MRM11 Column 3
2009 SE Data 2009 SE Data No-Build to 2009 ICE SE Data No-Build to guild to Build
Build Build
Monroe n/a 757,410 n/a 793,570 n/a 5%
Connector/Bypass
Existing US 74 918,520 729,910 -21 % 760,970 -17 % 4%
Union County n/a 9,612,890 n/a 9,948,280 n/a 3%
Mecklenburg n/a 44,747,460 n/a 44,745,210 n/a ^'0 %
County
MRM Network n/a 105,856,110 n/a 106,207,330 n/a ^'0 %
VMT—vehicle miles traveled (road segment volume x length)
Source: Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November 2013)
As shown in Table 2-5, there is a small difference in VMT reductions (3 percent) along existing
US 74 comparing the No-Build scenario to the two Build scenarios. In other words, each Build
scenario reduces VMT on existing US 74 relatively to the same degree over the No-Build scenario.
When comparing the two Build scenarios, again there is limited variability between the different
build scenarios (2009 SE Data and 2009 ICE SE Data) output from the MRM model. At the corridor
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-18

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��«��•,���
level, the table shows a 4-5 percent increase in VMT between the Build Scenario with the 2009 SE
Data and the Build Scenario with the 2009 ICE SE Data. As the geographic boundaries get larger,
the relative difference in the MRM outputs between the modeled Build conditions becomes smaller.
The difference in MRM model outputs in Union County is 3 percent, while for Mecklenburg County
and the Metrolina region as a whole is effectively zero.
In summary, the effect of the 2009 ICE SE Data set on the raw MRM model VMT outputs between
the Build conditions (Build with 2009 SE Data and Build with 2009 ICE SE Data) is relatively small.
Since the travel demand model outputs are just one of many factors considered in the development of
a project specific traffic forecast, it can be reasonably concluded that changes in the socioeconomic
data due to potential induced growth from the Monroe Connector/Bypass would not substantially or
significantly alter the future Build scenario traffic forecasts for the project study area.
Question 4- Are the current No-Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purposes
they were used?
The current No-Build traffic forecasts are documented in the Traffic Forecast for the No-Build
Alternatives for NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-3329 and NCDOT State TIP Project No. R-2559,
Monroe Connector Bypass Study (Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, June 2008) (Document A), and NCDOT
STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559 Reuised Monroe Connector Bypass No-Build Tr•affic Forecast
Memorandum (HNTB, March 2010) (Document F) listed in Table 2-3. The No-Build scenario
forecasts include forecast volumes for the existing US 74 corridor. Both year 2030 and year 2035 No-
Build forecasts used MRM version MRM05 with 2005 SE Data. Note that the current No-Build
forecasts are for year 2035, but the MRM05 model they are based on has a horizon year of 2030, so
the year 2035 forecast volumes were extrapolated from the 2030 MRM model output.
The base year 2007 and future year 2030 No-Build forecasts (Document A) were used in the traffic
operations analyses conducted for the existing US 74 corridor, as summarized in Sections 1.8.3 and
1.8.4 in the Draft EIS. It should be noted that, as discussed in Section 1.2.4, real-time travel
information on the existing US 74 corridor substantiates the need for the project, and it is no longer
necessary to estimate traffic conditions using the base year forecasts.
The 2035 No-Build scenario forecasts (Document F) along the existing US 74 corridor were used to
evaluate the effects of the Monroe Connector/Bypass on US 74 volumes through comparison with the
2035 Build scenario forecasts, as addressed in Final EIS Appendix A— Errata.
To determine whether the current No-Build
scenario traffic forecasts are still valid for the
purposes they were used, several conditions
were compared to evaluate whether an
updated No-Build forecast would be expected
to have lower, equal, or higher forecast
volumes.
In considering the base year (2007) No-Build
scenario traffic forecasts, actual traffic counts
(in annual average daily traffic volumes
[AE1DT]) are a primary factor in determining
these base-year forecast volumes. For this
reason, 2007 and 2012 traffic count-based
AADTs from NCDOT for existing US 74 were
iBASE YEAR
2007
AADT
2012
AAdT
FUTURE YEAFt
: "li ��'
.� ,
�.� �� M RI'u�
MRMOS
��
r..f E.' . Rl-1,'�.,. ��\�
_ a.�,._.�._�__
MRII+�11V1.1
Comparisons used for Question 4
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-19

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w��v.��
compared to determine if an updated base-year traffic forecast would be expected to have higher
volumes than the current 2007 No-Build forecasts. Over the five-year period from 2007 to 2012,
average volumes along the US 74 corridor showed approximately zero percent growth based on
available AADT data.
Based on this trend of no change in AADTs from 2007 to 2012, it is reasonable to conclude that an
updated base year No-Build forecast (i.e. 2013) would generally be equal to the 2007 No-Build
forecast. Therefore, the 2007 base-year No-Build traffic operations discussion included in Draft EIS
Section 1.8.3 would still be valid for 2012 if no other physical conditions along existing US 74
substantially changed. However, a number of improvements have been made to existing US 74 in
recent years, as described in Section 2.4. The effects of these physical changes on traffic operations
analyses along existing US 74 are addressed in Section 2.5.3.
To consider the future year No-Build forecasts, Table 2-6 compares the output in corridor VMT of
the MRM version and SE Data for the 2030 No-Build scenario used for the original 2030 and 2035
No-Build forecasts (MRM05 with 2005 SE Data) with output from the latest MRM version with the
latest SE Data (MRMllvl.l and 2009 SE Data) for the 2035 No-Build scenario.
TABLE 2-6: Comparisons of No-Build Scenario MRM Model Output
Corridor VMT Corridor VMT
Corridor 2030 No-Build 2035 No-Build � Change
MRM05 MRM11
2005 SE Data 2009 SE Data
Existing US 74 � 876,000 � 965,940 � 10 °/a
VMT — vehicle miles traveled (road segment volume x length)
Source: Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic Forecast Summary (HNTB, November 2013)
As shown in Table 2-6, MRM model output in corridor VMT increases 10 percent from the original
MRM model version, SE Data Set and horizon year (2030) to the latest MRM model, SE Data Set,
and horizon year (2035). Based on this comparison, an updated future year No-Build forecast would
reasonably be expected to have volumes equal to or greater than the current 2030 No-Build forecast
and extrapolated 2035 No-Build forecast, and new forecasts would not change the conclusions in the
Draft EIS regarding the need for the project. However, as mentioned above in the discussion of the
base year forecasts, a number of improvements have been made to existing US 74 in recent years, as
described in Section 2.4. The effects of these physical changes on traffic operations analyses along
existing US 74 are addressed in Section 2.5.3.
As noted in Table 2-3, the 2035 No-Build traffic forecast documented in Document C was discovered
to be incorrect and was corrected and replaced by the 2035 No-Build traffic forecast documented in
Document F. This error appears in Draft EIS Table 2-7 and was discovered through public
comments prior to publication of the Final EIS. The corrected data is presented in the Final EIS
Appendix A— Errata. The forecasting error that generated the incorrect no-build data presented in
Document C occurred in a forecasting step outside of the MRM regional model, and does not have
any connection to the inputs used (including socioeconomic data sets) in the MRM model or the MRM
output. NCTA met with the consulting firm responsible for the error in the 2035 No-Build forecast
to investigate the cause of the error, but the source was not immediately apparent. At the time of
the investigation, the consulting iirm was no longer involved in that aspect of the project. Staff
responsible for developing the original 2035 No-Build forecast are no longer employed by that
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-20

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w��v.��
consulting firm. Following the investigation, HNTB North Carolina, (HNTB) was contracted by
NCTA to prepare an update to the No-Build traffic forecast (Document A). The HNTB forecast
update was not based on the No-Build forecasts that were determined to be in error. The forecast
update methodology is provided in the NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R-2559 Revised Monroe
Connector Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum (HNTB, March 2010)(Document F).
In the Draft EIS, the erroneous 2035 No-Build forecasts included in Draft EIS Table 2-7 were used
only in a general comparison to the 2030 No-Build forecasts to determine if trends would change or if
the No-Build Alternative traffic operations analysis (Existing and Year 2030 No-Build Traffic
Operations Technical Memorandum, PBS&J, March 2008) needed to be updated in the Draft EIS,
since this analysis was used to help document the purpose and need for the project (see
Section 1.8.42 of the Draft EIS). The erroneous 2035 No-Build traffic volumes were not used in any
technical memoranda associated with the EIS process. As noted above, the No-Build traffic
operations analysis used the 2030 No-Build traffic forecasts.
The Draft EIS (Section 2.6.1) concluded that since 2035 No-Build traffic forecasts (the incorrect
forecasts) showed increased volumes along existing US 74 compared to the 2030 No-Build traffic
forecasts, it was not necessary to update the operational analysis for the No-Build Alternative from
2030 to 2035 since an updated analysis would just show worse traffic operations on existing US 74,
which were already shown to be below acceptable levels of service using the 2030 No-Build forecasts
(Draft EIS Section 1.8.4). In the Final EIS — Appendix A Errata, the corrected 2035 No-Build traffic
forecasts are presented, and there still would be higher volumes along existing US 74 under the
corrected 2035 No-Build traffic forecasts compared to the 2030 No-Build traffic forecasts, and the
conclusions made in the Draft EIS remained valid. Therefore, the incorrect 2035 No-Build traffic
forecasts do not affect the alternatives analysis.
In conclusion, the correct No-Build trafiic forecasts remain valid for the purposes they were used.
An updated No-Build forecast that uses the latest MRM model and SE Data Set versions would be
expected to have equal or higher volumes along existing US 74 compared to the current forecasts,
continuing to support the need for the project. See also the answer to Question 6 and
Section 2.5.3.
Question 5- Are the current Build traffic forecasts still valid for the purposes they
were used?
The current 2035 Build scenario traffic forecasts used in the EIS process are described in
Document C and Document E listed in Table 2-3. The Build scenario forecasts include forecast
volumes for the Monroe Connector/Bypass and for the existing US 74 corridor with the Monroe
Connector/Bypass in place. In addition, a forecast was prepared (Document B) for upgrading US 74
to a toll facility in place of the Monroe Connector/Bypass (addressed as alternatives PSA G and
Revised PSA G in the Draft EIS). This forecast was based upon the Build scenario forecasts
documented in Document C and the volumes forecast for the new location Monroe/Connector Bypass.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-21

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��«��•,���
The 2035 Build scenario forecast volumes were used in the traffic operations analyses for elements
along the Monroe Connector/Bypass. The traffic
operations analyses were then used to help prepare the
functional designs of the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
The 2035 traffic forecasts along the Monroe
Connector/Bypass also were used in the traffic noise
analysis.
The 2035 Build scenario forecasts of traffic volumes
along the existing US 74 corridor were used to evaluate
the effects of the Monroe Connector/Bypass on US 74
volumes compared to the 2035 No-Build scenario
forecasts. They were also used to evaluate traffic
operations along existing US 74 under the Build
scenario for comparison to operations under the
No-Build scenario (Draft EIS Section 2.6.3.2).
.�'�
��� �` ; N ��'�
MRM�16
�'VI iRiVl
MRM11V1.1
B�ulltl
2030
To determine the validity of the current Build scenario
forecasts for the project, a comparison of the raw model MRM tonditions modeled for Question 5
output from the 2030 MRM06 (2005 SE Data) model
used in developing the Build scenario forecasts was
made with the most recent MRM version (MRMllvl.l) using the most recent SE data set (2009 SE
Data) for years 2030 and 2035.
Table 2-7 presents the effects of different combinations of MRM version and SE Data on the Build
scenario using VMT for the Monroe Connector/Bypass corridor and the existing US 74 Corridor.
TABLE 2-7: Comparisons of Build Scenario MRM Model Output
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Corridor VMT Corridor VMT Corridor VMT
Corridor 2030 Build 2030 euild � �hange Z035 Build � �hange
MRM06 MRM11 Column 1 to MRM11 Column 2 to
2005 SE Data 2009 SE Data Column 2 2009 SE Data Column 3
Monroe 813,920 757,400 -7 % 822,160 9%
Connector/Bypass
Existing US 74 614,340 729,910 19 % 782,050 7%
VMT—vehicle miles traveled (road segment volume x length)
Source: Monroe Connector/Bypass Traffic ForecastSummary (HNTB, November 2013)
For the Monroe Connector/Bypass, the results of the comparison in Table 2-7 show that MRM model
output for the Monroe Connector/Bypass is relatively consistent through different versions of the
MRM and SE data sets, varying up to 7 percent.
Growth in traffic volumes from 2030 to 2035 is expected, and is reflected in the reasonable 9 percent
increase in VMT on the Monroe Connector/Bypass and 7 percent increase in VMT along existing
US 74 shown in the table when the model and SE Data versions are held constant and the year
increases from 2030 to 2035.
Based on these comparisons, and keeping in mind the MRM output is just one of many factors that
go into creating a traffic forecast, the current 2035 Build scenario forecasts for segments along the
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-22

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ��«��•,���
Monroe Connector/Bypass would not be expected to change substantially with updated MRM
versions or SE Data and remain valid for the purposes for which they are used. Likewise, the
forecasts prepared for Upgrade Existing US 74 as a toll facility in Document B(used for PSA G and
Revised PSA G) would not be expected to change substantially for the mainline volumes. However,
the frontage roads likely would have higher traffic volume assignments, as described below, since
they would become the free US 74 alternative.
For existing US 74, the results of the comparison in Table 2-7 show that 2030 MRM model output
for existing US 74 under the Build scenario is 19 percent higher with MRMllvl.l and 2009 SE Data
compared to MRM06 with 2005 S� Data. The updated MRM model is assigning more demand for
US 74 under the 2035 Build scenario, but it also is predicting more demand under the No-Build
scenario, as discussed under Question 4 and Question 6. The 2035 Build scenario forecasts for
segments along existing US 74 likely would change using the most recent MRM model and SE Data,
but these trends and patterns also occur under the No-Build scenario, and the conclusion that traffic
volumes would be less on existing US 74 with the Monroe Connector/Bypass in place is still valid no
matter which MRM versions/SE Data set versions are compared.
Regarding the traffic operations analysis for existing US 74 with the Build scenario described in
Draft EIS Section 2.6.3.2, the traffic volumes on which this analysis is based likely would change
with the latest MRM model and SE Data set. In addition, as mentioned previously, a number of
improvements have been made to existing US 74 in recent years, as described in Section 2.4. The
effects of these changes on traffic operations analyses along existing US 74 are addressed in
Section 2.5.3.
Question 6— How would the Monroe Connector/Bypass affect traffic volumes on
the US 74 corridor?
Three comparisons were made to evaluate how
traffic volumes might change on existing US 74
with the proposed project in place. These
included reviewing the current 2035 No-Build
and Build traffic forecasts and reviewing the
raw MRM model output in VMT for the MRM
model used to create the 2035 Build forecast
and for the latest MRM model with the latest
SE data (2009 SE Data).
Table 2-8 presents the comparisons of VMTs
along the existing US 74 corridor under the
various No-Suild and Build scenarios. In every
case, traffic volumes are expected to be less
along the existing US 74 corridor with the
Monroe Connector/Bypass in place, thereby
improving traffic flow conditions along existing
US 74 compared to the No-Build scenario.
No �uild Baild
2035 I 2035
Traffic �orecest T�-affic Forecast
- � �o: �til
203o zo�o
- _ , - _-
• �.
n�b a�iva � �s� ��
zo�3 zos�
- - - ., �-._ -
.
Comparisons used for Question 6
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-23

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�cw��v.��
TABLE 2-8: Effects of the Monroe Connector/Bypass on US 74 Traffic
Existing US 74 Corridor Existin� US 74 Corridor /o Change
Comparison Tool VMT VMT
No-Build Build No-Build to Build
2035 1,095,700 760,460 -31 %a
Traffic Forecasts*
2030
MRM06 888,020 614,340 -31 %
2005 SE Data
2035
MRM11v1.1 965,940 782,050 -19 %
2009 SE Data
VMT — vehicle miles traveled
*2035 No-Build Traffic Forecasts - from NCDOT STIP Project R-3329 & R02559 Revised Monroe Connector
Bypass No-Build Traffic Forecast Memorandum (HNTB, March 2010)
*2035 Build Traffic Forecasts —from Traffic Forecast for TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 Monroe
Connector/Bypass (Wilbur Smith and Associates, September 2008)
2.5.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES
Traffic operations analyses prepared for the EIS process for the project are listed in Table 2-9. Each
of these analyses are discussed below in light of the information included in Section 2.5.2 above,
Section 1.2.4, and the recent improvements implemented along existing US 74.
TABLE 2-9: Summary of Monroe Connector/Bypass Project Traffic Operations Analyses
Date/ Traffic Forecast
Document Name prepared By Used and Used in NEPA process? / Notes
Scenario
Existing and Year 2030 No-
Document March 2008 Document A
1 euild Traffic Operations pgS&J 2030 No-Build Yes Included in Draft EIS.
Technical Memorandum
Included in Draft EIS. Evaluated
Year 2035 Build Traffic operations along the Monroe
Document February 2009 Document C
Operations Technical Yes Connector/Bypass and also along
z Memorandum PBS&J 2035 Build Toll existing US 74 with the bypass in
place.
Document B
Document Upgrade Existing US 74 March 2009 2035 — Build a Toll Evaluated preliminary study
3 Alternatives Study HNTB Facility Along Yes alternatives PSA G and Revised PSA G
in the Draft EIS.
Existing US 74
Final Addendum to Year 2035 Reevaluation of traffic operations for
Document February 2010 Document E Monroe Connector/Bypass based on
4 Build Traffic Operations pg$&J 2035 Build T011 Yes refined functional design of Preferred
Technical Memorandum
Alternative. Included in the Final EIS.
Planning level evaluation of upgrading
DeCember US 74 to a superstreet, a 6-lane
Document U574 CorridorAnalysis Document F arterial, and a 6-lane superstreet.
5 Scenarios HNTB z035 No-Build Yes prepared during the Section 404
permitting process. Included in the
Draft Supplemental Final EIS.
*See Table 2-3 for title of forecast document and other related information.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-24

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w+�v.�•�
Traffic operations analysis conducted for elements along the Monroe Connector/Bypass are
documented in Documents 2 and 4listed in Table -9. As discussed in the answer to Question 5
above, the MRM model output for the Monroe Connector/Bypass is relatively consistent through
different versions of the MRM and SE data sets. Therefore, the traffic operations analysis conducted
in Documents 2 and 4 for elements along the Monroe Connector/Bypass are still valid, and therefore
the refined functional designs and traffic noise analyses based on these analyses would not change.
As listed in Table 2-9, a number of traffic operations analyses were conducted for existing US 74.
Each of the following analyses is discussed below.
• Document 1- traffic operations on existing US 74 under a No-Build scenario (2007 and
2030).
• Document 2- traffic operations on existing US 74 under the Build scenario (2035)
• Document 3— traffic operations on existing US 74 if US 74 was upgraded to a toll facility
with frontage roads (2035).
• Document 5— traffic operations on existing US 74 if US 74 was improved as a Superstreet
Existing, Superstreet 6-Lane, or a 6-Lane Arterial (2035).
Document 1 evaluated existing US 74 under the No-Build scenario for 2007 and 2030. The trafiic
operations results were summarized in Draft EIS Sections 1.8.3 and 1.8.4. As discussed in the
answer to Question 4, an updated base year No-Build forecast (2012) would be expected to have
volumes approximately equal to the current 2007 Base Year No-Build forecast. Updated future year
No-Build forecasts would reasonably be expected to have volumes equal to or greater than the
current 2030 No-Build scenario forecast and extrapolated 2035 No-Build scenario forecast. For the
operations analysis of the base year conditions, the roadway and intersection configurations that
existed at the time of the analysis were used. For the 2030 year, signals were optimized and
improvements included in the STIP current at the time were assumed. Since that time, as discussed
in Section 2.4, several improvements have been implemented or are soon to be constructed along
existing US 74.
If the No-Build scenario traffic operations analyses were updated with an updated No-Build forecast
and updated information on new and planned improvements on existing US 74, the updated forecast
likely would have higher trafiic volumes, thereby increasing congestion, but the physical
improvements likely would improve operations at the physical improvement locations. However,
desired levels of service (LOS D or better) likely would not be experienced in the design year due to
the high volumes of traffic. Rather than updating the traffic operations analysis for the No-Build
scenario, a new analysis of travel speeds along the corridor was conducted, as discussed in
Section 1.2.4. For this project, an analysis of the travel speeds along the existing US 74 corridor for
the No-Build scenario is appropriate since an element of the project's purpose and need is to provide
a high-speed facility (50 mph or greater).
Document 2 evaluated traffic operations for intersections along existing US 74 under the 2035 Build
scenario. The analysis was conducted to compare levels of service to the No-Build scenario, as
summarized in Draft Section 2.6.3.2. The analysis showed fewer intersections along existing US 74
operating at undesirable LOS under the Build scenario, with the primary factor contributing to the
LOS improvement being the lower traffic volumes along the existing US 74 corridor with the Monroe
Connector/Bypass in place. As discussed in the answers to Question 5 and Question 6, traffic
volumes along the existing US 74 corridor are expected to be less with the Monroe Connector/Bypass
in place even if forecasts were updated to the latest MRM model and SE Data. The general
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-25

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�w��v.��
conclusions in the Draft EIS that trafiic operations would improve on existing US 74 with the project
in place are still valid, and the traffic operations analysis included in Document 2 does not need to be
updated.
Document 3 evaluated traffic operations along existing US 74 if US 74 was upgraded to a toll facility
with frontage roads (Alternatives PSA G and revised PSA G). This operations analysis used the
traffic forecast prepared in Document B listed in Table 2-9. As discussed in the answer to
Question 5, the forecasts prepared for Upgrade Existing US 74 as a toll facility would not be
expected to change substantially for the mainline volumes. However, the frontage roads likely would
have higher traffic volume assignments. Since forecast volumes are expected to be the same for the
mainline and higher for the frontage roads with an updated forecast, traffic operations for PSA G
and Revised PSA G would be similar or worse, and do not generate a need to reconsider these
alternatives.
Document 5 evaluated traffic operations at a planning level for existing US 74 if US 74 was
improved as a Superstreet Existing, Superstreet 6-Lane, or Widened as 6 Lanes with no superstreet.
The 2035 No-Build traffic forecasts in Document F listed in Table 2-9 were used in the operations
analysis. As summarized in Section 2.4, the results of the comparative analysis showed that in
2035, US 74 under these three improvement scenarios would exceed LOS D in the majority of the
corridor. As discussed in the answer to Question 4, an updated No-Build forecast that uses the
latest MRM model and SE Data Set versions would be expected to have equal or higher volumes
along existing US 74 compared to the current forecasts. Therefore, an updated analysis of these
three US 74 improvement options would show equal or worse levels of service. Therefore, there is no
need to reconsider these alternatives.
2.6 CONCLUSION REGARDING THE ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS PROCESS
As noted in the AASHTO Practitioner Handbook for Defining the Purpose and Need and Determining
the Range of Alternatiues for Transportation Projects, a key principle in NEPA is that agencies
should apply a"rule of reason" when determining the appropriate range of alternatives considered in
a NEPA document and the degree to which each alternative is considered. The NCDOT applied
practical judgment and documented determinations at each stage of alternatives analysis. These
decisions were reasonable and supported by extensive factual information in the record.
The public and local, state, and federal environmental resource and regulatory agencies were
involved throughout the entire project development process. Agencies were involved via monthly
agency coordination meetings, as discussed in Section 3.2 of the Final EIS. The public was involved
via newsletters, workshops, the project website, and through as-requested small group meetings.
The decisions relative to alternatives development and analysis were informed, open, and valid.
The NCDOT complied with its obligation to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives and gave extensive treatment to preliminary and detailed study alternatives
in their comparison. Poor existing and projected travel conditions in the project area are well-
documented and demonstrated. The NCDOT examined "minor" improvements and evaluated and
re-examined others (i.e. improve existing US 74 alternatives and TSM alternatives) with a"hard
look" and subsequently determined that they were not reasonable and did not require more detailed
study.
� � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-26

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED z�.,��u.��
The NCDOT followed a widely-accepted screening process in alternatives evaluation for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass. In addition, NCDOT generally conformed to legal principles and practitioner
guidelines prescribed by the CEQ, FHWA, and AASHTO throughout the process.
The screening-level process and decisions in the Monroe Connector/Bypass EIS remain valid, and
based on a review of new information and analyses and consideration of public and agency
comments, there are no conditions that warrant re-considering new alternatives or updating
previous screening decisions. As discussed in Section 3, DSA D still remains the best option due to
its ability to meet all elements of the purpose and need and based on results of comparative
analyses.
• � MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL EIS
2-27

This page was intentionally left blank.

Improve
Existi ng
US 74
Alternatives
E
<
Additional
15t Qualitative 2�d Qualitative 3�d Qualitative Examination of Detailed Study
Screening Screening Screening Alternatives tional led
15t Qualitative n� Qualitative " ua i ative � �ination of ` Study
Screening Screening Screening Alternatives
Alternative concept elimi nated
due to its ina6ilitytomeetthe
project's purpose and need
Alternative eliminated due to its inabilityto fully
meettheprojecYs purpose and need
Alternative eliminated due to its inabilityto fully
meettheproject's purpose and need.
Concept meets the project's purpose and
need.
epteliminated
� itytomeetthe
purpose and need
�teliminated
�tomeetthe
and need
❑ Compared Preliminary Corridor
Segments and eli minated those which were
meetsth unreasonable, impractical, or had higher
and ne�ed impacts.
❑ Remainingcorridorsegmentsfrom2"a
screeningwerecombinedtoform 25
Preliminary5tudyAlternatives (PSAs).
buildinga Calculatedimpactsfromthe25PSAs.
vingsom Identified 16DetailedStudyAltematives
ys(us�4 basedondesignconsiderations,impacts
derofthe (20+factors considered), and agency/public
� input.
rther
e 3^'
Retained and given full consideration in the
Draft EIS forbaseline comparison, in
accordancewith40 CFR 1502.14(d) and FHWA
Guidance (FHWATechnical Advisory
IN FINAL E T6640.8A,1987).
TSM Concept 2 was developed b
received on the Draft EIS. As documented in the Final EIS,
TSM Concept 2 includes more improvements than the
original TSM Alternative, induding a Superstreet concept
for 2.7 miles at the westem end of US 74 near Stallings.
TSM Concept 2 was eliminatedfrom consideration
because it would not providefor high-speed regional
travel or provide acceptable levels of service in the U5 74
corridor basedon projected 2035 traHic.
POSTFINAL EIS— PERMITTING PHASE
Atthe request oftheUSACE, additionalanalysisand
documentation regard ing i mprovements to US 74 was
preparedin December2010.Threeimprovement
scenarios for the entire length ofthe corridorwere
evaluated for trafficoperetions using 2035 forecastr: 1)
convert existing U5 74 to a superstreet, 2) convert
existlng U574to a superstreet andwiden to 6lanes, and
3) widen existing U5 74to 6lanes (no superstreet).
Analysis conduded that none ofthese scenarios would
provide for high-speed regional travel or pmvide
accepta6lelevelsofserviceinthe U574corridor.
aFT EIS
m me nts req u esti ng fu rth er
pleted additional
fies of PSA G in the Draft EIS
and impacts.
�ncy comments, NCDOT
8eveope evae AGandquantRativelyevaluatedit
in the Draft EIS. Revised PSA G modified PS4G to reduce
impactsand msts, and improveope�
None of the
Improve
Existing US
74
Alternatives
carried
forward as a
Detailed
Study
Alternative
_i 16 new location Detailed5tudy
J Additlonal evaluation confirme Alternatives (DSAs) were selected for
PSAGwouldnotbereasonableor furthercomparative study inthe Draft EIS.
eliminated fromfurtherconsidera
� NOItIH CANOLINA
� Turnpike Authority
STIP PROJECT
NO. R-3329/R-2559
Mecklenburg County and
Union County
DSA D was selected as the Preferred
Alternativeforimplementation. M�NR�E C�NNECT�i�/
BYPASS
ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTS AND
DECISION POINTS
Figure Y-3h

Improve
Existi ng
US 74
Alternatives
E
<
Additional
15t Qualitative 2�d Qualitative 3�d Qualitative Examination of Detailed Study
Screening Screening Screening Alternatives tional led
15t Qualitative n� Qualitative " ua i ative � �ination of ` Study
Screening Screening Screening Alternatives
Alternative concept elimi nated
due to its ina6ilitytomeetthe
project's purpose and need
Alternative eliminated due to its inabilityto fully
meettheprojecYs purpose and need
Alternative eliminated due to its inabilityto fully
meettheproject's purpose and need.
Concept meets the project's purpose and
need.
epteliminated
� itytomeetthe
purpose and need
�teliminated
�tomeetthe
and need
❑ Compared Preliminary Corridor
Segments and eli minated those which were
meetsth unreasonable, impractical, or had higher
and ne�ed impacts.
❑ Remainingcorridorsegmentsfrom2"a
screeningwerecombinedtoform 25
Preliminary5tudyAlternatives (PSAs).
buildinga Calculatedimpactsfromthe25PSAs.
vingsom Identified 16DetailedStudyAltematives
ys(us�4 basedondesignconsiderations,impacts
derofthe (20+factors considered), and agency/public
� input.
rther
e 3^'
Retained and given full consideration in the
Draft EIS forbaseline comparison, in
accordancewith40 CFR 1502.14(d) and FHWA
Guidance (FHWATechnical Advisory
IN FINAL E T6640.8A,1987).
TSM Concept 2 was developed b
received on the Draft EIS. As documented in the Final EIS,
TSM Concept 2 includes more improvements than the
original TSM Alternative, induding a Superstreet concept
for 2.7 miles at the westem end of US 74 near Stallings.
TSM Concept 2 was eliminatedfrom consideration
because it would not providefor high-speed regional
travel or provide acceptable levels of service in the U5 74
corridor basedon projected 2035 traHic.
POSTFINAL EIS— PERMITTING PHASE
Atthe request oftheUSACE, additionalanalysisand
documentation regard ing i mprovements to US 74 was
preparedin December2010.Threeimprovement
scenarios for the entire length ofthe corridorwere
evaluated for trafficoperetions using 2035 forecastr: 1)
convert existing U5 74 to a superstreet, 2) convert
existlng U574to a superstreet andwiden to 6lanes, and
3) widen existing U5 74to 6lanes (no superstreet).
Analysis conduded that none ofthese scenarios would
provide for high-speed regional travel or pmvide
accepta6lelevelsofserviceinthe U574corridor.
aFT EIS
m me nts req u esti ng fu rth er
pleted additional
fies of PSA G in the Draft EIS
and impacts.
�ncy comments, NCDOT
8eveope evae AGandquantRativelyevaluatedit
in the Draft EIS. Revised PSA G modified PS4G to reduce
impactsand msts, and improveope�
None of the
Improve
Existing US
74
Alternatives
carried
forward as a
Detailed
Study
Alternative
_i 16 new location Detailed5tudy
J Additlonal evaluation confirme Alternatives (DSAs) were selected for
PSAGwouldnotbereasonableor furthercomparative study inthe Draft EIS.
eliminated fromfurtherconsidera
� NOItIH CANOLINA
� Turnpike Authority
STIP PROJECT
NO. R-3329/R-2559
Mecklenburg County and
Union County
DSA D was selected as the Preferred
Alternativeforimplementation. M�NR�E C�NNECT�i�/
BYPASS
ALTERNATIVE
CONCEPTS AND
DECISION POINTS
Figure 2-7 h