20181192 Ver 1_C540_Traffic_Reassessment_1217_20180122

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) PROJECTS R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
��
�
�• OMPLETE
�.
Triangle Expressway
Souiheast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic
Reassessment
FINAL
December 12, 2017
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Federal Highway Administration
Raleigh, North Carolina
Submitted for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Submitted by:
HNTB North Carolina, PC
343 E. Six Forks Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609
NCBELS License #: C-1554

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
1. INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) contracted HNTB North Carolina, P.C. (HNTB) to provide
future traffic data to be used in the first-tier screening of alternative concepts in the Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report for the Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
project. The first purpose of this memo is to revisit the original Southeast Extension - First TierScreening
Traffic Memorandum (HNTB, 2011) to determine if the findings of the original memo, based on 2035
traffic and socioeconomic data, are still valid when using the updated information on 2040 traffic and
socioeconomic data. This memo reevaluates the preliminary alternative concepts from the 2011 First
Tier Screening Memo in the Complete 540 DEIS using Triangle Regional Model (TRM) Version 5(V5) data
and No-Build indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) socioeconomic (SE) data. This effort consists of
utilizing Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) to screen project alternatives using the updated information.
The second purpose of this memo is to determine if using the socioeconomic data on population and
employment derived in the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Technical Memorandum 4 to
develop a conservative No-Build Scenario would have a substantial effect on the screening decisions.
The third purpose of this memo is to determine if additional project-level traffic forecasting, specifically
a 2040 future year no-build scenario, would have the potential to change project decisions and therefore
be necessary.
This is a screening scenario based on the Quantitative ICE, and is not intended to represent the most
likely scenario, but rather the most conservative, reasonable assessment of the maximum potential of
the Complete 540 to induce changes to traffic and population growth. The Quantitative ICE noted that
area planners did not believe the project would cause notable changes in overall population growth but
may have some effect on the location of development. Detailed information on the ICE land use
scenarios and the methodology used to develop them can be found in the Complete 540 Quantitative
ICE Memos 1(Section 2) and 4(Section 3).
As mentioned before, this memo utilized the TRM V5. The original memo used TRM V4. The current
version (TRM V5) differs from the previous version of the TRM in the following ways:
• TRM V5 roadway and transit networks represent the fiscally-constrained 2040 Capital Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) instead
of the fiscally-constrained 2035 CAMPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
• TRM V5 socioeconomic data has a horizon year of 2040 instead of 2035.
• TRM V5 has an expanded geographic coverage and roadway network coverage in the outer
counties of the model.
The two primary purposes of the project are improving mobility and reducing congestion on the road
network in the project study area. Data analyzed as quantitative MOEs for meeting these purposes
include vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), congested VMT, congested VHT,
congested miles of roadway, average speed, and travel times between representative origins and
destinations. The data were examined at a region-wide level and within the project traffic study area
for 10 different preliminary alternative concepts. The traffic study area is shown in Figurel.
2. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS EVALUATION
The Triangle Regional Model, Version 5(TRM), the Triangle Region's officially approved travel demand
model, was the source of information used to compare the alternative concepts. The TRM was adopted
in February 2016 after being developed by the Triangle Regional Model Service Bureau, which is housed
December 12, 2017 1 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
at the Institute for Transportation Research and Education. The TRM was calibrated to exceed Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) model calibration standards1 using observed base-year data, before
being adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), local Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Triangle Transit. The aforementioned MOE data were produced for
2040 project design year. For the purposes of this technical memorandum, the following alternative
concepts were analyzed:
• No-Build ICE: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-constrained Capital Area
MPO 2040 MTP roadway and transit networks, except Complete 540. Socio-economic data
developed as part of the Complete 540 Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects study was used
in place of the official socio-economic data for this alternative only.
• No-Build: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-constrained Capital Area MPO
MTP roadway and transitnetworks, except the Southeast Extension.
• New Location Highwayz: This alternative concept consists of the official fiscally-constrained MTP
roadway and transit networks with the Complete 540 as a tollfacility.
• Hybrid 1: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-constrained MTP roadway and
transit networks except the eastern section (I-40 to US 64/264) of Complete 540. In place of the
eastern section, I-440 (I-40 to US 1) and US 64/264 (I-440 to I-540) would be widened to 101anes.
• Hybrid 2: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-constrained MTP roadway and
transit networks except the southern section (NC 55 to I-40) of Complete 540. In place of the
southern section, NC 55 (NC 540 to NC 42) and NC 42 (NC 55 to I-40) would be upgraded to six-lane
controlled access facilities with service roads.
• Hybrid 3: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-constrained MTP roadway and
transit networks except the southern section of Complete 540. In place of the southern section,
Jessie Drive (NC 540 to Ten Ten Road) and Ten Ten Road (Jessie Drive to I-40, including a new
location facility east of NC 50) would be upgraded to six-lane controlled access facilities with service
roads.
• Improve Existing 1z: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally- constrained MTP
roadway and transit networks except Complete 540. In place of Complete 540, I-40 (US 70 to US
1/64), I-440 (I-40 to US 1), and US 64/264 (I-440 to I-540) would be all widened to 121anes.
• Improve Existing 2— Freewayz: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-
constrained MTP roadway and transit networks except Complete 540. In place of Complete 540, NC
55 (NC 540 to NC 42) and NC 42 (NC 55 to I-40) would be upgraded to six-lane controlled access
facilities with service roads. I-440 (I-40 to US 1) and US 64/264 (I-440 to I-540) are widened to 12
lanes.
• Improve Existing 2— Arterial2: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-
constrained MTP roadway and transit networks except Complete 540. In place of Complete 540, NC
55 (NC 540 to NC 42) and NC 42 (NC 55 to I-40) would be widened to six-lane arterials. I-440 (I-40
to US 1) and US 64/264 (I-440 to I-540) are widened to 12 lanes.
• Improve Existing 3— Freewayz: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-
constrained MTP roadway and transit networks except Complete 540. In place of Complete 540,
1 FHWA Travel Model Improvement Program, Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, 2"d Edition (2013)
Z The alternative names used in the original 2011 memo were changed to match that of the Complete 540 Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report (2014). The "Build" alternative is now referred to as "New Location Highway". "Upgrade
Existing" alternatives are now referred to as "Improve Existing".
December 12, 2017 2 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
Jessie Drive (NC 540 to Ten Ten Road) and Ten Ten Road (Jessie Drive to I-40, including a new
location facility east of NC 50) would be upgraded to six-lane controlled access facilities with service
roads. I-440 (I-40 to US 1) and US 64/264 (I-440 to I-540) are widened to 12 lanes.
• Improve Existing 3— ArterialZ: This alternative concept includes all projects in the fiscally-
constrained MTP roadway and transit networks except Complete 540. In place of Complete 540,
Jessie Drive (NC 540 to Ten Ten Road) and Ten Ten Road (Jessie Drive to I-40, including a new
location facility east of NC 50) would be upgraded to six-lane arterials. I-440 (I-40 to US 1) and US
64/264 (I-440 to I-540) are widened to 12 lanes.
• Mass Transit: This alternative concept utilizes transit improvements within the traffic study area in
attempts to alleviate congestion. Those transit modes included in the TRM (bus, express bus, and
light rail) were considered in this analysis. Other modes of transit were not considered due to
limited capital investment potential.
• Travel Demand Management (TDM): This alternative concept consists of inethods that aim to
reduce congestion during the peak time periods. Some options considered in this alternative, such
as ridesharing or telecommuting, take vehicles off the road completely during the peak work
commute periods. Other options, such as staggered work hours, do not take vehicles off the road
but attempt to decrease the number of vehicles during the peak periods.
• Transportation System Management (TSM): This alternative concept involves minor improvements
(signal timing, ramp meters, variable message signs, etc.) meant to maximize the efficiency oftraffic
flow on existing facilities TSM improvements are typically limited to freeway/expressway and major
arterialfacilities.
Additional descriptions of the alternative concepts can be found in the Complete 540 Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2014) for the project.
All new-location facilities included in the alternative concepts were modeled as toll facilities. In addition,
the portions of existing roadways that were upgraded to controlled-access facilities were also modeled
as toll facilities. Because current law requires a free alternative route, "non- toll" service roads were
added to the model network to provide a parallel free alternative and address businesses and
communities whose access points onto the roadway network were altered. All facilities without control
of access were modeled as "non-toll" due to the inability to toll a facility without controlled-access.
Improvements to existing controlled-accessfacilities, e.g. I-40/I-440, were not considered to be tolled in
the future for thisanalysis.
A traffic study area, shown in Figure 1, that differs from the original project study area was created for
the 2011 First Tier Screening Traffic Memo and was also utilized for this memorandum. The traffic study
area generally coincides with the project study area except the traffic study area was expanded to
include I-40/I-440 to the north and US 1/64 to the west. This was done to better capture the effects that
the various alternative concepts would have on more of the Triangle area's roadwaynetwork.
Specific travel origins and destinations for typical commuters in the traffic study area were selected
based on employment center locations and more densely populated residential land uses within the
traffic study area. The travel times analyzed in this study were calculated using the travel time forecast
by TRM for trips between Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) for each selected location best representing the
center of its activity.
December 12, 2017 3 �NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
3. CONCLUSIONS
Alternatives Analysis and Screenin�
The various MOEs described in Sections 4.0 through 7.0 demonstrate that all alternative concepts
provide some benefit to the region and traffic study area in improving mobility and reducing
congestion, the two purposes of the Complete 540 project, when compared to the No-Build ICE
alternative.
All MOEs analyzed showed that Complete 540 would have a greater impact in the traffic study area
than the entire region, based on the No-Build ICE Alternative. The New Location Highway Alternative
showed positive impacts in all MOEs that were examined. The New Location Highway Alternative
outperformed the No-Build ICE Alternative in all PM Peak MOEs as well as the daily average speed MOE
both regionally and within the traffic study area.
MOE comparisons between the No-Build and No-Build ICE alternatives showed minimal differences,
particularly from a regional standpoint. All MOE comparisons for the PM Peak saw maximum variances
of slightly more than three percent regionally and less than six percent within the traffic study area.
While the No-Build ICE alternative performs slightly better than the No-Build alternative in terms of
MOEs, simply assuming the No-Build ICE land uses occur would not provide the needed increased
mobility and congestion relief that the New Location Highway alternative produces. Therefore, the
New Location Highway alternative continues to be the preferred alternative concept to meet the
primary project purposes.
Table 2.7 of the Complete 540 Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (Lochner, 2014)
summarizes the results of the quantitative analysis of project purpose MOEs, based on 2035 traffic
information. For each of the two primary project purpose elements (improve mobility and reduce
congestion), the table highlights those Alternative Concepts that received no quartile rankings below
3. In other words, these Alternative Concepts performed above the median value for each metric and
would therefore have the largest potential for improvement relative to that element of the project
purpose. These Alternative Concepts were considered to meet that element of the project purpose.
That report found that only the New Location Highway and Hybrid 3 alternatives would meet both
primary project purposes. Mass Transit, TDM, and TSM alternative MOEs could not be determined
using the TRM and, therefore, were not included in the quartile rankings. The rationale behind
excluding those alternatives is discussed in Section 7.1.
The Lochner 2014 approach was used for this revised first tier screening. The updated summary
quartile rankings can be found in Table 1. Three Alternative Concepts quantitatively met the purpose
element of improving mobility: New Location Highway, Improve Existing 3— Freeway, and Hybrid
1. Two Alternative Concepts met the purpose element of reducing congestion: New Location Highway
and Hybrid 3. Only one Alternative Concept met both project purpose elements: New Location
Highway. Additionally, the New Location Highway alternative would satisfy the additionally identified
desirable outcome of improving system linkage in the regional transportation network, as defined in
the Lochner 2014 report.
Based on this reassessment of the first-tier screening using 2040 traffic information, only the New
Location Highway Alternative Concept warrants being carried forward. Therefore, the prior conclusions
relative to Alternative Concepts in the first-tier screening for the project are supported. All subsequent
screening decisions and conclusions relative to alternatives for the project were based on factors other
than traffic.
December 12, 2017 5 �NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
Mass Transit, TDM, and TSM
Each of these alternatives was reconsidered using a methodology consistent with their evaluation in the
original Tier 1 Alternative Concepts Screening, updated to reflect currently available planning
assumptions. The conclusions from the reconsiderations are presented here. Section 7 of this
document explains the methodology and the MOE results for Mass Transit, Travel Demand
Management, and Traffic Systems Management that support these conclusions.
The Mass Transit alternative would require changes in the travel behavior of Wake County residents to
experience the same MOE improvements produced by the New Location Highway alternative. Although
Mass Transit can complement other transportation improvements, the travel demand in the traffic
study area exceeds the ability for Mass Transit alone to provide service levels that would match the VHT
benefits provided by the New Location Highway alternative.
The TDM alternative involves improvements options such as telecommuting or ridesharing. TDM can
complement transportation improvements; however, TDM alone cannot be implemented on a scale
necessary to match the VHT benefits provided by the New Location Highway alternative.
The TSM alternative involves minor improvements (signal timing, ramp meters, variable message signs,
incident management) meant to maximize the efficiency of traffic flow on highway or larger arterial
facilities. Although TSM can complement other transportation improvements, the travel demand in the
traffic study area exceeds the ability for TSM alone to provide service levels that would match the VHT
benefits provided bythe New Location Highway alternative due to the limited amount ofTSM-amenable
facilities within the traffic study area.
In summary, Mass Transit, TDM, and TSM are not feasible alternatives to meet the project's purpose
and need.
Proiect-Level Traffic Forecast
The No-Build and No-Build ICE MOE comparisons (in Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7) quantitatively assess and
compare the degree of potential influence the MPO adopted 2040 SE data and 2040 ICE SE data have
on No-Build traffic conditions using the travel demand model assignment output. Resulting travel
demand model MOEs for the No-Build ICE alternative concept and the No-Build alternative concept are
included in Tables 2— 8 and in Appendix A.
As explained in Section 2, both of these alternative No-Build concepts utilize the same fiscally
constrained roadway and transit networks and future projects. The difference between the alternative
concepts is the No-Build alternative concept utilizes the MPO adopted 2040 SE data, and the No-Build
ICE alternative concept utilizes the 2040 ICE SE data that was developed as part of the Complete 540
Quantitative ICE study.
As described in the Complete 540 Quantitative ICE study (ICETech Memo 1, Section 2J, the MPO adopted
SE data was determined to represent a Build scenario from the perspective of the Complete 540 project.
The ICE SE data developed as part of the Complete 540 quantitative ICE study represents a conservative
No-Build scenario from the perspective of the Complete 540 project.
The No-Build ICE alternative concept is considered to be a conservative No-Build scenario because it
reduces the population and employment projections from the CAMPO adopted total using a research-
December 12, 2017 6 �NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
based approach. While area planners have stated that they anticipated similar growth would occur with
or without the project, reducing population and employment totals for the ICE No-Build maximizes the
estimate of potential growth that could be attributed to the project. From a forecasted traffic conditions
perspective based on travel demand model output, this methodology of developing and utilizing No-
Build ICE SE data unique from the MPO adopted ICE SE data results in the maximum potential effect and
change in future No-Build traffic conditions compared to the other alternatives. The results of these
comparisons are reported quantitatively in Tables 2-8 and in Appendix A.
Additionally, a project level traffic forecast for the for the New Location Highway Alternative was
completed in October 2016. Details of the analysis development are detailed in Appendix G of the
Complete 540 Project Level Traffic Forecast. In general, a FYNB (future year no-build) traffic forecast
scenario is provided in a project-level traffic forecast, in conjunction with a FYB (future year build) traffic
forecast scenario, to help assess the long-term effect a transportation project would have on area traffic
conditions. In this case, the FYNB was evaluated using the ICE No-Build alternative.
As part of the quantitative ICE study, and documented in Sections 5 and 7 of ICE Memo 4, the long-
term effect of Complete 540 on area traffic conditions has been quantitatively assessed utilizing a
three-tier approach. The results showed that the levels of traffic and patterns of congestion in the
project study area (based on comparing the New Location Highway alternative to the ICE No-Build
alternative) differed insignificantly from the original comparison with the No-Build alternative.
Based on that assessment, additional project-level traffic forecasting or development of a 2040 FYNB
project-level traffic forecast utilizing adopted or ICE SE data do not have the potential to change traffic
forecasts used to support the project decisions, and therefore the project-level traffic forecast was not
updated.
December 12, 2017 � C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
Table 1: Summary of MOE Quartile Rankings
Improve Mobility MOEs Reduce Congestion MOEs
Alternative Concept Average Speed - Travel Time from Travel Time from Average Daily Congested VMT — Congested VHT -
PM RTP — PM Brier Creek - PM VHT PM PM
New Location Highway 4 4 4 4 4 4
Hybrid 1 4 4 3 4 1 4
Hybrid 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
Hybrid 3 3 2 4 3 3 3
Improve Existing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Improve Existing 2- Arterial 1 2 1 1 3 2
Improve Existing 2- Freeway 2 1 1 1 2 1
Improve Existing 3- Arterial 2 3 2 2 4 2
Improve Existing 3- Freeway 3 3 3 3 1 3
December 12, 2017 8 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
4. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED & VEHICLE HOURS TRAVELED ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the TRM was the main tool used to generate, analyze, and calculate the 2040
traffic data used to evaluate MOEs for improving mobility and reducing congestion. Complete TRM
model runs were conducted for each alternative concept.
The following sections explain the methodology used to calculate each MOE data set and the results of
the calculations.
4.1 Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) & Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)
The VMT and VHT for each modeled alternative concept were extracted from the loaded TRM highway
networks. VMT & VHT were calculated for both region-wide model traffic assignment and within the
project traffic study area, for comparison purposes, for daily traffic flows. The region-wide totals account
for every roadway modeled in the TRM, while the traffic study area only incorporates roadways from
the TRM that fall within the traffic study area boundary. VHT provides an MOE for comparing the
alternative concepts' ability to meet the project purpose of reducing traffic congestion. The results are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: 2040 Average Daily VMT & VHT Comparisons
Region Wide Traffic Study Area
Alternative Concept VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT
(miles) (hours) Change Change (miles) (hours) Change Change
No-Build ICE 86,544,796 2,233,114 - - 17,504,053 460,415 - -
No-Build 87,365,432 2,268,263 0.95% 1.57% 17,835,660 476,120 1.89% 3.41%
New Location Hwy 87,872,949 2,243,677 1.53% 0.47% 18,393,282 458,973 5.08% -0.31%
Hybrid 1 87,718,470 2,247,585 1.36% 0.65% 18,293,381 462,890 4.51% 0.54%
Hybrid 2 87,712,234 2,259,040 1.35% 1.16% 18,215,294 470,198 4.06% 2.12%
Hybrid 3 87,733,689 2,252,000 1.37% 0.85% 18,249,365 464,976 4.26% 0.99%
Improve 1 87,573,781 2,258,260 1.19% 1.13°/a 18,110,262 471,818 3.46% 2.48%
Improve 2- Arterial 87,636,892 2,256,163 1.26% 1.03% 18,194,564 470,774 3.94% 2.25%
Improve 2- Freeway 87,738,288 2,255,353 1.38% 1.00% 18,319,959 470,947 4.66% 2.29%
Improve 3- Arterial 87,631,444 2,253,996 1.26% 0.94% 18,197,949 469,187 3.96% 1.91%
Improve 3- Freeway 87,750,979 2,248,985 1.39% 0.71°/o 18,354,113 465,979 4.86% 1.21%
4.2 Average Daily Congested Vehicle Miles Traveled & Vehicle Hours Traveled
Daily congested VMT and VHT were identified as a MOE for comparing each alternative concept's ability
to meet the project purpose of reducing congestion. The congested VMT and VHT data were extracted
from the loaded TRM highway networks. Roadways with daily volume over capacity (VOC) ratios of
greater than 0.80 were considered to be "congested" and were included in the data set developed for
each alternative concept. A VOC ratio of 0.80 or greater was chosen as the threshold because it typically
equals a Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service (LOS) of D or worse. Average daily congested VMT
& VHT were calculated region-wide and within the project traffic study area, for comparison purposes.
The results are shown in Table 3.
December 12, 2017 9 ���5

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
Table 3: 2040 Average Daily Congested VMT & VHT Comparisons
Region Wide TrafficStudyArea
Alternative Concept VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT
(miles) (hours) Change Change (miles) (hours) Change Change
No-Build ICE 25,215,556 623,454 - - 6,013,710 142,872 - -
No-Build 26,449,065 658,209 4.89% 5.57% 6,813,758 163,956 13.30% 14.76%
New Location Hwy 24,995,659 611,707 -0.87% -1.88% 5,288,158 121,783 -12.06% -14.76%
Hybrid 1 25,359,370 622,598 0.57% -0.14% 5,745,867 132,742 -4.45% -7.09%
Hybrid 2 25,718,459 635,163 1.99% 1.88% 5,907,005 139,894 -1.77% -2.08%
Hybrid 3 25,485,809 626,477 1.07% 0.48°/a 5,730,014 134,023 -4.72% -6.19%
Improve 1 24,414,661 616,852 -3.18°/a -1.06% 4,832,551 126,278 -19.64% -11.61%
Improve 2- Arterial 24,341,520 613,202 -3.47% -1.64% 4,717,985 122,243 -21.55% -14.44%
Improve 2- Freeway 24,379,310 613,219 -3.32% -1.64% 4,730,520 122,158 -21.34% -14.50%
Improve 3- Arterial 24,268,203 610,445 -3.76% -2.09% 4,661,106 120,543 -22.49% -15.63%
Improve 3- Freeway 24,240,860 607,622 -3.87% -2.54% 4,533,326 115,862 -24.62% -18.91%
4.3 PM Peak Congested Vehicle Miles Traveled & Vehicle Hours Traveled
While daily congested VMT and VHT statistics provide useful MOE for comparison between alternative
concepts, the PM peak period conditions were also examined to further evaluate impacts on reducing
congestion. The PM peak period in the TRM assigns traffic on network roadways from 3:00 PM to 7:00
PM. The 2040 PM peak highway assignments from the TRM for each alternative were used to calculate
totals for both region-wide and within the traffic study area. Roadways need only a PM Peak VOC of
0.80 or higher compared to that of a daily VOC above 0.80. The results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: 2040 Average PM Peak Congested VMT & VHT Comparisons
Region Wide Traffic Study Area
Alternative Concept VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT VMT VHT
(miles) (hours) Change Change (miles) (hours) Change Change
No-Build ICE 13,738,032 408,111 - - 3,471,245 108,220 - -
No-Build 14,021,753 421,672 2.07% 3.32% 3,591,552 114,428 3.47% 5.74%
New Location Hwy 13,717,015 397,827 -0.15°/o -2.52% 3,399,985 97,211 -2.05% -10.17%
Hybrid 1 13,762,707 402,516 0.18% -1.37% 3,495,492 102,034 0.70% -5.72%
Hybrid 2 13,889,335 411,230 1.10% 0.76% 3,485,348 106,278 0.41% -1.79%
Hybrid 3 13,840,981 406,240 0.75% -0.46% 3,460,243 102,615 -0.32% -5.18%
Improve 1 13,872,427 412,125 0.98% 0.98% 3,514,280 108,815 1.24% 0.55%
Improve 2- Arterial 13,780,064 408,178 0.31% 0.02% 3,442,158 105,686 -0.84% -2.34%
Improve 2- Freeway 13,790,904 407,828 0.38% -0.07% 3,468,444 105,921 -0.08% -2.12°/o
Improve 3- Arterial 13,762,436 406,608 0.18% -0.37% 3,424,467 104,322 -1.35% -3.60%
Improve 3- Freeway 13,787,091 403,936 0.36% -1.02% 3,494,992 103,466 0.68% -4.39°/o
5. AVERAGE SPEED ANALYSIS
Average network speed is a useful MOE in evaluating and comparing the ability of alternative concepts
to meet the project purpose of improving mobility. The TRM was used to calculate the average 2040
speeds for each alternative concept. The average daily and average PM peak speeds were calculated
by dividing the VMT totals by the VHT totals.
December 12, 2017 10 ���5

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
5.1 Average Daily Speed
2040 average daily speeds were calculated using TRM output. The results for all model alternative
concepts are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: 2040 Average Daily Speed Comparisons
RegionWide TrafficStudyArea
Alternative
Speed Speed Speed Speed
Concept
(MPH) Change (MPH) Change
No-Build ICE 38.8 - 38.0 -
No-Build 38.5 -0.62% 37.5 -1.47%
New Location Hwy 39.2 1.06% 40.1 5.41%
Hybrid 1 39.0 0.70% 39.5 3.95%
Hybrld 2 38.8 0.19% 38.7 1.90%
Hybrid 3 39.0 0.52% 39.2 3.24%
Improve 1 38.8 0.06% 38.4 0.96%
Improve 2- Arterial 38.8 0.23% 38.6 1.66%
Improve 2- Freeway 38.9 0.38% 38.9 2.32%
Improve 3- Arterial 38.9 0.32% 38.8 2.02%
Improve 3- Freeway 39.0 0.68% 39.4 3.60%
5.2 Average PM PeakSpeed
2040 PM peak average speeds were calculated using the TRM outputs. The PM peak average speeds
are the PM peak VMT divided by the PM peak VHT. The results for all alternative concepts are shown
in Table6.
Table 6: 2040 Average PM Peak Speed Comparisons
Region Wide Traffic StudyArea
Alternative
Concept Speed Speed Speed Speed
Change Change
No-Build ICE 35.4 - 33.7 -
No-Build 35.1 -0.83% 33.1 -1.90%
New Location Hwy 35.9 1.61% 36.4 7.93%
Hybrid 1 35.8 1.10% 35.6 5.67%
Hybrid 2 35.5 0.28% 34.6 2.70%
Hybrid 3 35.6 0.78% 35.3 4.65%
Improve 1 35.4 0.12% 34.2 1.37%
Improve 2- Arterial 35.5 0.37% 34.5 2.40%
Improve 2- Freeway 35.6 0.52% 34.8 3.05%
Improve 3- Arterial 35.6 0.51% 34.7 2.95%
Improve 3- Freeway 35.7 0.98% 35.4 4.85%
December 12, 2017 11 ���5

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
6. CONGESTED ROADWAY MILEAGE
6.1 Daily Congested Roadway Mileage
The total daily congested roadway lane mileage, another MOE for evaluating reduction in congestion,
was determined using the TRM. Model runs were used to calculate roadways in the highway network
with a daily VOC above 0.80. The results are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7: 2040 Daily Congested Roadway Lane Mileage
Region Wide StudyArea
Alternative Concept Lane Chan e �ane Chan e
Mileage g Mileage g
No-Build ICE 564.6 - 115.9 -
No-Build 589.9 4.48% 130.9 12.94%
New Location Hwy 562.6 -0.35°/o 102.8 -11.30%
Hybrid 1 571.6 1.24% 110.5 -4.66%
Hybrid 2 573.4 1.56% 110.2 -4.92%
Hybrid 3 571.1 1.15% 109.8 -5.26%
Improve 1 555.7 -1.58% 98.7 -14.84%
Improve 2- Arterial 553.4 -1.98%o 95.6 -17.52%
Improve 2- Freeway 555.7 -1.58% 95.6 -17.52%
Improve 3- Arterial 554.4 -1.81% 95.4 -17.69%
Improve 3- Freeway 555.5 -1.61% 93.4 -19.41%
6.2 PM Peak Congested Roadway Lane Mileage
The total PM peak congested roadway lane mileage was determined using the TRM. Model runs were
used to calculate roadways in the highway network with a PM peak VOC above 0.80. The PM peak totals
were much higher than the daily totals. The results are show below in Table 8.
Table 8: 2040 PM Peak Congested Roadway Lane Mileage
Region Wide StudyArea
Alternative Concept Lane Lane
% Change % Change
Mileage Mileage
No-Build ICE 1,350.1 - 315.9 -
No-Build 1,384.7 2.56% 328.1 3.86%
New Location Hwy 1,339.1 -0.81% 307.4 -2.69°/o
Hybrid 1 1,348.3 -0.13% 315.7 -0.06%
Hybrid 2 1,355.1 0.37% 305.8 -3.20%
Hybrid 3 1,344.5 -0.41% 300.6 -4.84%
Improve 1 1,358.4 0.61% 311.4 -1.42%
Improve 2- Arterial 1,345.7 -0.33% 301.6 -4.53%
Improve 2- Freeway 1,342.5 -0.56% 300.8 -4.78%
Improve 3- Arterial 1,345.2 -0.36% 302.8 -4.15%
Improve 3- Freeway 1,337.3 -0.95°/o 301.3 -4.62°/o
December 12, 2017 12 ���5

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
7. MASS TRANSIT, TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
The following sections provide explanations on the methodology used to analyze the MOEs for Mass
Transit, Travel Demand Management, and Traffic Systems Management as well as the MOE results.
7.1 Mass Transit
Model runs were not done for the mass transit alternative for all the MOEs. A detailed transit study
would be needed to assess transit routes and service characteristics required by the TRM. Instead,
requirements to improve the existing transit system in the Triangle needed to meet the New Location
Highway alternative VHT reduction (compared to the No-Build ICE alternative) were estimated using the
following assumptions.
• According to the 2040 No-Build ICE TRM run, the average work trip in 2040 is projected to be 12
miles in length and take 28 minutes. The TRM only calculates these values on a region-wide basis.
• The average bus can accommodate 50 passengers.3
• The average light rail train can accommodate 150 passengers.4
• A vehicle occupancy rate of one (1.0) persons per vehicle was used to conservatively calculate the
maximum equivalent transit capacity needed (total daily number of buses and light rail trains).
• The bus or light rail equivalents were converted to private vehicle trips by first converting the VHT
differences between the New Location Highway alternative and No-Build ICE alternative to minutes.
The total minutes were then divided by 28, the average time for a work trip. The resulting totals
were then divided by 50 for buses and 150 light rail trains, the average capacity of both, to estimate
the number of fully loaded bus or light rail trains required to remove the same amount of private
vehicle trips from the roadway network that would equal the VHT benefits provided by the New
Location Highway alternative.
GoTriangle, the Triangle's regional transit provider, currently has 14 regional and 10 express transit
routes region-wide that run more than 500 buses daily. Only four of those routes (60 buses daily) enter
the traffic study area. The buses rarely are used at full-capacity.
It should be noted that the effect of the number-of-buses estimate on the MOE used in this analysis is
very favorable to transit because it does not take into account the likelihood that the added buses
themselves in the numbers necessary to achieve the proposed improvements would contribute to
congestion and delay in the traffic study area. In addition, In-vehicle travel time for bus travelers will
not be lower than for private auto travel.
Taking these assumptions into account, for the traffic study area VHT changes to equal that of the New
Location Highway alternative when compared to the No-Build ICE alternative, the following mass transit
improvements would be required for each MOE:
2040 Avera�e Daily VHT - Nearly 100 additional buses (at maximum capacity) or over 30 additional full
light rail trains (at maximum capacity) would be needed on a daily basis to equal the 1,442 less VHT
produced by the New Location Highway alternative when compared to the No-Build ICE alternative.
These basic analyses also imply that the transit capacity provided is at full loading — in reality, additional
bus/train capacity would be required to provide adequate service for these demand estimates. This
3 Patrick McDonough, 6oTriangle, Personal Communication, December 12, 2017, HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
' Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle, Personal Communication, December 12, 2017, HNTB North Carolina, P.C.
December 12, 2017 13 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
would require a minimum increase of over 100 percent in buses run compared to the current service.
Triangle Transit currently has no light rail service and providing service would entail a project comparable
in scope to Complete 540 itself.
2040 Avera�e Daily Con�ested VHT - The traffic study area would require approximately 900 additional
buses or 300 light rail trains, both at maximum capacity, on a daily basis to equal the 21,089 less VHT
produced by the New Location Highway alternative when compared to the No-Build ICE alternative.
Triangle Transit currently has no light rail service
2040 Average PM Peak Congested VHT - The traffic study area would require nearly 500 additional
buses and over 150 light rail trains, both at maximum capacity during the PM Peak period to equal the
11,009 less VHT produced by the New Location Highway alternative when compared to the No-Build
ICE alternative.
2040 Avera�e Daily Speed - Additional mass transit could potentially improve average daily speeds in
the traffic study area, by removing some number of cars from the road. The number of buses required
to achieve the performance of the New Location Highway alternative would be similar to that required
to achieve VHT improvements. However, a substantially higher percentage of buses could potentially
decrease speeds on the major arterial facilities in the highway network, due to their slower
acceleration/deceleration characteristics and increased amount of stops along arterial facilities.
2040 Average PM Peak Speed - Additional mass transit could potentially improve average PM Peak
speeds in the traffic study area, by removing some number of cars from the road. The number of buses
required to achieve the performance of the New Location Highway alternative would be similar to that
required to achieve VHT improvements. However, a substantially higher percentage of buses could
potentially decrease speeds on the major arterial facilities in the highway network, due to their slower
acceleration/deceleration characteristics and increased amount of stops along arterial facilities.
2040 Daily Con�ested Roadway Milea�e - Additional mass transit could potentially improve daily
congested roadway mileage in the traffic study area, by removing some number of cars from the
road. The number of buses required to achieve the performance of the New Location Highway
alternative would be similar to that required to achieve VHT and Speed improvements. However, a
substantially higher percentage of buses could potentially decrease speeds on the major arterial
facilities in the highway network, due to their slower acceleration/deceleration characteristics and
increased amount of stops along arterial facilities.
2040 PM Peak Con�ested Roadway Milea�e - Additional mass transit could potentially improve PM
Peak congested roadway mileage in the traffic study area, by removing some number of cars from the
road. The number of buses required to achieve the performance of the New Location Highway
alternative would be similar to that required to achieve VHT and Speed improvements. However, a
substantially higher percentage of buses could potentially decrease speeds on the major arterial
facilities in the highway network, due to their slower acceleration/deceleration characteristics and
increased amount of stops along arterial facilities.
The Mass Transit alternative would require changes in the travel behaviors of Wake County residents
to experience the same MOE improvements produced by the New Location Highway alternative. The
average Daily Congested VHT MOE would require approximately 45,000 workers in the traffic study
area (22 percent) to shift to a daily mass transit option to equal the VHT benefits of the New Location
Highway alternative. The average PM Peak Congested VHT MOE would require approximately 24,000
workers in the traffic study area (12 percent) to shift to a daily mass transit option to equal the VHT
December 12, 2017 14 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
benefits of the New Location Highway alternative.
Total daily passenger boardings for all transit providers serving Wake County saw an increase of less
than one percent from 2012 (54,825 daily boardings) to 2015 (55,029 daily boardings). The latest
American Community Survey data showed that in 2016 only 1.3 percent of Wake County residents use
transit as a mode to commute to and from their place of employment.
The traffic study area also has minimal planned mass transit improvement in the future. The CAMPO
2040 MTP and recent Wake County Transit Plan (2016) show planned improvements of a peak-period
commuter rail service from Garner to Durham and peak-period only bus routes from downtown Raleigh
to Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina.
The data presented above show that although Mass Transit can complement other transportation
improvements, the travel demand in the traffic study area exceeds the ability for Mass Transit alone to
provide service levels that would match the VHT benefits provided by the New Location Highway
alternative.
7.2 Travel Demand Management
Travel Demand Management (TDM) was also not specifically modeled in the TRM. TDM improvements
include options such as telecommuting or ridesharing. TDM is included for all the modeled alternatives
at a fixed rate reflecting TDM usage in the model base year. However, the TRM is not able to forecast
TDM response to new initiatives in the future. The TRM is designed to address roadway and transit
projects, while TDM improvements are primarily policy-based programs that cannot explicitly be
captured as inputs to the TRM. Similar to the mass transit alternative methodology outlined above, the
2040 work trip attributes, along with projected employment totals in each TAZ, were used to calculate
the threshold needed to meet the New Location Highway Alternative VHT reduction compared to the
No-Build ICE alternative. The 2040 traffic study area employment projection is 207,0004.5 According to
the TRM, the average work trip for the 2040 No-Build ICE alternative is projected to be 12 miles in length
and take 28 minutes. The TRM only calculates these values on a region-wide basis.
There are several barriers to achieving large telecommuting or ridesharing results. For example, many
types of jobs, such as industrial or medical, could not be performed via telecommuting. Studies also
show that those who telecommute often make many trips throughout the day that would not normally
be made if they worked in an officeb.
The latest American Community Survey data showed that in 2016 already 8.1 percent of Wake County
residents carpool to work and 8.5 percent work from home, both forms of TDM. The current levels of
TDM usage is already accounted for in TRM runs for all of the highway alternative MOEs.
Taking these assumptions into account, for the traffic study area VHT changes to equal that of the New
Location Highway alternative, the following TDM improvements would be required for each MOE:
2040 Avera�e Dailv VHT - 3,100 workers in the traffic study area would need to shift to TDM daily to
equal the VHT reductions achieved by the New Location Highway alternative. These employment
estimates were calculated by converting the New Location Highway alternative concept VHT reductions
to total travel minutes and then dividing them by 28, the average time for a 2040 work trip.
S 2040 Triangle Regional Model Socioeconomic Data
6 Travel Demand Management: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of TDM Plans in Reducing Traffic and Parking in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Region (2010); Spack Consulting
December 12, 2017 15 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
2040 Average Daily Con�ested VHT - The traffic study area would require the use of TDM by over 45,000
employees daily to equal the VHT reductions achieved by the New Location Highway alternative. These
employment estimates were calculated by converting the New Location Highway alternative concept
VHT reductions to total travel minutes and then dividing them by 28, the average time for a 2040 work
trip.
2040 Average PM Peak Congested VHT - The traffic study area would require nearly 24,000 employees
to use TDM during the PM peak to equal the VHT reductions achieved by the New Location Highway
alternative. These employment estimates were calculated by converting the New Location Highway
alternative concept VHT reductions to total travel minutes and then dividing them by 28, the average
time for a 2040 work trip.
2040 Avera�e Daily Speed - TDM could potentially improve average daily speeds in the traffic study
area, by removing some number of cars from the road. The number of employees required to use TDM
to achieve the performance of the New Location Highway alternative would be similar to that required
to achieve VHT improvements. However, a substantially higher percentage of buses could potentially
decrease speeds on the major arterial facilities in the highway network, due to their slower
acceleration/deceleration characteristics and increased amount of stops along arterial facilities.
2040 Avera�e PM Peak Speed - TDM could potentially improve average PM Peak speeds in the traffic
study area, by removing some number of cars from the road. The number of employees required to
use TDM to achieve the performance of the New Location Highway alternative would be similar to that
required to achieve VHT improvements. However, a substantially higher percentage of buses could
potentially decrease speeds on the major arterial facilities in the highway network, due to their slower
acceleration/deceleration characteristics and increased amount of stops along arterial facilities.
2040 Daily Con�ested Roadway Mileage - TDM could provide improvements to the congested roadway
network in the traffic study area. However, these improvements would likely be very minor when
compared to the construction of the New Location Highway alternative considering the percent of
workers that would need to shift to TDM (please see the conclusions to the TDM discussion below).
2040 PM Peak Con�ested Roadway Milea�e - As discussed above with the daily congested roadway
mileage MOE, TDM could provide improvements to the congested roadway network in the traffic study
area. However, these improvements would likely be very minor when compared to the construction of
the New Location Highway alternative considering the percent of workers that would need to shift to
TDM.
TDM can serve to complement transportation improvements; however, TDM alone cannot be
implemented on a scale necessary to match the VHT benefits provided by the New Location Highway
alternative. More than 16 percent of Wake County residents already use TDM. An additional 21
percent and 12 percent of traffic study area employees would need to shift to TDM to provide the same
VHT benefits for the New Location Highway alternative for the Daily Congested VHT and PM Peak
Congested VHT, respectively.
7.3 Traffic Systems Management
Traffic Systems Management (TSM) was also estimated without a specific TRM model run. TSM involves
minor improvements (signal timing, ramp meters, variable message signs, incident management)
December 12, 2017 16 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
meant to maximize the efficiency of traffic flow on highway or larger arterial facilities. Because these
improvements are localized and can be very specific to changing traffic conditions, they cannot be
modeled at a"macro" level in a regional travel demand model. TSM improvements are better measured
for specific locations in microscopic traffic simulation programs or through deterministic Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) techniques. Specific TSM studies' conducted in similar areas to that of the
Complete 540 study area show that TSM improvements, on average, can increase the speeds on the
improved facilities by 2 to 3 percent in areas similar in size to the Research Triangle. A study done
specifically to study ramp metering feasibility in the Research Triangle showed that this TSM measure
increased peak hour travel time only on the freeway facilities with the ramp metering by ten percent
in Atlanta, Georgia and Arlington, Virginia in current conditionss. The TRM modeled network in the No-
Build ICE scenario was used to identify miles of facilities amenable to TSM improvement. It should be
noted that TSM improvements are designed for congested periods and will have little to no impact on
daily totals.
Taking these assumptions into account, TSM could possibly have the following MOEs:
2040 Avera�e Daily VHT - Approximately 43 percent of traffic study area VHT occur on TSM-amenable
facilities9. TSM alternative concepts would also not feasibly be able to reduce daily VHT impacts on a
similar scale as the New Location Highway alternative. In order to match the New Location Highway
alternative benefits, the TSM alternative would need to reduce VHT on TSM-amenable facilities by 600
VHT. This would require an increase of speeds on TSM-amenable facilities by approximately 3 percent.
2040 Average Daily Congested VHT - TSM alternative concepts would also not feasibly be able to
reduce daily congested VHT impacts on a similar scale as the New Location Highway alternative. In
order to match the New Location Highway alternative benefits, the TSM alternative would need to
reduce VHT on TSM-amenable facilities by 11,000 VHT. This would require an increase of speeds on
TSM-amenable facilities by approximately 34 percent.
2040 Avera�e PM Peak Congested VHT - TSM alternative concepts would also not feasibly reduce
congested PM peak VHT impacts on a similar scale as the New Location Highway alternative. In order
to match the New Location Highway alternative benefits, the TSM alternative would need to reduce
VHT on TSM-amenable facilities by 4,600 VHT. This would require an increase of speeds on TSM-
amenable facilities by approximately 58 percent.
2040 Average Dailv Speed - While TSM could improve average daily speeds on freeways/expressways
and major arterials, these facilities only account for 26 percent of traffic study area roadway facilities
in the 2040 TRM. The average daily speed on TSM-amenable facilities would need to be increased by
14 percent for the No-Build ICE alternative speeds to equal the daily speeds of the New Location
Highway alternative.lo
2040 Avera�e PM Peak Speed - While TSM could improve average PM Peak speeds on
' New Mississippi River Bridge Traffic Analysis Report (2004); HNTB
$ M-0446 Ramp Metering Feasibility Study for Durham and Wake Counties (2013); Atkins
9 Triangle Regional Model V5 2040 No-Build ICE model run output.
10 The required speed increases were calculated by using the New Location Highway alternative speed as a target speed. The
overall VMT was divided by the target speed in order to calculate a target VHT. The target VHT was then split into TSM-
amenable and Non-TSM-amenable. The target speed on TSM-amenable facilities was then calculated by dividing TSM-
amenable VMT by TSM-amenable target VHT. Finally, the percentage in speed change was calculated by dividing the TSM-
amenable target speed by the overall traffic study area speed from the No-Build ICE alternative.
December 12, 2017 17 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
freeways/expressways and major arterials, these facilities only account for 26 percent of traffic study
area roadway facilities in the 2040TRM. The average PM Peak speed on TSM-amenable facilities would
need to be increased by 19 percent for the No-Build ICE alternative speeds to equal the PM peak speeds
of the New Location Highway alternative10
2040 Daily Congested Roadway Milea�e - TSM could provide improvements to the daily congested
roadway network in the traffic study area, but TSM is designed to improve congested time periods.
Approximately 80 percent of the daily congested roadway mileage occurs on TSM-amenable facilities.
Approximately 34 percent of the daily congested TSM-amenable facilities have a VOC between 0.8 and
0.9. Roughly one-third of those facilities would then need to experience an approximate daily roadway
capacity increase of ten percent due to TSM in order to match the benefits provided by the New
Location Highway alternative from a daily perspective.
2040 PM Peak Con�ested Roadway Milea�e - TSM could provide improvements to the PM Peak
congested roadway network in the traffic study area. Approximately 65 percent of the PM Peak
congested roadway mileage occurs on TSM-amenable facilities. Approximately 25 percent of the PM
Peak congested TSM-amenable facilities have a VOC between 0.8 and 0.9. Roughly twenty percent of
those facilities would then need to experience an approximate PM Peak roadway capacity increase of
ten percent due to TSM in order to match the benefits provided by the New Location Highway
alternative from a PM Peak perspective.
The MOE evaluations presented above show that, although TSM can complement other transportation
improvements, the travel demand in the traffic study area exceeds the ability for TSM alone to provide
service levels that would match the VHT benefits provided by the New Location Highway alternative due
to the limited amount (26 percent) of TSM-amenable facilities within the traffic study area. The studies
state that TSM improvements can improve peak travel time and speeds by up to ten percent only on
the TSM-amenable facilities in current conditions. Nearly all of the MOE changes needed to equal the
benefits of the New Location Highway exceed that percentage.
8. TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS
Travel time for average individual trips between representative origins and destinations is a useful
MOE for evaluating how alternative concepts meet the project purpose of improving mobility in the
traffic study area. The TRM was used to calculate 2040 travel times for the AM and PM peak periods
between the origins and destinations listed below. These origins and destinations include
employment centers and the more densely populated residential land uses within the region and
traffic study area and as such were selected because they have high concentrations of population
and employment. The following origins and destinations were also studied in the 2011 study and are
shown in Figure2.
• Holly Springs (Main Street & Holly Springs Road) - Within Traffic Study Area
• Fuquay-Varina (US 401 & Ennis Street) - Within Traffic Study Area
• Garner (Garner Road & Vandora Springs Road) - Within Traffic Study Area
• Clayton (US 70 Business & NC42) - Within Traffic Study Area
• Knightdale (US 64 Business & Smithfield Road) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
• Eastern Wake County (Smithfield Road & Grasshopper Road) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
• Northwestern Johnston County (NC 50 & NC42) - Within Traffic Study Area
December 12, 2017 18 C�NTB

NCDOT STIP PROJECT R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829
Complete 540 Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
First Tier Alternative Concepts Screening & Traffic Reassessment - Final
• Research Triangle Park (NC 55 & NC 54) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
• RDU Airport (Airport Boulevard & International Drive) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
• Brier Creek (US 70 & Brier Creek Parkway) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
• Durham (Chapel Hill Street & Mangum Street) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
• Cary (Academy Street & Chatham Street) - Outside of Traffic Study Area
Not all pairs of origins and destinations traverse the study area, but they are included to provide a
regional picture of the project's effect on typical travel demand over the entire region. Some of the
pairs of origins and destinations will naturally be more affected by the project than others. Trip pairs,
particularly in northwestern Wake County and Durham County, experience little to no travel time effects
regardless of which alternative is analyzed. Trips pairs of greater length and that traverse the study area
usually experience the greatest travel time differences between the different alternatives.
The complete results of the travel time calculations can be found in AppendixA. The tables represent
minutes of travel for a representative trip in the given time period. The alternative concepts each had
some degree of positive impact on the travel times when compared to those of the No-Build ICE
alternative. The New Location Highway alternative provided the largest travel time reductions over the
No-Build alternative for long-distance trips that traverse the traffic study area and for southern and
eastern Wake County by providing a high-speed regional mobility connection. For instance, the PM
peak travel time for a trip from Durham to northwestern Johnston County is reduced by 15 minutes in
the New Location Highway alternative compared to the No-Build ICE. Another example is that the PM
peak travel time from Holly Springs to eastern Wake County drops by 23 minutes with the New
Location Highway alternative in place. However, some travel times experienced little change,
particularly for a trip with both an origin and a destination in the western part of the traffic study.
December 12, 2017 19 C�NTB

APPENDIX A
Travel Time Calculations

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Holly Springs (Main St. & Holly Springs Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Fu ua -Varina 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0
Garner 29.6 29.7 23.2 23.3 29.5 26.1 29.7 29.6 29.4 28.8 26.1
Clayton 37.2 37.9 23.5 23.5 30.7 29.5 38.4 33.7 31.0 34.4 29.5
Knightdale 40.5 40.5 30.2 40.8 40.1 36.3 40.1 40.0 40.0 40.1 40.1
E Wal<e County 42.4 42.3 29.0 35.8 413 35.1 41.7 41.7 41.6 41.8 41.7
NW John. Co. 25.1 25.2 18.1 18.1 20.1 24.6 25.3 22.6 20.1 25.1 24.6
RTP 32.8 32.8 33.4 33.8 32.8 33.0 32.6 32.7 32.7 32.4 32.7
RDU 33.0 33.1 33.5 33.9 33.0 33.1 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.6 32.8
Brier Creek 33.5 33.6 34.0 34.3 33.5 33.6 33.3 33.4 33.4 33.1 333
Durham 42.9 43.0 43.5 43.9 42.9 43.1 42.9 42.9 42.9 42.6 42.8
Cary 26.1 26.2 26.7 26.9 26.1 26.3 26.0 26.1 26.1 262 26.2
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Holly Springs (Main St. & Holly Springs Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Fu ua -Varina 17.9 19.0 153 15.5 19.0 17.2 183 183 18.6 17.7 16.8
Garner 343 35.4 25.3 25.4 34.0 32.3 34.5 33.7 33.5 33.2 31.9
Clayton 51.8 54.0 32.5 32.5 45.6 45.6 51.7 46.6 45.2 47.7 44.6
Knightdale 61.2 63.5 39.0 50.9 57.7 52.1 59.3 58.7 58.6 57.9 56.8
E Wake County 59.4 61.8 36.0 45.6 54.7 49.2 58.9 57.9 57.7 57.4 56.0
NW John. Co. 41.1 43.6 26.8 26.9 35.1 37.7 41.8 35.6 34.3 39.0 36.9
RTP 21.3 21.3 21.2 21.3 21.3 21.4 21.3 21.3 213 21.4 21.4
RDU 23.7 23.7 23.5 23.5 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.7 23.7 23.7
Brier Creek 24.8 25.0 24.5 24.6 24.9 24.9 24.8 24.8 24.7 24.8 24.8
Durham 30.9 31.0 30.8 30.9 30.9 31.0 30.9 30.9 30.9 31.0 31.0
Cary 18.2 18.3 17.6 17.7 18.2 17.7 18.4 18.3 18.3 17.9 17.8

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Fuquay-Varina (US 401 & Ennis St.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 15.9 16.5 14.0 14.2 16.7 15.3 16.3 16.1 16.4 15.7 15.0
Garner 27.0 27.2 26.9 27.0 25.5 263 27.2 26.2 25.5 26.5 26.4
Clayton 30.7 31.3 27.3 27.3 23.9 29.4 31.9 26.7 24.2 30.0 29.6
Knightdale 45.8 46.3 34.0 44.6 35.8 36.5 45.9 45.1 44.4 45.4 45.0
E Wake County 43.4 43.8 32.9 39.6 34.6 35.3 43.6 39.5 37.0 42.8 41.9
NW John. Co. 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 13.4 18.4 18.7 15.6 13.4 18.6 18.4
RTP 48.3 48.9 46.6 47.2 49.0 47.6 48.3 48.2 48.6 47.5 47.1
RDU 48.5 49.2 46.7 47.3 49.2 47.7 48.5 48.4 4$.8 47.7 47.2
Brier Creek 49.0 49.7 47.2 47.7 49.7 48.2 49.0 48.9 49.3 48.1 47.7
Durham 58.4 59.1 56.7 573 59.1 57.7 58.5 58.4 58.8 57.6 57.2
Cary 40.3 41.3 39.0 39.1 41.1 39.7 40.6 40.7 40.9 40.4 39.4
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Fuquay-Varina (US 401 & Ennis St.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.1 83 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.1
Garner 23.5 23.8 22.7 22.8 22.7 23.3 23.7 23.2 22.5 23.4 23.2
Clayton 36.1 37.8 30.4 30.4 27.0 34.0 36.7 28.7 48.4 34.9 33.9
Knightdale 53.9 55.6 36.9 48.8 39.0 43.1 52.7 503 48.4 52.2 51.9
E Wake County 48.6 50.2 33.9 43.5 36.1 40.2 48.1 42.9 41.1 47.6 47.3
NW John. Co. 24.9 26.3 21.5 21.5 16.4 23.2 25.3 17.7 16.0 23.7 22.8
RTP 28.5 28.6 28.4 28.3 28.8 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.8 28.6 28.6
RDU 30.9 31.0 30.6 30.6 31.2 30.9 30.9 30.9 31.2 31.0 30.9
Brier Creek 32.0 32.3 31.7 31.6 32.4 32.1 32.0 32.0 32.2 32.1 32.0
Durham 38.1 383 37.9 37.9 38.4 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.4 38.3 38.2
Cary 25.7 25.8 25.3 25.4 25.7 25.6 25.9 25.8 25.7 25.8 25.6

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Garner (Garner Rd. & Vandora Springs Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 31.5 32.4 23.1 23.2 31.4 29.6 31.7 31.3 31.1 30.8 29.1
Fuquay-Varina 21.8 22.0 21.4 21.4 21.0 21.6 21.9 21.4 20.8 21.8 21.6
Clayton 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1
Knightdale 22.7 Z3.2 16.6 21.8 16.7 16.7 22.4 22.3 22.3 22.2 21.8
E Wake County 18.3 18.4 15.5 17.9 15.5 15.5 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.0 17.9
NW John. Co. 123 12.3 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.3 12.2 11.9 12.2 12.2
RTP 40.0 40.8 37.9 38.2 40.2 39.4 40.0 39.8 39.9 39.5 39.0
RDU 363 37.0 343 34.6 36.4 35.7 36.2 36.1 36.2 35.7 35.2
Brier Creek 38.5 393 36.6 36.8 38.7 38.0 38.5 38.4 38.4 38.0 37.5
Durham 49.0 49.7 47.0 47.2 49.1 48.4 49.0 48.9 48.9 48.5 48.0
Cary 29.1 29.8 27.4 27.7 29.4 28.5 28.9 28.7 28.9 28.6 27.9
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Garner (Garner Rd. & Vandora Springs Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 31.3 31.5 24.6 24.9 31.4 27.9 31.5 31.4 31.2 30.5 27.9
Fuquay-Varina 29.0 29.4 28.6 28.9 27.9 28.3 29.3 28.3 27.7 28.5 28.4
Clayton 19.7 20.7 19.4 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.2 18.9 18.9 19.1 19.1
Knightdale 31.8 33.2 25.7 31.5 26.0 25.9 30.0 29.9 29.8 29.9 29.8
E Wake County 26.5 27.8 22.8 26.8 23.1 23.0 26.0 25.9 25.9 26.0 26.0
NW John. Co. 22.6 24.5 20.5 21.1 22.1 20.3 23.1 21.6 21.4 20.3 19.9
RTP 26.8 26.8 26.7 26.8 26.7 26.6 26.7 26.6 26.7 26.7 26.6
RDU 23.1 23.1 23.0 23.0 23.0 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9
Brier Creek 26.7 26.8 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.5 265 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.9
Durham 34.1 34.1 34.0 34.1 34.0 33.9 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 33.9
Cary 17.7 17.7 17.6 17.7 17.6 17.4 17.7 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.5

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Clayton (US 70 Business & NC 42)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 46.0 48.5 28.6 28.3 41.2 40.3 47.0 42.8 40.8 43.0 39.3
Fuquay-Varina 32.1 33.6 27.5 27.1 24.8 31.0 32.8 27.0 24.7 31.7 30.9
Garner 17.6 18.4 17.9 18.0 18.1 17.9 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Knightdale 23.8 Z4.6 16.8 24.2 16.9 16.9 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.3 24.1
E Wake County 13.5 13.7 13.3 13.5 133 13.3 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.5 13.5
NW John. Co. 10.2 10.3 10.2 103 9.8 10.2 10.4 10.3 9.9 10.3 103
RTP 55.3 57.1 51.8 51.9 55.1 54.6 54.4 54.2 54.2 53.9 53.0
RDU 51.7 53.4 48.4 49.4 50.6 50.2 50.4 50.5 50.5 50.2 49.2
Brier Creek 53.9 55.7 44.1 51.6 45.8 45.4 52.7 52.8 52.7 52.4 51.5
Durham 64.3 66.1 59.6 62.0 61.4 61.0 63.2 63.3 63.2 62.9 62.0
Cary 44.4 46.2 41.5 42.5 44.8 43.9 43.1 43.1 43.1 43.0 41.9
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Clayton (US 70 Business & NC 42)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 39.9 40.8 24.9 24.8 34.6 31.6 41.5 37.1 35.2 36.3 31.4
Fuquay-Varina 33.7 34.5 29.1 29.0 26.4 31.8 35.2 29.0 27.0 32.8 31.8
Garner 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.6 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.6
Knightdale 23.9 24.3 19.5 243 19.3 19.3 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.9
E Wake County 14.8 15.2 13.6 15.0 13.5 13.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.7
NW John. Co. 12.7 13.3 11.1 11.4 11.4 11.2 13.9 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.6
RTP 35.4 35.4 35.5 35.4 35.5 35.4 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.1 35.0
RDU 31.7 31.7 31.8 31.7 31.8 31.7 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3 31.3
Brier Creek 35.3 35.5 32.5 353 32.4 32.4 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.8
Durham 42.7 42.8 42.8 42.8 42.9 42.7 42.4 42.4 42.3 42.4 42.3
Cary 26.3 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.3 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 25.9

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Knightdale (US 64 Business & Smithfield Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 51.6 53.1 34.7 45.4 51.6 46.7 48.7 48.6 48.5 48.1 47.3
Fuquay-Varina 47.4 48.7 33.6 44.2 35.1 38.7 46.0 45.5 43.1 45.9 45.7
Garner 27.7 28.7 22.5 27.7 22.6 22.5 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 58.8
Clayton 21.9 22.1 17.7 22.1 17.7 17.6 21.8 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9
E Wake County 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4
NW John. Co. 30.4 31.2 203 30.5 20.2 20.2 28.7 28.7 28.4 28.8 28.9
RTP 43.4 44.9 43.5 43.2 45.3 44.8 43.4 43.3 43.3 43.2 42.7
RDU 39.0 40.5 39.1 38.9 40.8 40.4 38.9 38.9 3$.8 38.7 38.2
Brier Creel< 34.2 35.6 34.4 34.1 36.0 35.6 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.0 33.5
Durham 49.6 51.2 49.9 49.6 51.7 51.2 49.7 49.7 49.7 49.6 49.0
Cary 43.1 44.9 41.8 40.7 44.4 43.5 40.0 40.0 40.1 39.9 39.3
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Knightdale (US 64 Business & Smithfield Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 47.6 47.7 32.8 46.5 47.0 39.7 47.0 47.0 46.9 46.9 46.6
Fuquay-Varina 52.1 52.7 37.0 50.6 41.6 40.1 52.5 51.5 50.8 51.6 51.1
Garner 27.6 28.6 18.0 26.5 18.2 18.1 28.4 28.3 28.3 28.1 27.8
Clayton 26.1 26.8 19.6 26.1 19.7 19.8 26.6 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.3
E Wake County 11.5 11.9 9.5 11.6 9.7 9.6 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.7
NW John. Co. 38.0 39.2 23.8 36.7 26.6 24.8 39.6 37.8 37.7 37.6 37.1
RTP 29.0 29.0 29.1 29.0 29.1 29.1 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0
RDU 25.9 25.9 26.0 25.9 26.0 26.0 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8
Brier Creek 22.1 22.1 22.2 22.1 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.1 22.1
Durham 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.4 34.5 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4
Cary 26.0 26.2 25.6 26.1 25.7 25.6 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.7

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Eastern Wake County (Smithfield Rd. & Grasshopper Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 53.1 55.0 32.9 41.6 49.6 44.8 52.8 52.3 51.9 51.7 50.1
Fuquay-Varina 43.4 44.6 31.8 40.4 33.2 36.9 43.0 40.1 37.8 42.7 42.5
Garner 23.7 24.6 20.6 24.0 20.6 20.6 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.2 23.2
Clayton 13.6 13.8 13.1 13.7 13.0 13.1 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.6
Knightdale 10.5 11.1 9.0 10.7 9.1 9.0 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.7
NW John. Co. 23.4 23.7 18.4 23.6 18.2 18.4 23.4 23.4 23.0 23.4 23.5
RTP 51.9 54.0 48.9 51.9 50.8 50.4 52.4 52.3 52.1 52.0 51.4
RDU 47.5 49.5 44.6 47.5 46.4 45.9 47.8 47.8 47.7 47.6 46.9
Brier Creek 42.6 44.7 39.9 42.8 41.6 41.1 43.1 43.1 42.9 42.9 42.2
Durham 58.1 603 55.4 583 57.2 56.7 58.7 58.7 58.5 58.4 57.7
Cary 46.3 48.8 44.1 45.1 46.8 45.9 44.9 45.0 44.9 44.8 44.0
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Eastern Wake County (Smithfield Rd. & Grasshopper Rd.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 49.4 49.4 30.9 28.6 46.5 37.6 48.2 48.3 48.2 48.1 45.2
Fuquay-Varina 47.5 48.5 35.1 42.7 39.4 38.0 48.4 42.8 40.8 46.7 45.7
Garner 20.2 20.4 16.1 19.5 16.1 16.0 20.2 20.2 20.1 20.1 19.9
Clayton 14.6 14.8 13.9 14.5 13.9 13.9 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6
Knightdale 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2
NW John. Co. 26.5 27.3 21.9 25.1 24.4 22.8 27.7 25.9 25.8 25.7 25.4
RTP 34.9 35.0 34.5 35.0 34.5 34.5 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
RDU 31.8 31.9 31.3 31.9 31.3 31.3 31.8 31.8 31.8 31.8 31.8
Brier Creek 28.0 28.1 27.6 28.1 27.6 27.6 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1
Durham 40.2 403 39.9 40.4 39.8 39.8 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3
Cary 27.8 27.9 27.3 27.6 27.3 27.2 27.1 27.1 27.0 27.0 26.9

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Northwestern Johnston County (NC 50 & NC 42)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 35.8 38.2 23.1 23.1 31.4 33.5 36.8 32.5 30.9 34.8 33.0
Fuquay-Varina 21.9 23.3 19.9 19.9 15.0 20.9 22.5 16.8 14.7 21.4 20.6
Garner 20.8 22.2 19.0 19.4 20.1 18.9 21.7 20.4 19.9 18.9 18.5
Clayton 12.1 12.7 10.7 10.8 1.6 11.0 13.1 11.1 10.8 11.4 11.2
Knightdale 33.5 35.3 20.4 30.7 22.4 21.8 35.0 33.0 32.7 32.7 31.9
E Wake Co. 24.9 25.5 19.2 23.6 21.2 20.6 25.9 23.9 23.6 24.1 23.9
RTP 58.1 60.4 46.4 46.7 57.0 55.7 58.0 56.0 55.7 55.3 54.1
RDU 54.4 56.7 46.5 46.8 53.3 52.0 543 523 52.0 51,6 50.3
Brier Creek 56.6 59.0 47.0 47.2 51.3 50.3 56.5 54.6 54.2 53.8 52.6
Durham 67.1 69.4 56.5 56.8 66.0 64.7 67.1 65.0 64.7 64.3 63.1
Cary 47.2 49.5 39.1 39.2 46.2 44.8 46.9 44.9 44.6 44.4 43.0
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Northwestern Johnston County (NC 50 & NC 42)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 27.2 27.5 19.6 19.6 23.2 26.4 27.6 25.1 23.2 27.2 26.3
Fuquay-Varina 21.0 21.2 20.6 20.6 15.0 20.6 21.3 17.0 15.0 21.0 20.5
Garner 13.7 13.8 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.6 13.8 13.8 13.6 13.6 13.6
Clayton 11.2 11.5 10.8 11.1 10.5 10.8 11.4 11.0 10.8 11.2 11.2
Knightdale 34.0 35.2 22.4 34.4 22.6 22.6 32.9 32.6 32.4 32.8 32.7
E Wake Co. 25.6 26.2 19.5 25.7 19.6 19.8 25.5 25.2 25.0 25.3 25.4
RTP 36.2 36.4 32.4 32.3 36.1 36.1 35.8 35.6 35.3 35.7 35.5
RDU 32.5 32.7 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.4 32.1 31.9 31.6 32.0 31.8
Brier Creek 36.1 36.4 35.4 35.6 35.7 35.7 35.7 35.5 35.2 35.5 35.3
Durham 43.6 43.8 41.9 41.9 43.5 43.4 43.1 42.9 42.6 43.0 42.9
Cary 27.2 27.3 26.8 26.9 27.0 26.9 26.8 26.6 26.3 26.6 26.4

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Research Triangle Park (NC 55 & NC 54)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5
Fuquay-Varina 25.2 25.2 25.3 25.3 25.3 253 253 25.2 253 253 25.3
Garner 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.1 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2
Clayton 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.3 32.2
Knightdale 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9 26.9
E Wake Co. 32.1 32.1 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 31.9 31.9 31.9 32.0 31.9
NW John. Co. 31.8 31.8 30.7 30.7 31.7 31.8 31.8 31.7 31.4 31.8 31.7
RDU 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Brier Creel< 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Durham 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
Cary 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Research Triangle Park (NC 55 & NC 54)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 36.3 36.6 37.1 37.7 36.7 36.6 36.6 36.7 36.7 36.2 36.5
Fuquay-Varina 53.6 54.8 51.8 52.4 55.1 52.6 54.1 54.4 54.7 53.3 52.6
Garner 46.8 48.0 43.9 44.0 47.1 45.9 46.8 46.4 46.4 46.1 45.3
Clayton 66.0 68.2 60.0 60.7 66.4 65.3 65.5 64.8 64.8 64.8 64.0
Knightdale 53.7 56.1 54.2 52.6 563 55.4 53.3 53.2 53.2 52.8 52.8
E Wake Co. 63.4 66.4 60.3 62.4 62.6 61.6 63.9 63.7 63.8 63.3 63.2
NW John. Co. 69.3 71.8 60.0 55.1 68.7 65.1 69.4 673 67.0 66.2 64.8
RDU 12.8 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.9 12.9 13.0 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9
Brier Creek 17.3 17.5 17.2 17.1 17.5 173 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.2
Durham 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
Cary 21.2 21.3 21.0 20.9 21.2 21.2 21.7 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Raleigh-Durham Airport (Airport Blvd. & International Dr.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 21.8 21.9 21.8 21.8 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9
Fuquay-Varina 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.7 27.7 27.6
Garner 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7 21.7
Clayton 30.7 30.8 30.7 30.8 30.7 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.7
Knightdale 24.4 24.4 24.5 24.4 24.5 24.5 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4
E Wake Co. 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8
NW John. Co. 30.3 30.4 30.3 30.3 30.2 30.3 30.3 30.3 29.9 30.3 30.2
RTP 11.6 11.7 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7
Brier Creel< 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 83 8.3
Durham 20.6 20.7 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.6 20.8 20.7 20.7 20.7 20.7
Cary 12.8 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Raleigh-Durham Airport (Airport Blvd. & International Dr.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 36.5 36.7 37.2 37.7 36.8 36.3 36.6 36.8 36.7 36.2 36.4
Fuquay-Varina 53.8 54.9 51.9 52.4 55.2 52.5 54.2 54.5 54.8 53.3 52.6
Garner 42.7 43.9 39.9 40.2 43.0 41.8 42.6 42.3 42.2 41.9 41.2
Clayton 61.9 64.1 56.5 59.4 58.5 57.9 61.3 60.6 60.7 60.6 59.8
Knightdale 46.0 48.3 46.6 45.1 48.5 47.7 45.6 45.4 45.5 45.1 45.2
E Wake Co. 55.7 58.6 52.6 54.9 54.7 53.9 56.2 56.0 56.1 55.6 55.6
NW John. Co. 65.2 67.7 54.3 55.1 64.6 61.0 65.2 63.2 62.9 62.0 60.7
RTP 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9
Brier Creek 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6
Durham 19.0 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.1
Cary 17.1 17.2 17.0 17.0 17.1 17.0 17.5 17.5 17.5 17.4 17.5

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Brier Creek (US 70 & Brier Creek Pkwy.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 22.7 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.8 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7
Fuquay-Varina 28.5 28.6 28.5 28.5 28.6 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5
Garner 24.9 25.0 24.8 24.8 24.9 24.8 24.9 24.9 24.9 24.8 24.8
Clayton 33.9 34.0 30.1 33.9 30.0 30.1 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9 33.9
Knightdale 19.6 19.6 19.7 19.6 19.7 19.7 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6 19.6
E Wake Co. 25.0 25.1 25.0 25.1 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.1
NW John. Co. 33.5 33.6 32.7 33.4 32.5 32.6 33.5 33.4 33.0 33.4 33.4
RTP 14.5 14.6 14.4 14.4 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.5
RDU 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Durham 16.0 16.1 16.1 16.0 16.2 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1
Cary 15.9 16.1 15.9 15.9 16.1 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 15.9 15.9
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Brier Creek (US 70 & Brier Creek Pkwy.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 36.6 36.8 37.3 37.9 36.9 36.5 36.8 37.0 36.9 36.4 36.6
Fuquay-Varina 53.9 55.1 52.0 52.6 55.3 52.7 54.3 54.7 54.9 53.5 52.7
Garner 45.6 46.8 42.8 43.0 45.9 44.7 45.5 45.2 45.1 44.8 44.0
Clayton 64.7 66.9 52.3 60.8 54.2 53.5 64.2 63.6 63.6 63.5 62.7
Knightdale 41.7 43.9 42.4 40.9 44.1 43.4 41.4 41.2 41.3 40.8 41.0
E Wake Co. 51.4 54.2 48.4 50.7 50.4 49.6 51.9 51.8 51.9 51.4 51.3
NW John. Co. 68.1 70.6 54.5 55.2 61.0 58.6 68.1 66.1 65.7 64.9 63.6
RTP 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7
RDU 9.6 9.6 9..6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6
Durham 13.0 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1
Cary 20.0 20.0 19.9 19.9 20.0 19.9 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.3 20.4

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Durham (Chapel Hill St. & Mangum St.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 27.4 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4
Fuquay-Varina 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2
Garner 31.1 31.1 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.1 31.1 31.0 31.1 31.0
Clayton 40.1 40.1 40.0 40.1 40.1 40.0 40.1 40.1 40.1 40.1 40.1
Knightdale 30.7 30.7 30.8 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7
E Wake Co. 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1 36.1
NW John. Co. 39.7 39.7 38.7 38.7 39.6 39.7 39.6 39.6 39.2 39.6 39.6
RTP 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4
RDU 17.9 17.9 17.8 17.9 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8
Brier Creek 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2
Cary 22.1 22.2 22.1 22.1 22.2 22.1 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.2 22.1
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Durham (Chapel Hill St. & Mangum St.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 47.9 48.2 48.8 49.4 48.2 47.8 483 48.4 48.4 47.9 48.1
Fuquay-Varina 65.2 66.5 63.5 64.1 66.7 64.1 65.8 66.2 66.4 65.0 64.2
Garner 57.9 59.1 55.1 55.3 58.2 57.1 58.0 57.6 57.5 57.3 56.5
Clayton 77.1 79.3 70.7 72.3 72.7 72.0 76.7 76.0 76.0 76.0 75.2
Knightdale 60.1 62.4 60.8 59.3 62.6 61.9 60.0 59.8 59.9 59.5 59.4
E Wake Co. 69.8 72.7 66.9 69.1 68.9 68.1 70.6 70.4 70.5 70.0 69.8
NW John. Co. 80.4 82.9 65.9 66.8 79.5 76.2 80.5 78.5 78.2 77.3 76.0
RTP 14.7 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
RDU 24.0 24.1 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1 24.1
Brier Creek 18.7 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.8 18.8 18.9 18.9 18.8 18.9 18.7
Cary 32.3 32.4 32.2 32.2 32.2 32.3 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8 32.8

2040 Alternatives Analysis AM Travel Times
Origin: Cary (Academy St. & Chatham St.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 16.3 16.3 16.0 16.0 16.3 15.9 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.1 15.9
Fuquay-Varina 22.4 22.4 22.2 22.3 22.5 223 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.4 22.3
Garner 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Clayton 24.1 Z4.1 24.1 24.2 24.1 24.1 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.1
Knightdale 22.2 22.2 22.1 22.3 22.1 22.1 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2
E Wake Co. 24.0 24.0 23.9 24.0 23.9 23.9 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8
NW John. Co. 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.3 23.6 23.6
RTP 18.9 18.9 18.7 18.6 18.9 18.9 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.1 19.1
RDU 15.2 15.2 15.1 15.0 15.1 15.1 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4
Brier Creek 17.4 17.4 173 173 17.4 17.4 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.7 17.6
Durham 27.8 27.9 27.7 27.7 27.8 27.8 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.1
2040 Alternatives Analysis PM Travel Times
Origin: Cary (Academy St. & Chatham St.)
Alternatives
No-Build New Location Improve Improve Improve Improve Improve
Destination ICE No-Build Highway Hybrid 1 Hybrid 2 Hybrid 3 Existing 1 Existing 2A Existing 2F Existing 3A Existing 3F
Holl S rin s 28.2 28.3 28.5 29.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.1 28.0 28.2 28.1
Fuquay-Varina 44.0 45.1 42.0 42.5 44.8 43.1 44.2 44.4 44.4 43.9 42.9
Garner 33.7 34.9 31.1 31.4 34.0 32.9 33.3 32.9 32.8 32.6 31.8
Clayton 53.0 55.0 49.7 50.6 53.3 52.3 52.0 51.3 51.3 51.3 50.4
Knightdale 52.5 54.4 49.4 49.3 53.0 51.9 49.5 49.2 49.1 49.0 48.3
E Wake Co. 55.8 58.6 51.7 53.2 55.3 54.3 53.9 53.4 53.4 53.3 52.4
NW John. Co. 54.9 56.9 44.7 45.3 54.1 50.4 55.0 53.6 53.4 51.7 49.5
RTP 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.2 17.3 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.3
RDU 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.2 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.6 13.6
Brier Creek 17.2 17.4 17.1 17.1 17.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.1
Durham 24.6 24.7 24.6 24.6 24.7 24.6 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.6