20181192 Ver 1_C540_ICE_Memo_1_1117_20180122

Memorandum on local �urisdiction Outreach
and Methodology Updates
(Quantitative ICE Assessment Memo #1)
For
Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
,`_. �
��� .
.�,�o�����
�. 54p
����z� �.�:
Wake and Johnston Counties, North Carolina
STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829
Prepared for:
Prepared By:
Michael Baker Engineering
I N T E R N AT I 0 N A L
November 2017

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents ................................................................................................................................... i
Listof Tables ......................................................................................................................................... ii
Listof Figures ........................................................................................................................................ ii
Listof Appendices ................................................................................................................................. ii
1. I ntroduction ..........................................................................................................................................1
qualitativeICE ......................................................................................................................................1
Pu rpose .................................................................................................................................................1
Current Regional Practice .....................................................................................................................2
2. Control Total Adjustments (Regional and County-level) ......................................................................6
Population, Household, and Housing Unit Projections ........................................................................6
EmploymentProjections .......................................................................................................................6
ControlTotal Adjustments ....................................................................................................................7
Distribution of Control Total Changes ................................................................................................13
2040 No-Build Scenario 2 Control Totals ............................................................................................18
3. Attractiveness Factors ........................................................................................................................ 20
4. Place Types (Parcel Level) ...................................................................................................................21
AngierPlace-Type Changes .................................................................................................................23
ApexPlace-Type Changes ................................................................................................................... 23
CaryPlace-Type Changes ....................................................................................................................23
ClaytonPlace-Type Changes ...............................................................................................................23
Fuquay-Varina Place-Type Changes ....................................................................................................23
Garner Place-Type Changes ................................................................................................................23
Harnett County Place-Type Changes ..................................................................................................23
Holly Springs Place-Type Changes ......................................................................................................23
Johnston County Place-Type Changes ................................................................................................23
KnightdalePlace-Type Changes ..........................................................................................................24
RaleighPlace-Type Changes ...............................................................................................................24
Wake County Place-Type Changes ......................................................................................................24
WendellPlace-Type Changes ..............................................................................................................24
5. Imagine 2040 Output for Dwelling Units and Employment ...............................................................24
6. Next Steps ...........................................................................................................................................25
7. References .......................................................................................................................................... 25

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
List of Tables
Table 1: Control Totals for Imagine 2040 ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 2: Existing Highway Centerline Miles ..................................................................................................9
Table 3: Estimated Raleigh MSA Control Total Adjustments using Duranton and Turner (2012) Method 10
Table 4: Wake County Control Total Adjustments Based on TREDIS Modeling .........................................12
Table 5: Comparison of FLUSA Dwelling Units and Employment for Different Scenarios ..........................13
Table 6: Example of z-score Calculation for TAZ 1748 ................................................................................15
Table 7: Control Total Adjustments to 2040 Dwelling Units by County for No-Build Scenario 2 ...............18
Table 8: Control Total Adjustments to Employment by County for No-Build Scenario 2 ...........................19
Table 9: Meetings with Jurisdictions in the FLUSA .....................................................................................22
List of Figures
Figure 1: Imagine 2040 Model Area .................................................................................
Figure 2: Land Use Scenarios Development Flowchart ...................................................
Figure 3: Existing Limited-Access Highways and the Proposed Complete 540 ................
Figure 4: Traffic Analysis Zones in Southern Wake and Northern Johnston Counties ....
Figure 5: Analysis of Job Access with and without Complete 540 at the TAZ level.........
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ
Appendix B: Place Type Definitions from Imagine 2040
Appendix C: Meeting Summaries and Place Type Maps from Local Jurisdiction Meetings
.3
.5
11
16
17

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
1. Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) propose to build a new, limited-access highway from NC 55 in Apex to US 64/US 264 Bypass (I-
495) in Knightdale, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This proposed highway, known as Complete
540 —Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension, is proposed as a toll facility.
Through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, NCDOT has previously completed a
qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report (Qualitative ICE; H.W. Lochner, Inc., 2014) as part of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was published in November 2015.
Qualitative ICE
The Qualitative ICE analysis evaluated potential effects of the various project alternatives. The
Qualitative ICE divided the project's Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) into nine zones and evaluated
the potential for future indirect effects in each zone under each of the Detailed Study Alternatives
(DSAs). As stated in the DEIS, "[t]he qualitative assessment concluded that each DSA would result in
indirect or cumulative effects of similar magnitudes, although the specific locations of these effects
would vary according to DSA. For this reason, these impacts would not be a major factor in selecting the
preferred DSA. Once a Preferred Alternative (PA) is selected, more detailed, quantitative analyses will
be conducted for comparison with the "no build" alternative (sic)."
Under the 2040 No-Build Alternative, the Qualitative ICE determined that growth and development
patterns in the FLUSA would likely be influenced by the proximity to existing major transportation
facilities and commercial and retail centers. The document noted that most of the existing land use
plans for jurisdictions within the FLUSA assume construction of Complete 540; so it is possible that the
2040 No-Build Alternative would promote future development patterns that differed from those
envisioned in local land use plans. The construction of Complete 540 would likely encourage higher land
use densities, more commercial and industrial development, and a greater mix of uses in the areas
surrounding the interchanges.
In April 2016, NCDOT selected Detailed Study Alternative 2(DSA 2) as the PA for the project. This
Quantitative ICE was developed for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and provides the
detailed study specified in the DEIS. The FLUSA used in the Qualitative ICE has been used in the current
Quantitative ICE assessment.
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to outline the methodology used in the Quantitative ICE analysis to forecast
land use changes in the FLUSA between 2010 and 2040 with and without the Complete 540 project. The
outputs of the land use forecasts documented in this memo will be used in a Quantitative ICE
Assessment and a Water Quality Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) Assessment for the proposed
facility. The methodology is based on information collected from the regional and local planners who
are most familiar with the FLUSA, land use forecasting and socioeconomic data approved for use in the
Triangle Region, and a review of recent literature on land use changes associated with the construction
of transportation infrastructure.
This memo outlines the methodology to:
1. Assess the existing, approved 2040 land use forecast (developed by using the Imagine 2040
regional planning process)

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
2. Develop an additional future land use forecast
The goal is to have one current (2010; Baseline scenario) and two future year (2040) land use forecasts:
one without the influence of Complete 540 (2040 No-Build scenario) and one with the proposed facility
(2040 Build scenario). The resulting forecasts would then be compared to assess indirect and
cumulative effects for the Complete 540 Quantitative ICE Report. This approach is consistent with the
March 2010 FHWA Interim Guidance on the Application of Travel and Land Use Forecasting in NEPA
(FHWA, 2010).
Current Regional Practice
Numerous factors affect how and when land is developed, and many of those factors have little to do
with transportation infrastructure. Factors like regional growth trends, local jurisdiction land use
regulations, utility access, school quality, and many others have as much or more of an effect on land
use development patterns as transportation infrastructure (Transportation Research Board, 1995). The
project team has examined growth factors for counties within the region and specifically within the
FLUSA for the Complete 540 project through the Historic Growth Memorandum (Michael Baker
Engineering, 2016).
In the Triangle region, the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) have cooperated through the
Triangle J Council of Governments (COG) to promote a coordinated decision-making process for guiding
growth and transportation planning using CommunityViz software, a scenario planning tool (also
referred to as a `model').
The two MPOs and Triangle J COG began their coordination in 2010 to develop the Imagine 2040
initiative, a 25-year plan for the Triangle region. Imagine 2040 was an effort to "promote community-
based regionalism, aimed at guiding growth and coordinating decision-making processes for a more
sustainable transportation system" (TJ COG, 2013). The CommunityViz model was developed to
"measure and evaluate the impacts of competing development scenarios and major investments in the
regional transportation system"(TJCOG, 2016). Outputs of the Imagine 2040 initiative included data,
tools, and recommendations; but, most important for the purpose of this study were the socioeconomic
forecasts (SE data) at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level for use in the CAMPO and DCHC MPO 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs; CAMPO and DCHC MPO, 2013) and the Triangle Regional
Model (TRM). Imagine 2040 concluded in 2013, but a new round of similar work is now underway,
called Connect 2045, to support the next CAMPO and DCHC MPO MTPs.
The modeling effort for Imagine 2040 included all of Wake, Durham, and Orange counties and portions
of Johnston, Harnett, Chatham, Person, Granville, Franklin, and Nash counties.
See Figure 1 for a map of the counties included in the Imagine 2040 model area.
2

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeasf Extension Project
Locallurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Figure 1: Imagine 2040 Model Area

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
This Quantitative ICE assessment is effectively a scenario planning exercise applied to the context of a
single transportation project. This scenario planning exercise measures and evaluates the effects of two
different development scenarios:
• A future development scenario in 2040 without Complete 540 (2040 No-Build)
• A future development scenario in 2040 with Complete 540 (2040 Build)
Since the CommunityViz model had already been calibrated to regional conditions and applied to
regionally approved transportation plans, it is the best tool to use in this Quantitative ICE to forecast
future land use in the study area. Use of this model necessitated the review of the inputs to the model
and the evaluation of the model input and factors. This review of inputs and factors will determine the
most appropriate assumptions and inputs to accurately reflect 2040 Build and 2040 No-Build scenarios
and whether to use the already completed Imagine 2040 Preferred Growth Scenario as one of the two
scenarios for this Quantitative ICE.
To assess the CommunityViz model, the various model inputs were reviewed to determine what, if any,
adjustments would be needed. Three major sets of inputs for the CommunityViz model required
evaluation (see Sections 2, 3, and 4):
1. Control Totals of Dwelling Units and Employment
2. Land Suitability Analysis Factors (Attractiveness Factors)
3. Place Types (at the Parcel Level)
Figure 2 provides a flowchart that guided the overall development of the land use scenarios for this
Quantitative ICE process. The bottom half of the flow chart shows how the 2011 inputs to the
CommunityViz model as it was run for the Preferred Growth Scenario resulted in the Build Graduated
Grid Cell Output from CommunityViz. The Graduated Grid Cell output was then aggregated to the TAZ
level to create the inputs for the TRM, which evaluates travel demand in the Triangle Region. The same
Graduated Grid Cell output was combined with the parcel and National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) data
to create the 2040 Build Land Use Raster.
The top half of the flow chart shows the similar process used to develop the 2040 No-Build scenario. In
this instance, however, the three key inputs (i.e., control totals, land suitability analysis factors, and
place types) were adjusted before running the CommunityViz model. The process used to adjust these
inputs is described in the remainder of this memo.
4

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Figure 2: Land Use Scenarios Development Flowchart
Land Use Scenarios Development
Control Totals
Place Types
Land Suitability
Analysis Factors
2011 Inputs
to CV
Model
.
� v a.
Na-Build
Scenaria
Graduated
Grid Cells
�
Build
5cenario
Graduated
Grid Cells
Combine
with Parcel
and NLCD
Data
Aggregate
to TAZ Level
Combine
with Parcel
and NLCD
Qata
Aggregate
to TAZ Level
a use Kaszet•s
T �
No-Build Scenario
Land Use Raster
Build Scenario
Land Use Raster
No-Build Scenario
TAZ Data
Build 5cenario
TAZ Data
Throughout this memo, forecasted values for population and jobs are reported, analyzed, and calculated
for use in future modeling and analysis. Although results may be reported to a high level of precision,
that precision should not imply that the values are highly accurate. Any prediction of future conditions,
including future socioeconomic data, is an uncertain process with the potential for error. Available
evidence on socioeconomic projection indicates that "forecast errors are generally larger for small
places than for large places; are generally larger for places that have very high or negative growth rates
than they are for places that have moderate, positive growth rates; generally increase with the length of
the projection horizon; and vary from one launch year to another" (Smith et al.; 2001).
For county-level projections of 25 years, the typical mean algebraic percentage errors are about 30
percent. For census tracts (which are typically larger than TAZs) errors are typically 45 percent for the
same period (Smith et al; 2001). Thus, despite the best efforts of researchers and forecasters, the error
rates for long-range projections are still quite high; thus, any projection or estimate of induced and
cumulative effects must be considered the best estimate within a wide range of error.
In the final results of the indirect and cumulative assessment, land use results will be rounded to a
reasonable level, given the uncertainty of this forecasting process. However, numbers calculated in this
memo are not rounded any higher than whole numbers to limit the introduction of additional error as
calculations are carried forward in the modeling and analytical processes.
5

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
2. Control Total Adjustments (Regional and County-level)
Most forecasting processes start with some basic assumptions. The Imagine 2040 process used
assumptions about the total growth in employment and housing units for each county within the
modeled area (the 10-county region described above). These assumptions are called control totals and
are derived from long-term forecasting of population, households, and employment. The control totals
for Imagine 2040 were developed and applied at the county level to provide a ceiling for the total
number of dwelling units (and therefore people) and jobs added to each county (or portion thereof)
included within the modeled region.
Population, Household, and Housing Unit Projections
Population projections for each county from the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management
(OSMB) State Demographics branch were used as the starting point to estimate the population growth
and number of households and housing (or dwelling) units added in Imagine 2040. OSBM forecasts
were only available through 2031; so, CAMPO chose to use the growth curve of the last five years of the
forecast period (2026-2031) and extend that curve nine years to 2040 to provide a forecast for 2040
(CAMPO, 2012).
The forecasts developed by OSBM use time-series trend analysis of trend growth from 1990-2010 to
forecast future year growth from past trends. For each county, an exponential smoothing or
autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model was selected that best fit the 2010 Census
and 2010-2014 Census county estimates while maintaining a low mean average percentage error (NC
OSMB, 2015). These models were then used to forecast population for each year out to 2031. Since
these models are based on historic growth trends, they are not influenced by current or future decisions
regarding transportation infrastructure, utility provision, or local land use policies.
Employment Projections
The starting point for employment projections was the NC Department of Commerce Labor and
Economic Analysis Division (LEAD). Since the LEAD provides current and past employment statistics but
does not provide forecasts of employment, growth rates from Woods and Poole Economics forecasts of
2010 to 2040 employment were used to project the LEAD employment totals from 2010 to 2040.
Woods and Poole uses a top-down, national approach to forecast employment for all metropolitan
areas and counties across the nation. The process begins with forecasts to 2050 of national income,
earnings by industry, employment by industry, population, and inflation. The nation is then divided into
179 Economic Areas (EAs) as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Each EA is an aggregate
of contiguous counties. For each EA, Woods and Poole develops a projection for employment using an
export-base approach.
The export-base approach is founded on the principles of economic base analysis. Economic base
analysis effectively treats each region as a small nation and uses the ideas of comparative advantage
from trade theory to assess the base (or exporting) industries for a region by comparing the
employment in each industry to the national averages. Industries where employment is higher than the
national average are considered base (or exporting) industries. All other industries are considered non-
basic. This theory presumes that the base (or exporting) industries are bringing in wealth from outside
the region.
Woods and Poole applies this economic base analysis to each EA to assess the basic industries for each
EA and then uses the national projections to assess how employment change at the national level in
0

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
each industry affects the basic industries in each EA. This change then filters to the non-basic industries.
The national projections of employment are used as a control total for the aggregate of all employment
in each EA. This effectively links all EAs and counties together in a comprehensive national projection
process to ensure that the aggregate projection at the EA and county level does not exceed the national
projection.
The same top-down process from nation to EA is used to forecast from the EA level to the county level.
As this projection methodology relies on high-level economic and employment forecasting, there is no
influence from current or future decisions regarding transportation infrastructure, utility provision, or
local land use policies.
For Imagine 2040, the growth rates from the employment forecasts for each county in the Triangle
region were applied to the LEAD total for employment in 2010 to forecast employment in 2040.
Table 1 shows the control totals for dwelling unit and employment growth by county that were inputs
into the CommunityViz model during the Imagine 2040 effort. These numbers reflect the maximum
additional units for each development type/category. So, in the SF (Single-Family) category, the regional
total was limited to an addition of 365,765 dwelling units (DU).
Table 1: Control Totals for Imagine 2040
County Single- Multifamily Industrial Office Service Retail Highway
Family DU1 Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Retail
DU1 Jobs
Orange 16,351 7,967 2,778 3,628 28,293 2,413 3,231
Person 4,369 182 0 173 2,194 128 246
Durham 44,739 22,118 6,211 13,163 68,018 10,134 6,212
Chatham 10,921 679 964 1,089 7,878 671 132
Granville 8,461 837 1,870 1,991 6,308 491 424
Nash 791 129 840 43 1,279 132 262
Franklin 13,485 422 983 48 3,334 3 338
Harnett 13,671 1,352 1,750 379 4,078 461 842
Wake 206,581 82,440 21,334 30,597 177,977 16,977 21,082
Johnston 46,396 2,291 6,632 835 16,496 741 3,161
Totals 365,765 118,417 43,362 51,946 315,855 32,151 35,930
Source: Matt Noonkester, CityExplained, Consultant for Imagine 2040.
1 DU = Dwelling Unit
Notes: These values represent the additional DUs and jobs to be added to each county from the base year plus committed
development to 2040. These numbers differ from those in Appendix C of the Imagine 2040 report (TJCOG, 20163) because the
official control totals were reduced by the committed development prior to being input to CommunityViz for growth
allocation. Committed development was manually added to the base year prior to running the model. The numbers shown
above reflect the number of dwelling units and jobs to be allocated within each jurisdiction by the CommunityViz model.
Control Total Adjustments
Estimating the additional growth that a new road might cause has several challenges. Every highway
and every region is different, so it is difficult to find an analogous comparison. In the context of this
study, NCDOT and FHWA have confirmed through coordination with CAMPO and Triangle J COG that the
7

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Imagine 2040 Preferred Growth Scenario best reflects a 2040 Build scenario given the inputs to the
process at the time it was developed. Furthermore, the socioeconomic data outputs from the Imagine
2040 Preferred Growth Scenario were incorporated into the Triangle Regional TRM and adopted as part
of the CAMPO and DCHC MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plans with the assumption that all projects
in the MPOs' TIPs, including Complete 540, would be constructed.
Therefore, the approach in this context is to determine what, if any change, is needed to reduce the
county-level control totals to reflect a 2040 No-Build scenario. This raises the fundamental question of
how a highway investment might influence the course of regional or county-level growth. The
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (2013) noted that transportation investments can
contribute to economic activity in two ways:
• The economic activity associated with construction of the project, and
• The improvements in "connectivity, mobility, accessibility, and reliability of the transportation
system" that can "positively influence jobs, wealth, tax base and well-being."
The first set of contributions is temporary, but the second can have long-term impacts on the growth of
a city, county, or region. Therefore, assessing the potential for a change in the regional 2040 control
totals requires consideration of the second group of effects.
The project team met with CAMPO and Triangle J COG on March 15, 2016. CAMPO and Triangle J COG
stated that they believed it was unlikely that failure to construct Complete 540 would have a sizeable or
measurable impact on growth in the Triangle Region that would exceed the typical error rates in long-
range growth forecasts. They did believe that growth patterns within the FLUSA would be influenced by
constructing Complete 540 and offered suggestions on which factors used in the CommunityViz
modeling for Imagine 2040 could be modified to be reflective of a 2040 No-Build condition.
Based on the scope of this project, the project team examined ways to conservatively estimate
population and employment for the region (one that maximized the potential influence of the project on
future population and employment) by removing the potential influence of the proposed facility. The
team conducted a literature review and examined how NCDOT had evaluated potential economic
effects in their recent project prioritization efforts for the Strategic Transportation Investments law.
Historical Research Approach
The research of Duranton and Turner (2012) provides a long-term historical research approach to
analyzing the effects of major highways on regional employment over 20-year time periods. Their
analysis of the effect of interstate highway construction on regional employment growth in the US from
1983 to 2003 indicates that each 10 percent increase in the stock of highways within a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) causes about a 1.5 percent increase in employment over 20 years. Duranton and
Turner define highway stock as the centerline miles of interstate highways at the beginning of their
analysis period.
This Duranton and Turner historical research approach is not completely analogous to the situation of
Complete 540. Although it will connect to interstate highways and will have similar design
characteristics as an interstate highway, the proposed project is a tolled highway and will not be
designated as an interstate highway. Most of the interstate highways included in the Duranton and
Turner study were not tolled.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to estimate what the use of the Duranton and Turner relationship would
show as the possible change in employment for the region. Since the Duranton and Turner relationship
0

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
was based on the centerline miles of interstates and employment levels at the MSA geographic level,
this analysis will consider that relationship.
The total existing employment in the Raleigh MSA in 2015 was 625,420, based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) 2015 employment estimate (US BLS, 2016). The Raleigh MSA includes Wake, Johnston,
and Franklin counties.
In order to pick a growth rate, the time period for that rate must be considered. The estimated schedule
for the Complete 540 project assumes that construction of the highway will occur in phases with the
first phases between NC 55 Bypass and I-40 likely being completed between 2020 and 2025 and the final
phase from I-40 to US 264 being completed between 2025 and 2030. The horizon year for the analysis
in this Quantitative ICE assessment is 2040 to address the long-term growth potential associated with
the proposed roadway and to maintain consistency with the horizon year of the CAMPO and DCHC MPO
2040 MTPs. Thus, Complete 540 will not be fully constructed by 2020 and would have fewer than 20
years of time to affect the future employment growth in the Raleigh MSA by 2040. Nevertheless, with
construction anticipated by developers and the community at large, growth impacts may precede
construction of the highway.
This analysis of employment growth begins with an estimate of 2015 employment and forecasts forward
to estimate the employment for 2040. Over the time period between 2015 and 2040, fewer than 20
years exist for the project to affect employment post-construction, and the time period starts from a
baseline that precedes construction of the highway. For these reasons, it is reasonable to assume that
the rule of thumb of a 20-year-impact of 1.5 percent for each 10 percent increase in highway stock from
the Duranton and Turner (2012) historical research approach could be applied to the 2015 employment
baseline to estimate the growth effects of the highway on employment by 2040. This would allow for a
conservative assessment, anticipating the greatest reasonable effect of constructing the facility on
population and employment (given that Duranton and Turner approach is based on 20 years of effects,
which is greater than the post-construction timeframe in this ICE analysis). This estimate of growth
effects can then be applied to household and population growth using ratios of employment to
household (or dwelling unit) and employment to population estimates.
Using the Duranton and Turner (2012) historical research approach rule of thumb, Table 2, Table 3, and
Figure 3 show the:
Centerline mileage of existing limited-access highway documented in the Raleigh MSA (Table 2
and Figure 3 in red)
Increase in centerline mileage with the construction of Complete 540 (Table 3)
Resulting increases in jobs, dwelling units, and people (Table 3)
Table 2: Existing Highway Centerline Miles
Route Miles
I-95 (Johnston County) � 30.3
I-40 (Wake and Johnston Counties) 57.3
I-440 (Wake County) 16.8
I-540 (Wake County) 25.4
NC-540 (Wake County) 16.0
I-495 (Wake County, I-440 to I-540) 4.5
0

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Route
US-64/US-264 (I-540 to US-264)
US-64 (US 264 to Nash County)
US-264 (US 64 to Nash County)
US-1 (Chatham County to US 64)
US-1/US-64 (US 64 to I-440)
US-70 (Johnston County)
NC-147 (Wake County)
Wade Ave (Wake County)
Miles
13.1
6.5
3.6
12.5
3.8
9.7
1.0
3.2
Total 203.7
Notes: Calculated in ArcGIS 10.1 from NCDOT Primary and Secondary
Road Ares (LRC_ARCS.shp), 15� Quarter 2015 Release
Table 3: Estimated Raleigh MSA Control Total Adjustments using Duranton and Turner (2012)
Method
Parameter
a. Existing Highway Centerline Mileage1
b. Complete 540 Centerline Mileagel
c. Centerline Mileage Increase (2015-2040)
d. 10%:1.5% Ratio Applied to 13.6% Equals
e. Employment Percent Increase2(2015-2040) [=d]
f. 2015 Employment (total number ofjobs)
g. Estimated Employment Increase (number ofjobs; 2015-
2040) [e x f]
h. Dwelling Units per Job3
i. Dwelling Unit Increase (2015-2040) [g x h]
Value
204
27.8
13.6%
2.04%
2.04%
625,420
12,759
1.02
13,014
j. Persons per Dwelling Unit4 2.60
k. Estimated Population Increase (2015-2040) [I x j] 33,836
1 Based on GIS calculations by Baker, see Table 2.
z Based on Duranton and Turner (2012) 10%:1.5% ratio
3 Based on the ratio of Dwelling Units to Jobs from the Imagine 2040 Control Totals
4 Based on ratio of Persons per Dwelling Unit from Imagine 2040 Control Totals
Note: All values are rounded and compounded rounding may result in different results when calculated independently.
The Duranton and Turner estimate has a standard error of 3.7%; therefore, all subsequent calculations are subject to
that same standard error.
The results of this analysis suggest that employment in the MSA area would increase by about 12,759
additional jobs by 2040. Using the ratios of jobs to dwelling units and dwelling units to population
assumed in Imagine 2040, this increase in jobs would yield approximately 13,014 additional dwelling
units and about 33,836 additional people.
10

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeasf Extension Project
Locallurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Figure 3: Existing Limited-Access Highways and the Proposed Complete 540
11

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Regional Economic Model Approach
The Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering (2013) described different ways to assess the
long-term economic impacts of transportation investments and concluded that Regional Economic
Models (REMs) are the most comprehensive and commonly used analysis tool for large transportation
projects. The academy recommended the use of REMs for estimating the economic impacts of major
transportation projects. NCDOT uses a REM, the TREDIS model, to assess the long-term economic
effects of projects as part of its data-driven decision-making process.
The TREDIS model assesses changes in market access and travel cost to estimate economic changes
using an input-output economic model. An input-output economic model uses the relationships
between the inputs and outputs of different industrial sectors and assesses how the changes in those
inputs and outputs affect overall economic output through industry linkages. The TREDIS model is
calibrated to local economic conditions and uses inputs from Moody's Analytics, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and other authoritative sources for existing and future employment, industrial output, and
other essential model inputs.
NCDOT used the TREDIS model to assess long-term employment changes that could be attributed to all
potential projects as part of their Project Prioritization scoring process. TREDIS was used to generate
relative rankings of projects. Although not designed to be used in Quantitative ICE analyses, TREDIS is
publicly available and provides an independent estimate of potential long-term growth associated with
Complete 540. Prioritization 3.0 rankings were the last to include all three phases of Complete 540 and
estimated the project would increase long-term employment by 7,557 jobs within Wake County (the
model area for this TREDIS model run). Although this modeled area does not coincide with the FLUSA or
with the Imagine 2040 model area, it does cover the county with the largest existing employment in the
Imagine 2040 model area and where the majority of the new facility will be constructed.
Table 4: Wake County Control Total Adjustments Based on TREDIS Modeling
Parameter
Long-Term Employment Increase (20 years)
Dwelling Units per Job1
Dwelling Unit Increase
Persons per Dwelling UnitZ
Estimated Population Increase
Total Adjustment
7,557
1.02
7,708
2.60
20,041
1 Based on ratio of Dwelling Units to lobs from Imagine 2040 Control Totals
z Based on ratio of Persons per Dwelling Unit from Imagine 2040 Control Totals
Selected Control Total Adjustment Approach
Opinions vary on potential regional and county-level growth attributable to the Complete 540 project.
Triangle J COG and CAMPO feel that, although the project will influence growth patterns, it will not have
a substantial impact on overall growth in the Triangle Region given the current and projected high
growth rate in this area. Other approaches suggest that some potential long-term growth effects are
possible.
Given this range of opinion and the size of the Complete 540 project, the project team decided that the
best approach would be to assess three possibilities and see how different the dwelling unit and
employment outputs of CommunityViz model would be. Thus, the study team conducted a sensitivity
test of three possible No-Build scenarios using different control total inputs to assess the sensitivity of
12

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
different assumptions about future growth. These three No-Build scenarios for the sensitivity testing
were:
• No-Build scenario 1: No changes to the control totals.
• No-Build scenario 2: Control totals were reduced based on the Duranton and Turner historical
research approach. The reductions in dwelling units and jobs calculated in Table 2 and Table 3
were subtracted from the control totals shown in Table 1 to create No-Build scenario 2 control
totals for the CommunityViz model.
• No-Build scenario 3: Control totals were reduced based on the TREDIS economic model. The
reductions in dwelling units and jobs calculated in Table 4 were subtracted from the control
totals shown in Table 1 to create No-Build scenario 3 control totals for the CommunityViz model.
All three No-Build scenarios were run through CommunityViz, and the resulting dwelling unit and
employment totals within the FLUSA are described in Table 5 below. FHWA, NCDOT, and study team
staff reviewed these results and considered them in the context of input from local planners and
engineers, and comments on the DEIS. Although the regional planners from the Triangle J COG and
CAMPO felt that Complete 540 would not affect overall control totals for the region, the study team felt
it would be appropriate to adjust the control totals in this case given the size and scale of this project
relative to others.
Table 5: Comparison of FLUSA Dwelling Units and Employment for Different Scenarios
Parameter
Dwelling Units
Dwelling Units % Difference from Build
Jobs
Jobs % Difference from Build
1 NA = Not Applicable
No-Build 1
143,078
-1.2%
88,243
-1.6%
Scenarios
No-Build 2
137,677
-4.9 %
83,604
-6.7 %
No-Build 3 Build
139,656 144,775
-3.5% NA1
85,268 89,654
-4.9% NA1
Therefore, the study team considered the No-Build scenarios 2 and 3. The TREDIS model inputs used for
No-Build scenario 3 would likely be more attuned to local economic conditions, but given that the area
of analysis for the TREDIS model used for Prioritization 3.0 was limited to just one county, the study
team determined that using this option would limit the potential adjustment to control totals without
consideration of economic effects in Johnston and Harnett counties.
Therefore, the study team determined that the most appropriate decision was to use No-Build scenario
2 as the input to the land use modeling and water quality modeling analyses. Although the Duranton
and Turner historical research approach is not completely analogous to the situation of Complete 540,
the study team determined that the selection of No-Build scenario 2 would provide the greater potential
difference (i.e., greater estimation of induced impacts) between the 2040 No-Build and 2040 Build
scenarios. The process used to develop the CommunityViz outputs for all alternatives shown in Table 5
is described in detail below with regards to the preferred scenario (Duranton and Turner historical
research approach) and summarized in Section 6.
Distribution of Control Total Changes
Once the decision was made to adjust county-level control totals, the team needed to determine how
these changes in control totals would be distributed around the region. Assessment of this question
13

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
required looking at how the proposed highway would affect the accessibility of different parts of the
region. The TRM was used to analyze job accessibility with and without Complete 540. To ensure the
analysis was not affected by assumptions about the location of future jobs that might be affected by the
expected construction of Complete 540, this portion of the analysis relied on 2015 socioeconomic data
for the number and location of jobs.
The 2015 socioeconomic data was input into the TRM (adopted by CAMPO and DCHC MPOs), and the
model ran using a roadway networks with and without Complete 540 (a 2040 Build Network and a 2040
No-Build Network) to assess how access to jobs across the region would change. This analysis estimated
the number of jobs accessible within a 30-minute drive time from each TAZ during the PM peak period.
This time period was chosen as it is the most congested time period and the comparisons between 2040
No-Build and 2040 Build scenarios would likely show the largest differences in access to jobs, based on
network speeds. 1
The resulting number of jobs accessible to each TAZ within a 30-minute drive varies widely across the
region. TAZs farther from downtown Raleigh tended to be accessible to fewer jobs than those closer to
downtown Raleigh. Also, when comparing the number ofjobs accessible in the No-Build scenario versus
the Build scenario, the mean and median numbers of jobs accessible are higher in the Build than the No-
Build. This is expected because the addition of a new highway increases the overall accessibility to jobs
if no other changes are made to the network or socioeconomic model inputs. To compare the relative
accessibility change across the region requires a normalizing the accessibility results. The raw numbers
of jobs accessible for each TAZ were normalized into standard scores (also known as z-scores), using the
process of standardization as described below.
A z-score is the number of standard deviations by which an observation is above or below the mean of
the group. As an example, Table 6 shows the change in job accessibility for TAZ 1748, which is located
just southwest of the proposed interchange of Complete 540 and Benson Road (NC 50). Figure 4 shows
the location of this TAZ and other TAZs in the area of southeast Wake and northern Johnston counties.
Appendix A reports the results of the Job Accessibility Analysis by TAZ. As seen in Appendix A, the job
accessibility analysis shows that TAZ 1748 has the greatest increase in job accessibility from the No-Build
to the Build scenario based on the z-scores. In the No-Build analysis of job accessibility, this TAZ has
access to 215,224 jobs in 30 minutes. In the No-Build analysis, the average number ofjobs accessible
within 30 minutes for all TAZs is 307,235 jobs, and the standard deviation of jobs accessible within 30
minutes for all TAZs is 176,922 jobs. Thus, TAZ 1748 has a lower than average accessibility to jobs for
the No-Build scenario, and its z-score is -0.52, indicating that its accessibility is about half a standard
deviation lower than the average for all TAZs in the region.
In the Build analysis, the number of jobs accessible in 30 minutes from this TAZ rises to 388,077 jobs,
compared to an average of 318,307 jobs across all the TAZs. Also, the standard deviation of accessibility
for all TAZs in the Build analysis rises to 181,261 jobs. In this analysis, TAZ 1748 now has above average
accessibility, as reflected in its z-score (0.385), indicating that its accessibility is about one-third of a
standard deviation higher than the regional average. Thus, when comparing the difference in z-scores
between the two model runs (with and without the Complete 540 roadway link), the result shows that
1 Model runs were completed using 2015 socioeconomic data and roadway networks with (Build) and without (No-
Build) the proposed highway. Triangle Regional Model Version 5.0 (V5) Build Version 416, created 2/8/2016.
14

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
the difference in relative accessibility for TAZ 1748 from No-Build to Build is 0.905 standard deviation.
The same results for all TAZs are shown in Appendix A.
Table 6: Example of z-score Calculation for TAZ 1748
TAZ 1748
Mean (All TAZs)
Standard
deviation (All
TAZs)
Median (All TAZs)
Number of lobs Accessible within
30 Minutes (2015 Jobs)
2040 No-Build 2040 Build
Network Network
215,224 388,077
307,235 318,307
176,922 181,261
327,126 341,062
z-score of Number of Jobs z-score
Accessible within 30 Minutes (2015 difference
lobs)
2040 No-Build 2040 Build
Network Network
-0.520 0.385 0.905
Once z-scores were calculated for each TAZ in each scenario, the change in z-score from the No-Build to
the Build was calculated to assess the relative change in accessibility to jobs. The resulting changes in z-
scores for each TAZ are shown in Figure 5. As expected, the greatest increases in job accessibility are in
and around the immediate vicinity of the proposed highway. The areas in dark blue see an increase in
accessibility to jobs of 0.5 and 1 standard deviation.
The point of this analysis is not to predict the additional number of jobs likely to develop in the Build
scenario. Instead, the focus is on comparing the relative change in accessibility for TAZs across the
region to estimate the areas within the FLUSA where Complete 540 has the greatest potential for
influencing future land use. Of course, an increase in job accessibility is not a sufficient condition for
assuming significant changes in future land use. Local land use regulations, utility availability, and other
factors will affect the desirability of any specific areas within the FLUSA. Many of these factors are
assessed within the CommunityViz model.
Those TAZs with the highest change in job accessibility are the most likely to see an increase in jobs,
dwelling units, and population. In this analysis, TAZs in southern Wake County see the largest increase
in job accessibility with the Complete 540 project; therefore, these areas would likely see increases in
jobs, dwelling units, and population. TAZs in northwestern Johnston County did have some increased
accessibility to jobs and, therefore, are likely to see some increase in jobs, dwelling units, and
population. The results suggest that northern Harnett County would experience minimal to no relative
gain in accessibility to jobs from the proposed highway and, therefore, is unlikely to see much increase
in jobs, dwelling units, and population from the Complete 540 project.
Analyzing the relative change in accessibility indicates that approximately 70 percent of the
improvement in job accessibility would occur in TAZs in Wake County; the remaining 30 percent would
occur in TAZs in northwestern Johnston County. The exact location of the new dwelling units and jobs,
however, is highly dependent on the local development regulations, sewer and water access, and other
factors. Most of these factors are considered within the Land Suitability Analysis included within the
CommunityViz model.
15

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeasf Extension Project
Locallurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Figure 4: Traffic Analysis Zones in Southern Wake and Northern Johnston Counties
16

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeasf Extension Project
Locallurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Figure S: Ana/ysis of Job Access with and without Complete 540 at the TAZ level.
17

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
2040 No-Build Scenario 2 Control Totals
Based on the above analysis, the county-level control total inputs for the CommunityViz modeling for
the 2040 No-Build scenario will be reduced as shown in Table 7 and Table 8 from the values in Table 1 to
produce the control total inputs for 2040 No-Build scenario 2.
Table 7: Control Total Adjustments to 2040 Dwelling Units by County for No-euild Scenario 2
2040 Build Scenario Control Totals for Dwelling Units from Table 1
County Single-Family Dwelling Multifamily Dwelling Total Dwelling
Units Units Units
Wake 206,581 82,440 289,021
Percent 71% 29% 100%
Johnston 46,396 2,291 48,687
Percent 95% 5% 100%
Estimated Reduction from Duranton and Turner Historical Research
Approach and Job Accessibility Analysis
Total Dwelling Unit Reduction from Table 3 13,014
Reduction to Wake County (70% of 13,014) 9,110
Reduction to Johnston County (30% of 13,014) 3,904
2040 No-Build Scenario Reductions to Control Totals for Dwelling Units
County Single-Family Dwelling Multifamily Dwelling Total Dwelling
Units Units Units
Wake 6,511 2,599 9,110
Percent 71% 29% 100%
Johnston 3,720 184 3,904
Percent 95% 5% 100%
This analysis assumes that the split between Single-Family and Multifamily Dwelling Units
within each county will remain the same. I
2040 No-Build Scenario Control Totals for Dwelling Units
County Single-Family Dwelling Multifamily Dwelling Total Dwelling
Units Units Units
Wake 200,070 79,841 279,911
Johnston 42,676 2,107 44,783
18

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Table 8: Control Total Adjustments to Employment by County for No-euild Scenario 2
County
Wake
Percent
Johnston
Percent
Build Scenario Control Totals for Employment from Table 1
Industrial Office Jobs Service Retail Highway
Jobs Jobs Jobs Retail Jobs
21,334 30,597 177,977 16,977 21,082
8% 11% 66% 6% 8%
6,632 835 16,496 741 3,161
24% 3% 59% 3% 11%
TotalJobs
267,967
100%
27,865
100 %
Estimated Reduction from Duranton and Turner Historical Research Approach
and Job Accessibility Analysis
Total Jobs Reduction from Table 3 12,759
Reduction to Wake County (70% of 12,759) 8,931
� Reduction to Johnston County (30% of 12,759) 3,828
2040 No-Build Scenario Reductions to Control Totals for Employment
County Industrial Office Jobs Service Retail Highway Total Jobs
Jobs Jobs Jobs Retail Jobs
Wake 711 1,020 5,932 566 703 8,932
Percent 8% 11% 66%a 6%a 8% 100%
Johnston 911 115 2,266 102 434 3,828
Percent 24% 3% 59% 3% 11% 100%
This analysis assumes that the split 6etween different employment types within each county will remain the
same.
2040 No-Build Scenario Control Totals for Employment
County Industrial Office Jobs Service Retail Highway
Jobs Jobs Jobs Retail Jobs
Wake 20,623 29,577 172,045 16,411 20,379
Johnston 5,721 720 14,230 639 2,727
TotalJobs
259,035
24,037
These calculations provided updated county-level estimates of dwelling units and employment
estimates for the 2040 No-Build scenario. To determine what changes in the FLUSA could be estimated
based on these changes, the project team reviewed which changes to the other CommunityViz inputs
would be necessary, see Sections 3 and 4.
19

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
3. Attractiveness Factors
The CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 included a Land Suitability Analysis (LSA) which
was customized by Triangle J COG and CAMPO with the assistance of area planners in 2010, to gauge the
appropriateness of an area for specific conditions or land uses. Factors input into the CommunityViz LSA
had both positive and negative correlations to the desirability of an area. Factors included in the
CommunityViz modeling for Imagine 2040 included:
Urban Footprint
• Existing & Emerging Growth Areas
• Water Service Area
• Sewer Service Area
Development Activity Centers
• Metropolitan Centers
• Town Center & Central Business District Activity Centers
• Regional & Community Activity Centers
• Four-Year Colleges & Universities
Environmental Features
• Watershed Protection Areas
• Significant Natural Heritage Areas
• Flood Hazard Areas
Highway System
• NC Highways
• US Highways
• Interchange Locations
• Major Intersections
• Secondary Intersections
• 2040 TRM highway network
Transit System
• Premium Rubber Tire Transit Corridors (also known as BRT Transit Corridors)
• Regional Bus Routes
• Commuter Rail Station, Area of Influence, 0.5 mile
• Light Rail Station, Area of Influence, 0.5 mile
Of concern to the analysis of effects related to Complete 540 are the factors associated with the
highway system, in particular the 2040 TRM highway network and interchange locations. In the travel
demand modeling for Imagine 2040, the 2040 TRM highway network included the centerline of the
proposed Complete 540. In addition, the interchange locations factor used in the analysis included the
interchanges associated with the proposed highway. Therefore, to properly conduct a scenario planning
analysis for the Quantitative ICE assessment, the 2040 No-Build scenario will exclude Complete 540 and
its proposed interchanges from the 2040 TRM highway network and interchange location factors
included in the LSA.
20

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
4. Place Types (Parcel Level)
The CommunityViz model used for Imagine 2040 required customized inputs of density and intensity
controls for use in estimating the development potential for an area. A key input to that process is the
place type. Place types generalize "the various development categories from zoning and land use plans
used by local governments to describe, measure and evaluate the built environment" (TJCOG, 2013). In
addition to place types, the model uses development status to determine whether a given parcel is fully
developed, partially developed, or is not developable. The place types are combined with the LSA and
the development status to allocate future growth across the region. In effect, the place type describes
how much growth is possible in any given parcel by defining the type of development and the maximum
intensity of development that is possible. Appendix B provides details on each place type used in the
Imagine 2040 process.
As required by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962, the 3-C planning process requires all MPOs develop
long-range transportation plans through a process that is continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative.
In 2010 and 2011, local government planning staff, MPO staff, and the consultant staff for Triangle J
COG spent extensive time defining the appropriate place type inputs for the region. The Imagine 2040
process and the socioeconomic outputs of that process were approved by the regional MPOs as
representative of the conditions expected with the construction of Complete 540. Therefore, the study
team concluded that the place type inputs to the Imagine 2040 Preferred Growth Scenario are
representative of a 2040 Build scenario. Consequently, the approach for this process requires
determining the appropriate changes in place types to input into CommunityViz to reflect a 2040 No-
Build scenario.
In August and September of 2016, the project team met with all localities in the FLUSA to review and
discuss place type inputs to best match local planner expectations for development in a 2040 No-Build
scenario. Table 9 below shows the date, time, and attendees at each local jurisdiction meeting. These
meetings were generally one to one and a half hours in length and consisted of an introduction to the
Quantitative ICE assessment and a review of the place type inputs. Local staff at each jurisdiction
reviewed the maps of the original place type inputs used in Imagine 2040 and discussed possible place
type changes.
21

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Table 9: Meetings with Jurisdictions in the FLUSA
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Attendees
Angier Sean Johnson, Coley
Price, Lew
Weatherspoon
Apex Dianne Khin
Cary
Clayton
Fuquay-Varina
Garner
Harnett County
Will Hartye
Jay McLeod
Danny Johnson,
Samantha Smith, Mike
Sorensen
Brad Bass, Jeff
Triezenberg, Dave
Bamford
Jay Sikes, Mark Locklear
Holly Springs Gina Clapp, Justin
Steinmann, Kendra
Parrish
Johnston County Berry Gray, Matt Kirkland
Knightdale
Raleigh
Smithfield
Wake County
Wendell
Jason Brown
Bynum Walter, John
Anagnost, Kyle Little, Ray
Aull, Ken Bowers
Paul Embler, Mark
Helmer
Bill Shroyer, Tim
Gardiner
David Bergmark
Meeting Meeting Project Team Attendees
Date Time
9/6/2016 10:00 AM Ken Gilland, Scudder Wagg,
Jon Wergin, Will Kerr
8/30/2016 9:30 AM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Emaly Simone, Ken Gilland
8/26/2016 1:00 PM Kristin Maseman, Scudder
Wagg, Jon Wergin, Will Kerr
8/29/2016 3:30 PM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Emaly Simone, Ken Gilland
8/26/2016 10:00 AM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Will Kerr, Ken Gilland, Kristin
Maseman
8/30/2016 9:30 AM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Emaly Simone, Ken Gilland,
Kristin Maseman
8/25/2016 10:30 AM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Will Kerr, Emaly Simone, Ken
Gilland
8/30/2016 3:30 PM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Emaly Simone
9/1/2016 1:00 PM Scudder Wagg (via
telelconference), Jon Wergin
(via telelconference), Emaly
Simone, Ken Gilland
9/6/2016 1:00 PM Ken Gilland, Scudder Wagg,
Jon Wergin, Will Kerr
9/7/2016 2:00 PM Ken Gilland, Scudder Wagg,
Jon Wergin, Emaly Simone
9/23/2016 11:00 AM Ken Gilland, Emaly Simone,
Scudder Wagg (via
telelconference)
8/29/2016 1:00 PM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Emaly Simone, Ken Gilland
8/25/2016 1:00 PM Scudder Wagg, Jon Wergin,
Will Kerr, Ken Gilland
22

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
The meeting summaries (Appendix C) describe the differences that local planners felt would be
appropriate if starting from scratch with today's knowledge. The study team reviewed the local input
and adapted that input to fit the approach of understanding that the Imagine 2040 Preferred Growth
Scenario is the most appropriate representation of the 2040 Build scenario. The discussion below along
with the maps included in Appendix C summarize the adjustments to the place-type inputs to the
Imagine 2040 model for the 2040 No-Build scenario. Where noted, the 2040 No-Build scenario changes
indicate where changes were made relative to the original inputs to Imagine 2040. The appendix
provides the full summary of each meeting and the maps showing changes to the place-type inputs
based on the study team interpretation of local planning staff input.
Angier Place-Type Changes
No Changes
Apex Place-Type Changes
No changes
Cary Place-Type Changes
• Commercial place types near proposed interchange at Bells Lake Rd. changed to large-lot
residential neighborhood.
Clayton Place-Type Changes
• Several parcels off of Guy Rd. north of White Oak Circle changed to large-lot residential
neighborhood
Fuquay-Varina Place-Type Changes
• Non-residential place types changed to small-lot residential neighborhood at proposed
interchange with Fayetteville Rd. and further south on Fayetteville Rd.
Garner Place-Type Changes
• Non-residential place types changed to small-lot residential neighborhood at the intersection of
Ten Ten Rd. and Jordan Rd.
• Higher intensity commercial reduced to neighborhood commercial center west of proposed
interchange with Rock Quarry Rd.
Harnett County Place-Type Changes
No Changes
Holly Springs Place-Type Changes
Non-residential and mixed uses changed to small-lot residential neighborhood at proposed
interchange with Holly Spring Rd. and at intersection between Sunset Lake Rd. and Holly
Springs Rd.
Johnston County Place-Type Changes
• Small-lot residential and non-residential place types to the south and east of proposed
interchange with I-40 changed to large-lot residential neighborhood.
23

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Knightdale Place-Type Changes
• Parcels along Grasshopper Rd. between Poole Rd. and NC 264 changed from non-residential
and small-lot residential to large-lot residential neighborhood
Raleigh Place-Type Changes
• Small-lot residential changed to large-lot residential neighborhood in between proposed
interchanges at Auburn-Knightdale Rd. and Poole Rd.
• Small-lot residential changed to large-lot residential neighborhood north of proposed
interchange at Old Baucom Rd.
• Suburban commercial center changed to neighborhood commercial center west of proposed
interchange at Old Baucom Rd.
Wal<e County Place-Type Changes
• Small-lot residential changed to large-lot residential neighborhood at proposed interchanges at
Poole Rd., Auburn-Knightdale Rd., Rock Quarry Rd., White Oak Rd., I-40, Benson Rd., Old Stage
Rd., and Bells Lake Rd.
• Commercial uses changed to small-lot residential neighborhood parcels at proposed
interchange with Fayetteville Rd.
• Suburban commercial center changed to neighborhood commercial center parcels at proposed
interchange with Rock Quarry Rd.
Wendell Place-Type Changes
No changes
5. Imagine 2040 Output for Dwelling Units and Employment
Based on steps outlined in Sections 3, 4, and 5; the project team updated the Imagine 2040 county-level
control totals of dwelling units and employment and removed the influence of the Compete 540 project
from the Imagine 2040 initiative inputs. These updated materials were processed using the
CommunityViz software to estimate the changes in land use associated with the 2040 No-Build scenario.
For 2040 No-Build scenario 2, reduction of county-level control totals using the Duranton and Turner
historical research approach, the following FLUSA-level changes were estimated:
Table 10: Comparison of FLUSA Dwelling Units and Employment for 2040 No-Build Scenario 2
with the 2040 Build Scenario
Parameter
Dwelling Units
Dwelling Units % Difference from Build
Jobs
Jobs % Difference from Build
1 NA = Not applicable
No-Build 2 Build
137,677 144,775
-4.9% NA1
83,604 89,654
-6.7% NA1
24

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
6. Next Steps
The next steps will be to use CommunityViz outputs of employment and dwelling units from the 2040
No-Build 2 scenario (Duranton and Turner historical research approach) and the original Imagine 2040
outputs to produce a 2040 No-Build and 2040 Build land cover forecast for 2040. The differences
between the two land cover forecasts will be used to assess changes in impervious surface and
development patterns by watershed, and water quality modeling will be conducted. Then using the
CommunityViz, land cover, and water quality analyses of each scenario, the indirect effects of the
proposed project can be assessed. Building upon the indirect effects analysis, the cumulative effects will
also be assessed by reviewing overall changes from the Baseline to the future Build and considering the
impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions by federal, state, local, and non-
governmental entities.
7. References
CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2012. 2040 MTP Socioeconomic Data (SE
Data) - Guide Totals. Raleigh, NC.
CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2016. Imagine 2040 - The Triangle Scenario
Planning Initiative. Online information. Available at: www.tjcog.org/future-growth-scenarios-imagine-
2040-connect-222045.aspx (Accessed September, 2016).
CAMPO and DCHC MPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization). 2013. 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plans. Raleigh,
NC.
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering. 2013 Analyzing the Economic Impacts of
Transportation Projects. Prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, Newington, CT.
Duranton, G., and M.A. Turner. 2012. Urban growth and transportation. The Review of Economic
Studies, 79(4):1407-1440.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2010. Interim Guidance on the Application of Travel and Land
Use Forecasting in NEPA. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2014. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Report. STIP No: R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829.
Prepared for NCDOT, Raleigh, NC.
H.W. Lochner, Inc. 2015. Draft Environmental lmpact Statement — Complete 540 Triangle Expressway
Southeast Extension. STIP No: R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829. FHWA-EIS-15-02-D. Prepared for NCDOT,
Raleigh, NC.
National Research Council. 1995. Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and
Energy Use. TRB Special Report 245. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NC OSMB (Office of State Budget and Management) Demographics Branch. 2015 Population Projections
Description. Online information last updated May 30, 2015. Available at:
25

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
http://osbm2.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts and fi�ures/socioeconomic data/population estimates/
demo�/prolinet2015.html (Accessed September 2016).
Michael Baker Engineering. 2016. Historic Growth Memorandum. Prepared for North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
Smith, S., J. Tayman, and D. Swanson. 2001. State and local population projections: Methodology and
analysis. New York, NY: Kluwer.
TJCOG (Triangle J Council of Governments). 2013. Imagine 2040 - The Triangle Scenario Planning
Initiative, Final Summary Document. Durham, NC.
US BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2016. Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), 2015 Annual
Average Employment. Data Series ID LAUMT373958000000005, revised April 15, 2016. Available at:
http://www.bls.�ov/data/ (Accessed November 1, 2016).
26

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension Project
Local Jurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Appendix A: Job Accessibility Analysis
Results by TAZ

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1 353,768 367,758 0.263 0.273 0.010
2 357,538 373,875 0.284 0.307 0.022
3 360,542 375,582 0.301 0.316 0.015
4 356,346 372,991 0.278 0.302 0.024
5 358,725 372,233 0.291 0.298 0.006
6 376,885 379,532 0.394 0.338 -0.056
7 356,681 371,481 0.279 0.293 0.014
8 357,268 371,239 0.283 0.292 0.009
9 324,544 327,260 0.098 0.049 -0.048
10 376,988 383,939 0.394 0.362 -0.032
11 376,270 385,547 0.390 0.371 -0.019
12 332,439 342,686 0.142 0.134 -0.008
13 381,581 390,326 0.420 0.397 -0.023
14 333,324 347,115 0.147 0.159 0.011
15 356,828 369,971 0.280 0.285 0.005
16 372,316 377,977 0.368 0.329 -0.039
17 381,433 387,167 0.419 0.380 -0.039
18 381,098 388,130 0.417 0.385 -0.032
19 351,072 368,986 0.248 0.280 0.032
20 334,284 343,026 0.153 0.136 -0.017
21 330,827 332,656 0.133 0.079 -0.054
22 327,352 336,070 0.114 0.098 -0.016
23 324,406 328,734 0.097 0.058 -0.040
24 323,802 327,592 0.094 0.051 -0.042
25 322,160 321,775 0.084 0.019 -0.065
26 323,165 322,398 0.090 0.023 -0.067
27 318,675 320,871 0.065 0.014 -0.051
28 327,499 325,791 0.115 0.041 -0.073
29 325,221 326,676 0.102 0.046 -0.055
30 322,907 322,776 0.089 0.025 -0.064
31 315,907 319,373 0.049 0.006 -0.043
32 314,845 314,749 0.043 -0.020 -0.063
33 317,556 321,498 0.058 0.018 -0.041
34 332,481 331,793 0.143 0.074 -0.068
35 320,064 321,247 0.073 0.016 -0.056
36 322,539 322,904 0.086 0.025 -0.061
37 319,757 320,940 0.071 0.015 -0.056
38 327,645 330,537 0.115 0.067 -0.048
39 311,180 316,328 0.022 -0.011 -0.033
40 325,066 325,609 0.101 0.040 -0.060
41 335,597 338,734 0.160 0.113 -0.048
42 331,154 332,470 0.135 0.078 -0.057
43 317,396 317,251 0.057 -0.006 -0.063
44 311,991 312,501 0.027 -0.032 -0.059
45 300,861 300,880 -0.036 -0.096 -0.060
46 299,261 300,861 -0.045 -0.096 -0.051
47 308,474 313,570 0.007 -0.026 -0.033
48 331,782 331,628 0.139 0.073 -0.065
49 341,150 343,334 0.192 0.138 -0.054
50 341,217 346,107 0.192 0.153 -0.039
51 319,919 320,657 0.072 0.013 -0.059
52 317,508 323,095 0.058 0.026 -0.032
53 307,512 312,645 0.002 -0.031 -0.033
54 303,573 309,041 -0.021 -0.051 -0.030

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
55 336,667 340,380 0.166 0.122 -0.045
56 321,304 325,967 0.080 0.042 -0.037
57 316,035 319,537 0.050 0.007 -0.043
58 324,885 329,225 0.100 0.060 -0.040
59 326,527 326,750 0.109 0.047 -0.062
60 329,572 329,112 0.126 0.060 -0.067
61 324,654 324,260 0.098 0.033 -0.066
62 310,852 311,808 0.020 -0.036 -0.056
63 313,695 313,562 0.037 -0.026 -0.063
64 361,597 362,163 0.307 0.242 -0.065
65 308,988 319,539 0.010 0.007 -0.003
66 349,458 350,393 0.239 0.177 -0.062
67 340,899 341,094 0.190 0.126 -0.065
68 346,544 346,261 0.222 0.154 -0.068
69 300,887 302,233 -0.036 -0.089 -0.053
70 309,798 310,020 0.014 -0.046 -0.060
71 332,571 332,934 0.143 0.081 -0.063
72 346,780 347,605 0.224 0.162 -0.062
73 336,497 336,148 0.165 0.098 -0.067
74 339,340 342,744 0.181 0.135 -0.047
75 344,323 343,657 0.210 0.140 -0.070
76 355,894 356,612 0.275 0.211 -0.064
77 426,509 432,602 0.674 0.631 -0.044
78 314,600 314,431 0.042 -0.021 -0.063
79 314,134 313,313 0.039 -0.028 -0.067
80 339,238 342,148 0.181 0.132 -0.049
81 324,831 327,819 0.099 0.052 -0.047
82 285,079 287,464 -0.125 -0.170 -0.045
83 279,216 278,155 -0.158 -0.222 -0.063
84 286,493 286,504 -0.117 -0.175 -0.058
85 302,510 310,245 -0.027 -0.044 -0.018
86 314,197 317,897 0.039 -0.002 -0.042
87 401,756 405,752 0.534 0.482 -0.052
88 327,003 327,572 0.112 0.051 -0.061
89 347,041 348,101 0.225 0.164 -0.061
90 338,371 346,246 0.176 0.154 -0.022
91 404,000 415,943 0.547 0.539 -0.008
92 411,736 418,370 0.591 0.552 -0.039
93 464,725 470,028 0.890 0.837 -0.053
94 361,408 375,527 0.306 0.316 0.009
95 335,790 350,059 0.161 0.175 0.014
96 373,852 376,465 0.377 0.321 -0.056
97 380,589 389,228 0.415 0.391 -0.023
98 334,545 348,261 0.154 0.165 0.011
99 329,627 330,484 0.127 0.067 -0.059
100 321,887 321,136 0.083 0.016 -0.067
101 347,792 363,112 0.229 0.247 0.018
102 355,981 373,621 0.276 0.305 0.030
103 345,212 356,482 0.215 0.211 -0.004
104 345,296 364,587 0.215 0.255 0.040
105 345,720 363,814 0.218 0.251 0.034
106 89,151 89,151 -1.233 -1.264 -0.032
107 86,289 86,289 -1.249 -1.280 -0.031
108 83,078 83,078 -1.267 -1.298 -0.031

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
109 30,330 30,330 -1.565 -1.589 -0.024
110 140,424 140,997 -0.943 -0.978 -0.035
111 108,440 108,440 -1.124 -1.158 -0.034
112 166,960 168,142 -0.793 -0.828 -0.036
113 186,437 186,437 -0.683 -0.728 -0.045
114 227,999 227,583 -0.448 -0.501 -0.053
115 212,104 212,104 -0.538 -0.586 -0.048
116 258,436 259,087 -0.276 -0.327 -0.051
117 187,608 187,608 -0.676 -0.721 -0.045
118 236,062 236,100 -0.402 -0.454 -0.051
119 206,705 206,705 -0.568 -0.616 -0.047
120 212,637 212,722 -0.535 -0.583 -0.048
121 227,103 227,393 -0.453 -0.502 -0.049
122 245,496 246,033 -0.349 -0.399 -0.050
123 254,830 254,830 -0.296 -0.350 -0.054
124 274,970 276,178 -0.182 -0.232 -0.050
125 285,893 285,893 -0.121 -0.179 -0.058
126 289,880 290,290 -0.098 -0.155 -0.056
127 297,401 296,475 -0.056 -0.120 -0.065
128 271,972 273,174 -0.199 -0.249 -0.050
129 280,645 280,304 -0.150 -0.210 -0.059
130 258,287 258,287 -0.277 -0.331 -0.054
131 257,307 257,490 -0.282 -0.336 -0.053
132 225,047 225,062 -0.465 -0.514 -0.050
133 238,773 240,505 -0.387 -0.429 -0.042
134 186,786 186,786 -0.681 -0.726 -0.045
135 190,083 190,083 -0.662 -0.707 -0.045
136 152,602 152,620 -0.874 -0.914 -0.040
137 159,090 159,562 -0.837 -0.876 -0.038
138 223,258 223,258 -0.475 -0.524 -0.050
139 213,188 213,134 -0.532 -0.580 -0.049
140 248,337 248,337 -0.333 -0.386 -0.053
141 216,663 217,161 -0.512 -0.558 -0.046
142 248,600 249,088 -0.331 -0.382 -0.050
143 252,183 252,183 -0.311 -0.365 -0.054
144 318,386 317,876 0.063 -0.002 -0.065
145 267,376 267,081 -0.225 -0.283 -0.057
146 296,216 296,339 -0.062 -0.121 -0.059
147 291,322 291,322 -0.090 -0.149 -0.059
148 289,028 288,962 -0.103 -0.162 -0.059
149 267,054 267,090 -0.227 -0.283 -0.055
150 264,341 264,108 -0.242 -0.299 -0.057
151 290,180 290,180 -0.096 -0.155 -0.059
152 323,407 327,102 0.091 0.049 -0.043
153 317,314 318,509 0.057 0.001 -0.056
154 335,319 335,424 0.159 0.094 -0.064
155 312,633 312,909 0.031 -0.030 -0.060
156 313,973 313,479 0.038 -0.027 -0.065
157 310,778 311,430 0.020 -0.038 -0.058
158 316,562 318,612 0.053 0.002 -0.051
159 292,117 295,161 -0.085 -0.128 -0.042
160 294,906 294,934 -0.070 -0.129 -0.059
161 298,573 299,225 -0.049 -0.105 -0.056
162 297,870 297,882 -0.053 -0.113 -0.060

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
163 292,614 292,614 -0.083 -0.142 -0.059
164 299,091 300,212 -0.046 -0.100 -0.054
165 286,939 287,765 -0.115 -0.168 -0.054
166 285,094 285,864 -0.125 -0.179 -0.054
167 287,435 287,435 -0.112 -0.170 -0.058
168 310,234 310,772 0.017 -0.042 -0.059
169 332,249 334,767 0.141 0.091 -0.051
170 300,425 300,425 -0.038 -0.099 -0.060
171 335,877 336,778 0.162 0.102 -0.060
172 332,677 333,269 0.144 0.083 -0.061
173 340,646 352,028 0.189 0.186 -0.003
174 310,483 314,881 0.018 -0.019 -0.037
175 308,475 308,331 0.007 -0.055 -0.062
176 331,115 335,028 0.135 0.092 -0.043
177 304,529 309,494 -0.015 -0.049 -0.033
178 303,928 309,039 -0.019 -0.051 -0.032
179 306,968 311,958 -0.002 -0.035 -0.034
180 300,864 305,675 -0.036 -0.070 -0.034
181 306,453 308,762 -0.004 -0.053 -0.048
182 299,119 300,834 -0.046 -0.096 -0.051
183 274,672 274,672 -0.184 -0.241 -0.057
184 280,555 282,763 -0.151 -0.196 -0.045
185 283,970 283,970 -0.132 -0.189 -0.058
186 290,918 292,934 -0.092 -0.140 -0.048
187 287,346 287,375 -0.112 -0.171 -0.058
188 291,256 291,876 -0.090 -0.146 -0.056
189 294,958 299,981 -0.069 -0.101 -0.032
190 376,600 380,469 0.392 0.343 -0.049
191 474,079 480,029 0.943 0.892 -0.051
192 519,443 526,485 1.199 1.148 -0.051
193 533,484 553,259 1.279 1.296 0.017
194 523,479 525,770 1.222 1.145 -0.078
195 462,987 469,161 0.880 0.832 -0.048
196 443,300 444,316 0.769 0.695 -0.074
197 469,645 474,868 0.918 0.864 -0.054
198 373,332 379,379 0.374 0.337 -0.037
199 403,482 413,698 0.544 0.526 -0.018
200 358,131 366,966 0.288 0.268 -0.019
201 449,588 453,709 0.805 0.747 -0.058
202 410,283 415,930 0.582 0.539 -0.044
203 382,794 390,555 0.427 0.399 -0.028
204 410,392 420,669 0.583 0.565 -0.018
205 407,638 414,101 0.567 0.528 -0.039
206 357,393 373,278 0.284 0.303 0.020
207 358,114 378,385 0.288 0.331 0.044
208 356,641 375,294 0.279 0.314 0.035
209 354,252 371,964 0.266 0.296 0.030
210 330,641 338,851 0.132 0.113 -0.019
211 379,735 387,930 0.410 0.384 -0.026
212 335,873 355,668 0.162 0.206 0.044
213 353,763 368,932 0.263 0.279 0.016
214 380,015 390,749 0.411 0.400 -0.012
215 382,019 389,010 0.423 0.390 -0.033
216 345,736 362,691 0.218 0.245 0.027

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
217 352,885 369,341 0.258 0.282 0.024
218 348,628 368,309 0.234 0.276 0.042
219 339,481 361,214 0.182 0.237 0.054
220 327,775 332,089 0.116 0.076 -0.040
221 327,311 335,315 0.113 0.094 -0.020
222 338,174 356,858 0.175 0.213 0.038
223 337,486 349,725 0.171 0.173 0.002
224 329,433 338,308 0.125 0.110 -0.015
225 327,463 331,874 0.114 0.075 -0.039
226 326,794 330,074 0.111 0.065 -0.046
227 322,488 325,510 0.086 0.040 -0.046
228 330,558 343,305 0.132 0.138 0.006
229 328,232 341,665 0.119 0.129 0.010
230 320,818 324,154 0.077 0.032 -0.045
231 327,621 337,215 0.115 0.104 -0.011
232 325,211 328,042 0.102 0.054 -0.048
233 322,976 326,415 0.089 0.045 -0.044
234 315,998 317,075 0.050 -0.007 -0.056
235 321,218 323,243 0.079 0.027 -0.052
236 321,128 325,506 0.079 0.040 -0.039
237 318,368 319,250 0.063 0.005 -0.058
238 328,863 330,288 0.122 0.066 -0.056
239 328,823 338,817 0.122 0.113 -0.009
240 304,743 309,935 -0.014 -0.046 -0.032
241 356,231 370,756 0.277 0.289 0.012
242 329,672 333,817 0.127 0.086 -0.041
243 387,264 396,892 0.452 0.434 -0.019
244 434,771 440,937 0.721 0.677 -0.044
245 456,985 465,353 0.846 0.811 -0.035
246 430,017 435,918 0.694 0.649 -0.045
247 379,449 392,598 0.408 0.410 0.002
248 353,124 360,840 0.259 0.235 -0.025
249 443,013 450,429 0.767 0.729 -0.039
250 440,895 447,404 0.755 0.712 -0.043
251 464,439 471,291 0.889 0.844 -0.045
252 482,872 495,031 0.993 0.975 -0.018
253 518,249 530,871 1.193 1.173 -0.020
254 444,966 455,992 0.778 0.760 -0.019
255 468,863 474,945 0.914 0.864 -0.049
256 481,876 504,780 0.987 1.029 0.042
257 483,373 505,427 0.996 1.032 0.037
258 463,930 488,348 0.886 0.938 0.052
259 483,678 504,544 0.997 1.027 0.030
260 507,068 527,106 1.129 1.152 0.022
261 483,286 506,724 0.995 1.039 0.044
262 516,149 534,958 1.181 1.195 0.014
263 506,994 524,309 1.129 1.136 0.007
264 529,325 579,057 1.255 1.439 0.183
265 556,234 598,254 1.407 1.544 0.137
266 603,870 630,271 1.677 1.721 0.044
267 580,463 615,771 1.544 1.641 0.097
268 563,843 606,201 1.450 1.588 0.138
269 626,667 646,269 1.805 1.809 0.004
270 596,325 620,542 1.634 1.667 0.033

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
271 571,397 599,733 1.493 1.553 0.060
272 562,368 594,685 1.442 1.525 0.083
273 516,959 534,750 1.185 1.194 0.009
274 494,465 511,248 1.058 1.064 0.006
275 496,452 520,658 1.069 1.116 0.047
276 489,346 505,742 1.029 1.034 0.005
277 549,274 589,437 1.368 1.496 0.128
278 519,750 555,204 1.201 1.307 0.106
279 517,586 528,112 1.189 1.157 -0.031
280 517,641 524,511 1.189 1.138 -0.052
281 518,384 526,876 1.193 1.151 -0.043
282 461,019 480,531 0.869 0.895 0.026
283 484,149 506,319 1.000 1.037 0.037
284 469,580 486,474 0.918 0.928 0.010
285 467,910 489,258 0.908 0.943 0.035
286 475,309 492,225 0.950 0.959 0.010
287 436,645 440,274 0.731 0.673 -0.059
288 478,389 498,424 0.967 0.994 0.026
289 505,568 525,636 1.121 1.144 0.023
290 445,977 449,899 0.784 0.726 -0.058
291 449,322 453,174 0.803 0.744 -0.059
292 436,434 438,671 0.730 0.664 -0.066
293 431,087 434,033 0.700 0.638 -0.062
294 430,739 446,540 0.698 0.707 0.009
295 342,198 358,704 0.198 0.223 0.025
296 403,458 416,535 0.544 0.542 -0.002
297 429,654 435,059 0.692 0.644 -0.048
298 407,674 418,403 0.568 0.552 -0.015
299 419,881 435,775 0.637 0.648 0.011
300 440,514 449,176 0.753 0.722 -0.031
301 434,360 442,031 0.719 0.683 -0.036
302 408,030 414,411 0.570 0.530 -0.040
303 407,067 412,896 0.564 0.522 -0.042
304 439,211 458,267 0.746 0.772 0.026
305 482,160 502,607 0.989 1.017 0.028
306 433,842 444,153 0.716 0.694 -0.021
307 438,835 446,853 0.744 0.709 -0.035
308 413,347 419,077 0.600 0.556 -0.044
309 411,476 419,297 0.589 0.557 -0.032
310 524,151 544,818 1.226 1.250 0.024
311 452,182 456,009 0.819 0.760 -0.060
312 445,337 455,106 0.781 0.755 -0.026
313 409,894 416,452 0.580 0.541 -0.039
314 348,516 349,329 0.233 0.171 -0.062
315 350,544 354,526 0.245 0.200 -0.045
316 402,973 408,888 0.541 0.500 -0.041
317 330,583 344,185 0.132 0.143 0.011
318 356,921 373,744 0.281 0.306 0.025
319 388,410 394,758 0.459 0.422 -0.037
320 382,758 390,373 0.427 0.398 -0.029
321 416,265 424,377 0.616 0.585 -0.031
322 392,762 399,284 0.483 0.447 -0.037
323 380,355 387,401 0.413 0.381 -0.032
324 382,391 390,727 0.425 0.400 -0.025

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
325 373,400 376,786 0.374 0.323 -0.051
326 341,510 359,596 0.194 0.228 0.034
327 352,924 369,108 0.258 0.280 0.022
328 372,655 376,323 0.370 0.320 -0.050
329 376,467 379,239 0.391 0.336 -0.055
330 374,370 377,474 0.379 0.326 -0.053
331 377,621 381,625 0.398 0.349 -0.049
332 360,301 375,083 0.300 0.313 0.013
333 361,305 375,169 0.306 0.314 0.008
334 406,017 413,639 0.558 0.526 -0.032
335 405,301 411,935 0.554 0.517 -0.038
336 329,844 334,010 0.128 0.087 -0.041
337 338,335 351,956 0.176 0.186 0.010
338 350,952 369,730 0.247 0.284 0.037
339 349,761 367,827 0.240 0.273 0.033
340 360,898 376,892 0.303 0.323 0.020
341 345,350 354,389 0.215 0.199 -0.016
342 411,075 416,850 0.587 0.544 -0.043
343 410,474 414,565 0.584 0.531 -0.052
344 351,722 364,975 0.251 0.257 0.006
345 366,772 376,236 0.337 0.320 -0.017
346 366,152 374,026 0.333 0.307 -0.026
347 378,487 396,575 0.403 0.432 0.029
348 360,055 361,311 0.299 0.237 -0.061
349 337,513 340,979 0.171 0.125 -0.046
350 360,475 358,149 0.301 0.220 -0.081
351 355,926 355,124 0.275 0.203 -0.072
352 338,376 342,744 0.176 0.135 -0.041
353 351,632 349,924 0.251 0.174 -0.077
354 336,243 340,626 0.164 0.123 -0.041
355 331,905 332,099 0.139 0.076 -0.063
356 329,608 330,466 0.126 0.067 -0.059
357 309,862 314,302 0.015 -0.022 -0.037
358 323,314 324,029 0.091 0.032 -0.059
359 325,758 325,795 0.105 0.041 -0.063
360 343,798 348,724 0.207 0.168 -0.039
361 326,655 326,161 0.110 0.043 -0.066
362 329,464 329,669 0.126 0.063 -0.063
363 306,868 306,868 -0.002 -0.063 -0.061
364 328,755 329,434 0.122 0.061 -0.060
365 335,802 341,030 0.161 0.125 -0.036
366 353,713 355,855 0.263 0.207 -0.056
367 331,039 330,740 0.135 0.069 -0.066
368 311,661 311,330 0.025 -0.038 -0.064
369 311,356 311,691 0.023 -0.037 -0.060
370 306,771 307,245 -0.003 -0.061 -0.058
371 304,134 303,283 -0.018 -0.083 -0.065
372 314,827 314,810 0.043 -0.019 -0.062
373 335,803 333,226 0.161 0.082 -0.079
374 351,779 351,741 0.252 0.184 -0.067
375 343,062 344,766 0.202 0.146 -0.057
376 324,792 329,713 0.099 0.063 -0.036
377 375,082 391,645 0.383 0.405 0.021
378 370,646 384,391 0.358 0.365 0.006

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
379 354,332 364,911 0.266 0.257 -0.009
380 371,592 388,091 0.364 0.385 0.021
381 347,490 347,452 0.228 0.161 -0.067
382 410,465 418,820 0.583 0.555 -0.029
383 399,526 408,100 0.522 0.495 -0.026
384 351,186 354,056 0.248 0.197 -0.051
385 338,972 339,896 0.179 0.119 -0.060
386 348,071 348,848 0.231 0.168 -0.062
387 355,504 366,206 0.273 0.264 -0.009
388 335,801 351,455 0.161 0.183 0.021
389 327,710 329,535 0.116 0.062 -0.054
390 332,695 340,718 0.144 0.124 -0.020
391 335,934 345,760 0.162 0.151 -0.011
392 333,905 334,112 0.151 0.087 -0.064
393 343,113 343,026 0.203 0.136 -0.066
394 325,999 326,768 0.106 0.047 -0.059
395 322,931 324,550 0.089 0.034 -0.054
396 269,916 271,098 -0.211 -0.260 -0.050
397 330,205 328,472 0.130 0.056 -0.074
398 77,462 77,462 -1.299 -1.329 -0.030
399 145,700 145,700 -0.913 -0.952 -0.039
400 145,916 145,916 -0.912 -0.951 -0.039
401 182,704 182,641 -0.704 -0.748 -0.045
402 255,691 256,462 -0.291 -0.341 -0.050
403 235,084 237,320 -0.408 -0.447 -0.039
404 284,395 284,395 -0.129 -0.187 -0.058
405 327,248 327,226 0.113 0.049 -0.064
406 315,560 315,985 0.047 -0.013 -0.060
407 317,545 317,974 0.058 -0.002 -0.060
408 260,010 259,482 -0.267 -0.325 -0.058
409 267,589 267,831 -0.224 -0.278 -0.054
410 193,107 190,193 -0.645 -0.707 -0.062
411 324,346 328,759 0.097 0.058 -0.039
412 421,070 426,591 0.643 0.597 -0.046
413 459,219 466,205 0.859 0.816 -0.043
414 470,853 479,151 0.925 0.887 -0.037
415 526,766 538,365 1.241 1.214 -0.027
416 588,508 616,533 1.590 1.645 0.055
417 589,586 616,624 1.596 1.646 0.050
418 613,603 632,279 1.732 1.732 0.001
419 628,696 648,952 1.817 1.824 0.007
420 558,459 593,151 1.420 1.516 0.096
421 487,782 503,173 1.020 1.020 -0.001
422 528,211 546,889 1.249 1.261 0.012
423 457,346 474,291 0.848 0.861 0.012
424 455,307 477,029 0.837 0.876 0.039
425 435,262 440,324 0.724 0.673 -0.050
426 436,793 439,993 0.732 0.671 -0.061
427 408,187 416,646 0.571 0.543 -0.028
428 379,056 392,452 0.406 0.409 0.003
429 384,685 399,912 0.438 0.450 0.012
430 273,830 273,587 -0.189 -0.247 -0.058
431 341,146 345,383 0.192 0.149 -0.042
432 329,107 329,673 0.124 0.063 -0.061

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
433 314,068 314,302 0.039 -0.022 -0.061
434 295,817 295,817 -0.065 -0.124 -0.060
435 297,886 303,337 -0.053 -0.083 -0.030
436 325,060 325,060 0.101 0.037 -0.063
437 317,725 323,146 0.059 0.027 -0.033
438 352,956 350,819 0.258 0.179 -0.079
439 324,846 328,504 0.100 0.056 -0.043
440 340,103 336,640 0.186 0.101 -0.085
441 336,819 334,876 0.167 0.091 -0.076
442 342,548 345,297 0.200 0.149 -0.051
443 359,376 371,546 0.295 0.294 -0.001
444 245,231 245,231 -0.350 -0.403 -0.053
445 368,701 377,917 0.347 0.329 -0.019
446 376,857 379,555 0.394 0.338 -0.056
447 339,496 352,505 0.182 0.189 0.006
448 380,168 387,918 0.412 0.384 -0.028
449 354,713 370,645 0.268 0.289 0.020
450 331,174 345,558 0.135 0.150 0.015
451 342,027 360,097 0.197 0.231 0.034
452 333,703 346,411 0.150 0.155 0.005
453 317,604 318,274 0.059 0.000 -0.059
454 329,407 331,533 0.125 0.073 -0.052
455 330,303 327,620 0.130 0.051 -0.079
456 320,666 322,789 0.076 0.025 -0.051
457 341,315 346,265 0.193 0.154 -0.038
458 269,145 269,145 -0.215 -0.271 -0.056
459 297,013 297,019 -0.058 -0.117 -0.060
460 330,095 330,661 0.129 0.068 -0.061
461 374,912 379,368 0.383 0.337 -0.046
462 324,593 327,226 0.098 0.049 -0.049
463 317,757 317,896 0.059 -0.002 -0.062
464 109,840 109,955 -1.116 -1.149 -0.034
465 81,472 81,552 -1.276 -1.306 -0.030
466 131,319 131,194 -0.994 -1.032 -0.038
467 83,112 83,112 -1.267 -1.298 -0.031
468 136,430 136,430 -0.965 -1.003 -0.038
469 129,165 129,165 -1.006 -1.043 -0.037
470 145,689 145,689 -0.913 -0.952 -0.039
471 143,636 143,636 -0.925 -0.964 -0.039
472 215,190 215,563 -0.520 -0.567 -0.047
473 284,039 284,169 -0.131 -0.188 -0.057
474 199,926 199,926 -0.607 -0.653 -0.047
475 152,513 153,704 -0.875 -0.908 -0.034
476 286,990 286,990 -0.114 -0.173 -0.058
477 325,754 325,768 0.105 0.041 -0.064
478 326,795 328,687 0.111 0.057 -0.053
479 285,023 285,358 -0.126 -0.182 -0.056
480 297,682 297,188 -0.054 -0.117 -0.063
481 281,222 281,997 -0.147 -0.200 -0.053
482 294,947 299,915 -0.069 -0.101 -0.032
483 280,947 282,624 -0.149 -0.197 -0.048
484 464,182 468,009 0.887 0.826 -0.061
485 318,870 322,394 0.066 0.023 -0.043
486 251,236 251,373 -0.317 -0.369 -0.053

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
487 430,611 433,470 0.697 0.635 -0.062
488 354,109 367,831 0.265 0.273 0.008
489 353,759 369,578 0.263 0.283 0.020
490 345,798 346,869 0.218 0.158 -0.060
491 271,716 270,707 -0.201 -0.263 -0.062
492 445,467 454,335 0.781 0.750 -0.031
493 471,643 480,003 0.929 0.892 -0.037
494 518,722 532,824 1.195 1.183 -0.012
495 540,502 586,368 1.318 1.479 0.160
496 638,318 655,434 1.871 1.860 -0.011
497 626,627 642,723 1.805 1.790 -0.015
498 540,004 547,161 1.316 1.263 -0.053
499 534,964 546,605 1.287 1.259 -0.028
500 505,362 522,256 1.120 1.125 0.005
501 463,902 469,436 0.886 0.834 -0.052
502 424,867 431,139 0.665 0.622 -0.042
503 431,064 437,277 0.700 0.656 -0.044
504 430,688 432,962 0.698 0.633 -0.065
505 410,363 416,008 0.583 0.539 -0.044
506 421,351 427,209 0.645 0.601 -0.044
507 415,407 423,250 0.611 0.579 -0.032
508 402,496 411,920 0.538 0.516 -0.022
509 330,683 338,641 0.133 0.112 -0.020
510 373,339 376,171 0.374 0.319 -0.054
511 287,467 287,557 -0.112 -0.170 -0.058
512 378,597 381,989 0.403 0.351 -0.052
513 360,931 376,764 0.303 0.323 0.019
514 339,858 354,861 0.184 0.202 0.017
515 343,378 347,258 0.204 0.160 -0.045
516 368,428 384,351 0.346 0.364 0.018
517 362,692 366,430 0.313 0.265 -0.048
518 330,310 333,647 0.130 0.085 -0.046
519 315,797 315,659 0.048 -0.015 -0.063
520 305,318 305,940 -0.011 -0.068 -0.057
521 323,679 329,082 0.093 0.059 -0.033
522 325,889 325,573 0.105 0.040 -0.065
523 322,763 323,515 0.088 0.029 -0.059
524 331,320 331,366 0.136 0.072 -0.064
525 339,774 342,048 0.184 0.131 -0.053
526 340,031 338,792 0.185 0.113 -0.072
527 348,479 347,870 0.233 0.163 -0.070
528 349,962 352,798 0.241 0.190 -0.051
529 344,643 345,826 0.211 0.152 -0.060
530 377,560 393,928 0.397 0.417 0.020
531 312,972 313,061 0.032 -0.029 -0.061
532 460,514 465,687 0.866 0.813 -0.053
533 464,049 466,937 0.886 0.820 -0.066
534 464,452 467,955 0.889 0.826 -0.063
535 460,750 463,700 0.868 0.802 -0.066
536 462,178 465,719 0.876 0.813 -0.063
537 480,076 485,938 0.977 0.925 -0.052
538 482,774 494,888 0.992 0.974 -0.018
539 492,164 497,074 1.045 0.986 -0.059
540 496,106 501,948 1.068 1.013 -0.054

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
541 495,083 498,001 1.062 0.991 -0.070
542 479,422 492,693 0.973 0.962 -0.011
543 474,902 479,543 0.948 0.890 -0.058
544 474,088 475,812 0.943 0.869 -0.074
545 460,524 465,306 0.866 0.811 -0.055
546 463,553 467,818 0.884 0.825 -0.059
547 474,362 479,020 0.945 0.887 -0.058
548 466,730 476,322 0.901 0.872 -0.030
549 458,753 464,198 0.856 0.805 -0.052
550 449,856 455,455 0.806 0.757 -0.049
551 459,762 465,905 0.862 0.814 -0.048
552 461,538 465,248 0.872 0.811 -0.061
553 462,481 469,161 0.877 0.832 -0.045
554 463,689 474,184 0.884 0.860 -0.024
555 475,976 484,493 0.954 0.917 -0.037
556 480,103 500,810 0.977 1.007 0.030
557 497,750 508,029 1.077 1.047 -0.030
558 481,893 498,528 0.987 0.994 0.007
559 512,508 523,283 1.160 1.131 -0.029
560 520,563 523,859 1.206 1.134 -0.072
561 497,745 504,583 1.077 1.028 -0.049
562 498,809 502,212 1.083 1.015 -0.068
563 501,309 504,594 1.097 1.028 -0.069
564 502,813 511,709 1.105 1.067 -0.038
565 516,077 518,995 1.180 1.107 -0.073
566 505,607 508,351 1.121 1.048 -0.073
567 497,150 498,407 1.073 0.994 -0.080
568 493,046 494,442 1.050 0.972 -0.079
569 486,033 491,639 1.011 0.956 -0.054
570 490,310 497,627 1.035 0.989 -0.045
571 488,358 495,876 1.024 0.980 -0.044
572 447,656 453,713 0.794 0.747 -0.047
573 506,879 510,875 1.128 1.062 -0.066
574 510,484 515,830 1.149 1.090 -0.059
575 521,285 523,550 1.210 1.132 -0.078
576 450,469 453,069 0.810 0.743 -0.066
577 475,018 489,278 0.948 0.943 -0.005
578 453,074 454,002 0.824 0.749 -0.076
579 441,381 443,377 0.758 0.690 -0.068
580 454,403 456,445 0.832 0.762 -0.070
581 459,670 465,490 0.862 0.812 -0.050
582 439,310 445,625 0.747 0.702 -0.044
583 443,311 450,526 0.769 0.729 -0.040
584 436,190 449,416 0.729 0.723 -0.006
585 440,610 447,394 0.754 0.712 -0.042
586 456,815 466,818 0.845 0.819 -0.026
587 451,573 456,982 0.816 0.765 -0.051
588 522,202 537,905 1.215 1.212 -0.004
589 491,993 509,046 1.044 1.052 0.008
590 475,482 497,586 0.951 0.989 0.038
591 490,586 504,622 1.036 1.028 -0.008
592 473,234 494,107 0.938 0.970 0.032
593 494,197 505,943 1.057 1.035 -0.022
594 475,800 485,126 0.953 0.920 -0.032

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
595 503,279 513,432 1.108 1.076 -0.032
596 495,030 506,010 1.061 1.036 -0.026
597 537,309 551,325 1.300 1.286 -0.015
598 500,866 514,272 1.094 1.081 -0.013
599 486,496 499,813 1.013 1.001 -0.012
600 493,914 502,491 1.055 1.016 -0.039
601 533,874 540,775 1.281 1.227 -0.054
602 536,059 547,611 1.293 1.265 -0.028
603 528,579 538,035 1.251 1.212 -0.039
604 527,287 537,354 1.244 1.208 -0.035
605 537,297 544,584 1.300 1.248 -0.052
606 526,359 533,168 1.239 1.185 -0.053
607 522,243 529,706 1.215 1.166 -0.049
608 525,180 528,379 1.232 1.159 -0.073
609 530,396 536,748 1.261 1.205 -0.056
610 521,613 530,063 1.212 1.168 -0.043
611 525,942 528,627 1.236 1.160 -0.076
612 523,040 528,024 1.220 1.157 -0.063
613 524,147 529,316 1.226 1.164 -0.062
614 542,427 546,468 1.329 1.259 -0.071
615 517,798 522,265 1.190 1.125 -0.065
616 526,655 536,248 1.240 1.202 -0.038
617 522,966 528,424 1.219 1.159 -0.060
618 536,739 540,983 1.297 1.228 -0.069
619 518,253 522,376 1.193 1.126 -0.067
620 535,534 538,773 1.290 1.216 -0.074
621 532,126 535,784 1.271 1.200 -0.071
622 511,545 516,314 1.155 1.092 -0.062
623 514,512 516,999 1.172 1.096 -0.075
624 531,948 537,157 1.270 1.207 -0.063
625 531,513 535,049 1.268 1.196 -0.072
626 536,485 541,458 1.296 1.231 -0.065
627 540,152 545,128 1.316 1.251 -0.065
628 519,077 523,677 1.197 1.133 -0.064
629 529,173 533,297 1.254 1.186 -0.068
630 551,424 552,876 1.380 1.294 -0.086
631 511,789 518,899 1.156 1.107 -0.050
632 512,099 514,607 1.158 1.083 -0.075
633 505,893 509,701 1.123 1.056 -0.067
634 509,937 513,458 1.146 1.077 -0.069
635 515,959 520,761 1.180 1.117 -0.063
636 521,082 526,032 1.209 1.146 -0.063
637 522,926 525,532 1.219 1.143 -0.076
638 533,962 536,189 1.282 1.202 -0.079
639 526,381 529,974 1.239 1.168 -0.071
640 539,160 540, 716 1.311 1.227 -0.084
641 538,995 542,592 1.310 1.237 -0.073
642 540,859 544,650 1.320 1.249 -0.072
643 531,908 536,220 1.270 1.202 -0.068
644 530,663 532,517 1.263 1.182 -0.081
645 534,500 536,340 1.285 1.203 -0.082
646 515, 883 518, 627 1.179 1.105 -0.074
647 509,909 512,770 1.146 1.073 -0.073
648 506,882 512,749 1.128 1.073 -0.056

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
649 541,719 545,318 1.325 1.252 -0.073
650 521,599 525,062 1.212 1.141 -0.071
651 540,752 548,930 1.320 1.272 -0.048
652 517,765 525,640 1.190 1.144 -0.046
653 509,399 513,215 1.143 1.075 -0.067
654 491,242 495,673 1.040 0.979 -0.062
655 510,413 515,694 1.148 1.089 -0.059
656 515,331 519,391 1.176 1.109 -0.067
657 514,666 522,140 1.172 1.125 -0.048
658 514,127 520,173 1.169 1.114 -0.056
659 511,429 518,524 1.154 1.105 -0.050
660 521,111 525,254 1.209 1.142 -0.067
661 497,145 503,520 1.073 1.022 -0.052
662 487,266 494,081 1.018 0.970 -0.048
663 485,707 491,795 1.009 0.957 -0.052
664 517,803 524,236 1.190 1.136 -0.054
665 512,833 519,249 1.162 1.109 -0.053
666 519,171 520,557 1.198 1.116 -0.082
667 505,050 511,663 1.118 1.067 -0.051
668 510,747 514,833 1.150 1.084 -0.066
669 488,115 494,766 1.022 0.974 -0.049
670 507,378 512,721 1.131 1.073 -0.059
671 488,865 494,346 1.027 0.971 -0.055
672 475,214 488,434 0.949 0.939 -0.011
673 465,646 467,241 0.895 0.822 -0.074
674 494,281 498,818 1.057 0.996 -0.061
675 464,551 468,104 0.889 0.826 -0.063
676 470,050 470,767 0.920 0.841 -0.079
677 472,436 474,073 0.934 0.859 -0.074
678 432,787 443,021 0.710 0.688 -0.022
679 422,228 432,461 0.650 0.630 -0.020
680 412,887 425,604 0.597 0.592 -0.005
681 441,823 453,495 0.761 0.746 -0.015
682 445,615 458,966 0.782 0.776 -0.006
683 415,740 427,177 0.613 0.601 -0.013
684 438,462 452,898 0.742 0.743 0.001
685 437,089 448,781 0.734 0.720 -0.014
686 410,843 424,005 0.586 0.583 -0.002
687 444,940 460,724 0.778 0.786 0.007
688 455,842 471,932 0.840 0.848 0.008
689 412,674 431,365 0.596 0.624 0.028
690 476,723 489,351 0.958 0.944 -0.014
691 472,710 496,749 0.935 0.984 0.049
692 536,833 541,884 1.298 1.233 -0.064
693 534,570 542,149 1.285 1.235 -0.050
694 536,122 540,198 1.294 1.224 -0.070
695 529,152 534,625 1.254 1.193 -0.061
696 549,062 554,999 1.367 1.306 -0.061
697 516,655 521,710 1.184 1.122 -0.062
698 525,725 529,646 1.235 1.166 -0.069
699 536,727 542,830 1.297 1.239 -0.058
700 524,862 528,320 1.230 1.159 -0.071
701 534,216 537,320 1.283 1.208 -0.075
702 537,971 542,492 1.304 1.237 -0.067

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
703 543,161 549,437 1.333 1.275 -0.058
704 541,379 545,501 1.323 1.253 -0.070
705 548,679 553,379 1.365 1.297 -0.068
706 546,063 551,723 1.350 1.288 -0.062
707 535,019 539,689 1.287 1.221 -0.066
708 558,981 561,970 1.423 1.344 -0.079
709 550,161 554,730 1.373 1.304 -0.069
710 543,646 549,824 1.336 1.277 -0.059
711 562,236 564,457 1.441 1.358 -0.083
712 552,328 555,154 1.385 1.307 -0.079
713 553,565 557,534 1.392 1.320 -0.073
714 546,650 550,819 1.353 1.283 -0.070
715 549,617 553,136 1.370 1.296 -0.074
716 555,902 558,464 1.406 1.325 -0.081
717 552,981 555,496 1.389 1.309 -0.080
718 542,237 544,167 1.328 1.246 -0.082
719 562,457 563,881 1.443 1.355 -0.088
720 564,782 568,601 1.456 1.381 -0.075
721 569,569 574,834 1.483 1.415 -0.068
722 511,759 515,183 1.156 1.086 -0.070
723 525,082 530,708 1.231 1.172 -0.060
724 529,810 537,596 1.258 1.210 -0.048
725 537,443 540,922 1.301 1.228 -0.073
726 546,565 550,980 1.353 1.284 -0.069
727 507,502 509,854 1.132 1.057 -0.075
728 521,523 527,957 1.211 1.157 -0.055
729 542,599 546,812 1.330 1.261 -0.070
730 526,574 530,456 1.240 1.170 -0.069
731 548,671 553,724 1.365 1.299 -0.066
732 503,211 507,735 1.108 1.045 -0.063
733 510,814 514,167 1.151 1.081 -0.070
734 507,179 511,252 1.130 1.064 -0.066
735 518,631 522,569 1.195 1.127 -0.068
736 515,503 519,535 1.177 1.110 -0.067
737 516,659 522,554 1.184 1.127 -0.057
738 520,278 527,971 1.204 1.157 -0.047
739 500,309 507,029 1.091 1.041 -0.050
740 513,045 517,505 1.163 1.099 -0.064
741 505,602 509,865 1.121 1.057 -0.064
742 524,751 529,517 1.229 1.165 -0.064
743 530,804 534,703 1.264 1.194 -0.070
744 528,035 530,767 1.248 1.172 -0.076
745 499,760 504,536 1.088 1.027 -0.061
746 497,947 503,525 1.078 1.022 -0.056
747 484,915 490,169 1.004 0.948 -0.056
748 530,077 536,137 1.260 1.202 -0.058
749 495,420 507,165 1.064 1.042 -0.022
750 501,123 506,088 1.096 1.036 -0.060
751 503,320 509,913 1.108 1.057 -0.051
752 495,388 500,852 1.063 1.007 -0.056
753 501,412 507,575 1.098 1.044 -0.053
754 490,102 502,832 1.034 1.018 -0.016
755 488,174 496,738 1.023 0.984 -0.038
756 470,823 475,202 0.925 0.866 -0.059

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
757 472,131 477,469 0.932 0.878 -0.054
758 489,352 494,876 1.029 0.974 -0.055
759 485,407 492,872 1.007 0.963 -0.044
760 509,620 519,315 1.144 1.109 -0.035
761 495,610 502,338 1.065 1.015 -0.049
762 475,987 483,603 0.954 0.912 -0.042
763 472,037 478,958 0.931 0.886 -0.045
764 492,192 496,812 1.045 0.985 -0.061
765 496,401 501,030 1.069 1.008 -0.061
766 498,072 505,327 1.079 1.032 -0.047
767 473,850 479,489 0.942 0.889 -0.053
768 461,018 467,442 0.869 0.823 -0.046
769 469,631 474,112 0.918 0.860 -0.058
770 452,686 456,935 0.822 0.765 -0.057
771 445,593 450,392 0.782 0.729 -0.053
772 435,586 443,064 0.725 0.688 -0.037
773 452,271 456,687 0.820 0.763 -0.056
774 438,192 443,802 0.740 0.692 -0.048
775 448,927 460,983 0.801 0.787 -0.014
776 458,910 468,484 0.857 0.829 -0.029
777 443,549 454,526 0.770 0.752 -0.019
778 455,592 466,396 0.839 0.817 -0.022
779 423,686 428,236 0.658 0.606 -0.052
780 432,026 438,386 0.705 0.662 -0.043
781 401,125 406,478 0.531 0.486 -0.044
782 456,839 466,988 0.846 0.820 -0.025
783 456,816 462,637 0.845 0.796 -0.049
784 436,347 440,826 0.730 0.676 -0.054
785 479,317 484,614 0.973 0.918 -0.055
786 441,278 447,364 0.758 0.712 -0.046
787 407,229 417,455 0.565 0.547 -0.018
788 418,815 429,523 0.631 0.614 -0.017
789 459,287 465,004 0.859 0.809 -0.050
790 391,979 403,892 0.479 0.472 -0.007
791 455,400 465,845 0.837 0.814 -0.024
792 437,026 442,281 0.734 0.684 -0.050
793 446,591 453,789 0.788 0.747 -0.040
794 494,984 511,026 1.061 1.063 0.002
795 490,809 506,100 1.038 1.036 -0.002
796 491,568 505,248 1.042 1.031 -0.011
797 485,635 511,262 1.008 1.065 0.056
798 483,405 503,021 0.996 1.019 0.023
799 479,201 490,301 0.972 0.949 -0.023
800 465,419 474,465 0.894 0.862 -0.033
801 436,027 445,045 0.728 0.699 -0.029
802 426,867 430,562 0.676 0.619 -0.057
803 445,183 452,759 0.780 0.742 -0.038
804 436,420 440,768 0.730 0.676 -0.055
805 461,974 465,196 0.875 0.810 -0.064
806 480,526 482,980 0.979 0.908 -0.071
807 474,663 485,450 0.946 0.922 -0.024
808 463,782 469,991 0.885 0.837 -0.048
809 475,211 480,831 0.949 0.897 -0.053
810 468,895 477,718 0.914 0.879 -0.034

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
811 455,609 469,568 0.839 0.834 -0.004
812 441,765 451,105 0.760 0.733 -0.028
813 474,854 489,260 0.947 0.943 -0.004
814 451,246 469,998 0.814 0.837 0.023
815 476,061 496,643 0.954 0.984 0.030
816 427,441 443,319 0.679 0.690 0.010
817 460,539 483,091 0.867 0.909 0.043
818 459,031 468,690 0.858 0.830 -0.028
819 475,356 480,976 0.950 0.897 -0.053
820 467,477 472,602 0.906 0.851 -0.054
821 430,432 435,600 0.696 0.647 -0.049
822 442,516 445,419 0.765 0.701 -0.063
823 443,770 447,600 0.772 0.713 -0.058
824 449,666 451,943 0.805 0.737 -0.068
825 452,180 459,240 0.819 0.778 -0.042
826 473,135 476,230 0.938 0.871 -0.066
827 437,926 440,245 0.739 0.673 -0.066
828 451,995 457,890 0.818 0.770 -0.048
829 471,330 476,855 0.927 0.875 -0.053
830 426,827 438,714 0.676 0.664 -0.012
831 454,519 459,684 0.832 0.780 -0.053
832 450,901 457,035 0.812 0.765 -0.047
833 412,981 425,106 0.598 0.589 -0.008
834 421,761 436,589 0.647 0.653 0.005
835 431,963 453,136 0.705 0.744 0.039
836 424,128 444,398 0.661 0.696 0.035
837 417,496 438,834 0.623 0.665 0.042
838 402,776 421,197 0.540 0.568 0.028
839 408,892 425,747 0.575 0.593 0.018
840 394,004 404,914 0.490 0.478 -0.013
841 397,698 409,141 0.511 0.501 -0.010
842 405,997 421,712 0.558 0.570 0.012
843 406,492 423,838 0.561 0.582 0.021
844 407,660 422,484 0.568 0.575 0.007
845 401,099 416,189 0.531 0.540 0.009
846 406,053 421,430 0.559 0.569 0.010
847 404,205 414,701 0.548 0.532 -0.016
848 432,428 455,340 0.708 0.756 0.048
849 410,396 436,229 0.583 0.651 0.067
850 395,633 407,279 0.500 0.491 -0.009
851 429,475 444,084 0.691 0.694 0.003
852 397,818 409,753 0.512 0.504 -0.007
853 363,677 380,709 0.319 0.344 0.025
854 447,977 467,848 0.795 0.825 0.030
855 429,851 447,695 0.693 0.714 0.021
856 385,378 400,754 0.442 0.455 0.013
857 329,906 345,515 0.128 0.150 0.022
858 404,420 417,208 0.549 0.546 -0.004
859 390,283 403,789 0.469 0.472 0.002
860 534,031 546,066 1.282 1.257 -0.025
861 491,187 506,726 1.040 1.039 0.000
862 525,436 537,403 1.233 1.209 -0.025
863 498,557 514,354 1.081 1.082 0.000
864 508,401 533,468 1.137 1.187 0.050

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
865 502,276 516,579 1.102 1.094 -0.009
866 525,830 536,709 1.236 1.205 -0.031
867 494,652 511,129 1.059 1.064 0.004
868 440,310 457,866 0.752 0.770 0.018
869 472,863 488,527 0.936 0.939 0.003
870 438,003 457,247 0.739 0.767 0.027
871 447,451 466,841 0.793 0.819 0.027
872 468,170 495,859 0.910 0.980 0.070
873 454,374 468,158 0.832 0.827 -0.005
874 460,873 476,891 0.868 0.875 0.007
875 495,122 512,350 1.062 1.071 0.009
876 515,886 533,343 1.179 1.186 0.007
877 494,579 519,379 1.059 1.109 0.050
878 468,403 494,696 0.911 0.973 0.062
879 465,602 493,243 0.895 0.965 0.070
880 484,424 503,179 1.002 1.020 0.018
881 427,315 447,057 0.679 0.710 0.032
882 451,983 472,666 0.818 0.852 0.033
883 402,516 427,872 0.539 0.604 0.066
884 427,315 450,453 0.679 0.729 0.050
885 412,742 437,771 0.596 0.659 0.063
886 398,581 430,680 0.516 0.620 0.104
887 420,980 442,409 0.643 0.685 0.042
888 407,000 433,630 0.564 0.636 0.072
889 440,045 457,080 0.751 0.766 0.015
890 401,939 446,948 0.535 0.710 0.174
891 447,288 475,815 0.792 0.869 0.077
892 389,614 407,848 0.466 0.494 0.028
893 372,995 399,229 0.372 0.446 0.075
894 365,280 423,757 0.328 0.582 0.254
895 423,797 446,769 0.659 0.709 0.050
896 388,250 430,950 0.458 0.621 0.164
897 305,344 377,059 -0.011 0.324 0.335
898 364,894 448,716 0.326 0.719 0.394
899 345,814 415,120 0.218 0.534 0.316
900 395,610 454,151 0.500 0.749 0.250
901 334,097 386,096 0.152 0.374 0.222
902 363,074 402,462 0.316 0.464 0.149
903 326,877 367,851 0.111 0.273 0.162
904 343,463 386,037 0.205 0.374 0.169
905 400,137 434,755 0.525 0.642 0.117
906 407,900 434,248 0.569 0.640 0.071
907 380,760 404,802 0.416 0.477 0.062
908 398,910 425,219 0.518 0.590 0.072
909 391,539 421,375 0.477 0.569 0.092
910 425,448 449,939 0.668 0.726 0.058
911 427,162 450,431 0.678 0.729 0.051
912 400,486 425,004 0.527 0.589 0.062
913 379,440 403,526 0.408 0.470 0.062
914 362,612 386,938 0.313 0.379 0.066
915 381,693 407,032 0.421 0.489 0.069
916 349,039 373,095 0.236 0.302 0.066
917 356,307 382,344 0.277 0.353 0.076
918 355,634 386,308 0.274 0.375 0.102

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
919 341,238 379,964 0.192 0.340 0.148
920 366,951 401,405 0.338 0.458 0.121
921 358,058 386,572 0.287 0.377 0.089
922 361,044 392,040 0.304 0.407 0.103
923 397,580 428,528 0.511 0.608 0.097
924 375,339 412,116 0.385 0.518 0.133
925 354,787 393,826 0.269 0.417 0.148
926 340,871 371,918 0.190 0.296 0.106
927 394,150 425,405 0.491 0.591 0.100
928 368,326 402,930 0.345 0.467 0.122
929 385,259 418,441 0.441 0.552 0.111
930 407,833 435,653 0.569 0.647 0.079
931 381,427 422,816 0.419 0.577 0.157
932 396,143 425,909 0.503 0.594 0.091
933 418,697 446,796 0.630 0.709 0.079
934 429,164 452,676 0.689 0.741 0.052
935 442,161 476,840 0.763 0.875 0.112
936 429,859 456,482 0.693 0.762 0.069
937 420,509 448,961 0.640 0.721 0.081
938 443,768 464,946 0.772 0.809 0.037
939 460,429 481,582 0.866 0.901 0.035
940 468,076 495,842 0.909 0.979 0.070
941 417,665 441,653 0.624 0.680 0.056
942 438,370 462,884 0.741 0.798 0.056
943 393,152 421,425 0.486 0.569 0.083
944 410,698 435,011 0.585 0.644 0.059
945 534,599 546,218 1.285 1.257 -0.028
946 525,894 538,162 1.236 1.213 -0.023
947 523,574 535,368 1.223 1.198 -0.025
948 532,221 540,581 1.272 1.226 -0.045
949 518,845 537,273 1.196 1.208 0.012
950 527,892 538,499 1.247 1.215 -0.032
951 528,128 536,547 1.249 1.204 -0.045
952 548,277 555,159 1.362 1.307 -0.056
953 531,750 537,120 1.269 1.207 -0.062
954 537,927 544,622 1.304 1.249 -0.055
955 549,109 556,168 1.367 1.312 -0.055
956 526,184 530,794 1.238 1.172 -0.065
957 527,790 532,084 1.247 1.179 -0.067
958 516,009 526,781 1.180 1.150 -0.030
959 510, 2 64 517, 545 1.148 1.099 -0.048
960 505,259 514,032 1.119 1.080 -0.039
961 524,441 532,859 1.228 1.184 -0.044
962 503,793 516,040 1.111 1.091 -0.020
963 526,172 539,439 1.237 1.220 -0.018
964 520,803 531,394 1.207 1.176 -0.032
965 537,487 548,985 1.301 1.273 -0.029
966 533,076 547,770 1.276 1.266 -0.011
967 509,869 524,796 1.145 1.139 -0.006
968 451,677 472,434 0.816 0.850 0.034
969 494,877 510,204 1.061 1.059 -0.002
970 518,716 530,073 1.195 1.168 -0.027
971 517,179 525,051 1.187 1.141 -0.046
972 499,021 516,026 1.084 1.091 0.007

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
973 460,692 479,317 0.867 0.888 0.021
974 424,286 438,045 0.662 0.661 -0.001
975 454,997 472,386 0.835 0.850 0.015
976 422,897 448,743 0.654 0.720 0.066
977 495,427 511,866 1.064 1.068 0.004
978 526,039 533,961 1.237 1.190 -0.047
979 500,888 516,662 1.095 1.094 0.000
980 499,035 511,020 1.084 1.063 -0.021
981 482,643 498,265 0.991 0.993 0.001
982 474,963 495,214 0.948 0.976 0.028
983 415,108 453,359 0.610 0.745 0.135
984 414,623 446,618 0.607 0.708 0.101
985 417,263 475,050 0.622 0.865 0.243
986 522,410 533,424 1.216 1.187 -0.029
987 413,863 437,203 0.603 0.656 0.053
988 571,466 575,101 1.493 1.417 -0.077
989 571,841 580,909 1.496 1.449 -0.047
990 611,689 620,004 1.721 1.664 -0.056
991 615,687 622,966 1.743 1.681 -0.063
992 540,733 549,494 1.320 1.275 -0.044
993 568,664 580,354 1.478 1.446 -0.032
994 530,670 541,657 1.263 1.232 -0.031
995 535,500 543,571 1.290 1.243 -0.047
996 575,038 581,888 1.514 1.454 -0.060
997 543,552 550,985 1.336 1.284 -0.052
998 582,300 588,638 1.555 1.491 -0.063
999 553,959 560,201 1.395 1.335 -0.060
1000 550,034 553,128 1.372 1.295 -0.077
1001 567,323 584,951 1.470 1.471 0.001
1002 571,880 577,567 1.496 1.430 -0.066
1003 571,658 577,853 1.495 1.432 -0.063
1004 580,651 593,456 1.545 1.518 -0.027
1005 539,307 550,170 1.312 1.279 -0.033
1006 528,209 538,565 1.249 1.215 -0.034
1007 540,170 549, 693 1.317 1.277 -0.040
1008 496,370 506,415 1.069 1.038 -0.031
1009 513,414 524,387 1.165 1.137 -0.028
1010 510,301 518,948 1.148 1.107 -0.041
1011 503,958 517,695 1.112 1.100 -0.012
1012 520,644 530,147 1.206 1.169 -0.038
1013 526,622 535,802 1.240 1.200 -0.040
1014 536,478 547,592 1.296 1.265 -0.031
1015 509,101 519, 245 1.141 1.109 -0.032
1016 499,457 508,419 1.086 1.049 -0.038
1017 498,808 512,222 1.083 1.070 -0.013
1018 519,208 529,864 1.198 1.167 -0.031
1019 526,901 536,141 1.242 1.202 -0.040
1020 539,745 548,163 1.314 1.268 -0.046
1021 496,516 505,930 1.070 1.035 -0.035
1022 503,752 510,505 1.111 1.060 -0.050
1023 539,608 549,103 1.313 1.273 -0.040
1024 526,426 537,663 1.239 1.210 -0.029
1025 524,962 535,391 1.231 1.198 -0.033
1026 531,636 539,899 1.268 1.223 -0.046

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1027 511,905 524,527 1.157 1.138 -0.019
1028 531,726 540,139 1.269 1.224 -0.045
1029 560,131 569,800 1.429 1.387 -0.042
1030 553,321 565,414 1.391 1.363 -0.028
1031 551,490 564,701 1.381 1.359 -0.021
1032 543,189 556,644 1.334 1.315 -0.019
1033 541,946 553,295 1.327 1.296 -0.030
1034 547,000 554,537 1.355 1.303 -0.052
1035 565,480 574,974 1.460 1.416 -0.044
1036 522,605 531,039 1.217 1.174 -0.044
1037 542,104 551,181 1.328 1.285 -0.043
1038 529,570 540,879 1.257 1.228 -0.029
1039 522,720 531,694 1.218 1.177 -0.041
1040 532,611 541,890 1.274 1.233 -0.040
1041 541,308 549,471 1.323 1.275 -0.048
1042 520,701 530,442 1.207 1.170 -0.036
1043 545,381 555,543 1.346 1.309 -0.037
1044 528,967 537,076 1.253 1.207 -0.046
1045 536,558 545,892 1.296 1.256 -0.041
1046 515,082 524,205 1.175 1.136 -0.039
1047 489,809 500,131 1.032 1.003 -0.029
1048 524,112 534,679 1.226 1.194 -0.032
1049 535,737 547,883 1.292 1.267 -0.025
1050 503,892 511,611 1.112 1.066 -0.045
1051 501,524 508,785 1.098 1.051 -0.047
1052 514,351 522,809 1.171 1.128 -0.042
1053 491,435 498,356 1.041 0.993 -0.048
1054 492,461 500,346 1.047 1.004 -0.043
1055 488,347 497,136 1.024 0.987 -0.037
1056 501,167 510,140 1.096 1.058 -0.038
1057 488,560 496,557 1.025 0.983 -0.041
1058 491,143 498,322 1.039 0.993 -0.046
1059 504,029 510,480 1.112 1.060 -0.052
1060 485,836 494,269 1.009 0.971 -0.039
1061 492,832 504,211 1.049 1.026 -0.023
1062 497,810 506,356 1.077 1.037 -0.040
1063 497,235 509,311 1.074 1.054 -0.020
1064 498,272 506,818 1.080 1.040 -0.040
1065 501,942 510,757 1.101 1.062 -0.039
1066 486,007 496,461 1.010 0.983 -0.028
1067 470,807 485,247 0.925 0.921 -0.004
1068 494,674 509,820 1.059 1.057 -0.003
1069 505,344 515,074 1.120 1.086 -0.034
1070 447,184 464,151 0.791 0.805 0.014
1071 462,133 480,313 0.876 0.894 0.018
1072 464,521 479,183 0.889 0.888 -0.001
1073 509,118 523,290 1.141 1.131 -0.010
1074 577,678 586,341 1.529 1.479 -0.050
1075 549,359 562,692 1.369 1.348 -0.020
1076 462,141 473,907 0.876 0.858 -0.017
1077 497,353 509,327 1.075 1.054 -0.021
1078 548,894 561,513 1.366 1.342 -0.024
1079 550,340 560,975 1.374 1.339 -0.035
1080 546,988 572,644 1.355 1.403 0.048

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1081 539,407 549,793 1.312 1.277 -0.035
1082 632,574 643,236 1.839 1.793 -0.046
1083 632,984 647,393 1.841 1.816 -0.026
1084 653,608 665,804 1.958 1.917 -0.041
1085 653,540 666,940 1.957 1.923 -0.034
1086 637,425 650,554 1.866 1.833 -0.033
1087 582,014 594,302 1.553 1.523 -0.030
1088 589,492 598,919 1.595 1.548 -0.047
1089 576,754 591,173 1.523 1.505 -0.018
1090 548,722 565,083 1.365 1.361 -0.003
1091 594,159 615,798 1.622 1.641 0.019
1092 591,121 603,122 1.605 1.571 -0.033
1093 531,932 537,935 1.270 1.212 -0.058
1094 594,098 616,602 1.621 1.646 0.024
1095 533,742 553,659 1.280 1.298 0.018
1096 532,363 553,395 1.272 1.297 0.024
1097 497,909 536,741 1.078 1.205 0.127
1098 505,263 554,545 1.119 1.303 0.184
1099 516,018 545,344 1.180 1.253 0.072
1100 526,050 547,003 1.237 1.262 0.025
1101 502,438 514,405 1.103 1.082 -0.021
1102 521,066 537,901 1.209 1.211 0.003
1103 512,616 528,820 1.161 1.161 0.001
1104 516,402 527,467 1.182 1.154 -0.028
1105 524,817 548,486 1.230 1.270 0.040
1106 530,954 544,011 1.265 1.245 -0.019
1107 509,266 528,143 1.142 1.158 0.016
1108 484,609 504,379 1.003 1.027 0.024
1109 594,558 603,132 1.624 1.571 -0.053
1110 552,941 577,661 1.389 1.431 0.042
1111 508,872 521,816 1.140 1.123 -0.017
1112 444,721 459,676 0.777 0.780 0.003
1113 469,578 484,405 0.918 0.916 -0.001
1114 526,467 540,142 1.239 1.224 -0.015
1115 562,345 563,043 1.442 1.350 -0.092
1116 554,013 562,442 1.395 1.347 -0.048
1117 547,751 558,691 1.359 1.326 -0.033
1118 600,462 604,990 1.657 1.582 -0.076
1119 536,223 537,542 1.294 1.210 -0.085
1120 585,578 589,933 1.573 1.499 -0.075
1121 545,922 547,927 1.349 1.267 -0.082
1122 552,887 561,385 1.388 1.341 -0.047
1123 568,978 575,724 1.479 1.420 -0.059
1124 556,473 558,807 1.409 1.327 -0.082
1125 555,496 557,841 1.403 1.321 -0.082
1126 549,969 551,785 1.372 1.288 -0.084
1127 549,117 558,290 1.367 1.324 -0.043
1128 550,493 550,560 1.375 1.281 -0.094
1129 556,256 563,238 1.408 1.351 -0.056
1130 568,627 573,823 1.477 1.410 -0.068
1131 517,011 534,773 1.186 1.194 0.009
1132 570,279 579,954 1.487 1.443 -0.043
1133 527,743 531,716 1.246 1.177 -0.069
1134 580,203 601,238 1.543 1.561 0.018

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1135 482,278 487,292 0.989 0.932 -0.057
1136 501,206 502,684 1.096 1.017 -0.079
1137 398,171 399,568 0.514 0.448 -0.066
1138 496,744 500,437 1.071 1.005 -0.066
1139 519,014 533,153 1.197 1.185 -0.012
1140 528,170 536,770 1.249 1.205 -0.044
1141 440,141 438,168 0.751 0.661 -0.090
1142 326,253 329,854 0.107 0.064 -0.044
1143 567,618 565,535 1.472 1.364 -0.108
1144 551,323 553,568 1.380 1.298 -0.082
1145 483,311 489,511 0.995 0.945 -0.051
1146 442,536 447,126 0.765 0.711 -0.054
1147 465,335 474,159 0.894 0.860 -0.034
1148 462,976 469,824 0.880 0.836 -0.044
1149 482,634 487,062 0.991 0.931 -0.060
1150 491,898 499,867 1.044 1.002 -0.042
1151 521,012 527,002 1.208 1.151 -0.057
1152 484,610 497,475 1.003 0.988 -0.014
1153 502,312 512,092 1.103 1.069 -0.034
1154 482,991 496,145 0.993 0.981 -0.012
1155 543,102 544,166 1.333 1.246 -0.087
1156 523,452 527,627 1.222 1.155 -0.067
1157 413,687 416,907 0.602 0.544 -0.058
1158 97,544 96,866 -1.185 -1.222 -0.036
1159 147,050 146,824 -0.905 -0.946 -0.041
1160 233,907 235,183 -0.414 -0.459 -0.044
1161 73,360 71,549 -1.322 -1.361 -0.039
1162 159,480 159,423 -0.835 -0.877 -0.041
1163 116,343 115,664 -1.079 -1.118 -0.039
1164 139,495 139,071 -0.948 -0.989 -0.041
1165 119,317 120,155 -1.062 -1.093 -0.031
1166 100,234 100,234 -1.170 -1.203 -0.033
1167 173,801 173,812 -0.754 -0.797 -0.043
1168 206,621 206,818 -0.569 -0.615 -0.046
1169 293,272 298,548 -0.079 -0.109 -0.030
1170 134,019 133,978 -0.979 -1.017 -0.038
1171 131,375 130,021 -0.994 -1.039 -0.045
1172 156,816 156,823 -0.850 -0.891 -0.041
1173 218,802 220,629 -0.500 -0.539 -0.039
1174 194,983 195,192 -0.634 -0.679 -0.045
1175 206,415 206,719 -0.570 -0.616 -0.046
1176 216,192 216,162 -0.515 -0.564 -0.049
1177 216,514 216,842 -0.513 -0.560 -0.047
1178 275,300 277,524 -0.181 -0.225 -0.044
1179 272,395 272,795 -0.197 -0.251 -0.054
1180 433,477 449,035 0.714 0.721 0.008
1181 425,845 433,774 0.670 0.637 -0.033
1182 428,602 435,180 0.686 0.645 -0.041
1183 401,618 420,542 0.533 0.564 0.031
1184 400,082 416,265 0.525 0.540 0.016
1185 349,352 357,224 0.238 0.215 -0.023
1186 303,061 317,178 -0.024 -0.006 0.017
1187 310,069 316,017 0.016 -0.013 -0.029
1188 310,213 317,649 0.017 -0.004 -0.020

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1189 308,589 315,187 0.008 -0.017 -0.025
1190 352,302 356,212 0.255 0.209 -0.046
1191 281,360 283,790 -0.146 -0.190 -0.044
1192 281,376 286,066 -0.146 -0.178 -0.032
1193 273,808 286,970 -0.189 -0.173 0.016
1194 199,981 201,831 -0.606 -0.643 -0.036
1195 214,046 215,784 -0.527 -0.566 -0.039
1196 168,441 168,664 -0.784 -0.826 -0.041
1197 183,704 183,712 -0.698 -0.743 -0.044
1198 132,914 131,816 -0.985 -1.029 -0.044
1199 124,278 124,465 -1.034 -1.069 -0.035
1200 153,687 153,473 -0.868 -0.909 -0.041
1201 165,605 166,100 -0.801 -0.840 -0.039
1202 202,505 203,400 -0.592 -0.634 -0.042
1203 203,687 203,399 -0.585 -0.634 -0.049
1204 194,538 190,538 -0.637 -0.705 -0.068
1205 169,432 169,605 -0.779 -0.820 -0.041
1206 206,260 206,807 -0.571 -0.615 -0.044
1207 183,162 184,049 -0.701 -0.741 -0.039
1208 176,189 176,053 -0.741 -0.785 -0.044
1209 139,047 139,052 -0.951 -0.989 -0.038
1210 164,279 162,688 -0.808 -0.859 -0.051
1211 170,797 171,190 -0.771 -0.812 -0.040
1212 171,239 172,326 -0.769 -0.805 -0.037
1213 135,989 135,708 -0.968 -1.007 -0.039
1214 145,096 145,799 -0.916 -0.952 -0.035
1215 174,980 174,901 -0.748 -0.791 -0.044
1216 175,208 175,474 -0.746 -0.788 -0.042
1217 200,351 202,024 -0.604 -0.642 -0.037
1218 175,565 175,575 -0.744 -0.787 -0.043
1219 203,818 204,925 -0.585 -0.626 -0.041
1220 174,320 174,388 -0.751 -0.794 -0.043
1221 174,603 175,043 -0.750 -0.790 -0.041
1222 161,034 162,299 -0.826 -0.861 -0.034
1223 174,664 174,616 -0.749 -0.793 -0.043
1224 180,415 182,003 -0.717 -0.752 -0.035
1225 187,019 189,672 -0.679 -0.710 -0.030
1226 256,020 258,230 -0.289 -0.331 -0.042
1227 296,206 307,980 -0.062 -0.057 0.005
1228 276,251 283,405 -0.175 -0.193 -0.017
1229 187,523 188,149 -0.677 -0.718 -0.041
1230 198,139 202,827 -0.617 -0.637 -0.020
1231 245,669 255,659 -0.348 -0.346 0.002
1232 222,021 229,144 -0.482 -0.492 -0.010
1233 351,348 360,076 0.249 0.230 -0.019
1234 317,412 329,623 0.058 0.062 0.005
1235 374,016 395,830 0.377 0.428 0.050
1236 410,828 428,777 0.586 0.609 0.024
1237 416,937 435,120 0.620 0.644 0.024
1238 421,992 439,615 0.649 0.669 0.021
1239 357,383 373,324 0.283 0.304 0.020
1240 403,973 416,503 0.547 0.542 -0.005
1241 330,467 337,848 0.131 0.108 -0.024
1242 224,971 226,136 -0.465 -0.509 -0.044

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1243 219,681 221,458 -0.495 -0.534 -0.039
1244 158,750 159,359 -0.839 -0.877 -0.038
1245 154,775 155,638 -0.862 -0.897 -0.036
1246 154,138 158,468 -0.865 -0.882 -0.016
1247 194,143 203,357 -0.639 -0.634 0.005
1248 152,734 154,384 -0.873 -0.904 -0.031
1249 177,163 179,536 -0.735 -0.766 -0.030
1250 187,211 190,752 -0.678 -0.704 -0.025
1251 218,066 226,377 -0.504 -0.507 -0.003
1252 191,853 200,495 -0.652 -0.650 0.002
1253 200,076 213,749 -0.606 -0.577 0.029
1254 183,654 191,352 -0.699 -0.700 -0.002
1255 97,409 99,243 -1.186 -1.209 -0.023
1256 97,161 102,205 -1.187 -1.192 -0.005
1257 98,683 103,379 -1.179 -1.186 -0.007
1258 99,357 100,664 -1.175 -1.201 -0.026
1259 180,451 191,887 -0.717 -0.697 0.019
1260 56,143 57,461 -1.419 -1.439 -0.020
1261 168,371 180,939 -0.785 -0.758 0.027
1262 161,214 170,780 -0.825 -0.814 0.011
1263 72,539 77,341 -1.327 -1.329 -0.003
1264 118,613 124,782 -1.066 -1.068 -0.002
1265 94,945 99,679 -1.200 -1.206 -0.006
1266 143,387 152,387 -0.926 -0.915 0.011
1267 166,467 178,347 -0.796 -0.772 0.024
1268 182,312 194,052 -0.706 -0.686 0.021
1269 275,476 296,218 -0.180 -0.122 0.058
1270 246,708 266,121 -0.342 -0.288 0.054
1271 202,681 219,201 -0.591 -0.547 0.044
1272 243,362 261,997 -0.361 -0.311 0.050
1273 179,541 192,874 -0.722 -0.692 0.030
1274 151,433 163,977 -0.881 -0.851 0.029
1275 238,025 255,474 -0.391 -0.347 0.045
1276 195,932 213,014 -0.629 -0.581 0.048
1277 179,015 190,749 -0.725 -0.704 0.021
1278 174,393 187,974 -0.751 -0.719 0.032
1279 146,525 159,353 -0.908 -0.877 0.031
1280 140,363 150,573 -0.943 -0.925 0.018
1281 159,216 170,279 -0.837 -0.817 0.020
1282 89,672 97,020 -1.230 -1.221 0.009
1283 91,867 99,156 -1.217 -1.209 0.008
1284 104,320 110,333 -1.147 -1.147 0.000
1285 105,158 109,934 -1.142 -1.150 -0.007
1286 119,764 128,100 -1.060 -1.049 0.010
1287 138,512 146,078 -0.954 -0.950 0.003
1288 225,028 241,863 -0.465 -0.422 0.043
1289 261,560 279,198 -0.258 -0.216 0.042
1290 247,254 270,343 -0.339 -0.265 0.074
1291 227,308 252,733 -0.452 -0.362 0.090
1292 212,591 226,074 -0.535 -0.509 0.026
1293 312,743 326,406 0.031 0.045 0.014
1294 286,143 302,531 -0.119 -0.087 0.032
1295 357,825 375,496 0.286 0.316 0.030
1296 353,984 364,304 0.264 0.254 -0.010

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1297 337,771 347,705 0.173 0.162 -0.010
1298 399,079 410,673 0.519 0.510 -0.010
1299 372,070 390,428 0.366 0.398 0.031
1300 340,626 354,954 0.189 0.202 0.013
1301 344,169 359,516 0.209 0.227 0.019
1302 305,871 320,146 -0.008 0.010 0.018
1303 281,339 296,738 -0.146 -0.119 0.027
1304 199,178 209,639 -0.611 -0.600 0.011
1305 163,788 171,590 -0.811 -0.809 0.001
1306 167,412 175,237 -0.790 -0.789 0.001
1307 314,949 326,675 0.044 0.046 0.003
1308 331,152 346,121 0.135 0.153 0.018
1309 366,604 378,748 0.336 0.333 -0.002
1310 360,064 372,693 0.299 0.300 0.001
1311 285,170 294,470 -0.125 -0.132 -0.007
1312 284,241 293,262 -0.130 -0.138 -0.008
1313 289,608 300,220 -0.100 -0.100 0.000
1314 293,255 299,320 -0.079 -0.105 -0.026
1315 253,018 262,739 -0.306 -0.307 0.000
1316 261,736 272,176 -0.257 -0.255 0.003
1317 244,670 255,539 -0.354 -0.346 0.007
1318 243,430 252,507 -0.361 -0.363 -0.002
1319 305,080 312,825 -0.012 -0.030 -0.018
1320 309,051 315,546 0.010 -0.015 -0.025
1321 231,626 240,661 -0.427 -0.428 -0.001
1322 252,153 262,848 -0.311 -0.306 0.005
1323 236,264 246,941 -0.401 -0.394 0.007
1324 185,413 197,272 -0.689 -0.668 0.021
1325 139,608 147,007 -0.947 -0.945 0.002
1326 148,518 154,687 -0.897 -0.903 -0.006
1327 165,115 172,093 -0.803 -0.807 -0.003
1328 254,043 269,177 -0.301 -0.271 0.030
1329 314,890 323,145 0.043 0.027 -0.017
1330 344,994 354,059 0.213 0.197 -0.016
1331 352,065 365,199 0.253 0.259 0.005
1332 282,604 288,937 -0.139 -0.162 -0.023
1333 371,538 386,318 0.363 0.375 0.012
1334 341,045 391,970 0.191 0.406 0.215
1335 316,716 385,731 0.054 0.372 0.318
1336 317,373 394,240 0.057 0.419 0.362
1337 311,775 367,867 0.026 0.273 0.248
1338 284,665 355,668 -0.128 0.206 0.334
1339 283,811 359,037 -0.132 0.225 0.357
1340 247,249 408,870 -0.339 0.500 0.839
1341 209,629 379,351 -0.552 0.337 0.888
1342 164,803 235,507 -0.805 -0.457 0.348
1343 183,333 259,865 -0.700 -0.322 0.378
1344 185,716 262,469 -0.687 -0.308 0.379
1345 196,182 299,693 -0.628 -0.103 0.525
1346 198,039 278,011 -0.617 -0.222 0.395
1347 102,213 150,653 -1.159 -0.925 0.234
1348 131,725 173,399 -0.992 -0.799 0.193
1349 51,965 56,773 -1.443 -1.443 0.000
1350 253,107 286,599 -0.306 -0.175 0.131

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1351 221,819 294,392 -0.483 -0.132 0.351
1352 272,227 356,139 -0.198 0.209 0.407
1353 319,897 394,275 0.072 0.419 0.348
1354 307,922 388,186 0.004 0.386 0.382
1355 224,175 277,467 -0.469 -0.225 0.244
1356 173,970 208,498 -0.753 -0.606 0.147
1357 315,793 405,074 0.048 0.479 0.430
1358 292,755 355,040 -0.082 0.203 0.284
1359 286,433 355,433 -0.118 0.205 0.322
1360 252,915 291,466 -0.307 -0.148 0.159
1361 204,849 252,329 -0.579 -0.364 0.215
1362 171,857 193,376 -0.765 -0.689 0.076
1363 232,470 258,003 -0.423 -0.333 0.090
1364 237,388 271,157 -0.395 -0.260 0.135
1365 238,587 266,326 -0.388 -0.287 0.101
1366 235,813 277,208 -0.404 -0.227 0.177
1367 220,123 241,659 -0.492 -0.423 0.070
1368 219,367 237,418 -0.497 -0.446 0.050
1369 169,256 199,601 -0.780 -0.655 0.125
1370 101,776 133,695 -1.161 -1.018 0.143
1371 75,102 101,321 -1.312 -1.197 0.115
1372 66,839 73,639 -1.359 -1.350 0.009
1373 62,980 71,929 -1.381 -1.359 0.021
1374 80,219 98,465 -1.283 -1.213 0.070
1375 78,775 90,920 -1.291 -1.254 0.037
1376 96,272 98,074 -1.192 -1.215 -0.023
1377 176,378 206,089 -0.740 -0.619 0.121
1378 126,518 136,956 -1.021 -1.000 0.021
1379 201,126 216,535 -0.600 -0.561 0.038
1380 215,996 232,452 -0.516 -0.474 0.042
1381 175,290 188,157 -0.746 -0.718 0.028
1382 87,598 94,566 -1.241 -1.234 0.007
1383 122,828 134,774 -1.042 -1.013 0.030
1384 88,434 95,892 -1.237 -1.227 0.010
1385 89,107 97,220 -1.233 -1.220 0.013
1386 119,259 129,242 -1.062 -1.043 0.019
1387 189,868 203,186 -0.663 -0.635 0.028
1388 170,671 190,747 -0.772 -0.704 0.068
1389 209,933 268,745 -0.550 -0.273 0.277
1390 194,506 211,004 -0.637 -0.592 0.045
1391 193,352 215,068 -0.644 -0.570 0.074
1392 192,541 206,113 -0.648 -0.619 0.029
1393 132,866 153,522 -0.986 -0.909 0.076
1394 128,315 147,208 -1.011 -0.944 0.067
1395 149,041 165,552 -0.894 -0.843 0.051
1396 146,166 156,096 -0.910 -0.895 0.015
1397 133,059 155,164 -0.984 -0.900 0.084
1398 161,288 185,942 -0.825 -0.730 0.095
1399 184,766 201,805 -0.692 -0.643 0.049
1400 154,956 169,164 -0.861 -0.823 0.038
1401 213,814 234,510 -0.528 -0.462 0.066
1402 197,657 229,186 -0.619 -0.492 0.128
1403 303,867 380,410 -0.019 0.343 0.362
1404 378,522 473,449 0.403 0.856 0.453

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1405 228,660 250,376 -0.444 -0.375 0.069
1406 285,846 310,456 -0.121 -0.043 0.078
1407 335,528 379,884 0.160 0.340 0.180
1408 314,942 395,625 0.044 0.427 0.383
1409 399,512 455,402 0.522 0.756 0.235
1410 314,683 409,400 0.042 0.503 0.460
1411 211,780 237,712 -0.540 -0.445 0.095
1412 212,708 282,155 -0.534 -0.199 0.335
1413 140,812 149,291 -0.941 -0.932 0.008
1414 229,099 252,148 -0.442 -0.365 0.077
1415 333,723 366,181 0.150 0.264 0.114
1416 320,959 356,649 0.078 0.212 0.134
1417 91,206 93,830 -1.221 -1.238 -0.017
1418 177,779 194,676 -0.732 -0.682 0.050
1419 224,317 251,347 -0.469 -0.369 0.099
1420 120,064 134,032 -1.058 -1.017 0.041
1421 311,480 343,532 0.024 0.139 0.115
1422 377,406 400,814 0.397 0.455 0.059
1423 368,142 400,736 0.344 0.455 0.110
1424 282,309 319,070 -0.141 0.004 0.145
1425 470,787 511,534 0.924 1.066 0.142
1426 435,926 468,803 0.727 0.830 0.103
1427 427,223 447,104 0.678 0.711 0.032
1428 476,165 501,171 0.955 1.009 0.054
1429 453,998 487,412 0.830 0.933 0.103
1430 323,276 395,461 0.091 0.426 0.335
1431 290,144 311,531 -0.097 -0.037 0.059
1432 297,727 316,074 -0.054 -0.012 0.041
1433 317,086 339,034 0.056 0.114 0.059
1434 283,039 296,948 -0.137 -0.118 0.019
1435 277,356 295,903 -0.169 -0.124 0.045
1436 370,474 408,548 0.357 0.498 0.140
1437 358,848 394,555 0.292 0.421 0.129
1438 328,962 349,518 0.123 0.172 0.049
1439 390,691 425,078 0.472 0.589 0.117
1440 219,065 231,599 -0.498 -0.478 0.020
1441 315,591 333,896 0.047 0.086 0.039
1442 534,506 559,827 1.285 1.332 0.048
1443 497,087 517,999 1.073 1.102 0.029
1444 510,876 539,007 1.151 1.218 0.067
1445 464,754 489,184 0.890 0.943 0.052
1446 445,149 465,220 0.780 0.811 0.031
1447 465,849 492,310 0.897 0.960 0.063
1448 434,095 456,160 0.717 0.761 0.043
1449 502,782 532,029 1.105 1.179 0.074
1450 452,811 480,363 0.823 0.894 0.071
1451 466,290 496,547 0.899 0.983 0.084
1452 449,184 473,736 0.802 0.857 0.055
1453 459,221 482,425 0.859 0.905 0.046
1454 497,703 514,978 1.077 1.085 0.008
1455 493,946 515,288 1.055 1.087 0.031
1456 497,729 522,234 1.077 1.125 0.048
1457 474,423 499,352 0.945 0.999 0.054
1458 451,643 480,102 0.816 0.893 0.076

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1459 497,993 524,543 1.078 1.138 0.060
1460 502,104 530,929 1.101 1.173 0.072
1461 468,380 488,219 0.911 0.937 0.027
1462 490,396 505,542 1.035 1.033 -0.002
1463 489,860 500,567 1.032 1.006 -0.027
1464 489,823 499,635 1.032 1.000 -0.032
1465 498,469 513,321 1.081 1.076 -0.005
1466 497,594 509,659 1.076 1.056 -0.020
1467 514,885 526,447 1.174 1.148 -0.025
1468 474,430 488,961 0.945 0.941 -0.004
1469 499,000 523,393 1.084 1.131 0.048
1470 490,048 511,080 1.033 1.064 0.030
1471 522,431 537,584 1.216 1.210 -0.007
1472 539,501 570,241 1.313 1.390 0.077
1473 482,154 498,076 0.989 0.992 0.003
1474 493,322 502,934 1.052 1.019 -0.033
1475 478,082 493,052 0.966 0.964 -0.002
1476 317,733 326,433 0.059 0.045 -0.015
1477 204,789 205,015 -0.579 -0.625 -0.046
1478 252,610 253,050 -0.309 -0.360 -0.051
1479 334,880 350,126 0.156 0.176 0.019
1480 385,685 424,081 0.443 0.584 0.140
1481 379,562 400,199 0.409 0.452 0.043
1482 443,071 464,299 0.768 0.805 0.038
1483 412,579 440,612 0.595 0.675 0.079
1484 434,705 456,566 0.720 0.763 0.042
1485 427,737 456,754 0.681 0.764 0.083
1486 298,659 427,758 -0.048 0.604 0.652
1487 302,338 396,474 -0.028 0.431 0.459
1488 562,393 572,693 1.442 1.403 -0.039
1489 398,524 439,631 0.516 0.669 0.153
1490 419,885 463,133 0.637 0.799 0.162
1491 422,638 461,573 0.652 0.790 0.138
1492 493,492 521,406 1.053 1.120 0.068
1493 465,793 476,826 0.896 0.875 -0.022
1494 442,008 450,889 0.762 0.731 -0.030
1495 467,124 480,194 0.904 0.893 -0.011
1496 481,665 493,054 0.986 0.964 -0.022
1497 445,779 451,973 0.783 0.737 -0.046
1498 445,724 451,115 0.783 0.733 -0.050
1499 514,071 525,059 1.169 1.141 -0.028
1500 538,409 547,431 1.307 1.264 -0.043
1501 548,269 559,007 1.362 1.328 -0.034
1502 543,047 545,476 1.333 1.253 -0.080
1503 522,854 525,535 1.219 1.143 -0.075
1504 517,086 521,457 1.186 1.121 -0.065
1505 459,753 464,253 0.862 0.805 -0.057
1506 491,038 493,453 1.039 0.966 -0.073
1507 479,053 481,143 0.971 0.898 -0.073
1508 421,513 426,919 0.646 0.599 -0.047
1509 438,328 443,619 0.741 0.691 -0.050
1510 438,057 450,477 0.739 0.729 -0.010
1511 504,935 509,359 1.117 1.054 -0.063
1512 165,895 165,940 -0.799 -0.841 -0.042

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1513 198,782 199,132 -0.613 -0.657 -0.044
1514 525,374 531,033 1.233 1.174 -0.059
1515 532,761 538,836 1.275 1.217 -0.058
1516 539,236 545,709 1.311 1.255 -0.057
1517 337,292 346,930 0.170 0.158 -0.012
1518 230,553 232,552 -0.433 -0.473 -0.040
1519 220,308 220,615 -0.491 -0.539 -0.048
1520 160,768 160,377 -0.828 -0.871 -0.043
1521 529,818 538,712 1.258 1.216 -0.042
1522 446,718 457,599 0.788 0.768 -0.020
1523 485,637 507,687 1.008 1.045 0.036
1524 499,385 522,135 1.086 1.125 0.038
1525 484,712 498,892 1.003 0.996 -0.007
1526 453,388 467,736 0.826 0.824 -0.002
1527 495,605 509,556 1.065 1.055 -0.010
1528 469,917 488,067 0.920 0.937 0.017
1529 468,511 471,710 0.912 0.846 -0.065
1530 424,746 437,802 0.664 0.659 -0.005
1531 361,006 378,086 0.304 0.330 0.026
1532 453,602 468,338 0.827 0.828 0.000
1533 449,278 467,089 0.803 0.821 0.018
1534 384,466 410,540 0.437 0.509 0.072
1535 376,102 412,494 0.389 0.520 0.130
1536 410,079 427,438 0.581 0.602 0.021
1537 443,478 466,454 0.770 0.817 0.047
1538 345,618 353,858 0.217 0.196 -0.021
1539 423,685 447,851 0.658 0.715 0.056
1540 415,450 433,427 0.612 0.635 0.023
1541 375,784 385,784 0.387 0.372 -0.015
1542 378,579 390,744 0.403 0.400 -0.004
1543 462,863 482,535 0.880 0.906 0.026
1544 253,544 343,097 -0.303 0.137 0.440
1545 217,510 299,435 -0.507 -0.104 0.403
1546 439,849 462,328 0.750 0.795 0.045
1547 386,222 459,073 0.446 0.777 0.330
1548 310,765 364,336 0.020 0.254 0.234
1549 212,229 361,963 -0.537 0.241 0.778
1550 317,190 423,081 0.056 0.578 0.522
1551 487,818 497,311 1.021 0.988 -0.033
1552 427,533 462,877 0.680 0.798 0.118
1553 326,090 441,868 0.107 0.682 0.575
1554 348,395 387,110 0.233 0.380 0.147
1555 319,228 403,101 0.068 0.468 0.400
1556 423,484 469,582 0.657 0.835 0.178
1557 339,408 428,439 0.182 0.608 0.426
1558 279,748 312,475 -0.155 -0.032 0.123
1559 506,994 518,786 1.129 1.106 -0.023
1560 519,616 532,782 1.200 1.183 -0.017
1561 191,721 209,346 -0.653 -0.601 0.052
1562 528,651 536,974 1.251 1.206 -0.045
1563 481,394 503,982 0.984 1.024 0.040
1564 475,781 505,825 0.953 1.035 0.082
1565 586,457 592,672 1.578 1.514 -0.065
1566 421,027 464,274 0.643 0.805 0.162

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1567 186,971 191,895 -0.680 -0.697 -0.018
1568 602,558 621,688 1.669 1.674 0.005
1569 533,814 543,284 1.281 1.241 -0.039
1570 490,431 508,316 1.035 1.048 0.013
1571 515,104 547,880 1.175 1.267 0.092
1572 514,039 528,897 1.169 1.162 -0.007
1573 606,721 637,625 1.693 1.762 0.069
1574 383,307 405,983 0.430 0.484 0.054
1575 469,322 489,258 0.916 0.943 0.027
1576 564,781 569,425 1.456 1.385 -0.070
1577 294,807 305,662 -0.070 -0.070 0.000
1578 460,798 503,512 0.868 1.022 0.154
1579 451,329 492,957 0.814 0.964 0.149
1580 470,592 494,978 0.923 0.975 0.051
1581 320,936 350,501 0.077 0.178 0.100
1582 554,089 553,110 1.395 1.295 -0.100
1583 408,696 446,534 0.573 0.707 0.134
1584 458,518 489,237 0.855 0.943 0.088
1585 462,673 490,825 0.879 0.952 0.073
1586 483,349 502,178 0.995 1.014 0.019
1587 378,523 412,497 0.403 0.520 0.117
1588 486,417 502,771 1.013 1.018 0.005
1589 340,881 369,958 0.190 0.285 0.095
1590 392,699 419,397 0.483 0.558 0.075
1591 469,995 505,375 0.920 1.032 0.112
1592 195,970 196,951 -0.629 -0.670 -0.041
1593 458,934 466,719 0.857 0.819 -0.039
1594 443,981 449,233 0.773 0.722 -0.051
1595 390,047 397,133 0.468 0.435 -0.033
1596 493,344 493,704 1.052 0.968 -0.084
1597 410,636 414,915 0.584 0.533 -0.051
1598 479,994 483,229 0.976 0.910 -0.067
1599 578,968 580,573 1.536 1.447 -0.089
1600 452,500 454,353 0.821 0.751 -0.071
1601 474,534 480,652 0.946 0.896 -0.050
1602 404,617 412,311 0.550 0.519 -0.032
1603 467,863 475,022 0.908 0.865 -0.043
1604 393,006 393,838 0.485 0.417 -0.068
1605 429,474 435,176 0.691 0.645 -0.046
1606 466,371 472,129 0.899 0.849 -0.051
1607 450,400 462,959 0.809 0.798 -0.011
1608 464,757 477,476 0.890 0.878 -0.012
1609 578,693 579,469 1.534 1.441 -0.094
1610 551,545 552,924 1.381 1.294 -0.087
1611 558,228 566,002 1.419 1.367 -0.052
1612 545,348 552,948 1.346 1.294 -0.051
1613 463,187 479,541 0.881 0.890 0.008
1614 544,954 556,652 1.344 1.315 -0.029
1615 531,301 543,046 1.266 1.240 -0.027
1616 467,490 483,944 0.906 0.914 0.008
1617 522,733 528,835 1.218 1.161 -0.057
1618 517,754 532,579 1.190 1.182 -0.008
1619 499,630 508,977 1.087 1.052 -0.036
1620 484,261 495,049 1.001 0.975 -0.026

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1621 502,723 514,876 1.105 1.084 -0.020
1622 505,710 508,415 1.122 1.049 -0.073
1623 507,324 509,346 1.131 1.054 -0.077
1624 481,693 496,346 0.986 0.982 -0.004
1625 459,295 463,557 0.859 0.801 -0.058
1626 426,632 432,671 0.675 0.631 -0.044
1627 457,655 466,588 0.850 0.818 -0.032
1628 437,105 447,944 0.734 0.715 -0.019
1629 452,992 461,593 0.824 0.790 -0.033
1630 518,327 525,806 1.193 1.145 -0.048
1631 515,919 520,443 1.180 1.115 -0.064
1632 538,377 545,276 1.306 1.252 -0.054
1633 559,659 572,936 1.427 1.405 -0.022
1634 538,017 539,539 1.304 1.221 -0.084
1635 510,070 511,828 1.146 1.068 -0.079
1636 517,188 520,818 1.187 1.117 -0.069
1637 495,279 497,628 1.063 0.989 -0.074
1638 495,022 496,804 1.061 0.985 -0.077
1639 462,584 464,076 0.878 0.804 -0.074
1640 456,338 460,150 0.843 0.783 -0.060
1641 438,198 447,809 0.740 0.714 -0.026
1642 405,142 413,444 0.553 0.525 -0.029
1643 427,889 440,169 0.682 0.672 -0.010
1644 257,659 256,769 -0.280 -0.340 -0.059
1645 253,544 249,266 -0.303 -0.381 -0.077
1646 549,666 553,731 1.370 1.299 -0.071
1647 133,711 132,790 -0.981 -1.023 -0.043
1648 165,455 165,751 -0.801 -0.842 -0.040
1649 281,057 282,923 -0.148 -0.195 -0.047
1650 288,892 289,014 -0.104 -0.162 -0.058
1651 550,525 554,914 1.375 1.305 -0.070
1652 190,622 190,895 -0.659 -0.703 -0.044
1653 558,775 563,341 1.422 1.352 -0.070
1654 540,897 542,974 1.321 1.239 -0.081
1655 541,555 546,409 1.324 1.258 -0.066
1656 533,608 536,289 1.280 1.203 -0.077
1657 277,951 282,014 -0.166 -0.200 -0.035
1658 532,951 538,812 1.276 1.217 -0.059
1659 205,637 206,208 -0.574 -0.618 -0.044
1660 529,450 533,203 1.256 1.186 -0.070
1661 144,411 144,523 -0.920 -0.959 -0.038
1662 512,992 521,203 1.163 1.119 -0.044
1663 512,555 514,400 1.161 1.082 -0.079
1664 169,576 169,498 -0.778 -0.821 -0.043
1665 202,328 201,787 -0.593 -0.643 -0.050
1666 164,482 164,053 -0.807 -0.851 -0.044
1667 166,406 166,156 -0.796 -0.839 -0.043
1668 163,537 161,024 -0.812 -0.868 -0.056
1669 184,685 179,937 -0.693 -0.763 -0.071
1670 179,958 179,998 -0.719 -0.763 -0.044
1671 166,743 166,471 -0.794 -0.838 -0.044
1672 157,339 157,395 -0.847 -0.888 -0.040
1673 155,297 155,331 -0.859 -0.899 -0.040
1674 230,885 232,026 -0.432 -0.476 -0.044

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1675 251,932 258,356 -0.313 -0.331 -0.018
1676 285,245 293,157 -0.124 -0.139 -0.014
1677 461,824 467,365 0.874 0.822 -0.051
1678 141,465 144,881 -0.937 -0.957 -0.020
1679 434,869 436,971 0.721 0.655 -0.067
1680 116,056 118,676 -1.081 -1.101 -0.021
1681 437,761 443,857 0.738 0.693 -0.045
1682 105,906 112,535 -1.138 -1.135 0.003
1683 448,883 448,288 0.801 0.717 -0.084
1684 164,880 174,224 -0.805 -0.795 0.010
1685 428,367 436,646 0.685 0.653 -0.032
1686 448,851 458,684 0.800 0.774 -0.026
1687 129,220 136,399 -1.006 -1.004 0.003
1688 441,528 460,299 0.759 0.783 0.024
1689 450,133 472,882 0.808 0.853 0.045
1690 496,237 516,347 1.068 1.093 0.024
1691 499,367 525,256 1.086 1.142 0.056
1692 479,206 492,517 0.972 0.961 -0.011
1693 239,192 255,198 -0.385 -0.348 0.036
1694 461,006 473,564 0.869 0.857 -0.013
1695 416,908 417,717 0.620 0.548 -0.071
1696 186,983 202,541 -0.680 -0.639 0.041
1697 172,368 183,151 -0.762 -0.746 0.017
1698 155,599 167,609 -0.857 -0.831 0.026
1699 503,427 520,533 1.109 1.116 0.007
1700 164,986 177,143 -0.804 -0.779 0.025
1701 521,102 540,035 1.209 1.223 0.014
1702 448,128 459,565 0.796 0.779 -0.017
1703 449,509 458,888 0.804 0.776 -0.029
1704 146,982 156,161 -0.906 -0.895 0.011
1705 163,385 176,535 -0.813 -0.782 0.031
1706 166,530 178,153 -0.795 -0.773 0.022
1707 131,517 140,370 -0.993 -0.982 0.012
1708 499,868 515,570 1.089 1.088 -0.001
1709 64,813 70,536 -1.370 -1.367 0.003
1710 116,429 123,427 -1.078 -1.075 0.003
1711 70,354 76,231 -1.339 -1.336 0.003
1712 399,257 403,452 0.520 0.470 -0.050
1713 79,378 82,502 -1.288 -1.301 -0.013
1714 112,228 117,941 -1.102 -1.105 -0.003
1715 497,454 521,108 1.075 1.119 0.044
1716 477,140 479,202 0.960 0.888 -0.073
1717 472,311 490,517 0.933 0.950 0.017
1718 315,634 327,063 0.047 0.048 0.001
1719 477,580 481,358 0.963 0.900 -0.063
1720 424,365 430,663 0.662 0.620 -0.042
1721 435,079 441,758 0.723 0.681 -0.042
1722 408,314 428,613 0.571 0.609 0.037
1723 387,086 398,466 0.451 0.442 -0.009
1724 443,530 456,852 0.770 0.764 -0.006
1725 393,118 405,007 0.485 0.478 -0.007
1726 471,553 488,437 0.929 0.939 0.010
1727 384,891 424,235 0.439 0.584 0.145
1728 373,414 411,619 0.374 0.515 0.141

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1729 400,983 415,977 0.530 0.539 0.009
1730 397,094 414,211 0.508 0.529 0.021
1731 179,018 189,979 -0.725 -0.708 0.017
1732 406,304 421,076 0.560 0.567 0.007
1733 387,995 398,493 0.456 0.442 -0.014
1734 360,675 373,453 0.302 0.304 0.002
1735 385,682 405,504 0.443 0.481 0.038
1736 391,284 404,604 0.475 0.476 0.001
1737 404,296 420,481 0.549 0.564 0.015
1738 411,129 427,798 0.587 0.604 0.017
1739 377,058 400,745 0.395 0.455 0.060
1740 442,249 458,324 0.763 0.772 0.009
1741 372,766 392,341 0.370 0.408 0.038
1742 478,966 495,388 0.971 0.977 0.006
1743 475,300 491,573 0.950 0.956 0.006
1744 493,747 516,466 1.054 1.093 0.039
1745 296,105 313,172 -0.063 -0.028 0.035
1746 403,661 412,692 0.545 0.521 -0.024
1747 222,656 352,491 -0.478 0.189 0.667
1748 215,224 388,077 -0.520 0.385 0.905
1749 224,857 296,779 -0.466 -0.119 0.347
1750 259,538 350,100 -0.270 0.175 0.445
1751 463,620 482,868 0.884 0.908 0.024
1752 409,829 443,923 0.580 0.693 0.113
1753 380,510 425,789 0.414 0.593 0.179
1754 390,221 451,283 0.469 0.734 0.265
1755 400,773 492,443 0.529 0.961 0.432
1756 288,467 363,697 -0.106 0.250 0.356
1757 376,173 435,674 0.390 0.648 0.258
1758 293,869 306,707 -0.076 -0.064 0.012
1759 338,541 407,582 0.177 0.493 0.316
1760 374,288 434,579 0.379 0.641 0.262
1761 278,626 345,819 -0.162 0.152 0.313
1762 343,090 376,818 0.203 0.323 0.120
1763 396,176 426,456 0.503 0.597 0.094
1764 352,901 387,985 0.258 0.384 0.126
1765 323,220 413,007 0.090 0.522 0.432
1766 354,381 458,970 0.266 0.776 0.510
1767 328,929 446,300 0.123 0.706 0.584
1768 527,949 534,852 1.248 1.195 -0.053
1769 272,605 347,552 -0.196 0.161 0.357
1770 486,444 500,845 1.013 1.007 -0.006
1771 528,947 538,705 1.253 1.216 -0.037
1772 97,324 99,559 -1.186 -1.207 -0.020
1773 85,345 88,588 -1.254 -1.267 -0.013
1774 103,084 109,588 -1.154 -1.151 0.002
1775 492,174 502,303 1.045 1.015 -0.030
1776 412,827 450,753 0.597 0.731 0.134
1777 355,406 397,133 0.272 0.435 0.163
1778 164,991 186,600 -0.804 -0.727 0.077
1779 375,838 457,765 0.388 0.769 0.382
1780 223,287 255,374 -0.474 -0.347 0.127
1781 360,013 426,746 0.298 0.598 0.300
1782 364,412 465,488 0.323 0.812 0.489

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1783 364,571 440,522 0.324 0.674 0.350
1784 190,184 212,543 -0.662 -0.583 0.078
1785 394,064 459,155 0.491 0.777 0.286
1786 315,528 449,975 0.047 0.726 0.680
1787 353,894 407,214 0.264 0.490 0.227
1788 412,426 448,837 0.595 0.720 0.126
1789 332,787 427,819 0.144 0.604 0.460
1790 357,210 396,098 0.282 0.429 0.147
1791 517,593 528,132 1.189 1.158 -0.031
1792 533,132 542,257 1.277 1.236 -0.041
1793 335,491 399,623 0.160 0.449 0.289
1794 248,134 277,391 -0.334 -0.226 0.108
1795 168,912 192,617 -0.782 -0.693 0.088
1796 563,351 573,168 1.448 1.406 -0.042
1797 530,135 540,758 1.260 1.227 -0.033
1798 91,090 93,979 -1.222 -1.238 -0.016
1799 540,514 547,607 1.319 1.265 -0.054
1800 537,106 543,742 1.299 1.244 -0.056
1801 526,115 535,197 1.237 1.197 -0.041
1802 541,276 546,731 1.323 1.260 -0.063
1803 82,334 84,719 -1.271 -1.289 -0.018
1804 162,998 177,631 -0.815 -0.776 0.039
1805 524,687 533,805 1.229 1.189 -0.040
1806 493,464 510,082 1.053 1.058 0.005
1807 524,389 535,925 1.227 1.201 -0.027
1808 527,045 539,110 1.242 1.218 -0.024
1809 534,347 540,870 1.284 1.228 -0.056
1810 562,741 572,531 1.444 1.403 -0.042
1811 517,783 527,712 1.190 1.155 -0.035
1812 486,970 502,140 1.016 1.014 -0.002
1813 591,032 613,980 1.604 1.631 0.027
1814 586,839 617,520 1.580 1.651 0.070
1815 564,221 570,079 1.453 1.389 -0.064
1816 622,210 643,795 1.780 1.796 0.015
1817 306,808 333,173 -0.002 0.082 0.084
1818 403,759 444,967 0.546 0.699 0.153
1819 522,142 536,167 1.215 1.202 -0.013
1820 623,519 636,869 1.788 1.757 -0.030
1821 631,188 642,720 1.831 1.790 -0.041
1822 626,174 643,074 1.803 1.792 -0.011
1823 591,708 610,806 1.608 1.614 0.006
1824 269,917 287,684 -0.211 -0.169 0.042
1825 348,361 372,148 0.232 0.297 0.065
1826 125,011 127,303 -1.030 -1.054 -0.024
1827 73,479 80,270 -1.321 -1.313 0.008
1828 98,632 105,108 -1.179 -1.176 0.003
1829 619,737 639,065 1.766 1.770 0.003
1830 520,967 546,490 1.208 1.259 0.051
1831 506,724 526,439 1.128 1.148 0.021
1832 556,114 586,641 1.407 1.480 0.074
1833 591,134 622,087 1.605 1.676 0.071
1834 647,497 659,761 1.923 1.884 -0.039
1835 631,546 653,462 1.833 1.849 0.016
1836 482,390 508,869 0.990 1.051 0.061

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1837 558,968 573,329 1.423 1.407 -0.016
1838 525,494 547,534 1.234 1.265 0.031
1839 532,362 567,424 1.272 1.374 0.102
1840 564,154 596,689 1.452 1.536 0.084
1841 591,619 625,450 1.607 1.694 0.087
1842 565,983 568,557 1.462 1.381 -0.082
1843 498,016 520,157 1.078 1.114 0.035
1844 423,236 445,098 0.656 0.699 0.044
1845 500,696 513,759 1.093 1.078 -0.015
1846 573,388 577,272 1.504 1.429 -0.076
1847 613,699 618,439 1.732 1.656 -0.076
1848 554,013 562,526 1.395 1.347 -0.048
1849 435,736 465,721 0.726 0.813 0.087
1850 400,961 446,189 0.530 0.706 0.176
1851 537,636 540,539 1.302 1.226 -0.076
1852 456,732 480,977 0.845 0.897 0.052
1853 523,458 529,086 1.222 1.163 -0.059
1854 549,913 553,225 1.372 1.296 -0.076
1855 551,581 555,942 1.381 1.311 -0.070
1856 517,625 519,781 1.189 1.112 -0.078
1857 536,380 542,174 1.295 1.235 -0.060
1858 510,312 511,656 1.148 1.067 -0.081
1859 420,028 453,606 0.638 0.746 0.109
1860 458,834 486,993 0.857 0.931 0.074
1861 540,676 543,805 1.319 1.244 -0.075
1862 471,498 506,846 0.928 1.040 0.112
1863 500,565 525,068 1.093 1.141 0.048
1864 531,017 535,616 1.265 1.199 -0.066
1865 465,540 490,533 0.895 0.950 0.055
1866 475,779 496,391 0.953 0.982 0.030
1867 472,511 499,579 0.934 1.000 0.066
1868 512,286 533,902 1.159 1.189 0.030
1869 432,977 470,361 0.711 0.839 0.128
1870 458,179 496,242 0.853 0.982 0.128
1871 478,557 487,234 0.968 0.932 -0.036
1872 341,716 355,404 0.195 0.205 0.010
1873 445,360 468,970 0.781 0.831 0.050
1874 467,283 491,545 0.905 0.956 0.051
1875 183,704 183,712 -0.698 -0.743 -0.044
1876 71,034 71,034 -1.335 -1.364 -0.029
1877 133,009 133,512 -0.985 -1.020 -0.035
1878 125,986 126,459 -1.024 -1.058 -0.034
1879 190,561 191,728 -0.659 -0.698 -0.039
1880 93,650 93,650 -1.207 -1.239 -0.032
1881 83,582 83,582 -1.264 -1.295 -0.031
1882 40,868 41,475 -1.506 -1.527 -0.022
1883 104,573 104,161 -1.145 -1.181 -0.036
1884 164,629 162,147 -0.806 -0.862 -0.055
1885 79,360 79,360 -1.288 -1.318 -0.030
1886 80,368 80,368 -1.282 -1.313 -0.030
1887 27,460 27,488 -1.581 -1.604 -0.023
1888 102,077 98,787 -1.160 -1.211 -0.051
1889 91,781 91,722 -1.218 -1.250 -0.032
1890 21,655 21,655 -1.614 -1.637 -0.022

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1891 13,191 13,191 -1.662 -1.683 -0.021
1892 22,511 22,511 -1.609 -1.632 -0.023
1893 36,523 36,523 -1.530 -1.555 -0.024
1894 124,774 124,774 -1.031 -1.068 -0.036
1895 73,015 73,015 -1.324 -1.353 -0.029
1896 58,975 59,411 -1.403 -1.428 -0.025
1897 38,845 38,900 -1.517 -1.541 -0.024
1898 83,735 83,795 -1.263 -1.294 -0.031
1899 107,548 107,548 -1.129 -1.163 -0.034
1900 190,243 190,243 -0.661 -0.707 -0.045
1901 164,959 165,159 -0.804 -0.845 -0.041
1902 241,044 240,724 -0.374 -0.428 -0.054
1903 239,400 234,844 -0.383 -0.460 -0.077
1904 290,656 296,585 -0.094 -0.120 -0.026
1905 274,225 273,986 -0.187 -0.245 -0.058
1906 258,626 258,223 -0.275 -0.331 -0.057
1907 211,601 212,048 -0.541 -0.586 -0.046
1908 290,229 289,437 -0.096 -0.159 -0.063
1909 306,854 306,504 -0.002 -0.065 -0.063
1910 309,973 310,381 0.015 -0.044 -0.059
1911 306,926 306,904 -0.002 -0.063 -0.061
1912 307,677 307,677 0.002 -0.059 -0.061
1913 283,686 283,629 -0.133 -0.191 -0.058
1914 285,857 285,634 -0.121 -0.180 -0.059
1915 276,437 275,824 -0.174 -0.234 -0.060
1916 287,723 287,490 -0.110 -0.170 -0.060
1917 290,367 292,027 -0.095 -0.145 -0.050
1918 302,751 302,751 -0.025 -0.086 -0.060
1919 306,360 306,139 -0.005 -0.067 -0.062
1920 308,665 308,731 0.008 -0.053 -0.061
1921 308,397 309,141 0.007 -0.051 -0.057
1922 313,213 313,575 0.034 -0.026 -0.060
1923 313,477 313,161 0.035 -0.028 -0.064
1924 254,505 254,514 -0.298 -0.352 -0.054
1925 156,984 155,469 -0.849 -0.898 -0.049
1926 130,293 130,232 -1.000 -1.038 -0.037
1927 122,095 122,326 -1.046 -1.081 -0.035
1928 104,991 106,902 -1.143 -1.166 -0.023
1929 103,509 103,691 -1.152 -1.184 -0.033
1930 103,692 103,750 -1.150 -1.184 -0.033
1931 93,193 93,526 -1.210 -1.240 -0.030
1932 84,207 84,207 -1.261 -1.292 -0.031
1933 131,847 131,627 -0.991 -1.030 -0.039
1934 288,092 288,092 -0.108 -0.167 -0.058
1935 115,244 115,255 -1.085 -1.120 -0.035
1936 98,614 99,725 -1.179 -1.206 -0.027
1937 33,786 33,786 -1.546 -1.570 -0.024
1938 121,267 123,791 -1.051 -1.073 -0.022
1939 211,247 208,975 -0.543 -0.603 -0.061
1940 171,378 171,342 -0.768 -0.811 -0.043
1941 143,909 145,121 -0.923 -0.955 -0.032
1942 203,767 203,767 -0.585 -0.632 -0.047
1943 288,943 289,637 -0.103 -0.158 -0.055
1944 243,830 243,304 -0.358 -0.414 -0.055

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1945 150,601 150,630 -0.885 -0.925 -0.040
1946 316,981 317,648 0.055 -0.004 -0.059
1947 219,870 218,799 -0.494 -0.549 -0.055
1948 271,006 271,006 -0.205 -0.261 -0.056
1949 223,568 224,070 -0.473 -0.520 -0.047
1950 263,494 263,494 -0.247 -0.302 -0.055
1951 222,972 222,972 -0.476 -0.526 -0.050
1952 201,778 201,778 -0.596 -0.643 -0.047
1953 191,420 191,716 -0.655 -0.698 -0.044
1954 153,918 153,964 -0.867 -0.907 -0.040
1955 130,437 129,413 -0.999 -1.042 -0.043
1956 160,577 160,552 -0.829 -0.870 -0.041
1957 188,312 188,340 -0.672 -0.717 -0.045
1958 224,839 223,237 -0.466 -0.524 -0.059
1959 230,777 230,777 -0.432 -0.483 -0.051
1960 247,403 247,403 -0.338 -0.391 -0.053
1961 248,019 244,670 -0.335 -0.406 -0.072
1962 252,707 253,254 -0.308 -0.359 -0.051
1963 218,182 218,433 -0.503 -0.551 -0.048
1964 25,262 25,262 -1.594 -1.617 -0.023
1965 62,494 63,685 -1.383 -1.405 -0.021
1966 130,422 130,422 -0.999 -1.037 -0.037
1967 139,761 140,335 -0.947 -0.982 -0.035
1968 122,481 123,393 -1.044 -1.075 -0.031
1969 125,517 127,769 -1.027 -1.051 -0.024
1970 120,661 120,135 -1.055 -1.093 -0.039
1971 114,205 115,396 -1.091 -1.119 -0.028
1972 118,481 116,887 -1.067 -1.111 -0.044
1973 115,078 115,446 -1.086 -1.119 -0.033
1974 112,541 112,818 -1.100 -1.134 -0.033
1975 122,055 121,597 -1.047 -1.085 -0.039
1976 118,570 118,570 -1.066 -1.102 -0.036
1977 109,199 109,267 -1.119 -1.153 -0.034
1978 108,610 108,373 -1.123 -1.158 -0.036
1979 110,888 111,882 -1.110 -1.139 -0.029
1980 303,525 303,648 -0.021 -0.081 -0.060
1981 304,990 304,990 -0.013 -0.073 -0.061
1982 293,424 293,834 -0.078 -0.135 -0.057
1983 297,810 297,816 -0.053 -0.113 -0.060
1984 309,028 308,812 0.010 -0.052 -0.063
1985 250,065 250,411 -0.323 -0.375 -0.051
1986 256,489 255,994 -0.287 -0.344 -0.057
1987 311,016 311,468 0.021 -0.038 -0.059
1988 311,194 310,916 0.022 -0.041 -0.063
1989 322,102 322,228 0.084 0.022 -0.062
1990 329,365 329,178 0.125 0.060 -0.065
1991 313,718 314,183 0.037 -0.023 -0.059
1992 311,234 310,859 0.023 -0.041 -0.064
1993 305,573 305,079 -0.009 -0.073 -0.064
1994 304,954 304,516 -0.013 -0.076 -0.063
1995 302,715 302,693 -0.026 -0.086 -0.061
1996 256,450 257,628 -0.287 -0.335 -0.048
1997 254,685 249,057 -0.297 -0.382 -0.085
1998 271,152 271,482 -0.204 -0.258 -0.054

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
1999 265,433 265,594 -0.236 -0.291 -0.055
2000 286,220 285,770 -0.119 -0.180 -0.061
2001 319, 844 319, 715 0.071 0.008 -0.063
2002 301,583 300,856 -0.032 -0.096 -0.064
2003 286,695 286,791 -0.116 -0.174 -0.058
2004 266,817 266,817 -0.228 -0.284 -0.056
2005 267,888 268,534 -0.222 -0.275 -0.052
2006 251,775 246,007 -0.313 -0.399 -0.085
2007 206,869 207,385 -0.567 -0.612 -0.045
2008 167,557 169,157 -0.789 -0.823 -0.033
2009 235,375 235,180 -0.406 -0.459 -0.052
2010 254,135 253,615 -0.300 -0.357 -0.057
2011 259,422 259,394 -0.270 -0.325 -0.055
2012 119,987 117,715 -1.058 -1.107 -0.048
2013 110,188 110,379 -1.114 -1.147 -0.033
2014 110,649 110,191 -1.111 -1.148 -0.037
2015 120,128 120,078 -1.058 -1.094 -0.036
2016 120,323 120,731 -1.056 -1.090 -0.034
2017 125,172 126,017 -1.029 -1.061 -0.032
2018 162,404 162,404 -0.819 -0.860 -0.041
2019 215,691 211,475 -0.517 -0.589 -0.072
2020 212,875 212,986 -0.533 -0.581 -0.048
2021 177,904 178,432 -0.731 -0.772 -0.041
2022 189,583 189,945 -0.665 -0.708 -0.043
2023 175,210 176,604 -0.746 -0.782 -0.036
2024 167,286 168,584 -0.791 -0.826 -0.035
2025 114,679 115,146 -1.088 -1.121 -0.032
2026 117,871 117,709 -1.070 -1.107 -0.036
2027 110,217 110,764 -1.114 -1.145 -0.031
2028 116,362 116,353 -1.079 -1.114 -0.035
2029 122,708 120,436 -1.043 -1.092 -0.049
2030 135,119 137,736 -0.973 -0.996 -0.023
2031 151,228 153,008 -0.882 -0.912 -0.030
2032 125,186 125,642 -1.029 -1.063 -0.034
2033 111,941 116,116 -1.104 -1.115 -0.012
2034 136,391 133,290 -0.966 -1.021 -0.055
2035 164,610 164,407 -0.806 -0.849 -0.043
2036 127,088 126,292 -1.018 -1.059 -0.041
2037 126,891 126,090 -1.019 -1.060 -0.041
2038 139,756 142,272 -0.947 -0.971 -0.025
2039 145,498 144,486 -0.914 -0.959 -0.045
2040 137,532 141,102 -0.959 -0.978 -0.018
2041 246,513 245,448 -0.343 -0.402 -0.059
2042 192,647 190,897 -0.648 -0.703 -0.055
2043 204,429 204,251 -0.581 -0.629 -0.048
2044 168,442 165,259 -0.784 -0.844 -0.060
2045 148,047 148,056 -0.900 -0.939 -0.039
2046 264,589 264,602 -0.241 -0.296 -0.055
2047 288,833 289,527 -0.104 -0.159 -0.055
2048 126,138 126,291 -1.024 -1.059 -0.036
2049 94,658 93,766 -1.202 -1.239 -0.037
2050 136,573 136,638 -0.965 -1.002 -0.038
2051 226,751 227,167 -0.455 -0.503 -0.048
2052 198,751 199,295 -0.613 -0.657 -0.043

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2053 122,547 123,812 -1.044 -1.073 -0.029
2054 82,877 82,877 -1.268 -1.299 -0.031
2055 172,232 172,232 -0.763 -0.806 -0.043
2056 238,254 237,984 -0.390 -0.443 -0.053
2057 143,498 143,498 -0.925 -0.964 -0.039
2058 130,537 131,038 -0.999 -1.033 -0.034
2059 141,697 142,352 -0.936 -0.971 -0.035
2060 109,896 109,617 -1.115 -1.151 -0.036
2061 123,778 123,535 -1.037 -1.075 -0.038
2062 108,606 109,548 -1.123 -1.152 -0.029
2063 119,840 119,620 -1.059 -1.096 -0.037
2064 256,814 255,904 -0.285 -0.344 -0.059
2065 251,438 252,086 -0.315 -0.365 -0.050
2066 55,282 55,282 -1.424 -1.451 -0.027
2067 63,655 63,655 -1.377 -1.405 -0.028
2068 172,138 172,322 -0.764 -0.805 -0.042
2069 261,856 261,856 -0.256 -0.311 -0.055
2070 293,389 293,389 -0.078 -0.137 -0.059
2071 105,042 101,833 -1.143 -1.194 -0.051
2072 301,281 301,529 -0.034 -0.093 -0.059
2073 101,475 101,995 -1.163 -1.193 -0.030
2074 85,417 86,321 -1.254 -1.280 -0.026
2075 110,316 110,232 -1.113 -1.148 -0.035
2076 295,777 295,780 -0.065 -0.124 -0.060
2077 279,255 279,193 -0.158 -0.216 -0.058
2078 136,682 136,682 -0.964 -1.002 -0.038
2079 130,293 129,645 -1.000 -1.041 -0.041
2080 294,127 296,106 -0.074 -0.122 -0.048
2081 291,061 291,274 -0.091 -0.149 -0.058
2082 292,507 293,574 -0.083 -0.136 -0.053
2083 208,120 207,103 -0.560 -0.614 -0.053
2084 222,462 222,002 -0.479 -0.531 -0.052
2085 250,910 250,714 -0.318 -0.373 -0.055
2086 273,382 273,382 -0.191 -0.248 -0.057
2087 302,125 301,311 -0.029 -0.094 -0.065
2088 232,933 232,653 -0.420 -0.473 -0.053
2089 236,992 237,185 -0.397 -0.448 -0.051
2090 291,299 292,507 -0.090 -0.142 -0.052
2091 273,716 273,483 -0.189 -0.247 -0.058
2092 178,526 179,519 -0.727 -0.766 -0.038
2093 297,766 297,862 -0.054 -0.113 -0.059
2094 317,421 318,586 0.058 0.002 -0.056
2095 285,754 285,531 -0.121 -0.181 -0.059
2096 272,921 272,921 -0.194 -0.250 -0.056
2097 265,529 270,207 -0.236 -0.265 -0.030
2098 283,985 283,985 -0.131 -0.189 -0.058
2099 270,643 270,643 -0.207 -0.263 -0.056
2100 308,356 308,752 0.006 -0.053 -0.059
2101 325,691 326,641 0.104 0.046 -0.058
2102 335,208 335,911 0.158 0.097 -0.061
2103 306,790 307,038 -0.003 -0.062 -0.060
2104 306,173 306,151 -0.006 -0.067 -0.061
2105 276,774 271,178 -0.172 -0.260 -0.088
2106 99,694 100,018 -1.173 -1.204 -0.031

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2107 251,532 251,486 -0.315 -0.369 -0.054
2108 119,476 119,137 -1.061 -1.099 -0.038
2109 265,777 266,938 -0.234 -0.283 -0.049
2110 259,800 260,332 -0.268 -0.320 -0.052
2111 177,793 177,510 -0.732 -0.777 -0.045
2112 110,062 110,062 -1.114 -1.149 -0.034
2113 196,998 197,674 -0.623 -0.666 -0.042
2114 97,411 97,915 -1.186 -1.216 -0.030
2115 225,338 227,353 -0.463 -0.502 -0.039
2116 119,764 120,132 -1.060 -1.093 -0.034
2117 166,970 167,365 -0.793 -0.833 -0.040
2118 142,477 159,208 -0.931 -0.878 0.054
2119 126,910 127,580 -1.019 -1.052 -0.033
2120 118,897 120,209 -1.065 -1.093 -0.028
2121 105,105 105,370 -1.142 -1.175 -0.032
2122 121,855 121,708 -1.048 -1.085 -0.037
2123 125,473 121,919 -1.027 -1.083 -0.056
2124 172,014 167,700 -0.764 -0.831 -0.067
2125 83,774 84,154 -1.263 -1.292 -0.029
2126 94,011 94,011 -1.205 -1.237 -0.032
2127 73,643 73,643 -1.320 -1.350 -0.029
2128 69,772 69,772 -1.342 -1.371 -0.029
2129 79,570 79,570 -1.287 -1.317 -0.030
2130 67,873 67,873 -1.353 -1.382 -0.029
2131 80,560 80,560 -1.281 -1.312 -0.030
2132 134,036 134,546 -0.979 -1.014 -0.035
2133 90,066 89,977 -1.227 -1.260 -0.032
2134 66,615 69,524 -1.360 -1.373 -0.012
2135 94,419 100,384 -1.203 -1.202 0.001
2136 63,894 71,871 -1.375 -1.360 0.016
2137 55,421 59,619 -1.423 -1.427 -0.004
2138 142,777 150,228 -0.930 -0.927 0.002
2139 46,588 44,597 -1.473 -1.510 -0.037
2140 16,564 16,564 -1.643 -1.665 -0.022
2141 6,898 6,898 -1.698 -1.718 -0.020
2142 12,577 12,577 -1.665 -1.687 -0.021
2143 74,664 74,182 -1.315 -1.347 -0.032
2144 38,408 38,435 -1.519 -1.544 -0.025
2145 42,482 42,482 -1.496 -1.522 -0.025
2146 68,207 68,207 -1.351 -1.380 -0.029
2147 15,059 15,059 -1.651 -1.673 -0.022
2148 52,885 52,083 -1.438 -1.469 -0.031
2149 67,281 66,150 -1.356 -1.391 -0.035
2150 26,462 25,924 -1.587 -1.613 -0.026
2151 9,967 9,967 -1.680 -1.701 -0.021
2152 26,463 26,463 -1.587 -1.610 -0.023
2153 65,032 65,032 -1.369 -1.397 -0.028
2154 34,652 34,312 -1.541 -1.567 -0.026
2155 48,886 48,886 -1.460 -1.486 -0.026
2156 6,829 6,829 -1.698 -1.718 -0.020
2157 14,237 14,237 -1.656 -1.678 -0.021
2158 11,111 11,565 -1.674 -1.692 -0.019
2159 67,750 74,031 -1.354 -1.348 0.006
2160 76,012 82,196 -1.307 -1.303 0.004

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2161 7,669 7,669 -1.693 -1.714 -0.021
2162 7,296 7,296 -1.695 -1.716 -0.021
2163 115,059 110,172 -1.086 -1.148 -0.062
2164 102,837 102,402 -1.155 -1.191 -0.036
2165 276,109 284,288 -0.176 -0.188 -0.012
2166 326,225 332,740 0.107 0.080 -0.028
2167 319,127 326,348 0.067 0.044 -0.023
2168 5,967 5,967 -1.703 -1.723 -0.020
2169 82,933 82,933 -1.268 -1.299 -0.031
2170 114,807 114,799 -1.088 -1.123 -0.035
2171 94,012 94,012 -1.205 -1.237 -0.032
2172 160,467 158,267 -0.830 -0.883 -0.053
2173 224,102 229,021 -0.470 -0.493 -0.023
2174 181,294 181,294 -0.712 -0.756 -0.044
2175 5,810 5,810 -1.704 -1.724 -0.020
2176 7,561 7,561 -1.694 -1.714 -0.021
2177 7,344 7,344 -1.695 -1.716 -0.021
2178 183,267 193,561 -0.701 -0.688 0.012
2179 29,966 30,146 -1.567 -1.590 -0.023
2180 72,841 72,841 -1.325 -1.354 -0.029
2181 90,361 90,361 -1.226 -1.258 -0.032
2182 42,222 42,222 -1.498 -1.523 -0.025
2183 71,099 71,101 -1.335 -1.364 -0.029
2184 322,049 336,344 0.084 0.100 0.016
2185 404,708 411,309 0.551 0.513 -0.038
2186 25,700 27,617 -1.591 -1.604 -0.012
2187 74,228 76,173 -1.317 -1.336 -0.019
2188 70,588 70,655 -1.338 -1.366 -0.029
2189 51,612 52,564 -1.445 -1.466 -0.021
2190 23,839 23,926 -1.602 -1.624 -0.022
2191 14,523 14,523 -1.654 -1.676 -0.021
2192 85,455 85,455 -1.254 -1.285 -0.031
2193 63,181 63,299 -1.379 -1.407 -0.027
2194 86,982 86,648 -1.245 -1.278 -0.033
2195 82,203 82,016 -1.272 -1.304 -0.032
2196 299,494 311,797 -0.044 -0.036 0.008
2197 320,351 332,093 0.074 0.076 0.002
2198 223,429 223,561 -0.474 -0.523 -0.049
2199 168,846 177,076 -0.782 -0.779 0.003
2200 440,876 438,868 0.755 0.665 -0.090
2201 372,905 379,365 0.371 0.337 -0.034
2202 44,902 45,993 -1.483 -1.502 -0.020
2203 99,042 98,750 -1.177 -1.211 -0.035
2204 52,425 52,425 -1.440 -1.467 -0.027
2205 64,722 65,928 -1.371 -1.392 -0.022
2206 50,454 50,557 -1.451 -1.477 -0.026
2207 57,238 57,988 -1.413 -1.436 -0.023
2208 49,592 49,644 -1.456 -1.482 -0.026
2209 40,610 40,610 -1.507 -1.532 -0.025
2210 42,050 42,308 -1.499 -1.523 -0.024
2211 44,598 44,598 -1.484 -1.510 -0.026
2212 25,575 25,575 -1.592 -1.615 -0.023
2213 47,247 47,557 -1.470 -1.494 -0.024
2214 37,400 37,400 -1.525 -1.550 -0.025

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2215 42,331 43,358 -1.497 -1.517 -0.020
2216 31,519 31,529 -1.558 -1.582 -0.024
2217 38,805 38,805 -1.517 -1.542 -0.025
2218 77,252 76,524 -1.300 -1.334 -0.034
2219 51,962 51,962 -1.443 -1.469 -0.027
2220 31,237 31,408 -1.560 -1.583 -0.023
2221 126,557 126,533 -1.021 -1.058 -0.037
2222 60,510 59,292 -1.395 -1.429 -0.034
2223 44,932 44,932 -1.483 -1.508 -0.026
2224 77,459 77,252 -1.299 -1.330 -0.031
2225 50,119 50,119 -1.453 -1.480 -0.026
2226 128,299 128,262 -1.011 -1.048 -0.037
2227 93,588 91,113 -1.208 -1.253 -0.046
2228 88,826 88,843 -1.234 -1.266 -0.031
2229 104,834 104,834 -1.144 -1.178 -0.034
2230 126,637 124,392 -1.021 -1.070 -0.049
2231 103,789 99,463 -1.150 -1.207 -0.057
2232 88,548 86,811 -1.236 -1.277 -0.041
2233 131,797 132,123 -0.992 -1.027 -0.036
2234 73,555 73,598 -1.321 -1.350 -0.029
2235 65,252 63,872 -1.368 -1.404 -0.036
2236 65,570 64,493 -1.366 -1.400 -0.034
2237 32,929 32,929 -1.550 -1.574 -0.024
2238 38,866 38,785 -1.517 -1.542 -0.025
2239 23,048 21,945 -1.606 -1.635 -0.029
2240 22,240 22,240 -1.611 -1.633 -0.023
2241 69,382 68,809 -1.344 -1.376 -0.032
2242 68,414 67,938 -1.350 -1.381 -0.031
2243 32,846 32,993 -1.551 -1.574 -0.023
2244 39,024 38,961 -1.516 -1.541 -0.025
2245 33,825 33,832 -1.545 -1.569 -0.024
2246 31,747 31,747 -1.557 -1.581 -0.024
2247 9,085 9,085 -1.685 -1.706 -0.021
2248 25,452 25,452 -1.593 -1.616 -0.023
2249 7,044 7,044 -1.697 -1.717 -0.020
2250 15,082 15,131 -1.651 -1.673 -0.021
2251 20,692 20,692 -1.620 -1.642 -0.022
2252 8,305 8,305 -1.690 -1.710 -0.021
2253 33,706 33,710 -1.546 -1.570 -0.024
2254 16,214 16,214 -1.645 -1.667 -0.022
2255 17,930 17,930 -1.635 -1.657 -0.022
2256 27,012 26,907 -1.584 -1.608 -0.024
2257 8,904 8,904 -1.686 -1.707 -0.021
2258 15,461 15,452 -1.649 -1.671 -0.022
2259 22,103 22,103 -1.612 -1.634 -0.023
2260 19,620 19,620 -1.626 -1.648 -0.022
2261 15,873 15,873 -1.647 -1.669 -0.022
2262 32,419 32,525 -1.553 -1.577 -0.023
2263 10,873 10,873 -1.675 -1.696 -0.021
2264 31,068 31,068 -1.561 -1.585 -0.024
2265 30,068 29,701 -1.567 -1.592 -0.026
2266 26,295 26,295 -1.588 -1.611 -0.023
2267 38,072 37,857 -1.521 -1.547 -0.026
2268 17,403 17,181 -1.638 -1.661 -0.023

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2269 26,642 26,642 -1.586 -1.609 -0.023
2270 24,440 24,440 -1.598 -1.621 -0.023
2271 10,873 10,873 -1.675 -1.696 -0.021
2272 24,686 24,686 -1.597 -1.620 -0.023
2273 33,954 33,724 -1.545 -1.570 -0.025
2274 10,692 10,692 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2275 20,116 20,141 -1.623 -1.645 -0.022
2276 25,181 25,181 -1.594 -1.617 -0.023
2277 24,711 24,780 -1.597 -1.619 -0.022
2278 20,104 20,116 -1.623 -1.645 -0.022
2279 37,630 36,600 -1.524 -1.554 -0.030
2280 52,403 51,881 -1.440 -1.470 -0.029
2281 57,248 56,483 -1.413 -1.444 -0.031
2282 34,351 34,878 -1.542 -1.564 -0.021
2283 37,842 41,503 -1.523 -1.527 -0.004
2284 41,501 46,788 -1.502 -1.498 0.004
2285 43,461 47,486 -1.491 -1.494 -0.003
2286 37,513 38,314 -1.525 -1.545 -0.020
2287 46,480 51,829 -1.474 -1.470 0.004
2288 40,368 44,670 -1.508 -1.510 -0.001
2289 40,945 45,158 -1.505 -1.507 -0.002
2290 38,382 42,330 -1.520 -1.523 -0.003
2291 37,118 37,205 -1.527 -1.551 -0.024
2292 38,950 38,950 -1.516 -1.541 -0.025
2293 43,103 43,134 -1.493 -1.518 -0.025
2294 39,225 39,227 -1.515 -1.540 -0.025
2295 36,838 37,369 -1.528 -1.550 -0.022
2296 31,198 31,264 -1.560 -1.584 -0.023
2297 26,107 26,107 -1.589 -1.612 -0.023
2298 40,290 40,226 -1.509 -1.534 -0.025
2299 28,389 28,389 -1.576 -1.599 -0.023
2300 298,437 366,689 -0.050 0.267 0.317
2301 202,614 265,397 -0.591 -0.292 0.299
2302 142,397 166,667 -0.932 -0.837 0.095
2303 245,332 292,907 -0.350 -0.140 0.210
2304 309,038 373,141 0.010 0.303 0.292
2305 152,665 177,373 -0.874 -0.778 0.096
2306 237,948 308,608 -0.392 -0.054 0.338
2307 313,970 372,626 0.038 0.300 0.262
2308 259,332 311,581 -0.271 -0.037 0.234
2309 230,676 266,673 -0.433 -0.285 0.148
2310 264,008 336,982 -0.244 0.103 0.347
2311 327,931 384,168 0.117 0.363 0.246
2312 264,925 319,624 -0.239 0.007 0.246
2313 201,273 236,970 -0.599 -0.449 0.150
2314 196,869 248,616 -0.624 -0.384 0.239
2315 296,846 416,893 -0.059 0.544 0.603
2316 57,069 63,455 -1.414 -1.406 0.008
2317 77,008 86,074 -1.301 -1.281 0.020
2318 245,542 329,881 -0.349 0.064 0.413
2319 220,508 277,577 -0.490 -0.225 0.265
2320 306,807 368,322 -0.002 0.276 0.278
2321 247,603 293,298 -0.337 -0.138 0.199
2322 174,321 191,723 -0.751 -0.698 0.053

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2323 238,929 282,160 -0.386 -0.199 0.187
2324 279,874 335,374 -0.155 0.094 0.249
2325 305,644 358,913 -0.009 0.224 0.233
2326 202,816 251,900 -0.590 -0.366 0.224
2327 76,044 104,605 -1.307 -1.179 0.128
2328 305,437 415,747 -0.010 0.538 0.548
2329 268,454 395,141 -0.219 0.424 0.643
2330 69,266 89,762 -1.345 -1.261 0.084
2331 95,243 124,439 -1.198 -1.070 0.129
2332 302,375 362,920 -0.027 0.246 0.274
2333 240,506 282,633 -0.377 -0.197 0.180
2334 278,114 325,027 -0.165 0.037 0.202
2335 76,725 102,706 -1.303 -1.189 0.113
2336 271,592 321,573 -0.201 0.018 0.219
2337 256,791 299,297 -0.285 -0.105 0.180
2338 198,087 251,090 -0.617 -0.371 0.246
2339 107,940 130,790 -1.126 -1.035 0.092
2340 181,723 286,988 -0.709 -0.173 0.537
2341 209,254 292,472 -0.554 -0.143 0.411
2342 75,835 112,318 -1.308 -1.136 0.171
2343 104,066 167,895 -1.148 -0.830 0.319
2344 109,154 155,730 -1.120 -0.897 0.223
2345 314,919 423,874 0.043 0.582 0.539
2346 234,306 357,862 -0.412 0.218 0.630
2347 250,237 367,534 -0.322 0.272 0.594
2348 262,736 366,823 -0.252 0.268 0.519
2349 224,476 342,433 -0.468 0.133 0.601
2350 209,913 291,626 -0.550 -0.147 0.403
2351 148,535 249,091 -0.897 -0.382 0.515
2352 65,695 87,479 -1.365 -1.273 0.092
2353 271,292 398,518 -0.203 0.443 0.646
2354 265,967 386,597 -0.233 0.377 0.610
2355 77,855 103,835 -1.297 -1.183 0.113
2356 51,703 56,855 -1.444 -1.442 0.002
2357 64,107 76,619 -1.374 -1.333 0.041
2358 52,723 58,849 -1.439 -1.431 0.007
2359 101,715 125,458 -1.162 -1.064 0.098
2360 63,591 72,722 -1.377 -1.355 0.022
2361 43,608 50,137 -1.490 -1.479 0.011
2362 37,737 43,012 -1.523 -1.519 0.004
2363 37,650 42,618 -1.524 -1.521 0.003
2364 44,304 44,830 -1.486 -1.509 -0.023
2365 43,524 43,932 -1.491 -1.514 -0.023
2366 41,664 42,693 -1.501 -1.521 -0.019
2367 42,419 42,473 -1.497 -1.522 -0.025
2368 53,749 56,246 -1.433 -1.446 -0.013
2369 43,788 44,774 -1.489 -1.509 -0.020
2370 46,740 47,296 -1.472 -1.495 -0.023
2371 29,579 29,782 -1.569 -1.592 -0.022
2372 48,343 48,450 -1.463 -1.489 -0.025
2373 49,379 49,379 -1.457 -1.484 -0.026
2374 45,603 45,663 -1.479 -1.504 -0.025
2375 43,470 43,583 -1.491 -1.516 -0.025
2376 45,683 46,653 -1.478 -1.499 -0.020

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2377 50,946 50,946 -1.449 -1.475 -0.026
2378 43,710 43,819 -1.489 -1.514 -0.025
2379 43,480 43,511 -1.491 -1.516 -0.025
2380 41,901 44,852 -1.500 -1.509 -0.009
2381 26,326 26,479 -1.588 -1.610 -0.022
2382 35,664 35,751 -1.535 -1.559 -0.024
2383 87,918 113,905 -1.240 -1.128 0.112
2384 72,722 86,156 -1.326 -1.281 0.045
2385 80,615 94,529 -1.281 -1.235 0.046
2386 57,502 61,035 -1.412 -1.419 -0.008
2387 111,218 158,806 -1.108 -0.880 0.228
2388 47,402 53,114 -1.469 -1.463 0.006
2389 87,679 110,967 -1.241 -1.144 0.097
2390 31,062 34,120 -1.561 -1.568 -0.007
2391 70,183 86,537 -1.340 -1.279 0.061
2392 38,449 43,296 -1.519 -1.517 0.002
2393 99,267 122,720 -1.175 -1.079 0.096
2394 70,155 82,188 -1.340 -1.303 0.037
2395 64,648 69,371 -1.371 -1.373 -0.002
2396 44,372 44,336 -1.486 -1.511 -0.026
2397 34,936 34,934 -1.539 -1.563 -0.024
2398 40,526 40,247 -1.507 -1.534 -0.027
2399 45,259 46,840 -1.481 -1.498 -0.017
2400 43,418 44,677 -1.491 -1.510 -0.018
2401 44,974 48,494 -1.482 -1.489 -0.006
2402 46,392 46,714 -1.474 -1.498 -0.024
2403 43,029 44,704 -1.493 -1.509 -0.016
2404 43,196 43,278 -1.492 -1.517 -0.025
2405 47,509 49,266 -1.468 -1.484 -0.016
2406 51,183 54,720 -1.447 -1.454 -0.007
2407 46,107 46,290 -1.476 -1.501 -0.025
2408 39,157 39,111 -1.515 -1.540 -0.025
2409 47,553 51,517 -1.468 -1.472 -0.004
2410 48,148 51,749 -1.464 -1.471 -0.006
2411 43,029 45,824 -1.493 -1.503 -0.010
2412 44,382 47,515 -1.486 -1.494 -0.008
2413 44,794 45,121 -1.483 -1.507 -0.024
2414 48,458 51,848 -1.463 -1.470 -0.007
2415 46,593 48,260 -1.473 -1.490 -0.017
2416 46,939 50,239 -1.471 -1.479 -0.008
2417 53,603 58,301 -1.434 -1.434 -0.001
2418 43,265 43,163 -1.492 -1.518 -0.026
2419 54,408 60,101 -1.429 -1.425 0.005
2420 44,777 45,216 -1.483 -1.507 -0.023
2421 45,146 45,613 -1.481 -1.504 -0.023
2422 41,642 41,777 -1.501 -1.526 -0.024
2423 46,821 49,138 -1.472 -1.485 -0.013
2424 42,931 42,947 -1.494 -1.519 -0.025
2425 49,836 53,247 -1.455 -1.462 -0.007
2426 43,766 43,766 -1.489 -1.515 -0.025
2427 47,696 50,921 -1.467 -1.475 -0.008
2428 51,450 53,924 -1.446 -1.459 -0.013
2429 96,982 107,915 -1.188 -1.161 0.028
2430 181,830 195,898 -0.709 -0.675 0.033

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2431 55,890 58,057 -1.421 -1.436 -0.015
2432 181,151 195,828 -0.713 -0.676 0.037
2433 246,408 260,886 -0.344 -0.317 0.027
2434 48,485 49,823 -1.463 -1.481 -0.019
2435 194,688 211,161 -0.636 -0.591 0.045
2436 136,969 159,054 -0.962 -0.879 0.084
2437 107,818 120,616 -1.127 -1.091 0.036
2438 81,684 88,282 -1.275 -1.269 0.006
2439 77,043 83,037 -1.301 -1.298 0.003
2440 58,994 62,541 -1.403 -1.411 -0.008
2441 55,556 60,211 -1.423 -1.424 -0.001
2442 51,792 54,811 -1.444 -1.454 -0.010
2443 141,226 157,654 -0.938 -0.886 0.052
2444 58,406 62,334 -1.406 -1.412 -0.006
2445 62,352 66,989 -1.384 -1.387 -0.002
2446 56,722 63,309 -1.416 -1.407 0.009
2447 73,391 101,371 -1.322 -1.197 0.125
2448 245,702 346,349 -0.348 0.155 0.503
2449 283,550 358,448 -0.134 0.221 0.355
2450 260,843 336,185 -0.262 0.099 0.361
2451 234,506 277,454 -0.411 -0.225 0.186
2452 218,102 280,665 -0.504 -0.208 0.296
2453 35,621 35,621 -1.535 -1.560 -0.024
2454 31,550 31,524 -1.558 -1.582 -0.024
2455 34,623 34,623 -1.541 -1.565 -0.024
2456 92,507 92,453 -1.214 -1.246 -0.032
2457 25,633 25,633 -1.592 -1.615 -0.023
2458 66,054 64,806 -1.363 -1.399 -0.035
2459 55,869 55,879 -1.421 -1.448 -0.027
2460 205,097 207,574 -0.577 -0.611 -0.034
2461 156,050 155,830 -0.855 -0.896 -0.042
2462 175,608 176,537 -0.744 -0.782 -0.038
2463 104,046 103,715 -1.148 -1.184 -0.035
2464 69,529 69,529 -1.344 -1.372 -0.029
2465 25,523 25,368 -1.592 -1.616 -0.024
2466 58,759 58,496 -1.404 -1.433 -0.029
2467 40,157 40,210 -1.510 -1.534 -0.025
2468 142,145 142,145 -0.933 -0.972 -0.039
2469 66,160 65,927 -1.363 -1.392 -0.030
2470 17,400 17,400 -1.638 -1.660 -0.022
2471 31,632 31,667 -1.558 -1.581 -0.024
2472 109,722 108,163 -1.116 -1.159 -0.043
2473 87,898 87,844 -1.240 -1.271 -0.032
2474 23,662 23,654 -1.603 -1.626 -0.023
2475 18,031 18,031 -1.635 -1.657 -0.022
2476 29,986 29,986 -1.567 -1.591 -0.024
2477 17,516 17,516 -1.638 -1.659 -0.022
2478 49,407 49,185 -1.457 -1.485 -0.027
2479 16,389 16,389 -1.644 -1.666 -0.022
2480 24,737 24,737 -1.597 -1.620 -0.023
2481 71,372 70,863 -1.333 -1.365 -0.032
2482 20,780 20,780 -1.619 -1.641 -0.022
2483 130,939 130,887 -0.996 -1.034 -0.038
2484 179,375 177,840 -0.723 -0.775 -0.052

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2485 137,994 137,994 -0.957 -0.995 -0.038
2486 70,465 70,465 -1.338 -1.367 -0.029
2487 132,572 132,313 -0.987 -1.026 -0.039
2488 26,844 26,852 -1.585 -1.608 -0.023
2489 25,359 25,395 -1.593 -1.616 -0.023
2490 27,338 27,374 -1.582 -1.605 -0.023
2491 20,169 20,219 -1.623 -1.645 -0.022
2492 28,522 28,568 -1.575 -1.598 -0.023
2493 33,419 34,144 -1.548 -1.568 -0.020
2494 27,110 27,146 -1.583 -1.606 -0.023
2495 70,568 71,503 -1.338 -1.362 -0.024
2496 42,234 43,424 -1.498 -1.517 -0.019
2497 22,311 22,683 -1.610 -1.631 -0.020
2498 39,529 42,293 -1.513 -1.523 -0.010
2499 26,768 26,980 -1.585 -1.607 -0.022
2500 22,528 22,605 -1.609 -1.631 -0.022
2501 40,644 46,042 -1.507 -1.502 0.005
2502 33,055 33,164 -1.550 -1.573 -0.023
2503 27,725 27,933 -1.580 -1.602 -0.022
2504 22,702 23,001 -1.608 -1.629 -0.021
2505 32,381 32,555 -1.554 -1.576 -0.023
2506 28,528 28,704 -1.575 -1.598 -0.022
2507 13,362 13,362 -1.661 -1.682 -0.021
2508 44,769 47,539 -1.484 -1.494 -0.010
2509 58,134 59,666 -1.408 -1.427 -0.019
2510 65,500 66,502 -1.366 -1.389 -0.023
2511 47,026 48,989 -1.471 -1.486 -0.015
2512 60,761 62,716 -1.393 -1.410 -0.017
2513 38,654 39,305 -1.518 -1.539 -0.021
2514 51,353 54,933 -1.446 -1.453 -0.007
2515 40,507 41,218 -1.508 -1.529 -0.021
2516 26,921 27,092 -1.584 -1.607 -0.022
2517 25,738 26,116 -1.591 -1.612 -0.021
2518 23,808 24,368 -1.602 -1.622 -0.020
2519 24,335 24,335 -1.599 -1.622 -0.023
2520 23,723 24,265 -1.602 -1.622 -0.020
2521 24,943 24,950 -1.596 -1.618 -0.023
2522 14,856 14,856 -1.653 -1.674 -0.022
2523 56,723 57,713 -1.416 -1.438 -0.022
2524 48,935 50,130 -1.460 -1.480 -0.020
2525 78,577 79,533 -1.292 -1.317 -0.025
2526 47,701 50,839 -1.467 -1.476 -0.009
2527 65,551 70,137 -1.366 -1.369 -0.003
2528 37,339 38,052 -1.526 -1.546 -0.021
2529 54,952 56,573 -1.426 -1.444 -0.018
2530 32,640 33,850 -1.552 -1.569 -0.017
2531 36,113 36,688 -1.532 -1.554 -0.021
2532 25,418 26,067 -1.593 -1.612 -0.019
2533 20,196 20,914 -1.622 -1.641 -0.018
2534 34,649 35,242 -1.541 -1.562 -0.021
2535 32,791 32,921 -1.551 -1.574 -0.023
2536 35,324 37,570 -1.537 -1.549 -0.012
2537 16,785 16,785 -1.642 -1.663 -0.022
2538 10,737 10,737 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2539 12,580 12,580 -1.665 -1.687 -0.021
2540 10,710 10,710 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2541 11,068 11,068 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2542 11,068 11,068 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2543 11,068 11,068 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2544 11,136 11,136 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2545 11,577 11,577 -1.671 -1.692 -0.021
2546 11,167 11,167 -1.673 -1.694 -0.021
2547 11,167 11,167 -1.673 -1.694 -0.021
2548 10,809 10,809 -1.675 -1.696 -0.021
2549 11,470 11,470 -1.672 -1.693 -0.021
2550 11,318 11,318 -1.673 -1.694 -0.021
2551 10,778 10,778 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2552 11,751 11,751 -1.670 -1.691 -0.021
2553 11,783 11,783 -1.670 -1.691 -0.021
2554 13,534 13,534 -1.660 -1.681 -0.021
2555 14,724 14,724 -1.653 -1.675 -0.022
2556 10,338 10,338 -1.678 -1.699 -0.021
2557 10,686 10,686 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2558 11,113 11,113 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2559 12,346 12,346 -1.667 -1.688 -0.021
2560 16,330 16,330 -1.644 -1.666 -0.022
2561 17,652 17,652 -1.637 -1.659 -0.022
2562 15,798 15,798 -1.647 -1.669 -0.022
2563 10,181 10,181 -1.679 -1.700 -0.021
2564 10,775 10,775 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2565 10,759 10,759 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2566 11,054 11,054 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2567 14,114 14,114 -1.657 -1.678 -0.021
2568 28,138 28,138 -1.578 -1.601 -0.023
2569 11,895 11,895 -1.669 -1.690 -0.021
2570 11,760 11,760 -1.670 -1.691 -0.021
2571 28,317 28,317 -1.577 -1.600 -0.023
2572 12,288 12,288 -1.667 -1.688 -0.021
2573 24,814 24,814 -1.596 -1.619 -0.023
2574 19,176 19,173 -1.628 -1.650 -0.022
2575 14,520 14,520 -1.654 -1.676 -0.021
2576 33,898 33,898 -1.545 -1.569 -0.024
2577 13,717 13,717 -1.659 -1.680 -0.021
2578 13,800 13,800 -1.659 -1.680 -0.021
2579 16,843 16,843 -1.641 -1.663 -0.022
2580 14,910 14,910 -1.652 -1.674 -0.022
2581 25,012 25,012 -1.595 -1.618 -0.023
2582 10,859 10,859 -1.675 -1.696 -0.021
2583 11,319 11,319 -1.673 -1.694 -0.021
2584 11,068 11,068 -1.674 -1.695 -0.021
2585 10,639 10,639 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2586 10,539 10,539 -1.677 -1.698 -0.021
2587 10,439 10,439 -1.678 -1.698 -0.021
2588 10,366 10,366 -1.678 -1.699 -0.021
2589 10,775 10,775 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2590 10,781 10,781 -1.676 -1.697 -0.021
2591 11,299 11,299 -1.673 -1.694 -0.021
2592 12,212 12,212 -1.668 -1.689 -0.021

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2593 16,862 16,862 -1.641 -1.663 -0.022
2594 20,827 20,827 -1.619 -1.641 -0.022
2595 17,741 17,741 -1.636 -1.658 -0.022
2596 18,045 18,045 -1.635 -1.657 -0.022
2597 20,632 20,891 -1.620 -1.641 -0.021
2598 101,062 100,708 -1.165 -1.200 -0.035
2599 30,312 30,167 -1.565 -1.590 -0.024
2600 25,864 26,007 -1.590 -1.613 -0.022
2601 28,680 28,717 -1.574 -1.598 -0.023
2602 31,074 31,150 -1.561 -1.584 -0.023
2603 33,515 33,540 -1.547 -1.571 -0.024
2604 30,359 30,269 -1.565 -1.589 -0.024
2605 9,532 9,532 -1.683 -1.703 -0.021
2606 10,844 10,844 -1.675 -1.696 -0.021
2607 9,428 9,428 -1.683 -1.704 -0.021
2608 9,471 9,471 -1.683 -1.704 -0.021
2609 10,873 10,873 -1.675 -1.696 -0.021
2610 9,562 9,562 -1.683 -1.703 -0.021
2611 9,149 9,149 -1.685 -1.706 -0.021
2612 11,662 11,662 -1.671 -1.692 -0.021
2613 14,224 14,233 -1.656 -1.678 -0.021
2614 17,017 17,017 -1.640 -1.662 -0.022
2615 15,099 15,099 -1.651 -1.673 -0.022
2616 11,805 11,805 -1.670 -1.691 -0.021
2617 31,489 31,541 -1.559 -1.582 -0.023
2618 39,006 39,109 -1.516 -1.540 -0.024
2619 66,166 68,712 -1.363 -1.377 -0.014
2620 40,717 42,326 -1.506 -1.523 -0.016
2621 26,042 27,315 -1.589 -1.605 -0.016
2622 47,624 48,580 -1.467 -1.488 -0.021
2623 42,434 44,661 -1.497 -1.510 -0.013
2624 23,294 24,271 -1.605 -1.622 -0.017
2625 25,495 26,249 -1.592 -1.611 -0.019
2626 41,565 41,954 -1.502 -1.525 -0.023
2627 30,168 30,168 -1.566 -1.590 -0.024
2628 37,056 37,077 -1.527 -1.552 -0.024
2629 33,144 32,831 -1.549 -1.575 -0.026
2630 41,094 41,094 -1.504 -1.529 -0.025
2631 43,630 43,535 -1.490 -1.516 -0.026
2632 42,190 41,957 -1.498 -1.525 -0.027
2633 44,651 44,655 -1.484 -1.510 -0.026
2634 44,594 46,351 -1.485 -1.500 -0.016
2635 45,884 47,411 -1.477 -1.495 -0.017
2636 52,452 55,896 -1.440 -1.448 -0.008
2637 53,070 56,155 -1.437 -1.446 -0.010
2638 45,767 49,519 -1.478 -1.483 -0.005
2639 46,051 49,523 -1.476 -1.483 -0.007
2640 46,310 47,869 -1.475 -1.492 -0.017
2641 46,271 45,979 -1.475 -1.502 -0.027
2642 45,914 46,498 -1.477 -1.500 -0.023
2643 45,597 46,153 -1.479 -1.501 -0.023
2644 44,378 49,551 -1.486 -1.483 0.003
2645 62,425 69,200 -1.384 -1.374 0.009
2646 55,089 61,499 -1.425 -1.417 0.008

Complete 540 ICE Memo #1 Job Accessibility Analysis Results by TAZ November 2016
Appendix A
Origin TAZ No-Build Jobs Accessible Build Jobs Accessible No-Build z-score Build z-score Z Score Change
2647 49,462 54,811 -1.457 -1.454 0.003
2648 43,153 47,464 -1.493 -1.494 -0.002
2649 30,909 31,783 -1.562 -1.581 -0.019
2650 29,024 29,033 -1.573 -1.596 -0.023
2651 16,678 16,993 -1.642 -1.662 -0.020
2652 14,880 14,880 -1.652 -1.674 -0.022
2653 12,528 12,583 -1.666 -1.687 -0.021
2654 25,736 25,940 -1.591 -1.613 -0.022
2655 52,243 54,403 -1.441 -1.456 -0.015
2656 127,601 131,920 -1.015 -1.028 -0.013
2657 155,764 161,681 -0.856 -0.864 -0.008
2658 6,445 6,445 -1.700 -1.721 -0.020
2659 7,700 7,700 -1.693 -1.714 -0.021
2660 7,885 7,885 -1.692 -1.713 -0.021
2661 6,076 6,076 -1.702 -1.723 -0.020
2662 7,336 7,336 -1.695 -1.716 -0.021
2663 5,744 5,744 -1.704 -1.724 -0.020
2664 5,128 5,128 -1.708 -1.728 -0.020
2665 8,175 8,175 -1.690 -1.711 -0.021
2666 19,169 19,169 -1.628 -1.650 -0.022
2667 75,984 75,984 -1.307 -1.337 -0.030
2668 78,027 78,040 -1.296 -1.326 -0.030
2669 75,145 75,145 -1.312 -1.342 -0.030
2670 73,997 73,997 -1.318 -1.348 -0.030
2671 90,947 90,947 -1.223 -1.254 -0.032
2672 162,788 162,679 -0.816 -0.859 -0.042
2673 193,787 193,444 -0.641 -0.689 -0.048
2674 135,125 135,813 -0.973 -1.007 -0.034
2675 22,239 22,650 -1.611 -1.631 -0.020
2676 16,938 16,944 -1.641 -1.663 -0.022
2677 17,100 17,100 -1.640 -1.662 -0.022
2678 12,497 12,497 -1.666 -1.687 -0.021
Summarv Results
No-Build Jobs Accessible IBuild Jobs Accessible
Average 307,235 318,307
Median 327,126 341,062
Standard
Deviation 176,922 181,261

Appendix B: Place Type Definitions from
I magi ne 2040

Place Type Summary Document
Section B- Place Type Palette
`��1�-.�'ylf��" :4 = - •
���.�; `,s �,w � r ,r� _ � � , y.
. _� !� °' -'`� �� � . �� _ � ' �-
,� : _ �re�, �R - � + � ,�� �� �� . : �..s � ��
���' 3� � � �� �ti�d ' � `� . - :�r�i � �'wNsR�,s�d1�'
. ,"
: �
,� �, � ��� � �, � `_ � +� w' °�, � '�
�-_� -�.�, � � �.
' � � - 'a�:y ,.�,'tli.� a & ..��� ,�r.:� ��i����I���` ,._
��� - �� �. . �t'4/. r .
��t-{M{ �T^^j - 1-� �� _;`�..� � ��. �� ��r��i::���'±����.J �����
Y� .
4 ��,r ��Y '�
�'�I;� � . ,A1 �f � � �� y .
.�. i�.�R`' _' " '�
� n,:� • �
;� " � � .�" : ,
° '��� ��:
� b.: ,.
a � � ��' ��
�
� r•' ' "- _- � -�� -� ��"�'�T°�`
s `� � � ;�
r �i� ,� � _ .
�
�y
Aplace type palette was created for Imagine
2040 to identify and describe different
development patterns, types, and intensities
prevalent in the region. Other place types were
added to the palette to represent emerging
development themes or concepts popular in
the region (e.g., transit-oriented development,
traditional neighborhood development, or new
village centers).
The intent of the palette was to include enough
diversity between place types so that participants
would have sufficient means to describe their
vision and plans for the region. The palette
is not intended as an exhaustive list of every
potential place type, and efforts were made to
minimize the number of categories to allow for
a meaningful comparison between development
scenarios.
Place types created for Imagine 2040 include:
• parks and open space
• working farm
• ruralliving
Imagine 2040
,;,.r
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
�
♦�'�r�
`�
�� . - ..r : c7 � ..
�
�.�r° I:�
� ��
•�, ��- '�� <��
�a : ��E +i.i� ti,, _ :
: . , , s:� r�.�,
mobile home park
large-lot residential neighborhood
shade tree residential neighborhood
small-lot residential neighborhood
multi-family residential neighborhood
mixed-density residential neighborhood
urban neighborhood
high-rise residential
rural cross roads
neighborhood commercial center
suburban commercial center
suburban hotel
suburban ofFice center
regional employment center
light industrial center
heavy industrial center
mixed-use neighborhood
mixed-use center
town center
transit-oriented development
metropolitan center
airport
civic and institutional
health care campus
university campus
Detailed descriptions for all twenty-eight place
types are provided on the following pages.
B.I

Parks and Open Space (POS)
Parks and open space include active and passive
land dedicated for conservation. These areas
are typically undisturbed or undeveloped and
have been protected from development by local,
state, and federal agencies or by public, private,
and nonprofit organizations. In the region,
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• state park / wildlife refuge area
• natural area
• wildlife corridor
• greenway
• stormwater retention / detention area
• community park
• athletic fields
Secondary Land Uses
• cemetery
• water dependent, recreation activities
• community park
B.2
❑
these areas include state parks, permanent
conservation areas, park land, athletic fields,
cemeteries, and dedicated open space within
residential neighborhoods.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor N/A
Typical Lot Coverage N/A
Residential Density N/A
Non-Residential Intensity N/A
Prevailing Building Height N/A
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size N/A
Transportation Choices Auto, Bicycle,Wall<ing
Typical Bloci< Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line N/A
Open Space Elemenu NaturalAreas,Greenways
Street Pattern Curvilinear
Street Connectivity Low
Parl<ing Provisions N/A
Typical Street Cross Section Rural/Suburban
General Water Usage N/A
General Sewer Usage N/A
... �� � .i� �,�� _,;�i��r �, ij�.�r�r�� r:,.,� .;,..._
included in the form and �attern table.
Imagine 2040

� ,. :r.� — ;i�-
� . ` � fl ;�
�
�i�,-� ,"'�-�r .,�� � �.• ��r ��� �s`�,. ?� � ;�
�' � j. .
>::H e + ���";:��,��'.� '� � �a .�!
a �,, � ,,, �' �` -._...�„ � ,�
C � t � ,W .`�.,.- , �I '- • <� ,
�
� , � ,n
.� �' �i `�+� t ; ; ��� , � �� — - �, ; ��: ,
�I�`. � � , i ... � !r� n: , � T,� e .
�1���� :•4,�`�- � e�� ' �.
� � , ���� . ��I,
. � r i r � : � �i �.�� � ��� ,
/ ���:c J 7 . r�'iS
.� ,
. � �� 7 � i:r�'" ,,����i
!. �, .. s n �el�i
`�'�� `-=. , .. ,-�
Place Type Palette
There are locations throughout the Triangle
Region identified as parks and open space.
These areas protect the region's natural terrain
and water features, serve as buffers between
incompatible land uses, and provide areas
for active recreation. Notable sites include:
Homestead State Park, Eno River State Park, Lake
Crabtree County Park, Blue Jay Point County Park,
Hemlock Bluffs, and Falls Lake Trail.
There are also properties throughout the region
held in conservation easements or owned outright
with the expressed purpose of preservation.
Imagine 2040 �

Working Farm (WF)
❑
Working farms are acfively being used for primary residence of the property owner and any
agriculture or forestry activities, including out-buildings associated with activities on the
cultivated farmland, timber harvest, livestock, working farm.
or woodlands. These areas also support the
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• cultivated farmland
• timber harvest
• livestock
• woodlands
Secondary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
• warehouse/storage
• light industrial (ancillary to farm activities)
B.4
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 99%
Typical Lot Coverage I-5%
Residential Density 0.05-0.10 D.U's2/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.05-0.10 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I Story
Average Dwelling Unit Size 1,500-2,000 SF'
Average Non-Residential Building Size N/A
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blod< Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Cultivated Farmland, Woodlands
Street Pattern N/A
Street Connectivity Low
Parl<ing Provisions N/A
Typical Street Cross Section Rural
General Water Usage (per SF) Varies
General Sewer UsaQe (per SF) Varies
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F) - Square Feet
Imagine 2040

� � - r . � � � ► � w
� � � f:
� , - ,. .�► :--� ' �-�
' .
. � ' � � � �, ^,� • ..
`"��, � �� �
.IF-.ry. ,� f
y•. a �'.�'"`' ,+/
,� k- �
�� � - Y � '�:�.,�' '� `+� v
� ` ro- �,,, � � Y ��.���`_
, �. �` . . - �.�
a � . �
4, , '
. - � � ►��- ''ir'�'
Place Type Palette
Working farms are typically located in areas
with fertile soils and good drainage. Large and
small farms are scattered throughout the region;
however, their frequency decreases as proximity
to urban centers increases. This is a direct result
of land prices and demand for other uses in urban
areas.
Working farms prevalent in the region produce
hogs, poultry, tobacco, soybean, strawberries,
cotton, peanuts, and small grains.
Imagine 2040 �

Rural Living (RL)
Rural living areas are characterized by large
lots, abundant open space, pastoral views, and
a high degree of separation between buildings.
Residential homes and hobby farms are
scattered throughout the countryside and often
integrated into the natural landscape. The lot
size and separation between buildings decreases
approaching areas with greater development
densities.
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
• mobile home
• hobby farm
Secondary Land Uses
• CIIUCCiI
• natural areas
B.6
❑
Buildings at the edges of most rural areas are
generally oriented toward highways and have
direct access to the adjacent highway through a
private driveway.
More dense development in the place type may
take the form of conservation-based subdivisions
(a.k.a. cluster development), which leave larger
areas for permanent open space and uninterrupted
views of the surrounding countryside.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 99%
Typical Lot Coverage 5-10%
Residential Density 0.05-0.33 D.U'sZlAcre
Non-Residential Intensity N/A
Prevailing Building Height I Story
Average Dwelling Unit Size 1,500-2,000 SF3
Average Non-Residential Building Size I,000-1,500 SF3
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blod< Length 2,500-5,000 LF^
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Cultivated Farmland, Woodlands
Street Pattern Curvilinear
Street Connectivity Low
Parl<ing Provisions Private Driveways
Typical Street Cross Section Rural
General Water Usage (per unit) 250 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit) 250 GPD
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(S.F.) - Square Feet a(�F) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

="-'
'� ... � � �� _
p ..u«_ L14.�
� -
���l��i�1
Place Type Palette
Rural living areas are present throughout
the region. Many people choose to live in
these places as a result of their connection to
agriculture, proximity to natural areas or scenic
views, or the enjoyment of living in a natural
setting.
. 'r
,nii °' ���`,�
'p,_ . . . .i��.�.
,
�' ' �� . ����ii�,� :71 ..
1� 1 . ,.. �'�_r,.
_- ;;. ��;:�.�.
a "d�� � � � �� �"" -.�, � �� ., �.
� � a� r
J� :-_ _ .. ` A ,. - _ .
.. � " ^-_ '`:.�f__ . . - • .r�+'�-.
i � ._ �.� .. _3y _
�� �
.+ P -
� -' . � � . ' . y.- ._ � ` . - �- - -�_ _ ..- �_ � ��
�� s 'T•--_ - _ - _
A1r�
�� _ _ 3
Imagine 2040 �

Mobile Home Community (MHP)
Mobile home parks are characterized by
single-wide and double-wide mobile homes on
individual lots, which may be clustered in an area
owned and managed by a single entity. These
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-wide mobile home
• double-wide mobile home
• modular home
Secondary Land Uses
• community center
• pool and amenities
B.8
❑
neighborhoods are found throughout the region
and often provide an affordable housing option
for residents.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern
Site Efficiency Factor
Typical Lot Coverage
Residential Density
Non-Residential Intensity
Prevailing Building Height
Average Dwelling Unit Size
Average Non-Residential Building Siz
Transportation Choices
Typical Block Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
Parl<ing Provisions
Typical Street Cross Section
General Water Usage (per unit)
General Sewer Usage (per unit)
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
Separated Uses
90-95 %
50-65 %
6-12 D.U:szlAcre
N/A
I Story
500-I,000 SF3
e N/A
Auto
400-800 LF4
Setback Requirements
Greenways, Natural Areas
Curvilinear
Low
Private Driveway
Rural/Suburban
200 GPD
200 GPD
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(S.F.) - Square Feet a(�F) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

� _ ""
-� - �ll _ ` ��
� , j - �'
., �
; $ r �---' ' �
, P - ._ � „�. � :-.. � ,�-�
��
A � ��^ ' ` �� a.l
- � yi _ �
,a ' i�,
r - '
. ,, r � '� � �-. _ � . �
i. � � �' �
� ,�r'�'�:,�'` - �! a�- ;� '1
� � •�1 � �� k �-_ �
e `t�h M I�Y � b �' �—� �. _ � 4 i
.;
1 X �- � � y .��
k�` . - .. � . k �`i.�
� � . ' � �� ��` ' 1�`�
ti � ..
�
Place Type Palette
Mobile home parks are scattered throughout the
region. Some local governments restrict them to
designated areas or districts. It is common for
mobile home communities to be located in both
rural or suburban areas of the region.
� � �' ' "��� " ' �
l 4 �,� �r�1i ' '' � �! ' h� 1�,� �� � n � � � � . � I '�
� 9 � �'}r � , �i + '' ' k'� .J�, ��F . )' I'
'� , �' .'t -+� ..�b�. � � � i �n �� � �' '
� � -�' s � ''�" � �� 14'�{��'1 � �l :
� � � � �,' ,
�� _ '� �'�' ' � . , � � � ��,. � �" '" ` 1 � ' ' �
� ,� ��j,� �� � d -=;,z -_ _ �'
- � . . ... z� �� .� `' � �� ' � ' _
�'� � _ � • _ � � __ �-
�� � �.o��,y�
' _ _ � __ - -- - �- � I�
�� ' ` �W ��� �� �� � � �
� ; �� �,���!� �',�� �� '
9
il
� �
R
N;
�,
�._ _ �._ f
q �-�'rt� � .. �.. —s �
, _�`-� � � � '� I
_. __6 :'•�=s���— - - ._ �- � �
-- � + ' y
��s� _ r� '. �� �� �+ -
,
��
-�,�,� -�� �.� � c ,
� �e� � �
� � �.. � � 1,.
• ' '� °-
^. � �����ti� - - - _ ''�..
� �4 �_�
Imagine 2040 �

Large-Lot, Residential Neighborhood (LLRN)
Large-Lot residential neighborhoods are
generally formed as subdivisions and consist
almost entirely of single-family detached homes.
Buildings are oriented interior to the site and are
typically buffered from surrounding development
by transitional uses, topography, or vegetative
areas.
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
Secondary Land Uses
• CiIUfCII
• SC{lOOI
• community center
• pool and amenities
• natural areas
• horse stable
B.10
❑
Many neighborhoods 'borrow' open space from
adjacent rural or natural setrings.
Blocks are typically large and streets rural or
suburban in character. In some cases, the
neighborhood is served by only one long cul-de-
sac.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern
Site Efficiency Factor
Typical Lot Coverage
Residential Density
Non-Residential Intensity
Prevailing Building Height
Average Dwelling Unit Size
Average Non-Residential Building Size
Transportation Choices
Typical Blod< Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
Parl<ing Provisions
Typical Street Cross Section
General Water Usage (per unit)
General Sewer Usage (per unit)
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
Separated Uses
85-95%
30-65 %
0.33-I.00 D.U'sz/Acre
N/A
I -3 Stories
2,500-7,000 SF3
N/A
Auto
800- I ,500 LF^
Setback Requirements
Greenways, Natural Areas
Curvilinear
Low
Private Driveway
Rural or Suburban
250 GPD
200 GPD
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(S.F.) - Square Feet a(�F) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

Place Type Palette
Large-lot, residential neighborhoods are generally
found on the fringes of rural or suburban living
areas. They are traditionally auto-dependent,
with low street connectivity and an abundance of
cul-de-sacs.
Imagine 2040 �

ShadeTree, Residential Neighborhood (STRN)
Shade tree, residential neighborhoods include
homes built in the post-WWII era on streets
now with mature trees. They are found in close
proximity to traditional urban centers, and
provide the rooftops necessary to support nearby
commercial and employment areas. Home
architecture, building setbacks, and lot size and
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
Secondary Land Uses
• duplex
• mobile hoome
• CiIUfCII
• SC{lOOI
• community center
• parl< or playground
• natural areas
B.12
■
width may vary within the same neighborhood.
Lakes, parkland, and community buildings (e.g.,
schools, churches, or community centers) are
prevalent features in the neighborhood. Large
blocks and curvilinear streets make shade-
tree, residential neighborhoods typically auto-
dependent.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 25-65%
Residential Density I-4 D.U'sZ/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity N/A
Prevailing Building Height I-2 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 1,500-2,500 SF3
Average Non-Residential Building Size N/A
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blod< Length 800-1,500 LF^
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Greenways, Natural Areas
Street Pattern Modified Grid
Street Connectivity Medium
Parl<ing Provisions Private Driveway
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban
General Water Usage (per unit) 250 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit) 200 GPD
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(S.F.) - Square Feet a(�F) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

Place Type Palette
Shade tree, residential neighborhoods in the
Triangle-Region were generally developed
between the 1950s and1970s in places like Apex,
Cary, and Morrisville.
Imagine 2040 �

Small-Lot, Residential Neighborhood (SLRN)
Small-lot, residential neighborhoods are generally
formed as subdivisions or communities, with
a relatively uniform housing type and density
throughout. They are often found in close
proximity to commercial and suburban ofFice
centers, and provide the rooftops necessary to
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
• townhome
• duplex
Secondary Land Uses
• CiIUfCII
• SCI100I
• community center
• pool and amenities
• natural areas
B.14
n
support the centers. Homes are oriented interior
to the neighborhood and are typically buffered
from surrounding development by transitional
uses or landscaped areas.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern
Site Efficiency Factor
Typical Lot Coverage
Residential Density
Non-Residential Intensity
Prevailing Building Height
Average Dwelling Unit Size
Average Non-Residential Building Size
Transportation Choices
Typical Blod< Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattei-n
Street Connectivity
Parl<ing Provisions
Typical Street Cross Section
General Water Usage (per unit)
General Sewer Usage (per unit)
Separated Uses
80-90 %
25-65%
I-5 D.U:s�/Acre
N/A
I -2 Stories
1,500-3,500 SF3
N/A
Auto
600- I ,200 LF4
Setback Requirements
Greenways, Natural Areas
Curvilinear
Low
Private Driveway
Rural or Suburban
250 GPD
200 GPD
� ,. ,: � _ �
induded in the form and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(S.F.) - Square Feet a(�F) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

,s ��,,
'� �,; om '� _ ����-
��+ 3< <
�rr_ - -
� �: _. i
d �_ 4 ��', — o -
��_ � � :��� r�� �, _
�. _ ,� �a_ �, p, , � �
$.
j �,,.��E�� ��"'• =
, .,� . _-
; ��•�'' ,� �`'i�. � ';
- , : . � _.�a.
Place Type Palette
Small-lot, residential neighborhoods are found
near suburban commercial and office centers.
They often locate near schools or parks and tend
to have reasonable access to major commuter
corridors. Ideally, these neighborhoods are
marketed as having better than average commute
times.
Imagine 2040 �

Multi-Family Residential Neighborhood (MFRN)
Multi-family residential neighborhoods are
generally formed as complexes or communities,
with a relatively uniform housing type and
density throughout. They support the highest
residential density in the suburban landscape, and
may contain one of the following housing types:
condominiums, townhomes, senior housing, or
apartments.
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• apartment
• townhome
• condominium
• senior housing
Secondary Land Uses
• CilUfCil
• community center
• pool and amenities
• natural areas
B.16
❑
Multi-family suburban neighborhoods are found
in close proximity to suburban commercial and
office centers, and provide the rooftops necessary
to support various suburban commercial and
office uses within the centers. Buildings are
oriented interior to the site and are typically
buffered from surrounding development by
transitional uses or landscaped areas. Large
parking lots and low street connectivity are
common in multi-family suburban neighborhoods.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 90-95%
Typical Lot Coverage 30-60%
Residential Density 6.0-16.0 D.U:s�/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity N/A
Prevailing Building Height I-4 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 800-1,500 SF3
Average Non-Residential Building Size N/A
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blod< Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
600- I ,200 LF^
Setback Requirements
Greenways, Neighborhood Park
Modified Grid
Medium
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot / On-Street Parl<ing
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban
General Water Usage (per unit) 220 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit) 180 GPD
included in the form and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(S.F.) - Square Feet '(LF) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

_===�`_ _
� .��
� : _ �.
- - '�+ � � ::} =
� �.;_ � ,� � � ��
- - �i.,,.,� Afi..
. .. ,N Rj' 4� ' ' �r'� ���
- - - ,,'�':• --u:� .T �
` � � � I � �+�` � � �
� � Ir � �
-_ . �.� _
,. . �.:�r_�` �. �.
� �
�� ' ' -- - ', —
- � •�� ' � -+.
—'-�: ;��,I���--. ''' i
f � �
� � _+y.. �.,._,., `j �,.
�i
_ . �aa. . .; +���
� �
—_ ' . . . � � . . .
...
�: t � �
_—. ,
__ _.
....�!', .- � _ t
IX— � � .. _ _ _ .i _ � .
��� F�� �.
.-.I t
J�._�.-,.�._� .. l� �I __
' � iw - y •f _ ' _ . 'E-�-0[
.Mv- AF __ . . -_ t. _ ,
.� _ . ..
Place Type Palette
Multi family residentia! neighborhoods are
often found near various suburban commercia!
and office centers. They are found throughout
the region; often on or near major commuter
corridors or near highway interchanges that offer
better than average commute times.
i
,r,r'^,�� �
�'::c... f�
I � ���
�°''.
� �. �
� Y.
Imagine 2040 �

Mixed-Density Residential Neighborhood (MRN)
Mixed-density residential neighborhoods are
characterized by a variety of housing types and
residential densities organized in a cohesive,
well-connected community. Neighborhoods are
generally designed to promote a wide range
of housing choices in the region. Homes are
oriented interior to the site and are typically
buffered from surrounding development by
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or condifional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
• townhome
• condominium
• apartment
• duplex
Secondary Land Uses
• natural areas
• community center
• pool and amenities
• SCilOOI
• CiIUCCII
B.18
❑
transition uses or landscaped areas. Small blocks
and a modified grid of streets support multiple
modes of transportation.
Mixed-density residential neighborhoods are
found in close proximity to suburban commercial
and suburban ofiFice centers, and provide the
rooftops necessary to support commercial and
office uses within the centers.
Form & Pattern1
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mix of HousingTypes
Site Efficiency Factor 85-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 0-40%
Residential Density 4-12 D.U'sz/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity N/A
Prevailing Building Height I-3 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 1,500-2,000 SF'
Average Non-Residential Building Size
Transportation Choices
Typical Block Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
NA
Auto, Walking
400- I ,200 LF4
Setbacl< Requirements
Neighborhood Parks/ Greenways/
Storm Corridors
Modified Grid
High
Parl<ing Provisions Privace Driveway, Surface Lot
Typical Street Cross Section N/A
General Water Usage (per unit) 225 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit) 200 GPD
included in the form and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(S.F.) - Square Feet '(LF) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

� ;� _,,� �
�,—; . � _._,�,� � � � �.
- :���� a =
���x��
�� .r:
� ' -� : �y�
�-
��� �-�,�
� - _- --
� . - _,
� ;.
.� 1� �M M1 �. _L� � [: � t y � A _'
�, f �
�'.�, . r �-;,r '��, . ,: �� ��' �'7:. `�`:.
� ,� ��eao� � , �, .?� �
�;���I���! Y ��,- �� �� � �.
fi�
�;�;,� � -� ,'' ��__'� . 1i.
� i i _.J ,,J �; „ ., � � r� :....
��. `_��� - ,
- ,I ��
�j� _.. _ y �:. - � �
!� � — —
�, ��� ��.�
� �� � �
�'_ � � -
�—� I �
� �
'}L
_ ' i �
� ,'� � �
� � �' �
Place Type Palette
Mixed-density residential neighborhoods are
found near suburban commercial and office
centers. They often locate near schools or parks
and tend to have reasonable access to major
commuter corridors. Ideally, these neighborhoods
are better than average commute times.
��-.__
_— - � . 1
- , � � i� � r.� '�
- I �� - . I
.Y I �
� ��� �� ��r� �
� tl. � �� i �
- 1 �.
`p � .. , . ,. _ ���� ar�. `� __
�� ._ _ ii� .- s
. w_.� � �° ._
� ��n `-i' ' � �i..
' - � . "� 5 r . � � �' 7. �- t-', �. .
� ? �"'''^�• _ _ _ _
Imagine 2040 �

Urban Neighborhood (UN)
Urban neighborhoods support a mix of
moderate- to high-density housing options.
These neighborhoods are relatively compact,
and may contain one or more of the following
housing types: small lot, single family detached,
townhomes, condominiums, or apartments.
Buildings are generally oriented toward the
street.
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
• townhome
• duplex
• apartment
• condominium
Secondary Land Uses
• CiIUfCII
• SC{lOOI
• pocketparks
B.20
❑
The design and scale of development in an
urban neighborhood encourages acfive living
with a complete and comprehensive network of
walkable streets. Cul-de-sacs are restricted to
areas where topography, environment, or existing
development makes other street connections
prohibifive.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mix of Uses
Site E�ciency Factor� 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage•'` 30-65%
Residential Density 6-10 D.U:sZ/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity N/A
Prevailing Building Height I-3 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size I,000-2,000 SF3
Average Non-Residential Building Size N/A
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blocl< Length 300-600 LF"
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Greenways, Neighborhood Park
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot, Private Driveway
Typical Street Cross Section Urban
General Water Usage (per unit) 225-250 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit) 180-200 GPD
included in the form and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(S.F.) - Square Feet '(LF) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

Place Type Palette
Urban neighborhoods are traditionally located
near the edge of urban centers or downtowns.
They often represent the first tier of residential
development around a central city, town, or
courthouse area and are well served by a series of
streets connecting the central city and post WWII
era suburbs.
Imagine 2040 �

High-Rise Residential (HRR)
High-rise residential areas support the highest
residential densities in the region outside of
metropolitan centers. They generally include one
building surrounded by surface parl<ing, which can
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• apartment
• condominium
Secondary Land Uses
• senior housing
• ground floor retail
• pocket park
B.22
❑
easily be seen for some distance from the site.
Some high-rise residential buildings may include
parl<ing decks. Apartments and condominiums
occupy high-rise residential towers in the region.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Patter
Site Efficiency Factor
Typical Lot Coverage
Residential Density
Non-Residential Intensity
Prevailing Building Height
Average Dwelling Unit Size
Average Non-Residential Building Size
Transportation Choices
Typical Blocl< Length
Setbacl< or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
Parking Provisions
Typical Street Cross Section
General Water Usage (per unit)
General Sewer Usage (per unit)
included in the form and �attern table.
Mix of Uses
90-95 %
85-95 %
28-100 D.U'szlAcre
N/A
10-25 Stories
800-2,000 SF3
N/A
Auto,Wall<ing, Transit
N/A
Build to Line Requirements
Pocket Parks, Public Plazas
N/A
N/A
Surface Lot/Parl<ing Decl<
Urban
180 GPD
150 GPD
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(S.F.) - Square Feet
Imagine 2040

� _ : : ;� =_.s.J,� ,�*� �'
=�,� �" � `i"�'�� � x" -�`'•' �
_ �` ��� `��
� �—. ,,;��,,,
}_ _
�
!�� ��. ��
`��!
Place Type Palette
High-rise residential areas outside metropolitan
centers are limited in the Triangle Region. Exist-
ing developments include , ,
and .
Imagine 2040 �

Rural Cross Roads (RCR)
Rural cross roads represent the small nodes
of commercial activity along rural highways.
Small-scale businesses, such as gas stations,
convenience stores, or restaurants, serve some
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• gas station
• sit down restaurant
• convenience store
• hardware store
Secondary Land Uses
• fire station
• post office
• general government center
B.24
❑
daily needs of the surrounding rural population.
Employment and other commercial needs for
rural residents are provided for in other suburban
commercial and suburban office centers.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 90-95%
Typical Lot Coverage 10-25%
Residential Density N/A
Non-Residential Intensity 0.10-0.20 FAR2
Prevailing Building Height I Story
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size I,000-2,000 SF3
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blocl< Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Natural Areas, Stream Corridors
Street Pattern Curvilinear
Street Connectivity Low
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Parking Lot
Typical Street Cross Section Rural
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.034 GPD
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
Imagine 2040

�� � �
�LR[ J ' . y.
j1,'i +l R ' ,
� ��_ .-- . �""� •Y _ .__ .
� � �� �
�� � �� ,.1
, - "�i � � � �i , �,,�- _i� �� r� �i 1' I
"`- �, " r ;�� ��UI�'iW �J79 I��
�r-- � -__ _ �:. . _ �•,., �,V�K�r��—
■■i�r■����� ' � �
����r�r[��,��' `��
"T' � �! ""�' I:s"'_'� T''-��. .T �= � - _
��:����,�'1
���a��
y ��_
�' � �
� ''' `�'.�
�� �, i � �: �� �,
i � �
Place Type Palette
Rural cross roads are generally located near the
intersection of two farm-to-market roads (i.e.,
rural highways) where small-scale commercial
uses are often clustered.
.. _ _ ' •,:; �; � � - �-- _ _
, -;;� : ,
., . ,,� ',� '.f 1� �
- �= � �, -
, � � - --. - , ., ' � , � .
Imagine 2040 �

Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC)
Small scale, neighborhood commercial centers
provide goods and services to surrounding
neighborhoods. Their proximity to neighborhoods
requires that operations be low-intensity,
unobtrusive, and at a scale and design compatible
with nearby residential development. The design
of neighborhood commercial centers transitions
effectively between residential and non-residential
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• sit down restaurant
• community-serving retail
• small supermarket
• convenience store
• dry cleaner
• bank
• barber shop
Secondary Land Uses
• farmers market
• pocketpark
❑
uses, and includes safe and convenient pedestrian
and bicycle access for nearby residents. While
this is primarily a commercial category, some
neighborhood commercial centers may include
upper story residential. Sites also effectively
minimize the impact of cut through traffic on
nearby neighborhood streets by orienting vehicle
access, circulation, etc. toward away from the
neighborhood.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Patter Mix of Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 25-35%
Residential Density 10-15 D.U'sZlAcre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.50-I.00 FAR3
Prevailing Building Height I-2 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 5,000-20,000 SF4
Transportation Choices Auto,Walking, Bicycle, Bus
Typical Blocl< Length 400-I,000 LFS
Setbacl< or Build-To Line Build to Line Requirements
Open Space Elements Pocket Parks, Public Plazas
Street Pattern Modified Grid
Street Connectivity
H igh
Parking Provisions Surface Lot/On-Street Parl<ing
Typical Street Cross Section Urban
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.034 GPD
_ , _. � , �.� _ ,._ ,���, �� . . �,��,�,�, , . , . � , �
included in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
`r;!,�1 . !_in�=�;.. r,;,s
� Imagine 2040

�ii � � i� i�
�.
�T`;_:. . L -31 I :
�� �
��� ��s
� �
����� ��
��::���.� ��.
�
��
��
� ����
:T_�
Place Type Palette
Neighborhood commercial centers are generally
located adjacent to residential neighborhoods
near major street intersections. Existing village
centers in the region include , ,
and .
.������}- �'�,
� � �
� �`," ��
��� '� t -
` -�,���„ E,�, - _ � �
-� _ - i�,. ,� `„�'�' _- _
� - i' �
� '� �
�. r
� �� �
�
� .,; . , �
�
Imagine 2040 �

Suburban Commercial Center (SCC)
Suburban commercial centers serve the daily
needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods
They typically locate near high-volume roads
and key intersections, and are designed to be
accessible primarily by automobile. Buildings
are set back from the road behind large surface
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• general commercial services
• sit down or fast food restaurant
• multi-tenant commercial
• big box commercial
• bank
• hotel
• professional office
Secondary Land Uses
• CilUfCil
• fire station
• police station
■
parking lots, with little or no connectivity
between adjacent businesses. Common types
of suburban centers in the region include multi-
tenant strip centers, big box stores, and large
shopping malls.
Form & Pattern
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern
Site Efficiency Factor
Typical Lot Coverage
Residential Density
Non-Residential Intensity
Prevailing Building Height
Average Dwelling Unit Size
Average Non-Residential Building Size
Transportation Choices
Typical Blod< Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
Parl<ing Provisions
Typical Street Cross Section
General Water Usage (per SF)
General Sewer Usage (per SF)
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
Separated Uses
80-90%
20-40%
N/A
0.15-0.25 FARZ
I -2 Stories
N/A
10,000-300,000 SF3
Auto
N/A
Setback Requirements
Natural Areas
N/A
N/A
Surface Lot
Suburban
0.039 GPD
0.034 GPD
� Imagine 2040

, _. ,�a�
� _,
� ��i:t'l7a I - � � �
�}f � �' ',-r`,
������ — . ,��
��.e _,-- — �
Place Type Palette
Suburban commercial centers typically locate
near high-volume roads, key intersections, and
highway interchanges. They are often surrounded
by residential development and other suburban
commercial uses, and most sites are chosen to
maximize vehicular access.
Imagine 2040 �

Suburban Hotel (SH)
Suburban hotels provide short term lodging to
the general public, and may include one or more
buildings surrounded by surface parking lots. The
buildings are generally oriented interior to the
site and can be seen for some distance. They
tend to locate near high-volume roads and key
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• ilOte�
• motel
Secondary Land Uses
• sit-down restaurant
• fast-food restaurant
• fitness club
• small scale retail
• gas station
B.30
■
intersections, and are designed to be accessible
primarily by automobile. Common types of
hotels in the region include: business hotel,
motel, and extended-stay hotel. Several hotels
also include one or more ancillary uses such as
conference centers, sit-down restaurants, or night
clubs.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separate Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 30-50%
Residential Density N/A
Non-Residential Intensity 0.2-I.00 FARZ
Prevailing Building Height 2-8 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 15,000-125,000 SF3
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Block Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Natural Areas
Street Pattern N/A
Street Connectivity N/A
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot, Parl<ing Deck
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.034 GPD
� ,. ,: � _ �
induded in the form and �attern table.
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
Imagine 2040

�� -� �' �, ` �. '�. ° " f
, '�' � j . .fi
T'�'4 ��" �� � � T��
r
� . _ .. � ��. �
� ��
�v � i �
� y � ti
i tr°� , x i�� ry ��,, 1
� � r
— �� ��� � �''��� ..'� Jr
' , �� _- - �'. - �'. ��� �
� _�� � L� � � `� �• . �
...�ro . � �� - �� .,`';�� �.n _ �
�, �
...L�4 ti. � . .-.. ��� i�
��-� �� xs G �'�:�,�+`. - � - �
� iw� �' s`-� .u. ;.,. .. , � T -_ . I
Place Type Palette
Hotel and lodging areas are present throughout
the region, mostly along major thoroughfares
and at interstate interchanges. Hotels and
motels along Airport Boulevard immediately
south of Raleigh-Durham Internafional Airport
and Interstate 40 provide some examples for the
region.
_ � . ' ��Fy� .,,. _ . v
�� k -
���' '� ,,' - � . .
� � ��i _ _ �_—' -. ,� `�,� ,;
�' # a i K'� � � i �' �� � ,� ,
� °�� ' �'
; ,a � � i � � � ,.. ; �i
� �'� � � �'�� ' � 1�� II, I ��I� � •...:. �' �'ti 9 �
�� � J y �d
� � r4p ��I r7J ^_ 12II, �� �` � �� ��. � ��� y�.��.,�
� � ! I � �r�� rs�
� � � � � � , � � �� .� S• T ' � � � 7 � � � � i � � � � � � � � � 5 l �iP
e���i W � � �I � � � � � � .
� .�S � � .. �. ...�-- � .
{�s- .. 1��" _ `E :� �` ..���' . —�'� '��: r "� - __ " j..`", •
� '�. � _ � � n3
#= . �� , '� y �� i�; '�� � ; ' �
��. '
: -�,i�i, '-� " �� ' _ �' ' - _
e �; � _ ��. �- � = �
I=� � � . �-
�.r - - ' �_` — _ —�� .
. _ '` �.
��� _ � _ , � . s- � �� ,
�- �
y� � �;' � t, , - t
� .
a �
S."� � � _ . . ;.� � ;�,, _ .. � ..
. _ +�i's... �, � �, � � p
��
. -� � 't� �P.'. �J��` . .
�—L _ ' _'
Imagine 2040
: �
B.3 I

Suburban Office Center (SOC)
Suburban office centers provide opportunities
to concentrate employment in the region on
normal workdays. They include both large-scale
isolated buildings with numerous employees
as well as areas containing multiple businesses
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• multi-tenant professional ofFice
• medical ofFice
• corporate ofFice
• call center
• research and development
Secondary Land Uses
• bank
• copy and printing services
• sit down or fast food restaurant
• flex space
• general government services
B.32
■
that support and serve one another. They are
typically buffered from surrounding development
by transitional uses or landscaped areas and
are often located in close proximity to major
highways or thoroughfares.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 25-65%
Residential Density N/A
Non-Residential Intensity 0.20-I.00 FARZ
Prevailing Building Height I-3 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-100,000 SF3
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blod<Length 800-1,200 LF^
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Pocket Parl<s/Landscape Buffers
Street Pattern Curvilinear
Street Connectivity Low
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.074 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.064 GPD
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet '(LF.) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

��
,�; :1�1�L a
� � I��
■
j ; ��E.:. . _ , � �7
��{�_ � l�� � �e� i �� ��•
�f jRA� � �� Y'��,����l�n,` �� ` P'F = il:i:
�',i��.:��' �`�dK �s:..aq,�.7 _ .-
- �•- �' � : a: �`.
�.. _ ��` Ya� , : . � �� -:: � �
x ___- :_� `� ���
� �.
..r� : _, ve:.+a�• � �4 - ��-. � �{..� �.
��� �� �� �� ���
��
� � �� '��
_ _ _ �. �y����
Place Type Palette
Suburban office centers are typically located near
major thoroughfares or suburban commercial
uses. Accessibility to urban centers, employment
service populations, and access to regional
transportation (i.e., interstates and intrastate
highways, and airportsJ are often site selection
criteria for suburban office uses.
,
j --
I �' �
- ��� �� ��
�� , - _
� ��� '� ��I � � -
I�� ■■� ���, _ -_ .,
� ■■�I�� � =���. __:
�.- � -�� � ��� �� . ���A{ �: �� �!
_ _ � l� �V' � - L �� � � � �` � � � c� �� -
����i k^�� IC� • � �'7�' r�„� +� �_�?
�-� Y �
. `r"`"�-$P�`��
_ ��J _�
.� ' �4'=' - _ '�'" �c'+�'�.,�J�
�'- .'�. ,. � s. . -. a'S .�.�'i:T"",#
Imagine 2040 �

Regional Employment Center (REC)
A regional employment center draws people
from throughout the region (and beyond)
for employment activities. The large-scale
development, which includes a hierarchy of
streets, large sites for a building or group
of buildings, and supporting amenities and
dedicated open space. Centers tend to locate
near major transportation corridors and often
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• professional ofFice
• corporate campus
• research and development
• government buildings
Secondary Land Uses
• small retail uses
• restaurants
■
at the intersection of two major highways or an
interstate exit. Uses in a regional employment
center vary greatly; however, most complement
each other in some manner for increased
learning, production, or other economies of scale.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separate Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 70-85%
Typical Lot Coverage 25-65%
Residencial Density N/A
Non-Residential Intensity 0.10-0.50 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I-10 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 50,000-500,000 SF^
Transportation Choices Auto,Walking,Transit
Typical Blocl< Length 800-3,000 LFS
Setback or Build-To Line Setbacl< Requirements
Open Space Elements Pocl<et Parks, Greenways
Street Pattern Curvilinear
Street Connectivity Low
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot, Parking Decl<
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban/Rural
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.074 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.064 GPD
induded in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
`r;!,�1 . !_in�=�;.. r,;,s
� Imagine 2040

�. � #, �� �
, � ��:
`; _. �;��,��Y
W"i���' . -
�I,� a;.fi, �.�. !
_ ' 'r � -
� ����:���9�P ' . . �
y_-. t,� a� t - ' a
{ �f'.���^ � �. � r 'r� � �1' � '/
(yt1
��� �r� � � � —v�`aE��Fr;1 :
.��� Q J. '} �,.Fy� I � �
� �.r, .1 h ! � .�r" i �
.'Ir� �y �_�a �, �l .� L .�
. �" ' ..... . .� r
�� ' i
_ F
��
` . �_ i ��_�` .
� _ i
�' \
� j Y�� -.� ..�j..
� r�'?�•' �� , :�::::`.-.a�,r,:;1IE'
Place Type Palette
Regional employment centers represent large
tracts of land with good access to major
thoroughfares, interstates, or railroad facilities.
The Research Triangle Park is an example of a
very large regional employment center in the
Triangle Region.
'�� ,
_ - �_
- � � r �,� �
_ '� - � __ �
— � 71
� .
� I
� ' � ■
� - �� � �
� I - _ �_ .. � � 1 _ �
�,
_ �J � f t
�� 7' � Ill
� � �� .- l�1 I
� � � ! ..i
�3_- _ � �[
- � �._� � •
. — — - _ �,�� y -. - � - �
�I
■ .. .
__ _s�� '
�
„�
� �_
�� i� u r
�.� � �
T�
� � _ — �.
� ■� �
�
Imagine 2040 �

Light Industrial Center (LI)
Light Industrial centers provide opportunities
to concentrate employment in the region on
normal worl<days. Each center generally supports
manufacturing and production uses, including
warehousing, light manufacturing, medical
research, and assembly operations. These
areas are found in close proximity to major
transportation corridors (i.e., highway or rail)
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• light manufacturing and assembly
• processing facilities
• laboratory
• warehouse
• distribution
Secondary Land Uses
• small scale commercial uses
• natural areas
B.36
❑
and are generally buffered from surrounding
development by transitional uses or landscaped
areas that shield the view of structures, loading
docks, or outdoor storage from adjacent
properties. Clusters of uses that support or serve
one another are often encouraged to locate in
the same light industrial center.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separated Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 15-65%
Residential Density N/A
Non-Residential Intensity 0.10-0.20 FARz
Prevailing Building Height I-2 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N(A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-50,000 SF'
Transportation Choices Auto,Trucl<s
Typical Block Length 800- I,200 LF4
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Landscape Buffers
Street Pattern Curvilinear
Street Connectivity Low
Parking Provisions Surface Lot
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.079 GPD
General Sewer Usage 0.069 GPD
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet '(LF.) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

,�'��
-_ � ' � �.� .
`- r � T .
� ei n i.
;=;-_.- _ l l �� ��� Y�� i
�-� '�,��:;� �r
� � �" �:^.+� � �.�.�
t...
��
�
� � � = I�
�i_�/�e�� A ' -. '� _ �
Imagine 2040
Place Type Palette
Light industrial centers are found near major
transportation corridors (i.e., highways or
railJ and in locations where water and sewer
service is available. They tend to locate away
from residential areas but within a reasonable
commuting distance of employees.
Light industrial uses also are prevalent near
airports and commercial centers and along
designated trucking routes.
��
�� �
���'''�a+�,�`�` �;� �
��_- — – -- _ �
B.37

Heavy Industrial Center (HI)
Heavy industrial centers support large-scale
manufacturing and production uses, including
assembly and processing, regional warehousing
and distribution, bulk storage, and utilities.
These areas are found in close proximity to
major transportation corridors (e.g., highways
or railroads) and are generally buffered from
surrounding development by transitional
uses or landscaped areas that increase in size
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• factory
• heavy assembly plant
• construction contractor
• regional warehouse
• regional distribution and trucking
• landfill
Secondary Land Uses
• small scale commercial uses
• natural areas
B.38
❑
as development intensity increases. Heavy
industrial centers may require larger sites
because activities are not confined entirely to
buildings. Conveyer belts, holding tanks, smoke
stacks, or outdoor storage all may be present
in a heavy industrial center. Clusters of uses
that support or serve heavy industrial centers
generally locate in close proximity.
Form & Pattern
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern
Site Efficiency Factor
Typical Lot Coverage
Residential Density
Non-Residential Intensity
Prevailing Building Height
Average Dwelling Unit Size
Average Non-Residential Building Size
Transportation Choices
Typical Blocl< Length
Setback or Build-To Line
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
Parl<ing Provisions
Typical Street Cross Section
General Water Usage (per SF)
General Sewer Usage (Per SF)
induded in the forrn and �attern table.
Separated Uses
80-90%
I 0-40 %
N/A
0.10-0.20 FARz
I -2 Stories
N/A
20,000-300,000 SF'
Auto,Trucl<s
800- I ,200 LF�
Setback Requirements
Landscape Buffers
Curvilinear
Low
Surface Lot
Suburban
0.079 GPD
0.069 GPD
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet '(LF.) - Linear Feet
Imagine 2040

Place Type Palette
Heavy industrial centers tend to require
efficient access to trucking routes and regional
transportation facilities. They locate near
major transportation corridors (e.g., highways,
interstates and/or railroads). They are generally
located away from residential neighborhoods
and often are found near other industrial uses.
.- , __ - -- - - -
�—� 1 _
--�� ^ _ _
• _ -- �
_ zF_ _ ' �_��<<
._ 3,' ._�4�%�'� � � � � j c . -. � _ . G - �
S�s J �"
s !
� � . ' .` �� � " - .
- _ � � , �' -� _ �ii _ � i _
W r
�,� ,��.
�� a�,� � �
� `
. ,,,,
. _ �
- a.w � � ��# �
�, ��� ' , � '�,. �7��� - _ . �
'_ .},. fy + ��' i 2� �.. -. - - � �rp {_�� � � J
, . �; ', . , ,_ „�.. � + . � .� , � -s ��.
� i°. . -
�i�� � . , ��±�,1N ' �Ir�,x►y'i�'..-- ��T�`2�.
__ �' ��� - - r �s �.�r�° ,�� � , � ..
u { �c;. - �, �> � - ° ; � ` _ *�, . � . E _ ��i`+ r '�� � `,
. ��" �� �� _ ��'�' ,: �� , ``��
��
_ . ,, �� - � y � � t,,i. c;
� -, s + __- _ aa� , - ,
fi .j C�� � -. ^ - ,y ��.�IA'!'u .-•=� • • � '
.��* �.� x � �} `� p`�'r,r.p�. f�'+�.tF ' � -�
�, ,-z�=t`" �K -, ��R j�, � � ;�'s'_,�i+'
_ -f "���' - .�f • . — !��- _ ��t� .��
_ ,� � . �'I '� � .
� . � j . � � � � - ��.� �{ � � _: '�+•`�+tc . .s
,� +
',�,� "�� -t. _ � ,� � � 1 i� j•`,�� h _
� - . . - � 1+5.+r, � i _ �.i. �. � � � „ .
�P � �� �.. ��� , �'F, 1 . r . �� ' , ' ,� � . .
..�. � _ �..�. r � , i.l�y� '� ' � �� S�� ,"� �► r j� f"��, ' �
, � r � �Y � . , fi � � �' ;, - ��.
�� .� t � s,�r 1�T '� � � - � •� ,.
-
#, r ",j ,yi � �ii- 'r � �r �
-
� � � a �r— 1*j �: `_ ' - � ; . - —' . ` y
�' � '' �.' -��'�: r'� �;� : ;, ,� � , -'� .s.t . � . �� � - �� �;:
Imagine 2040 �

Mixed - Use Neighborhood (MUN)
A mixed-use neighborhood offers residents
the ability to live, shop, work, and play in one
community. These neighborhoods include a
mixture of housing types and residential densities
integrated with goods and services in a walkable
community that residents visit on a daily basis.
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• single-family detached home
• condominium
• apartment
• townhome
• sit down restaurant
• neighborhood-serving commercial
• professional ofFice
• government building
Secondary Land Uses
• CilUfCil
• SCilOOI
• pocket park
• community park
• natural areas
B.40
❑
The design and scale of the development
encourages active living through a comprehensive
and interconnected network of walkable streets.
Mixed-use neighborhoods support multiple
modes of transportation.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mix of Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 35-60%
Residential Density 4-12 D.U's2lAcre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.50-1.50 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I-4 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size I,000-3,000 SF4
Average Non-Residential Building Size 8,000-50,000 SF'
Transportation Choices Auto,Wall<ing, Bicycle,Transit (Bus)
Typical Block Length 300-1,200 LFS
Setback or Build-To Line Build to Line Requirement
Open Space Elemencs Pocket Parl<s, Public Plazas,Amphitheater
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface LotlFormal On-Street Parking/
Shared ParkingAgreements
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban/Urban
General Water Usage (per unidSF) 225/0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit/SF) 200/0.034 GPD
� � ,�� �; ,, _ . �i:���;r�_.. , � � ,__.
induded in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
`r;!,�1 . !_in�=�;.. r,;,s
Imagine 2040

�
Place Type Palette
Mixed-use neighborhoods can be found near
suburban and urban neighborhoods, commercial
centers, and suburban office centers. They often
locate near schools or parks and tend to have
reasonable access to major commuter corridors.
Ideally these neighborhoods are marketed as
having better than average commute times with
multiple transportation choices, including access
to transit. The uses within the development's
center are accessible to local populations by
car, walking, and bicycling. Existing mixed-
use neighborhoods in the region include
Meadowmont (Chapel Hill), Carpenter Vlllage
(Morrisville), and Southern Vlllage (Chapel Hi11J.
' , ' '� -� -- 71` � �
� .. _ :, �' f--v �.: le ... . .. _ - _ . a �. �
� q
� � .� � „ I � =rt F
.. _ - � - I � _,� �._ _ ". - ".;R,:�' "�"_."""�.i.i. "��.�� . . V?'
M�� � . F � _ � �
. �:
i, �� � ,- ;7� �' -»v �� ,X,`�:'
� � � � ��� _ _
� � . . �,� �..� � �
� � ��� �� �y ,�.� � x ` � . . ��. . .- ;� ,�r '�' � � d I I
y �� za. i - _i', �� ���' � '��
.�17p '� F� i
� . . :. � -
i �
,'� -, . o ° *� � ,
. � � � t e�. �►�r'�:�`'
� . .� L -�* ,•`�. _.K �- �1.. E �� ! �6 �-f'rI�I . , I
� ,T;` '4 y y� i� �' �' a � - �, e�-� , . 1 0 �
t .-r` . _ � ,,,,:;i-_ �, . . �t..'�. ��,f� � r� . �
� ��
� � �.. � , y .t�
�,, - - � "" -� �- .` ��3 ��� � �ti
• � .�. t L L , �� �� �' � � a� J:'� ^ •� �r,.
� -.. . � �, � � ��/' �'� _ r x
��� : t''� �� �. - , � � � ' ?'' irt �?`i�5':• >* ,,�. � ��'
� • 1@ ._
.... , _
' r.- y�. . . y .� i. � yµ, �tiy, ' "
. `
,��.•._ � . -�, �.. . �„ -:'.7 � '� �+i' -
` ���- i '�� h -- �1% � � /� .�tv �r �� � '�
��. 1►� �� a ��� -� � , , ; .. �� .' f �� ; ,
,
.._: � �!� t .�� .^ � . _ .�,r .A. _ , . .�W� �, „ -'` �'r:.,�
� � f'�7
� �r. , �-_ra,���y'~' �". r.\ �a ��_ ��' �, � " �.�n
....��� � ." � • .!� ' :' i^hp., �p .
' �f 1 F Y ` ` '`�� .� � � ; Y, '� /'1� , �� `7�� :�n+
�¢ � 4�g �\'� �' n'� . . y �
� G `"� -- �,�'� �.. ��� � _f �.. � �.r� . � � ��� - .:
4 `'i � • �` 9YaGy�n,r `��' � ( � �'' .r ��
'� � - � � '� r,', ° � !
-. � ,R u t: ,' .�ee' � " `�` % '.
� �
�'� ` � ;� °�"; - � `� . _ � �� ` � •.
\ - Ir' .y+V„ � �'1 ¢'-� � �� .� - ,�� R_ � � Q >.'� ._� /.FI���� _
� � � � . � ��. � �
•0���� � ;��• y' , is� �Y l i . P �.�� �s. i r. � ,,f �� � .
_, j � . y � y �/ r
�� � �`f� � �
� � � �� f2�, $�'° �`, �� �g�i' ,�N� y' t3� ~ `. � � '� '�
r . _� .. -'�'.. o��� � re!.�v�.�i �� � �; l �It.( �� ' �l" :', �� •
Imagine 2040 �

Mixed-Use Center (MUC)
Mixed-use centers serve broader economic,
entertainment, and community activities as
compared to mixed-use neighborhoods. Uses
and buildings are located on small blocl<s with
streets designed to encourage pedestrian
activities. Buildings in the core of the mixed-
use center may stand three or more stories.
Residential units or office space may be found
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• sit down restaurant
• community-serving retail
• professional ofFice
• live/work/shop units
• townhome
• condominium
• apartment
• public plaza
• movie theater
Secondary Land Uses
• farmers market
• pocket park
• day care
• dry cleaners
B.42
❑
above storefronts. Parl<ing is satisfied using on-
street parl<ing. structured parl<ing, and shared
rear-lot parl<ing strategies.
A large-scale mixed use center is may be
surrounded by one or more neighborhoods that
encourage active living, with a comprehensive and
interconnected networl< of wall<able streets.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Patter Mix of Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 50-75%
Residential Density 10-30 D.U'szlAcre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.50-2.00 FAR3
Prevailing Building Height I-5 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 800-1,500 SF'
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-50,000 SF°
Transportation Choices Auto,Walking, Bicycle, Bus
Typical Blocl< Length 400-I,000 LFS
Setbacl< or Build-To Line Build to Line Requirements
Open Space Elements Neighborhood Parl<s/
Pocl<et Parl<s/ Public Plazas
Street Pattern Modified Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parking Provisions Surface Lot/$tructured Parl<ing
Typical Street Cross Section Urban
General Water Usage (per unit/SF) 180/0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per uniUSF) 150/0.034 GPD
� _ _ ,..� ����r,,, , , �
induded in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
`r;!,�1 . !_in�=�;.. r,;,s
Imagine 2040

��'!'. . J- _ '�-. �,��� i
' � �; � �� -� �� -
,
� _, � '� � . , � -M ica:
3� �.R! b
. j n—n `,d k ��
;.. . .s� i � .
.. .' _ . .a' ..
. � . r--�— L1�
Place Type Palette
Village centers are concentrated, mixed-use
developments that serve one or more surround-
ing neighborhoods. Existing village centers in the
region include North Hills (RaleighJ, and proposed
plans for the Arboretum (Cary).
Imagine 2040 �

Town Center (TC)
Town centers are locally-serving areas of
economic, entertainment, and community
activity. Uses and buildings are located on
small blocks with streets designed to encourage
pedestrian activity. Buildings typically stand
two or more stories in height with residential
units above storefronts. The compact, walkable
environment and mix of residential and non-
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• townhome
• apartment
• senior housing
• sit down restaurant
• community-serving commercial
• professional office
• live/work/shop units
• post office
• community facilities
Secondary Land Uses
• day care
• farmers market
• pocket park
B.44
❑
residential uses in a town center often support
multiple modes of transportation.
Town centers often represent the traditional
downtown or courthouse area of historic towns
and communities found throughout the Triangle
Region.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mix of Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 90-100%
Residential Density 6-10 D.U'sz/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.50-1.50 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I-4 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 800-1,500 SF4
Average Non-Residential Building Size 5,000-25,000 SF4
Transportation Choices Auto,Walking, Bicycle,Transit (Bus)
Typical Blocl< Length 300- I,200 LFS
Setback or Build-To Line Build to Line Requirement
Open Space Elements Pocl<et Parl<s, Public Plazas
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface LoUFormal On-Street Parl<ing/
Shared Parl<ingAgreements
Typical Street Cross Section Urban
General Water Usage (per unidSF) 225/0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit/SF) 200/0.034 GPD
induded in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
`r;!,�1 . !_in�=�;.. r,;,s
Imagine 2040

, , „ �� �a,�
�Y . ,. � g �,��t � ; � F� ,� �
- .. .'?'v 3` iC'n 6 a�i, yq i -�
` �` � �, �r���� 1,�� _.
� , ., . r
�"` � "�
— -- = �x..�� �_ . w �,� � 3
��. _ ��� _
�.� � 'Y��'
�,_�,
-� �►' �. .� � �.' �'� � ` � � .
� � � ��_ y � ��:
��
� �,'���`'� � , � f � �
� _ � �; ,� �_; i�' _�� �
— — - - �
�— � � ,� �, ' � � — _ ���
-- �-_ -r� ��- ` _.
.��� �I� � - � �* ;�� :
. y�_ _ � � �_ - ��
� — _- .� .',� _-� -_�
— �m
Place Type Palette
Town centers represent the historic center of
large and small towns in the region. They are
often located at the cross-roads of two historical
arterial roadways or along a railroad. They are
surrounded by residential neighborhoods and/
or agricultural uses. Historically, town centers
were established near mills, high points, along
transportation corridors, or at the confluence of
rivers and streams.
Post offices, town halls, and churches are notable
features in town centers as well as neighborhood-
oriented service and commercial uses.
��_ _ _ _,� _ ,,.:� ! �,
- ,Y
�
�� .` �- . �' I �.
� - ` 1 �
�' 1 � A� � �
' ` ��,.
� t � � .,
� T' q q'� w:� �.�' l �>
� �� � II ��
I i I � i
� I - _
�_ i �� ��' - �`1"-
,-. , �� �-_- I� ,� I i � I s
�-� -
`�� - � ��� � I
�il�l �'
��. @� � '�: _ "�c
� u Il �►.
r i �..
1 r �' � � � � — . � l., �
� -, � _ ��- ��
. _,_ _ � _ � .
. �.
�___ �, - . -_ - _. .���
Imagine 2040 �

Transit - Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit-oriented development (TOD) represents
the concentration of mixed-use, dense
development around a transit center. Uses
and buildings are located on small blocks with
streets designed to encourage bicycle and
pedestrian activity. High density development
is located primarily within %-mile of the transit
station, with progressively lower densities
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• condominium
• apartment
• townhome
• sit down restaurant
• general commercial
• professional office
• live/work/shop units
• government building
Secondary Land Uses
• CIIUYCiI
• SCilOOI
• public plaza
• pocket park
• parking structure
■
spreading out into neighborhoods surrounding the
center.
TOD is credited with relieving traffic congestion
on the surrounding street networl< by shifting
automobile trips to transit trips and by capturing
some trips on-site between complementary
residential and non-residential uses.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mix of Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 90-100%
Residencial Density 8- I 5 D.U'sz/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.50-I.SO FAR3
Prevailing Building Height 2-6 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 800-1,500 SF4
Average Non-Residential Building Size 5,000-25,000 SF4
Transportation Choices Auto,Wall<ing, Bicycle,Transit (Bus,
Light Rail, Heavy Rail)
Typical Blocl<Length 300-1,200 LFS
Setback or Build-To Line Build to Line Requirement
Open Space Elements Pocket Parks/Public Plazas
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity
H igh
Parl<ing Provisions Surface LoUFormal On-Street Parl<ing/
Shared Parl<ingAgreements/
Pari<ing Decl<
Typical Street Cross Section Urban
General Water Usage (per unit / SF) I 80/0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit / SF) 150/0.034 GPD
_ �_,�_., , ,,_ ,.. ��_ _,�� ��, _ ,��::. � . , _ ��._._
included in the form and �attern table.
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
� Imagine 2040

Place Type Palette
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is located
exclusively along high frequency transit routes
(i.e., bus rapid transit, express bus service,
commuter rail, or light rail). Successful TOD
developments seek to capture transit ridership
through high density development located within
'4-mile of the transit station.
TOD is not prevalent in the region today; however,
��— Triangle Transit and local governments are
�- moving forward with several station area plans
that advocate for transit-oriented development
around future commuter rail or light rail stations
in the region.
� ,� ,.,� �
s��xv, � } � _ ._ � � fi
�" � � r n+
i�4 ' �� i.. y„ .� �L_w. ..ai.
�I� - :� �i�'�* t ,�� 7�� .� --
�F ` � c`��•�` '�9`4Fs. . _
.__-- ' - - - -�..�.�
.
�� � � � � �'
�� 4 -�. �� � .
� �v
� �_ .� � �
.� �, � �
�
�Q �
����.s r �
i - � � - � � �''
�+ � � � � � � --���
'� �--•,`
r� � � �
�. � `�
�;fr .�� —_
,�_� � _
��'�� ����
` - r . �� �_ , -
� - � �
- - �
�` - � . - 9�
' � � ..
� �
.. � _ �-a �
Imagine 2040 �

Metropolitan Center (MC)
A metropolitan center is the focal point of
the region. It is the hub of employment,
entertainment, civic, and cultural activities, with
a mix of housing types and common open space
for active living. As a magnet to surrounding
towns and neighborhoods, the metropolitan
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• condominium
• apartment
• townhome
• corporate headquarters
• sit down restaurant
• community-serving commercial
• professional office
• live/work/shop units
• museum
• library
• arena/conference center
• regional transportation hub
• government buildings
Secondary Land Uses
• church
• SCilOOI
• public plaza
• pocketpark
• parking deck
B.48
❑
center becomes the iconic symbol of the region,
starting with very tall buildings and a traditional
grid street network. The compact, walkable
environment and mix of residential and non-
residential uses in a metropolitan center support
multiple modes of transportation.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mix of Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 90-100%
Residential Density 10-100 D.U.'s2/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity I.0-30.0 FAR3
Prevailing Building Height I-30 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 800-2,000 SF9
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-200,000 SF4
Transportation Choices Auto,Wall<ing, Bicycle,Transit (Bus)
Typical Blocl< Length 300-600 LFS
Setback or Build-To Line Build to Line Requirement
Open Space Elements Pocl<et Parl<s/Public Plazas/
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface LoUFormal On-Street Parl<ing/
Shared ParkingAgreements
Typical Street Cross Section Urban
General Water Usage (per unit / SF) 180/0.039 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit / SF) 150/0.034 GPD
induded in the form and pattern table.
�D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
. r� - ' in�=�-.. r„�
Imagine 2040

�61k .�:1
�p IrA ,
c
�'
� ��A�P� _ �U�'� s� � � _
� °:� �LL �
; .,,
�� !$'; II'IIiIIINQ �_-^ y--� '�. -.�: Wf
E � � �_ _ —�
�
,;��� �,,, .,: � z�
�:�m.;:� . . .
_� ,,,_���-r. _
., � ._ �� �.
,� ;�_ �
�
� 1� ..Wm�9V�
' �w��r�� _
' �Ireaw■eAe' .�..- .,�i'.
� `�Qi��� � � a�.� I�i
r,
;,i.�i�"��' c�i��,�i�i�i��
�r��� �, ;� � � y
7e�� ti �
�'��iW ..n�,. p�� ��� � ;
�17y17� �'' y�',�,�
� � � � ���,�
a
,�1 �� '
�� �w._'r. � �
� '�r' �,� ��'#�.
f� �� ��
_,�� _ . _
Imagine 2040
'� ,
L� . . ..
Place Type Palette
Metropolitan centers are located at strategic and
historic locations with superior access to regional
transportation facilities (i.e., highways, rail or
airports). They are typically the employment
center of a region. Downtown Durham and
Downtown Raleigh are the only metropolitan
centers identified for the Triangle Region.
� �
r �� �I
., �.
� , � �
r!0 � _ �' w.
. . � � �F
� �.�� ��., �? •'�.e ���
r
� �
� _ a I. �
� � y ' � , �5` � �
1 � �
�
� . ��'^ � , r _ _ —
►
� ��~ �� � � _`_
�� � � � -
���
; - � _
_ �: - . '"�'
� - ., � .
.: � �'
l� � y �
� � ���,'� � .�x`N, �� 7 'fi�- �� �� ■��^.
� �� �
—:/► �. �
`'� r • �
� , # „�?'
�,
— h
•� s . •
�a _ �:_: �. � _ � .+1
6.49

Airport (AIR)
An airport supports commercial or general
aviation air traffic into and out of the Triangle
Region. Each may include one or more runways,
a terminal, taxiways, jet fuel and storage facilities,
or paved aircraft parking areas. Complimentary
uses (e.g., rental car facilities, hotels, restaurants,
long-term parking lots) may surround an airport.
Restricfions on use, placement, and height for
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• airport activities (eg., commercial terminal,
control tower, freight facilities, etc.)
• flight school
• warehouse
• aviation-related maintenance and repair
• shipping
Secondary Land Uses
• light industrial
• heavy industrial
• professional office
• flOt2�
• general commercial
• parking decks
• surface parking lots
B.50
❑
some forms of development are followed in
designated runway airspace protection areas.
Commercial or private aircraft in the Triangle
Region are served by Raleigh-Durham
International Airport, Triangle North Executive
Airport, Horace Williams Airport, Raleigh East
Airport, and Triple W Airport.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separate Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 70-80%
Typical Lot Coverage I 0- I 5%
Residential Density 10-30 D.U.'sz/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.05-0.10 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I-30 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-I,000,000 SF^
Transportation Choices Auto,Airplanes
Typical Blocl< Length 300-600 LFS
Setback or Build-To Line Setbacl< Requirements
Open Space Elements
Street Pattern
Street Connectivity
Natural Areas
Grid
High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot
Typical Street Cross Section N/A
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.058 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.050 GPD
,__ .,� Clu 1 7�� �.�� ....'T:,, �U! fllr� , .�I�iJi"ITi ,,,; . � .,,�.Jii:S
included in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
`r;!,�1 . !_in�=�;.. r,;,s
Imagine 2040

3
� �: .
�' � ' �'_�� : ��
ti - . ,s ; <.,*;
`N
. ,T.�,:i . .
Imagine 2040
Place Type Palette
Commercial and general aviation airports are
located with flight paths in mind as well as
proximity to adjacent airspace. They are often
located away from residential areas in locations
with access to local highways and interstates.
There are five major airports within the Triangle
Region: Raleigh-Durham International Airport,
Triangle North Exectutive Airport, Horace
Williams Airport, Raleigh East Airport, and Triple
W Airport.
�
4 �a .
. � °'���
- :�' ,� �—,, �
i �.^ �
"�
� ,� 7� �� L 1�• �_ L � -., �qi
— — t 'J
s �. S � -�jn `� _ ' ` (.. � I I ' ...h
i� - � � ;� ,
-�^ ;b,yll f ,^� ; n } _
.`T� . . � . w � � � ,�
.. f "�., �- :-� , - � ��r
, ` � �j i�j� � .' �` ��"� *.�_ � c i��kr'+ii'�
. " . i : � �. �' �t_ - � ��
�
B.51

Civic & Institutional Facilities (CIV)
Civic and institutional facilities are focal points in
the region. They typically include a building or
complex of buildings that serve public purpose,
including a library, school, public works complex,
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or condifional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• government buildings
• library
• SCilOOI
• prison
Secondary Land Uses
• public works building
• CiIUCCiI
• community center
• water or wastewater treatment plant
B.52
❑
or town government. Visual qualities of the
building and its surrounding grounds often make
civic and institutional facilities a landmark within
the region.
Form & Pattern1
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separate Uses
Site Efficiency Factork 85-90%
Typical Lot Coverage�� 30-50%
Residential Density 10-30 D.U:sz/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.05-0.10 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I-3 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-50,000 SF4
Transportation Choices Auto,Walking
Typical Blocl< Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Natural Areas/Pocl<et Parl<s/
Landscaped Buffers
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity Varies
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot
Typical Street Cross Section N/A
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.058 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.050 GPD
, , �., _ _ ,��� �, ., �,nf:�r�,�iiiun ui; � �
induded in the form and pattern table.
Z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit 3(FAR) - Floor Area Ratio '(S.F.) - Square Feet
Imagine 2040

Place Type Palette
Civic and institutional buildings are located
throughout the region; including government
buildings, schools, and libraries.
Imagine 2040 �

Health Care Campus (HCC)
A health care campus includes various medical
and medical-related uses, such as primary care,
outpatient surgery, birthing centers, and other
specialty services. They are relatively large
in scale, and may include a hospital, teaching
facilities, research and rehabilitation centers, and
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• primary care buildings
• emergency services
• research centers
• birthing center
• rehabilitation center
Secondary Land Uses
• teaching facilities
• private medical office buildings
• parking deck
• surface parking lot
B.54
❑
private medical office buildings. Buildings are
typically oriented in a campus-setting, with large
buildings connected via wall<ways, structured
parking, or an internal network of streets for
circulation.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Mixed Uses
Site Efficiency Factor 80-90%
Typical Lot Coverage 40-60%
Residential Densicy N/A
Non-Residential Intensity 0.25-2.00 FARZ
Prevailing Building Height I-8 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size N/A
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-I,000,000 SF3
Transportation Choices Auto
Typical Blocl< Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line Setbacl< Requirements
Open Space Elements Neighborhood Parl<s/ Pocket Parks/
Plazas/ Greenways/ Stream Corridors
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot/Parking Decl<
Typical Street Cross Section Suburban/Urban
General Water Usage (per SF) 0.058 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per SF) 0.050 GPD
�c'� SKiiCa? i U�' �fuo uGCiih7Ei�i j�i� h7(i c irij���;L��i]Ciii On i iC �..�7�.1C�ic,:
included in the form and pattern table.
z(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio 3(S.F.) - Squore Feet
Imagine 2040

� �' � -�
I�t��i� ir� ^��
r
,� �{ � , - '1 �
� Fy �J..,�� � ' � _ �
� � � � �z��
�
� Place Type Palette
Major health care facilifies are located through-
out the Triangle Region; including those operated
by the Franklin Regional Medical Center/Novant
Health Care, Raleigh Community Hospital / Duke
University Health System, Rex Hospital / UNC
Health Care, and WakeMed Health and Hospitals.
I- -- - - -
��—,�
— --�-i — -- � z
• � � � � €. �
� � +� � :
- -_4._--
Imagine 2040 �

University Campus (UC)
A university campus includes all of the academic
buildings, residence halls, athletic facilities,
equipment, or other ancillary needed to support
an institution for higher education. Buildings are
often oriented around a highly-walkable network
of internal streets and pedestrian pathways,
which support several modes of transportation
for reaching the campus (i.e., bicycle, transit,
or automobile). Structured parking or large
Land Use Considerations
Primary and secondary land uses listed for the
place type represent typical development in the
category. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
list of all permitted or conditional uses that would
be allowed in the place type.
Primary Land Uses
• academic buildings
• athletic buildings
• resident halls
• recreafion center
• open space / public plazas
Secondary Land Uses
• private research and development buildings
• supporting retail & restaurants supporting
retail & restaurants
• residential neighborhood
• parking deck
• surface parking lot
B.56
❑
surface lots, dedicated areas for public gathering,
and distinctive architecture also represent a
typical university campus. Building uses and
intensities on campus vary widely based on the
school's mission and available space, topography,
etc. Complementary uses near a university
may include student housing, residential
neighborhoods, downtown, or private research
and development buildings.
Form & Patternl
The form and pattern table inventories generalized
development characteristics associated with the
place type. Working together, these elements
reinforce a sense of place and community brand
important to distinguishing development in this
category from others in the region.
General Development Pattern Separate Uses
Site Efficiency Factor�� 75-85%
Typical Lot Coverage�� 40-70%
Residential Density 25- I 00 D.U's2/Acre
Non-Residential Intensity 0.50-3.00 FAR'
Prevailing Building Height I-15 Stories
Average Dwelling Unit Size 800-1,500 SF^
Average Non-Residential Building Size 10,000-50,000 SF4
Transportation Choices Auto,Walking,Transit
Typical Block Length N/A
Setback or Build-To Line Setback Requirements
Open Space Elements Natural Areas/ Plazas/Recreation Fields/
Greenways/
Stream Corridors
Street Pattern Grid
Street Connectivity High
Parl<ing Provisions Surface Lot
Typical Street Cross Section N/A
General Water Usage (per unidSF) 180/0.058 GPD
General Sewer Usage (per unit/SF) 150/0.050 GPD
z(D.U.) - Dwelling Unit '(FAR) - FloorArea Ratio '(S.F.,) - Square Feet
Imagine 2040

� � 1-l:� ,�.� � - ' '� �L
' sr' sr� i�.;�tir
�i�[ij�i� t�'�.�'Gy� ' �• `
�.�,, v,y � �' '�' ��,�
'� �`"r"�'� - I , � � r �
„S � � ?� � �J � C
��
f �� �:,1 � �- ,y'�Cy�Y'w,-,�.� �
.� � i����,�
w_
r.r. �'�} � yR ' �
. �� � � +�u L �. :�". -: �
' .' s'�y,: • ' 4Y i1 . � .
,y}y � d�,.��
H
�1 -r � � ''J�� . -k� y d� L. � � Y ' --_. .
� � �
'7�`" �f%�'7�,�~ ��#,.�5^; �� .'.
R�: '.-.*�~.�-.,�'.:u :: � w, �
• �
� � � t_- _
�I� 1��
� ' — -
'� � �i� � ,� �
�.
�
:� �
�
�� r
�9�r _ �: � �_
Place Type Palette
Nine major colleges or universities have a large
campus in the Triangle Region; including Camp-
bell University, Durham Technical Community
College, Duke University, Meredith College, North
Carolina Central University, North Carolina State
University, Peace College, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Wake Technical Com-
munity College.
��
.
�����, � � r�'� ��
Imagine 2040 �

Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeasf Extension Project
Locallurisdiction Outreach & Methodology Updates
November 2017
Appendix C: Meeting Summaries and
Place-Type Maps from Local Jurisdiction
M eeti ngs
The following pages include the meeting notes from each meeting with local jurisdictions. Also included
are maps of place-type inputs to be used in the 2040 No-Build scenario. These maps were developed
from the discussion at the meetings and follow up with NCDOT and FHWA. For each jurisdiction where
changes were made to the place types for the 2040 No-Build scenario, there are two maps.
• 2040 No-Build (All Parcels): The revised place type inputs for use in a 2040 No-Build scenario for
all parcels in the area. Parcels with changes to the place types are shown with an outline.
• 2040 No-Build (Changes Only): This map shows the 2040 No-Build place-type inputs but only for
the parcels where a change was made based the review and discussion at the meeting.

Appendix B: Meeting Notes and Place Type
Revision Maps from Local Jurisdiction
M eeti ngs
The following pages include the meeting notes from each meeting with local jurisdictions and the
revised maps of Place Type inputs developed in response to the meetings. For each jurisdiction there are
up to four maps.
• No Build (All Parcels): The revised Place Type inputs for use in a No Build Scenario for all parcels
in the area. Parcels with changes to the Place Types are shown with an outline.
• No Build (Changes Only): This map shows the No Build Place Type inputs but only for the parcels
where a change was made based the review and discussion at the meeting.
• Build (All Parcels): The revised Place Type inputs for use in a Build Scenario for all parcels in the
area. Parcels with changes to the Place Types are shown with an outline.
• Build (Changes Only): This map shows the Build Place Type inputs but only for the parcels where
a change was made based the review and discussion at the meeting.
In some instances both No Build and Build are shown on the same map as some jurisdictions had no
differences in their recommended Place Type inputs for each scenario.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: September 6, 2016
10:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Town of Angier Town Hall, Angier, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Sean Johnson, Planning and Permitting Technician, Town of Angier
Coley Price, Town Manager, Town of Angier
Lew Weatherspoon, Mayor, Town of Angier
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Will Kerr, Michael Baker Engineering
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for Town of Cary
Notes:
Scudder provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of work for Complete
540. He discussed the plan to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to forecast land use in
Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios for 2040. They described the area within the Future Land Use Study
Area (FLUSA). He discussed the need to review the Place Type inputs to accurately reflect the likely
development patterns in a Build and No Build Scenario.
Angier's Land Use map reflects land use projections established in 2008. Town planners are currently working
on a Land Use Plan Update and a Transportation Plan. They stated that congestion was a concern in Angier and
areas within Northwest Harnett are working hard with CAMPO to look at a Regional Approach Transportation
Mode. They pointed out that Angier is about 18 miles from Apex, 14 miles from Holly Springs and about 22
miles from downtown Raleigh. They hope to improve commutes to Raleigh and RTP. They anticipate future
needs for potential grocery stores and other commercial facilities. While the provision of water and sewer will
dictate Angier and Harnett development patterns, sewer lines are in place in Northwest Angier.
Angier is interested in creating an identity as an education-centered work force. A more urban town corridor is
envisioned and will be master planned. Angier is partnering with Campbell University, and Central Carolina
University to look at potentially enhancing educational opportunities in the area and trying to engage schools
to attract hi-tech campuses. Angier is averaging about 60 residential building permits per year. Town Board is
trying to encourage quality growth and manage the wave of growth coming from the north.
Western Harnett experienced substantial growth recently. Some conversion of agricultural land is possible.
Currently, large farmers lease smaller parcels using short-term leases. However, much of the region is
anticipated to remain in agricultural use. A sweet potato plant is planned near Pea Ridge Road.
Old Stage Road corridor could have more mixed use/commercial under the Complete 540 Build Scenario. East
Wimberly will likely develop under Build perhaps with some mixed use and commercial.
Planned residential development straddles the Wake/Angier boundary. Approximately 468 homes are planned

Page 2 of 2
at NC 55 near the border of Harnett County, 103 homes are planned at Atkins Road, and the Town has secured
120 acres of ETJ within Wake County's jurisdiction. Continued voluntary annexations are likely in Angier's ETJ as
growth pushes down from the north.
In terms of transportation improvements, NC 55 upgrade to 4 lanes has been allocated and is anticipated to
begin right of way acquisition in early 2020. The NC 55 corridor north of downtown could experience
commercial development. NC 55 will be more commercial at nodes under Build. The US 401 Bypass project is
currently being revived as CAMPO and Angier's transportation consultants look for potential transportation
solutions.
The Town of Angier's economic development strategy will determine potential development north of E.
Wimberly Street. This area will probably end up being 80 percent residential but town planners would prefer a
mixture that includes a higher percentage of commercial/industrial.
Local planners and the Town Mayor feel that completing NC 540 will make a significant difference in
development. Under the Complete 540 No Build, NC 55 may need widening to handle traffic to 540. There
would be pressure to increase the number of lanes on US 401. Piney Grove Wilbon may be expanded and NC
210 and Old Stage Road may be multi-lane.
In terms of regional plans for development, Angier is looking at partnering with Harnett for schools and parks.
Currently, there is one primary school, K3-2nd grade; one middle and one high school, three miles west of
Angier with one elementary school, 3rd — 5th grade, located within the Town limits. All serve Angier.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Maps showing Build and No-Build 2040 place types will be developed for the Town of Angier review,
comment, and approval.
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to The Town of Angier meeting
participants for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Town of Apex
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 30, 2016
9:30 AM to 11:00 AM
Apex Town Hall, 73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC 27502
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Dianne Khin, Planning Director, Town of Apex
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Notes:
After introductions, the Scudder and Ken provided background on the status of the Complete 540
Project and explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land
use impacts and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling land use differences and
estimating the acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with
Complete 540 (Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at
developing existing and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team
is trying to pivot off the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this
Quantitative ICE is to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development
under the Build and No Build scenarios for 2040. The team is working with Matt Noonkester, who ran
the model for Imagine 2040, to rerun the model.
The project team explained that the purpose of this meeting is to gather data on how land uses in the
Town's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the Build Scenario and understand how these land uses
would be different from the No Build Scenario. The team brought a map showing the projected 2040
Place Types provided by Apex and used in the Imagine 2040 modeling effort. The map displayed parcels
and 2040 Place Types for the portions of the Apex and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) inside the
Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). This map served as a starting point for discussion. Edits to the map
were made based on input from Diane. Updated maps based on those edits maps are attached to these
notes for review.
Diane noted that the NC Map Act of 1997 was repealed. Parcels within the planned right-of-way for
Complete 540 are under development or have been recently approved for development. In Apex, these
parcels will be developed into light industrial and low-density residential uses.
• Eastern ETJ — Sewer availability has been the limiting factor for development in this area; but a
new pumping station is planned. Also, a new high school and a landfill are planned for this area.
The infrastructure associated with the high school is likely to spur development in the area.
Currently, a company is developing land between Sunset Lake Road and Jessie Drive into
residential housing at 2-3 units per acre. Diane also noted that a new residential neighborhood

Page 2 of 2
is under development on the eastern boundary of the ETJ. The sewer service for this
development comes from the Town of Cary. Some parcels may be developed more densely as
townhomes or apartments.
• Existin� NC 540 Interchan�e with South Salem Street - The project team asked how the NC 540
interchange with South Salem Street (Old US Hwy 1) has impacted development in that area.
Diane stated that there has been development interest in the area and that the area is covered
by a Small Area Plan (https://www.apexnc.or�/218/I-540-S-Salem-St-Small-Area-Plan). Mixed
use development is planned for this area.
• Veridea, west of NC 55 — This area is largely slated for Transit-Oriented Development and mixed
use. A single company is working to develop this area and has experienced some internal delays.
It is likely that the eastern portion of this development will be Mixed Use Center instead of
Transit-Oriented Development due to probable road improvements. Also, some of this area
should be Light Industrial Center.
The mixed use development planned around the existing NC 540 was spurred by the existing portion of
the roadway. Although Diane thought that development would have occurred sooner, it has yet to be
realized. Sewer availability, complications associated with mixed use developments, and internal delays
have been limiting factors.
Diane noted that the changes described above would occur regardless of whether Complete 540 is built.
She noted that Apex residents already have access to the portion of NC 540 that has already been built.
The Complete 540 project is not likely to have additional development impacts in this area.
Next Steps:
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review, comment and approval.

Page 1 of 1
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 26, 2016
1:OOPMto2:30PM
Cary Planning Department, Cary, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Will Hartye, Planner, Town of Cary
Kristin Maseman, HNTB
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Will Kerr, Michael Baker Engineering
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for Town of Cary
Notes:
Scudder provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of work for
Complete 540. They discussed the plan to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to
forecast land use in Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios for 2040. They described the area within
the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). They discussed the need to review the Place Type inputs to
accurately reflect the likely development patterns in a Build and No Build Scenario.
According to Will Hartye the Cary 1996 Land Use Plan shows low density development near I-540. There
are no real changes from the 1996 Plan. The Team's map is generally accurate. The new Cary land use
plan shows a large commercial area between Ten-Ten Road and I-540 as an employment center and this
would only be likely if Complete 540 were built. Two mixed use centers have been built or started
recently: Ten-Ten Road/ Kildaire Farm Road; and Ten-Ten Road/ Holly Springs Road.
The I-540 Build alternative would accelerate development but not change density. Development
restrictions cause constraints and there are no plans to extend water and sewer. A lot of area near the
I-540 alignments is built out and State Environmental Development rules constrain development.
Therefore, Cary probably will not be completely built out by 2040 under Build or No Build. No additional
urban service areas are available through annexation. Watershed rules are another development
constraint.
Character of development near I-540 west is different than I-540 south. Larger parcels of farmland are
present and there is a closer proximity to RTP and commuter routes. Therefore development trends
similar to those from Western Wake are not expected in the area of the new portion of the roadway.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Maps showing Build and No-Build 2040 place types will be developed for the Town of Cary
review, comment, and approval.
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to the Town of Cary meeting
participants for review, comment, and approval.

Page 2 of 2
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to the Town of Cary meeting
participants for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Town of Clayton
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 29, 2016
3:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Clayton Town Hall, 111 East Second Street, Clayton, NC 27528
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Jay McLeod, Planner, Town of Clayton
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Notes:
After introductions, the Scudder and Ken provided background on the status of the Complete 540
Project and explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land
use impacts and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling land use differences and
estimating the acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with
Complete 540 (Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at
developing existing and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team
is trying to pivot off the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this
Quantitative ICE is use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development
under the Build and No Build scenarios for 2040. The team is working with Matt Noonkester, who ran
the model for Imagine 2040, to rerun the model.
The project team explained to the Jay McLeod that the purpose of this meeting is to gather data on how
land uses in the Town's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the Build Scenario and understand how
these land uses would be different from the No Build Scenario. The team will use the information
gathered during this meeting to make maps reflecting the Place Types for the existing conditions, 2040
No Build, and 2040 Build scenarios. These maps are attached to these notes for review.
The project team asked if Jay had worked on the Imagine 2040 Place Types. Jay said that he was not
working at the Town of Clayton during the Imagine 2040 process; however, he had assigned Place Types
for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's (CAMPO's) Southeast Area Study (SEAS). Jay
provided a geodatabase (.gdb) of these classifications to the project team. Jay felt that the Imagine 2040
Place Types are outdated and recommended that the project team should use the Place Types he
provided instead. The provided mapping is consistent with the provided place types.
Jay described Clayton as a bedroom community primarily serving Wake County employers. The Town
controls the areas within town limits and the ETJ. The County controls land outside of the ETJ.
Development in Clayton is driven by low land prices and proximity to employers in the industrial area of
the town. Past annual growth levels have been about 3 percent. East-west connectivity is limited in this
area. The population of Flowers Plantation must take US 70 Business to get anywhere.

Page 2 of 2
Some areas are important for biodiversity and/or are in a Johnston County Significant Natural Area
(http://ncforestservice.�ov/Urban/pdf/JCNRI report full.pdf and
http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collection/p249901co1122/id/190405). The 100-year floodplain a
protected resource area. The Neuse Agricultural Rule applies in Clayton and may require 50-foot
forested riparian buffers on streams.
Jay also noted that there is some inconsistency between current and future land use goals. For example,
increased density is desired in the downtown area; but, it has yet to be realized.
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes several projects in Clayton. The scoring
for the Southern Connector around Clayton should improve in the next round. The US 70 Bypass is the
future I-42. NC 42 is being widened from US 70 Business to NC 50.
The meeting attendees then turned their attention to the map to discuss growth in specific areas.
• Area of the Junction of US 70 Bypass and NC 42 — Development in this area would occur with or
without NC 540. NC 540 would not impact the level of growth in this area. Clayton's Future Land
Use map shows a health care campus in this area. This would be a good place for a White Oak
type of development.
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Rock Quarry Road — This interchange may increase
traffic on Old US Hwy 70 (Garner Road). If Complete 540 is built, more residential development
at a higher density may occur in this area.
• Area alon� the ETJ's western border — Several large, undeveloped parcels in this area are owned
by an HVAC company. Their plans for the land are unclear. A large-scale development along
Winston Road is in the works. The development of Complete 540 could put more pressure on
this area around NC State University property. Commercial facilities and apartments may
develop. The result may be higher density residential development in the north and commercial
development along US 70 Business.
• Area alon� Ranch Road — Development pressure and interest are present at the Ranch Road
interchanges with US 70 Bypass and US 70 Business.
Next Steps:
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review, comment and approval.

Page 1 of 3
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 26, 2016
10:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Fuquay-Varina Planning Department, Fuquay-Varina, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Danny Johnson, Assistant Planning Director, Town of Fuquay-Varina
Samantha Smith, Long Range Planner, Town of Fuquay-Varina
Mike Sorensen, Planning Director, Town of Fuquay-Varina
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Will Kerr, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Kristin Maseman, HW Lochner
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for Fuquay-Varina County
Notes:
Scudder and Ken provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of
work for the Complete 540 Project. Scudder and Ken discussed the plan to use the CommunityViz model
developed for Imagine 2040 to forecast land use in Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios for 2040.
They described the area of the town within the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). They discussed the
need to review the Place Type inputs to accurately reflect the likely development patterns in a Build and
No Build Scenario.
The group reviewed the 2040 Place Types and the Town representatives said the Land Use Plan from
Imagine 2040 reflected thoughts on land use from 5 years ago based on utility plans, growth,
infrastructure and 20year extensions of water and sewer. The current land use plan from 2006 most
accurately reflects land use without I-540. There was a discussion among Fuquay-Varina planners on
development patterns and density in the Imagine 2040 process. Overall, staff felt that the place type
inputs for Imagine 2040 were closer to a No Build scenario.
Fuquay-Varina is currently going through development scenario planning through March 2017 for a
future Comprehensive Plan. North of NC 42, area planners currently project growth in the area will
differ from the current 2040 place types shown. They base this assumption on the recent growth
patterns of Cary and Apex. They anticipate increased growth, especially in the Holly Springs Road and
Banks Road areas.
In Fuquay-Varina without the I-540 project and with the extension of water and sewer along US 401 and
NC 55 growth patterns would not be different, but the density of development may change. Fuquay-
Varina is growing quickly and there is a lot of annexation along US 401 which currently has water and

Page 2 of 3
sewer lines. Annexation is also anticipated south of Ten-Ten Road on US 401. Town representatives
said the Swift Creek watershed, a high quality watershed, has development constraints.
Town planners said higher density would occur under the Build scenario but it is hard to predict. Future
development will probably be suburban commercial and mixed-use. In particular suburban commercial
would likely occur between Hilltop Road and NC 42, and at the corner of SR 1301 (Sunset Lake Road)/
Hilltop Needmore Road. Town planners believe there are 4 anticipated nodes of development:
• Vicinity of I-540/ US 401
• Vicinity of Banks Road to Hilltop Road/Hilltop-Needmore Road
• Hilltop Road/ US 401 (SE corner)
• Dwight-Rawlins Road to NC 42
In addition Town planners described the following locations of anticipated development:
• At I-540/ US 401 the pace of commercial development would be accelerated with the Complete
540 Build Alternative. I-540 will not change development patterns on US 401 based on
projections.
• Bells Lake Road/ Hilltop Road would see additional commercial development with I-540.
Probably in the form of neighborhood centers.
• Sunset Lake Road traffic volumes would be higher under a No build. Volumes could go higher at
the intersection of Sunset Lake Road/ Holly Springs Road causing increased development.
• Under a No Build traffic patterns west and south won't change.
• Sunset Lake Road is an attractive location for commercial developers.
• Old Stage Road may become more attractive under the Build alternative.
• Development density in Wake County north of Hilltop-Needmore Road and south of Ten-Ten
Road will increase under both Build and No Build scenarios.
• Mixed use development could occur northwest of US 401/Banks Road intersection.
Following the discussion of the character of development in various locations the group discussed
planned or ongoing roadway projects. Extension of Judd Parkway is planned and the design is to be
completed in 4-6 weeks. Right of way is scheduled for October 15t. There is bond money available for
this project if needed but the use of Federal Funds is mandated. Hilltop-Needmore Road is being
realigned to Holly Springs Road. This will reinforce commercial development at southeast corner of
intersection. This would be a Locally Administered project or Division-managed project. NC 55 Bypass
traffic will increase under either the Complete 540 Build or No Build alternatives.
The group discussed the effect of utilities on County development. Utilities will be extended on US 401
crossing roads based demand and market forces. Utilities probably won't extend further north unless
residential development occurs. A water line is present on Sunset Lake Road to Sunset Glenn Road and
sewer is available on Sunset Lake Road to first subdivision.
During a discussion of development patterns County representatives pointed out that there could be
multi-family development at the US 401/ Ten-Ten Road intersection under the No Build but at a slower
pace. There would not be a big difference in land use on the west side of town under a Build vs. No
Build alternative. The Build alternative would however accelerate growth but not change development
patterns or intensity.
2

Page 3 of 3
Staff felt that the control total inputs for Imagine 2040 are underestimated. They believe that 100%
buildout is anticipated in 2040 under Build or No Build scenarios. New development ordinances being
developed by the County will emphasize higher densities. Development will follow infrastructure.
There is a lot of development interest in the southern part of the County.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Mapping developed by the Project team will be revised.
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to Town staff for review and
approval.
3

Page 1 of 3
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Town of Garner
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 30, 2016
9:30 AM to 11:00 AM
Temporary Garner Town Hall, 914 Seventh Avenue, Garner, NC 27529
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 —Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Brad Bass, Planning Director, Town of Garner
Jeff Triezenberg, Assistant Planning Director, Town of Garner
Dave Bamford, Senior Planner, Town of Garner
Tim Gardiner, Wake County
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Kristin Maseman, Lochner
Notes:
After introductions, Scudder and Ken provided background on the status of the Complete 540 Project
and explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land use
impacts and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling land use differences and
estimating the acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with
Complete 540 (Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at
developing existing and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team
is trying to pivot off the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this
Quantitative ICE is to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development
under the Build and No Build scenarios for 2040. The team is working with Matt Noonkester, who ran
the model for Imagine 2040, to rerun the model.
The project team explained to representatives from the Town of Garner that the purpose of this
meeting is to gather data on how land uses in the Town's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the
Build Scenario and understand how these land uses would be different from the No Build Scenario. The
team brought a map showing the projected 2040 land use Place Types provided by Garner and used in
the Imagine 2040 modeling effort. The map displayed parcels and 2040 Place Types for the portions of
the Garner and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) inside the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). This
map served as a starting point for discussion. Place Type changes were recommended by Garner
planners. The updated maps are attached to these notes for review.
Representatives from the Town of Garner noted that the Imagine 2040 Place Types were assigned
assuming that Complete 540 would be built; however, an update is needed to reflect current conditions.
Town of Garner planners are working to update Place Types for Connect 2045. An update to the Garner
Transportation Plan is also underway.

Page 2 of 3
The meeting attendees then turned their attention to the map to discuss growth in specific areas.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with US 401— This area falls under multiple
jurisdictions. Garner is considering extending its ETJ in this area. Traffic and the level of service
(LOS) at the intersection of US 401 and Ten-Ten Road is a limiting factor at this intersection. The
Small-Lot Residential Neighborhood (SLRN) parcel near US 401 and Ten-Ten Road should be
changed to Mixed-Density Residential Neighborhood (MDRN). Some residential growth may
result in the US 401/Swift Creek area under the Build Scenario; however, the amount of
development is limited by the Swift Creek Land Management Plan
(http://www.wake�ov.com/plannin�/�rowth/pa�es/swiftcreeklmp.aspx). The highest residential
density in this area is anticipated near Ten-Ten Road.
Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Old Sta�e Road — Old Stage Road serves as a
commuter route. Sewer availability is limited in this area and more difficult to provide
logistically. A pump station would be required. Under a Build Scenario, a Suburban Commercial
Center may develop. Without Complete 540 (No Build), the development would be smaller, and
a Neighborhood Commercial Center is anticipated to develop. The development would most
likely be south of Ten-Ten Road.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Benson Road — Benson Road is congested, and
not much land is available for development. The large parcel near Benson Road and Ten-Ten
Road is likely to develop. In a Build Scenario, this would be a Suburban Commercial Center.
Under a No Build Scenario, a Neighborhood Commercial Center is anticipated. Utilities are
available north of Ten-Ten Road. The land south of Ten-Ten Road is in a different drainage basin
and sewer pump stations would be required to service development. Residential development is
also likely south of the interchange along Cleveland School Road. Apartments or mixed-density
development is possible due to emerging development pressure from the I-40/NC 42
(Cleveland) area. Planners anticipate that development along Cleveland School Road would be
bigger and denser under a Build Scenario than under a No Build Scenario.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with I-40 — Development pressures may increase the
density of residential development in this area.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with White Oak Road — An additional interchange at I-
40 and White Oak Road is under consideration; however, this area falls under the rural
designation for interchange spacing. This area will be mostly residential with some Parks and
Open Space. Traffic congestion is an issue on White Oak Road as it is used as a commuter route.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with US 70 Business — This area and the area to the
east toward Johnston County will be subject to planning activity in the Fall of 2016. The area
along US 70 Business from I-40 to Clayton should be office space, mixed use, and industrial.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Rock Quarrv Road —This area has the potential to
become a commercial center for southeast Raleigh. Under the Build Scenario, the area could
become a Suburban Commercial Center. Under the No Build Scenario, development would likely
be smaller and less dense. A Neighborhood Commercial Center is more likely. In addition,
residential growth is anticipated near the high school.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Auburn-Kni�htdale Road — No changes
anticipated. The City of Raleigh may have input on this area. This interchange will create
additional access points for Garner.

Page 3 of 3
Area near the I-40 Interchan�e with Jones Sausa�e Road — Garner now owns the former Con-
Agra property, now called the Garner Technical Center. They anticipate redevelopment of this
facility.
Garner has lower single residence statistics than other parts of the county.
Some development proposals have been submitted for development within the Complete 540 right-of-
way. Garner is still considering how this corridor would be classified if the road were not built.
Overall, the Complete 540 project is anticipated to have a positive impact on growth in Garner; however
utilities (primarily sewer) are still a limiting factor for development rates and density. This increased
development pressure raises logistics questions about how to extend sewer to meet the demand.
Without the project, this issue would potentially be less pressing.
Next Steps:
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 3
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 25, 2016
10:30 AM to 12:00 PM
Michael Baker Engineering, Cary Office
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Jay Sikes, Harnett County, Manager of Planning Services
Mark Locklear, Harnett County, Director of Development Services
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Eng.
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Eng.
Will Kerr, Michael Baker Eng.
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Eng.
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for Harnett County
Notes:
Scudder and Ken provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of
work for Complete 540. They discussed the plan to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine
2040 to forecast land use in Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios for 2040. They described the
area within the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). They discussed the need to review the Place Type
inputs to accurately reflect the likely development patterns in a Build and No Build Scenario.
The group reviewed the 2010 Place Types particularly for underdeveloped parcels where the current
place type input may not match current land use. Based on comments from Harnett County Baker staff
reviewed undeveloped parcel designations relative to aerial imagery and updated the place type
mapping accordingly.
Harnett Comprehensive Plan was completed in September 2015. Harnett County staff indicated that the
areas near Complete 540 are expected to see a lot of growth, both with and without the highway.
Recent development in the Harnett County portion of the FLUSA has been heavy with substantial
development over the last 4 years.
Harnett County officials noted some changes in land use since the Imagine 2040 place types were
developed. They noted that some land use changes could be found in the Harnett County NW Small
Area Plan; they also noted that a CTP update is in progress. Improvements to Pine Grove Road will be
included in the CTP update.
The group discussed the character of development in various locations. Harnett County officials stated
that the area near Pine-Grove Rawls Road had experienced development since the 2040 inputs were
developed. They also suggested changes to existing place type designations on mapping near the
intersection of Atkins Road/Angier Road. They state that the intersection of the Angier Road-Atkins
Road/ Purfoy Road area is a hot development area. Development will be primarily 1/4-acre residential

Page 2 of 3
lots from this location east toward Angier. This development is anticipated to occur with or without the
Complete 540 project.
Harnett planners noted there is development pressure east of US 401. They agreed with the current
mapping for this area. The presence of water and sewer lines is a key factor in Harnett County
development patterns. Water and sewer lines are present along US 401. West of US 401, planned
development will consist of large lots because no sewer is available. Large lots are considered half-acre;
30,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet lots comprise the largest county zoning designation. Existing
water and sewer along US 401 can support commercial and industrial uses.
Harnett County is pursuing improvements to US 401. A US 401 improvement project was in the
planning process at one time but acceptable alternatives could not be identified. West of US 401 the
high quality watershed and lack of sewer service constrains development in the area. It is anticipated
that NC 55 will eventually connect to US 401, although funding for that project is not currently available.
Within the Harnett County portion of the FLUSA, the Cape Fear Watershed is listed as a Water Supply
Watershed (WS-IV) water, and development restrictions are in place. Because Fuquay-Varina is growing,
Harnett County anticipates future development near the Wake County/Harnett County border,
especially in the eastern portion of the county outside the Cape Fear watershed. Development is
expected to consist of residential development followed by some commercial development.
The group discussed whether the pace of commercial and industrial development would be accelerated
compared to the 2040 estimate under a Build alternative. Area planners noted that, as an example,
following construction of NC 87, substantial development followed 6-8 years later. Planners felt that the
pace of development associated with Complete 540 could be quicker than the pace of development
following the NC 87 project. NC 87 was completed in 2003-2004. Growth activities spurred by the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process caused substantial growth in the Ft. Bragg area after the
widening of NC 87 to 4 lanes in 2008. Development quickly followed construction of NC 87 aided by
BRAC action at Fort Bragg. Residential development occurred first followed by retail.
The group discussed the pattern, density, type and pace of future study area development. In terms of
current 2040 place types, Harnett County believes there probably is a need for more commercial and
industrial development to support anticipated growth. Both commercial and industrial development
may occur under a No Build scenario, with growth happening sooner if Complete 540 is built. US 401 is
anticipated to develop commercial nodes with or without Complete 540. However, Industrial
development in the County is rare.
The group next discussed the character of growth in various areas of Harnett County portion of the
FLUSA. Planners anticipate some development pressure for residential uses followed by commercial
development would occur under the Build Alternative. The areas most likely to see increased
development pressure are: NC 55, Eastern Parkway, and near Buckhorn-Duncan Road. Mixed density
development could occur in all three areas. A Food Lion shopping center is possible just northwest of
the FLUSA boundary. If the facility were constructed, it may increase development pressure within the
FLUSA.
East of Piney Grove, development could be denser than small lots with higher likelihood closer to
Angier. There is a commercial node at the US 401/Chalybeate Springs Road. This development would

Page 3 of 3
likely happen without the construction of Complete 540. Congestion on roads to Fuquay-Varina may
result in pressure for growth on US 401. Parcels near the Angier Bypass will probably be small lot
residential, not mixed use. Mixed use development could occur closer to Angier.
According the area planners, CAMPO anticipates a need for future widening of NC 55, but the project is
not currently funded. Planners feel that NC 55 would score better under NCDOT's prioritization formula
if Complete 540 were constructed. The project would widen NC 55 to four lanes using complete street
designs. County officials would prefer construction of the proposed Angier Bypass but that does not
appear possible at this time. Current plans include widening of Kennebec Church Road, which may
become part of 55 widening. The Build scenario may increase scoring and the probability of Kennebec
Church widening by 2040. Harnett County believes it is needed now but will be more likely with
Complete 540. If widening occurs, residential development density will be higher and mixed density
would be more likely. However, development along US 401 is more likely than NC 55.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Maps showing Build and No-Build 2040 place types will be developed for Harnett County review.
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to Harnett County meeting
participants for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Town of Holly Springs
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 30, 2016
3:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Holly Springs Town Hall, 128 S Main Street, Holly Springs, NC 27540
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Gina Clapp, Town of Holly Springs
Justin Steinmann, Town of Holly Springs
Kendra Parrish, Town of Holly Springs
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Notes:
After introductions, Scudder provided background on the status of the Complete 540 Project and
explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land use impacts
and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling land use differences and estimating the
acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with Complete 540
(Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at developing existing
and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team is trying to pivot off
the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this Quantitative ICE is to use the
CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development under the Build and No Build
scenarios for 2040. The team is working with Matt Noonkester, who ran the model for Imagine 2040, to
rerun the model.
The project team explained to the Town of Holly Springs representatives that the purpose of this
meeting is to gather data on how land uses in the Town's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the
Build Scenario and understand how these land uses would be different from the No Build Scenario. The
team brought a map showing the projected 2040 land use Place Types provided by Holly Springs and
used in the Imagine 2040 modeling effort. The map displayed parcels and 2040 Place Types for the
portions of Holly Springs and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) inside the Future Land Use Study Area
(FLUSA). This map served as a starting point for discussion Place Type changes were recommended by
Town planners. The marked-up maps are attached to these notes for review.
The meeting attendees then turned their attention to the map to discuss growth in specific areas.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Holly Sprin�s Road — Area planners indicated that
the area currently outside the ETJ to the west of the interchange would likely be high density
residential development under the Build Scenario and small-lot residential under the No Build
Scenario. The two Mixed Use Centers on Sunset Lake Road would be more likely to develop to
this level of density under the Build Scenario. Other parcels along this road to the west are

Page 2 of 2
expected to be residential and small commercial regardless of the status of Complete 540. The
Suburban Commercial Center at the junction of Holly Springs Road and Kildaire Farm Road
would likely be a Neighborhood Commercial Center under the No Build Scenario. Its current
designation is correct for the Build Scenario. The Suburban Commercial Center at the junction of
Holly Springs Road and Sunset Lake Road would likely become a Neighborhood Commercial
Center under the No Build Scenario. Its current designation is correct for the Build Scenario. All
other parcels on Holly Springs Road between Complete 540 interchange and just south of Sunset
Lake Road should be designated as mixed use under the Build Scenario. Under the No Build
Scenario, the development in this area would be less intense. The large mobile home park
northeast of the planned interchange will be hard to redevelop as the mobile homes are located
on individually owned lots. Under a Build Scenario, connectivity to this park is likely to be
impacted, and some of the parcels near its entrance may redevelop. The area southeast of the
interchange will be predominantly residential. Holly Springs has a Northeast Gateway Plan
(http://www.hollysprin�snc.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/491) that covers this area.
• Old Holly Sprin�s Apex Road/Tin�en Road —The parcel near the intersection of Old Holly Springs
Road/Tingen Road and Woods Creek Road should be mixed-density residential development.
• Bass Lake Road — Residential development will occur outside the ETJ on this road. This
development will occur regardless of the status of Complete 540.
• Area Near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with NC 55 — This area is currently served by the
existing NC 540. The Complete 540 project is not expected to impact land use in this area.
• Northwest Holly Sprin�s — Some growth in expected in this area; however, this growth will not
be significant compare to growth in the rest of Holly Springs.
The Town of Holly Spring Representatives stated that existing NC 540 has boosted the desirability of
Holly Springs for growth. The Council is generally visualizing growth as R-10 with higher density
residential growth in nodes, especially at Holly Springs Road. Growth limiting factors for Holly Springs
are land cost, environmental buffers, small parcel size, and transportation congestion.
Holly Springs extended its ETJ in 2015.
The Complete 540 project is expected to impact some of the existing subdivisions along Holly Springs
Road. The road may impact community wells or connectivity.
If Complete 540 is not built, the development intensity is not expected to shift to other areas. Instead it
is likely to be less intense.
Holly Springs provides water and sewer service inside of town limits. The Town has the capacity to serve
its ETJ and its utility service area (USA). They are working to expand service.
Next Steps:
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review, comment, and approval.

non-urban area
�
�S1y O�D US � NWY �`,�, �!z
D�,OJ� 1 <
Legend
Border denotes PT change
� FLUSA Boundary
�-•-----•• Complete 540 Unbuilt
� Town/County Boundary
Airport
Civic and Institutional
Health Care Campus
� Heavy Industrial Center
� High Rise Residential
Large-Lot Residential Neighborhood
Light Industrial Center
- Metropolitan Center
Mixed Density Residential Neighborhood
Mixed Use Center
Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Mobile Home Park
Multifamily Residential Neighborhood
� � Neighborhood Commercial Center
Parks and Open Space
- Regional Employment Center
Rural Cross Roads
Rural Living
Shade Tree Residential Neighborhood
Small Lot Residential Neighborhood
- Suburban Commercial Center
- Suburban Hotel
- Suburban Office Center
� Town Center
- Transit-Oriented Development, Type I
- Transit-Oriented Development, Type II
- Transit-Oriented Development, Type III
University Campus
Urban Neighborhood
� Working Farm
�
�
Z
�
�1
�
•�� �
,�o
��y
S�
OJ
O�
a
x
�
❑
Z
������
� SQ��N�'s NE
N��'�
��
HOLLY SPRING
� ' 7
� �
� Z
�
�
Z
1 -�
w �
� y�<< rSA
� R�NGS
T �'D
�
Z.. �.. � �.
AVENT FERRY RD
,
CASS HOLT RD
..�
FERRY
Holly Springs
AVENT FERRY RD o
�
J
��Q O
� �
��� U
��a
�O�'
P�'�
G
HOL Y SPRINGS RD
�
G
m z ■
zl D
T Z
m �,
-�
�
�
D
Z
�
�
-l�� v
F��� �
�� �
� � �
►�
�
�
��
O _
:
s�
�
GS R�
HO�LY SPRIN
B'9S
\
��F
Rp
T
�7
�
L�
��■a�
�
�N
N
<.�
��
BASS LAKE RD
���
OPTIMIST FARM
�
�
Z
�
�
r
D
\m
Holl S rin s 2040 Place T es - No-Bu
Y p J Yp
C
N
Cary
�
non-urban area
W
Y
Q
�
w
�
Z
�
�
a
i Id Scenario
0.75 1.5 3
Miles
This is a draft place type map based on discussions with local planning
jurisdictions. Some place types are updated from original CommunityVlz
inputs used to develop the Imagine 2040 plan. This map is provided for
review and comment only. The finalized maps will be used to develop
Build and No-Build scenarios for the Complete 540 project.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Johnston County
MEETING MINUTES
Date: September 1, 2016
1:OOPMto2:30PM
Land Use Center, 309 E. Market Street, Smithfield, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Berry Gray, Planning Director, Johnston County
Matt Kirkland, Planner, Johnston County
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering (via telelconference)
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering (via telelconference)
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Notes:
After introductions, Scudder and Ken provided background on the status of the Complete 540 Project
and explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land use
impacts and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling land use differences and
estimating the acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with
Complete 540 (Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at
developing existing and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team
is trying to pivot off the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this
Quantitative ICE is to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development
under the Build and No Build scenarios for 2040. The team is working with Matt Noonkester, who ran
the model for Imagine 2040, to rerun the model.
The project team explained to the Johnston County representatives that the purpose of this meeting is
to gather data on how land uses in the County's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the Build
Scenario and understand how these land uses would be different from the No Build Scenario. The team
brought a map showing the projected 2040 land use Place Types provided by Johnston County and used
in the Imagine 2040 modeling effort. The map displayed parcels and 2040 Place Types for the portions of
Johnston County inside the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA. The map was edited with Place Type
changes recommended by Johnston County to reflect Complete 540 Build and No Build scenarios. The
marked-up are attached to these notes for review.
Neither Berry nor Matt were involved in the Imagine 2040 effort. The meeting attendees then turned
their attention to the map to discuss growth in specific areas.
• Area around the I-40 Interchan�e with NC 42 —These uses largely reflect what is there now.
Floodplains and sewer availability restrict development in this area. Another interchange is
planned to the south at the intersection of I-40 and Cleveland Road. All of the undeveloped

Page 2 of 2
parcels along Cleveland Road between I-40 and NC 42 should be commercial. Most of the
growth in this area is along Cleveland Road.
• Area around the I-40 Interchan�e with NC 210 — These uses largely reflect what is there now.
• Area near the Intersection of NC 42 and NC 50 —This area has sewer service. A Sheetz and a
grocery store are already present. The current map expresses the most likely No Build Scenario.
Commercial developers have expressed interest to the north. The area is much less likely to
experience commercial development under the No Build Scenario.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with NC 50 - Traffic from Smithfield generally travel
along Cleveland Road then turn right onto I-40. From the Pleasant Grove area, commuters take
NC 50 to Old Drug Store Road to NC 42 to I-40. Planners are hoping that the Complete 540
project will funnel the Pleasant Grove traffic and some of the Smithfield traffic to the Complete
540 interchange with NC 50. This would increase development potential in the area for the Build
Scenario.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with I-40 — Floodplains restrict development in this
area. Access issues to the southeast of the interchange also reduce development. The Suburban
Commercial Center to the northeast should be a Mixed-Use Center.
• Area near the Complete 540 Interchan�e with White Oak Road —The area around Cornwallis
Road is an environmentally sensitive district.
• Southeast Johnston Countv — No changes anticipated.
• Wilson's Mill Area —This is a high growth area with a new high school.
Sewer availability limits commercial development in portions of Johnston County. Clayton has its own
sewer system. Currently, County sewer lines do not extend north of the US 70 Bypass, but an extension
is under consideration. The availability of sewer and water from the County also lessens the incentive
for growing areas to incorporate or be annexed. For example, the Cleveland area near to the I-40
interchange with NC 42 is populous, but not likely to incorporate.
Transit options in Johnston County area limited. Wilson's Mills and Clayton would benefit from
commuter rail; however, residents in the rest of the county are too spread out for rail to be effective.
There is some limited bus service. Clayton and the Cleveland area may get Go Triangle bus service.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) includes widening NC 42 to a 4-lane facility from Clayton to NC 50.
In western Johnston County, development north of Middle Creek (Cleveland area) is going stronger than
pre-recession levels. South of Middle Creek (McGees Crossroads), development is still relatively slow.
Complete 540 will ease traffic bottlenecks between McGees Crossroads and I-40, which may spur
development south of Middle Creek. This development would most likely be small-lot residential. Most
of the development south of Middle Creek occurred in the 2000s, and 25 percent or more of Johnston
County's development potential is in this area.
Next Steps:
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review and comment.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: September 6, 2016
1:OOPMto2:30PM
Knightdale Planning Department, Knightdale, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Jason Brown, Town of Knightdale, Senior Planner
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Eng.
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Eng.
Will Kerr, Michael Baker Eng.
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for Town of Knightdale
Notes:
Scudder and Ken provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of
work for Complete 540. They discussed the plan to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine
2040 to forecast land use in Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios for 2040. They described the
area within the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). They discussed the need to review the Place Type
inputs to accurately reflect the likely development patterns in a Build and No Build Scenario.
Jason said that within the town land use is proactively zoned land use is very similar to the zoning map.
Interchanges with zoning designations are included on the Town zoning map. Rural residential is being
preserved through zoning.
The group next discussed anticipated development in specific locations. Under the No Build alternative
industrial development is expected on Hodge Road. Small lot residential development will also occur of
west of Hodge Road, 1,000 residential units are planned. Mixed density is anticipated east of Hodge
Road.
Jason talked about the importance of utility connections to potential development. There is a pump
station planned on Hodge Road which will encourage development in the area. There is no sewer
between I-540 and Smithfield Road. This reduces the likelihood of development under the Build and No
Build scenarios in this area. Water service is available on Poole Road and may encourage annexation.
This not likely without sewer service. Poole Road would be attractive for development if sewer service
was installed. Sewer service along Poole Road is a CIP decision. Near Bethlehem Road, the installation
of sewer could also encourage development.
Jason identified a number of additional development areas in Knightdale. He said that in general the
Build scenario would accelerate mixed use development east and west of the I-540 alignment. There is
a primary activity center near Poole Road/ I-540 interchange. Mixed use development would occur
under the No Build and commercial development is more likely under the Build. Eventually, Clifton Road

Page 2 of 2
could become a rural living area under the No Build. The Town was likely to develop park land and open
space along the Neuse River trail area under the Build and No Build.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Maps showing Build and No-Build 2040 place types will be developed for the Town of Knightdale
review.
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to the Town of Knightdale
meeting participants for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 2
Complete 540 – Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: September 7, 2016
2:OOPMto3:00PM
City of Raleigh Planning Department, Raleigh, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 – Complete 540 – Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Bynum Walter, City of Raleigh, Senior Planner
John Anagnost, City of Raleigh, Planner I
Kyle Little, City of Raleigh, Planner I
Ray Aull, City of Raleigh, Planner II, GIS
Ken Bowers, City of Raleigh, City Planning Director
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for City of Raleigh
Notes:
Scudder and Ken provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of
work for Complete 540. They discussed the plan to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine
2040 to forecast land use in Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios for 2040. They described the
area within the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). They discussed the need to review the Place Type
inputs to accurately reflect the likely development patterns in a Build and No Build Scenario.
The group first discussed the western portion of the jurisdiction within the FLUSA, in the Tryon Road
area. Most of this area is coded as Civic and Institutional, is owned by the state, and is unlikely to change
due to the regulatory limitations associated with the Swift Creek watershed. If this area was somehow
developed, infrastructure improvements would be required. Ken Bowers laterjoined the discussion and
agreed with that assessment.
The group then turned its attention to the other half of the jurisdiction. Bynum mentioned that the area
east of the proposed 540 would be more greatly affected by the road than the west. Not much planning
has been done in the urban service area. Commercial development would make sense in the area of
Poole Road, especially at Hodge Road. Raleigh planners anticipated that mixed use neighborhood and
multifamily residential neighborhood parcels would be likely near this intersection with or without
Complete 540. This reflects the City's interchange policy—to allow growth along interchanges at the
nearest major intersection.
The City explained that the area around Auburn-Knightdale Road is more rural and much of the land is
publically-owned. They would like to keep most growth inside the Complete 540 corridor. They noted an
existing landfill off Old Baucom Road. A couple of Suburban Commercial Centers would be likely in a

Page 2 of 2
Build scenario on Auburn-Knightdale Road at Battle Bridge Road and Rock Quarry Road. City staff
pointed out a few proposed roads in the area: one connecting Hodge to Auburn-Knightdale, one north
of Rock Quarry connecting New Hope and Barwell, and another between Poole and Hodge. The timing
of these roads is uncertain but they would improve connectivity in the area and possibly encourage a
node of commercial activity. The proposed facilities are not currently fiscally constrained.
The area of the proposed interchange with Auburn-Knightdale road is wet and prone to flooding. Down
the road at Grasshopper, City planners noted the potential for a Suburban Commercial in a Build
scenario. City staff inentioned that in a No-Build scenario, such development was unlikely and not be
redistributed elsewhere. Historically, southeast Raleigh has slower growth than the rest of the city.
Building Complete 540 might encourage additional growth but would not likely change the area into a
fast growing sector.
The City mentioned that parcels coded as Parks and Open Space will not change under either scenario.
In the southeastern corner, there are a couple of parcels coded as Small-Lot Residential that will become
Civic and Institutional in either scenario. The group discussed plans for Olde Towne Golf Course at Rock
Quarry and New Hope Road that has stalled for several years and will likely not change anytime soon.
Staff expected that any development there would likely still be Small Lot Residential. The City pointed
out a couple of school parcels—at Poole and Old Poole and at Poole and Barwell with adjacent Suburban
Commercial in both scenarios.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Maps showing Build and No-Build 2040 place types will be developed for the City of Raleigh
review.
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to the City of Raleigh meeting
participants for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 3
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Town of Smithfield
MEETING MINUTES
Date: September 23, 2016
11:00 AM to 12:30 PM
Smithfield Town Hall, 350 E. Market Street, Smithfield, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Paul Embler, Jr., Planning Director, Town of Smithfield
Mark Helmer, Planner/GIS Technician, Town of Smithfield
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering (via telelconference)
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering (via telelconference)
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Notes:
After introductions, Scudder and Ken provided background on the status of the Complete 540 Project
and explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land use
impacts and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling land use differences and
estimating the acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with
Complete 540 (Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at
developing existing and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team
is trying to pivot off the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this
Quantitative ICE is to use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development
under the Build and No Build scenarios for 2040. The team is working with Matt Noonkester, who ran
the model for Imagine 2040, to rerun the model.
The project team explained to the Town of Smithfield planners that the purpose of this meeting is to
gather data on how land uses in the Town's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the Build Scenario
and understand how these land uses would be different from the No Build Scenario. The team brought a
map showing the projected 2040 land use Place Types provided by Smithfield and used in the Imagine
2040 modeling effort. The map displayed parcels and 2040 Place Types for the portions of Smithfield
inside the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). This map served as a starting point for discussion. Place
Type changes recommended by Smithfield planners were captured on the map. The marked-up map will
be used to generate maps reflecting the outcomes of this meeting. These maps are attached to these
notes for review.
The Smithfield planners were involved in neither the Imagine 2040 nor the Connect 2045 effort.
Smithfield is in the Upper Coastal Plain Rural Planning Organization (RPO). They have worked with the
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) on a limited basis to submit hot spot
information for study. The hot spot they reported was near US 70 and I-95.

Page 2 of 3
Smithfield planners also noted that the Smithfield Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
(http://www.smithfield-nc.com/page/planning_documents) is from 2003. Updates to the 2008 Unified
Development Ordinance and zoning maps are underway. In 2010, Smithfield expanded its ETJ to 2 miles
from the town limits. Zoning in this area was adopted from Johnston County zoning and needs to be
evaluated further by the Smithfield planners.
The meeting attendees then turned their attention to the map to discuss growth in specific areas.
• US 70 Business Corridor in the Northeast — Industrial growth is likely to occur along US 70
Business in the vicinity of the airport. This growth is likely to happen by 2040 independent of the
Complete 540 project and will include the existing commercial parcels.
• Cross-hatched Area on Smithfield Zonin� Map —This map is available (http://www.smithfield-
nc.com/pa�e/plannin� documents). The cross hatching indicates a sensitive watershed area and
development is limited. The default land use type should be large-lot residential. Other uses
may occur as indicated; however, the allowed percent impervious will be limited. For example,
the maximum allowed percent impervious for heavy industrial use in the area is 24%. It should
be noted that the edge of this area is not exact. It should be along a ridgeline. When zoning a
parcel in this area, the planners visit the site to confirm drainage.
• Northeast Area — Small-lot residential is likely in this area.
• Area near Smith Creek Road and US 70 Business — This area is a growth node, and a small area
plan is recommended.
• Area near Smith Creek Road and NC 210 — This area is likely to develop into a Neighborhood
Commercial Center.
• Cleveland Road — Residential development is spreading towards Smithfield due to increasing
land costs in western Johnston County. Several potential small-lot residential developments in
this area have requested water and sewer service in this area. The Town has the capacity to
serve this area. A commercial node is expected near the intersection of Cleveland Road and
Smith Creek Road.
Paul provided a partial, marked up map of his recommended changes.
The construction of the US 70 Bypass has significantly reduced traffic on US 70 Business, leaving the land
along this facility ripe for development as traffic is light on this 4-lane road.
Pharmaceutical industries in Clayton are growing by $2 billion. This expansion is likely to influence
development in Smithfield.
Johnston County supplies water and sewer to most of Smithfield's ETJ expansion. Smithfield utilities also
serve this area.
Geography limits growth in Smithfield. The Neuse River floodplain and the lack of economic stimulation
east of I-95 directs developmental growth in other areas.
Overall, Complete 540 would improve commutes for Smithfield residents. The airport is continuing to
grow and attracting nearby industrial development. Although the Complete 540 project is unlikely to
change the Place Types on parcels in Smithfield's jurisdiction, it may help development on these parcels
come to fruition.

Page 3 of 3
Next Steps:
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review, comment, and approval.
• Ken will send Paul the construction schedule for Complete 540.

Page 1 of 3
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
Wake County
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 29, 2016
1:OOPMto2:30PM
Wake County Planning Office, 336 Fayetteville Street, Suite 101, Raleigh, NC 27602
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
Bill Shroyer, GIS Analyst, Wake County
Tim Gardiner, Planner, Wake County
Samantha Smith, Town of Fuquay-Varina
Mike Sorensen, Town of Fuquay-Varina
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Emaly Simone, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for Wake County map
Notes:
After introductions, the Scudder and Ken provided background on the status of the Complete 540
Project and explained the Quantitative ICE process. The Quantitative ICE analysis will estimate the land
use impacts and water quality impacts of the proposed road by modeling the land use differences and
estimating the acres of different land uses in the future (2040) under two different scenarios: with
Complete 540 (Build) and without Complete 540 (No Build). Since the region has already worked at
developing existing and future land use projections through the Imagine 2040 process, the project team
is trying to pivot off the substantial work already completed. Therefore, the approach for this
Quantitative ICE is use the CommunityViz model developed for Imagine 2040 to model development
under the Build Scenario for 2040. The team working with Matt Noonkester, who ran the model for
Imagine 2040, to rerun the model.
The project team explained to Wake County representatives that the purpose of this meeting is to
gather data on how land uses in the County's jurisdiction would change in 2040 under the Build Scenario
and understand how these land uses would be different from the No Build Scenario. The team brought a
map showing the projected 2040 land use Place Types provided by Wake County and used in the
Imagine 2040 modeling effort. The map displayed parcels and 2040 Place Types for the portions of Wake
County inside the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) and outside of municipal extraterritorial
jurisdictions (ETJs). The map served as a starting point for discussion. County staff supplied edits, and
the updated maps are enclosed for review.

Page 2 of 3
The project team asked if the Imagine 2040 Place Types were developed with the assumption that
Complete 540 would be built. Wake County representatives stated that the Imagine 2040 Place Type
designations were assigned with the assumption that the road would be built by 2040; however, they
also stated that these designations were developed in 2007-2008, reflect pre-Recession Place Types
projections, and assumed that Complete 540 would be a free facility (i.e., not tolled). Given the age of
the Place Type designation and the economic changes that have occurred over time, the project team
may want to consider running the CommunityViz model for both the Build and No Build scenarios. The
project team stated that input from Wake County on Place Type designations for both scenarios would
be appreciated.
Wake County does not supply water or sewer service; therefore, the County planning department is only
responsible for long-range planning in non-urban areas. As land within the County jurisdiction is
developed at a denser level, the area is annexed by a Wake County municipality. Wake County has
developed a map showing the municipal boundaries, ETJs, short-range urban service areas (USAs), and
long-range USAs for each municipality in the county. Wake County representatives noted that the
municipalities would best be able to discuss long-range planning within their USAs. Representatives
from the Town of Fuquay-Varina noted that they joined the meeting to consult with Wake County
representatives and provide input for the Fuquay-Varina USA.
Wake County representatives noted that they are familiar with the CommunityViz model. The model
uses grids and that the sizes of these grids dictate the sensitivity of the model to Place Type designation
changes on a parcel level. County representatives noted that seeing the Place Type designations and the
grid input would be interesting.. County representatives also noted that stream order data and buffer
information may be included in the model to add other types of information.
The meeting attendees then turned their attention to the map to discuss growth in specific areas.
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with US 401— Fuquay-Varina is responsible for long-
range planning in this area south of Ten-Ten Road. Garner is responsible for long-range planning
in this area north of Ten-Ten Road. Fuquay-Varina representatives noted that utilities are
available in this area to serve Wake Technical Community College. Under a Build Scenario, this
development density would be higher than under a No Build Scenario. In the Build Scenario, the
larger undeveloped parcels and some of the older subdivisions would convert to commercial.
Land Uses will likely follow the Wake County Fuquay-Varina/GarnerArea Land Use Plan (2004)
map for the Ten-Ten/Rand Road Activity Center
(http://www.wake�ov.com/plannin�/maps/Documents/Fu�uay%20Land%20Use/ActivityCenter
s/TenTenRandRoad.pdf). Under a No Build Scenario, this development node is still likely to
occur, but the growth will be slower. For the No Build Scenario, only the big undeveloped
parcels and some of the smaller parcels would be converted to commercial uses.
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Bells Lake Road — This area is likely to be annexed by
Fuquay-Varina by 2040. Commercial development potential is limited in the vicinity of the future
interchange. Currently lack of utilities limit residential development south of the interchange.
Future development in this area would be on a small scale and more contingent on the Build
Scenario.
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with Old Sta�e Road — This area is within the Garner USA.
This area has the potential for major growth with undeveloped large parcels and redevelopment

Page 3 of 3
possibilities. Under a Build Scenario, this area could become a large commercial area with some
higher density residential development. Most of the residential development is likely to contain
a pairing of higher density development (apartments) with new subdivisions. Under the Build
Scenario, this area might resemble the White Oak area. If the road were not built, this
development would occur at a lower level and be located along Ten-Ten Road to the south. The
amount of residential development associated with commercial development would also
decrease.
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with NC 50 — This area is in the Garner and Raleigh USAs.
Swift Creek passes through this area. Development in this area may include a Neighborhood
Commercial Center (gas station/dollar store type of development).
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with I-40 — No changes are expected in this area.
• Area of the Complete 540 Interchan�e with White Oak Road — More residential development is
anticipated in this area.
• Swift Creek Watershed Area — Although Cary has offered to run utilities in this area if funding is
secured from another source, it would take a great deal of effort change the development
patterns in this area because of the land management plan. Therefore, no changes are expected
in this area of the county.
Wake County representatives noted that different municipalities had different foci regarding utilities
(i.e., water/sewer). Cary is looking to expand. Garner and Raleigh are focusing on improving the existing
system.
Wake County representatives also noted that the county's growth has been focused from Fuquay-Varina
west around Raleigh to Wake Forest.
Next Steps:
• A representative from Wake County will attend the project team's meeting with Garner to assist
with the Place Type designations in Garner's USA.
• A draft meeting summary and draft revised Place Type mapping will be developed to reflect this
discussion and sent to the meeting attendees for review, comment, and approval.

Page 1 of 1
Complete 540 — Quantitative ICE
Local Jurisdiction Outreach
MEETING MINUTES
Date: August 25, 2016
1:OOPMto2:30PM
Town of Wendell Community Development and Planning Department, Wendell, NC
Project: STIP R-2721, R-2828, R-2829 — Complete 540 — Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Attendees:
David Bergmark, Planning Director, Town of Wendell
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Engineering
Jon Wergin, Michael Baker Engineering
Will Kerr, Michael Baker Engineering
Ken Gilland, HNTB
Presentation Materials:
• Imagine 2040 Place Type Inputs for the Town of Wendell
Notes:
Scudder and Ken provided background on the Qualitative and Quantitative ICE process and scope of
work for the Complete 540 project. Scudder and Ken discussed the plan to use the CommunitiyViz
model developed for Imagine 2040 to forecast land use in Complete 540 Build and No Build Scenarios
for 2040. They described the area within the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA). They discussed the
need to review the Place Type inputs to accurately reflect the likely development patterns in a Build and
No Build Scenario.
The group reviewed the 2040 Place Types. David said land use assumptions for the Town of Wendell
need to be updated but not in relation to I-540. Wendell has an arterial and collector street plan in the
development process.
The group next discussed ongoing development that is independent of Complete 540. A gas station and
other neighborhood commercial development is planned near the intersection of Wendell Falls Parkway
and NC 264. Residential development is anticipated southwest of the intersection. This would be small
lot residential (0.3 to .25 acre lots). Residential development (planned urban development [PUD] with
12-year timeline) is present at Martin Pond Road and Wendell Falls Parkway.
Town of Wendell does not think Complete 540 will effect development location or density. The project
would not change place types, it may increase the pace of development. Unless something unexpected
happens, development patterns should not change. The Knightdale Bypass is a critical connection for
the Town of Wendell. They indicated that I-540 will be a plus to transportation patterns the area. They
considered the US 64/264 improvements as more critical to transportation access for Wendell.
Next Steps:
• A meeting summary will be drafted.
• Maps showing Build and No-Build 2040 place types will be developed
• The meeting summary and revised mapping will be forwarded to David Bergmark for review,
comment, and approval.