2. Alternatives ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT US 52 OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. 2.1 Introduction

Transcription

1 2. Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the development and evaluation of scenarios and alternatives considered for the proposed action. The goal of this process, which is described in more detail in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report (December 2003) and the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum (December 2007), was to analyze a range of solutions that would address the purpose and need of this project. Initially, the project team considered a number of solutions, including a set of preliminary interim build scenarios (Section 2.4) and other solutions that were considered and dismissed during the initial screening (Section 2.3). Scenarios identify spot improvements that enhance traffic operations or increase capacity at a specific location or along a specific segment. Since the costs of many of these scenarios were below the preliminary budget of $15 million, the study team evaluated various combinations of scenarios with a combined opinion of probable cost equal to approximately $15 million for roadway improvements. To differentiate these combinations of scenarios, they are referred to as alternatives. Alternatives are discussed in Section 2.5. The evaluation process is depicted in Figure 2-1. The analysis began with eighteen preliminary construction scenarios and eight preliminary Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) scenarios. Through preliminary evaluation and input from the Study Advisory Committee, these twenty-six preliminary scenarios were reduced to thirteen construction and four ITS scenarios. Additional analysis and prioritization by the Study Advisory Committee led to the ranking of these scenarios. The top-ranked ten construction and four ITS scenarios were then grouped into sixteen alternative packages that combine aspects of several scenarios, both construction and ITS. These alternatives were analyzed and evaluated to produce a list of four ranked alternatives including the No-Build Alternative. The impacts of these four alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 4. Each alternative was evaluated with respect to its ability to meet the project purpose and need. As detailed in this chapter, some alternatives were dismissed because they do not effectively meet the project s purposes and needs. Study results and recommendations have been presented at several meetings, and input from leaders, stakeholders, citizens, and the committee was requested (see Section 6.2). The alternatives that have been retained for further study have been presented to the public at a citizens workshop. Following that citizens workshop, a preferred alternative was selected by NCDOT based on input from regional leaders, stakeholders, interested citizens, the consultant s recommendation, and the recommendation of a 15-member PAGE 2-1

2 Study Advisory Committee. The Preferred Alternative will be presented at the Public Hearing. Figure 2.1. Flowchart of Evaluation Process PAGE 2-2

3 2.2 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative means no actions would be implemented under this project (STIP Project U-2826B). Under this alternative, only committed state projects would be implemented. Committed projects are those projects listed on the LRTP, Table 3-1, and projects listed on the State TIP, Table 3-2. In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR (d)) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines (FHWA Technical Advisory A, 1987: p.16), the No-Build Alternative is given full consideration and provides baseline conditions with which to compare the improvements and consequences associated with the build alternatives. The No-Build Alternative is also identified as Scenario 0 or Alternative Solutions Considered and Dismissed as Scenarios Optional Projects While not projects in their own right because they do not meet the purpose and need for this project, various programs are worthy of discussion and consideration as a smaller part of one or all of the scenarios described in Section 2.4. Because all of the scenarios involve a change of access to US 52 by closure or modification of an existing ramp, the impact can be mitigated by integrating one or more of the following optional add-on projects. Education and Community Awareness Programs Forsyth County Drivers Education courses could be modified to instruct drivers how to handle unique features of US 52, such as short merge areas. Enhanced Wayfinding and Signage Implementation of a comprehensive urban wayfinding system would enhance traveler information, reduce confusion, and add to the economic success of the area. Improved Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Additional sidewalks and wide outside lanes on cross-streets may help connect the two sides of US 52 and make it easier for motorists and bicyclists to share the road Scenarios Considered but Rejected Before Preliminary Analysis The following scenarios were considered initially, but were eliminated from further study for the reasons described below. Truck Restrictions A requirement for large trucks to use alternate routes (e.g., Interstate 77) would have operational benefits on US 52, but would result in unacceptable delays of the movement of goods in and through the region and was rejected for that reason. PAGE 2-3

4 Pavement Overlay and Restriping to Increase Shoulder Widths While the highway needs an overlay, the essence of this scenario is to narrow travel lane widths and increase the shoulder widths. Narrowing the travel lane widths is considered counterproductive to safety and was rejected for that reason. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) Lane on US 52 Creating a reversible HOV lane in the median of US 52 is not only difficult to do geometrically, but extremely expensive due to restrictions on bridge piers and was rejected for these reasons. Business 40/US 52 Interchange Rebuild The Business 40/US 52 interchange may be the primary bottleneck that leads to all other secondary bottlenecks on US 52. While a bottleneck fix is desirable, the cost of the fix is well beyond the scope of this project and was rejected for that reason. This project is included in the City of Winston-Salem US 52 Corridor Land Use and Transportation Plan (Section 1.7.3). Liberty Street Improvements Improvements to Liberty Street are favored by the Liberty Street community, but were deemed incompatible with the goals of moving regional traffic, improving safety, and relieving congestion on US 52. The consensus was that a combination of private and local public funding would be more appropriate for improving Liberty Street. 2.4 Preliminary Interim Build Scenarios Construction Scenarios The following is a brief description of the eighteen build scenarios. These scenarios are described in more detail in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report (December 2003) and the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum (December 2007). These scenarios were identified in December 2001 from studies conducted by NCDOT in , as well as investigations conducted in 2001 and discussions with NCDOT and the City of Winston-Salem. Scenario 1 Full-time shoulder lane use northbound from Business 40/US 421 to north of Liberty Street (South). During the design process, this scenario was modified to only extend from Business 40/US 421 to Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive (rather than Liberty Street) to avoid a bridge replacement at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive interchange. Since the volumes at the Liberty Street (South) interchange are relatively low, it was determined that this revision would not have a negative effect on mobility or safety in the corridor. Scenario 2 Full-time shoulder lane use southbound from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to north of the Business 40/US 421 on-ramp. During the design process, this scenario was modified to only extend from the south ramps at Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive (rather than the north ramps) to avoid a bridge replacement at the Martin Luther King, Jr. PAGE 2-4

5 Drive interchange. Since the volumes at the Liberty Street (South) interchange are relatively low, it was determined that this revision would not have a negative effect on mobility or safety in the corridor. Scenario 3 Part-time shoulder lane use northbound from Business 40/US 421 to north of Liberty Street (South). Scenario 4 Part-time shoulder lane use southbound from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to north of the Business 40/US 421 on-ramp. Scenario 5a Close Stadium Drive interchange ramps. Scenario 5b Close northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp at Stadium Drive interchange. Scenario 6a Close Stadium Drive interchange ramps, rebuild Vargrave Street ramps using existing undercrossing, and build Salem Creek Connector between Vargrave Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Scenario 6b Close Stadium Drive interchange ramps, rebuild Vargrave Street ramps using new undercrossing, and build Salem Creek Connector between Vargrave Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Scenario 6c Close Stadium Drive interchange ramps and build Salem Creek Connector between Vargrave Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Scenario 6d Close Stadium Drive interchange ramps, rebuild Vargrave Street ramps using existing undercrossing, and build Salem Creek Connector between Salem Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Scenario 7 Close ramps at 3rd, 5th, and Liberty Street; improve Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive/US 52, Main Street/ Business 40, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive/ Business 40 interchanges. During the October 2003 Citizens Informational Workshop, citizens requested that Scenario 7 be modified to only close ramps at 3rd and 5th Streets. Therefore, alternatives that include Scenario 7 do not include closing ramps at Liberty Street. Scenario 8 Modify US 52 ramps at Business 40, 3rd Street, 5th Street, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive interchanges. Scenario 9 Close Northwest Boulevard ramp and modify Liberty Street (South) ramps. PAGE 2-5

6 Scenario 10 Close Liberty Street (South) ramps and complete Northwest Boulevard interchange. Scenario 11a Implement access changes at Akron Drive interchange area. This alternative was revised during the analysis process; original recommended improvements are described in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report (December 2003). Scenario 11b Implement access changes at Akron Drive interchange area and replace southbound on-ramp with loop ramp. Scenario 12 Build auxiliary lane on US 52 between Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive and 5th Street. Scenario 13 Close Liberty Street (South) ramps Intelligent Transportation Systems Scenarios Substantial investments in ITS have been made on US 52. This study includes analysis of new ITS scenarios and ways to integrate these ITS scenarios into the construction scenarios described above. The following descriptions summarize the existing ITS system and the proposed ITS scenarios for the study. More detail on the existing, committed, and proposed ITS system is in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report and the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum. Existing and Committed ITS System: NCDOT and the City of Winston-Salem have worked together to create a multifaceted Intelligent Transportation System in Winston- Salem. Their incident management and traveler information systems include closed circuit television (CCTV), dynamic message signs (DMS), an incident management assistance patrol (IMAP), and the Winston-Salem Mobility Manager project (WSMM). Scenario A1 Enhanced traveler information system. Scenario A1 would include additional fiber optic communications, a detection system and additional CCTV and DMS units on freeways in the network, and enhanced web/tv links to the WSMM. Scenario A2 Enhanced traveler information system, arterial DMS and CCTV, and web-based traffic conditions map. Scenario A2 calls for the improvements included in Scenario A1, as well as CCTV and DMS units on arterial roads that serve as approach roads to the freeways or as alternate corridors, and a web-based traffic conditions map. Scenario A3 Comprehensive ITS treatment of corridor. Scenario A3 includes Scenario A2, as well as detection on alternate corridors and a web-based flow condition map on alternate corridors. In addition, it includes an interface with the 511 system, PAGE 2-6

7 adaptive signal control on alternate corridors, and a system to display select origindestination travel times on DMS units and a website. Scenario B Ramp metering at Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive on-ramps and 5th Street on-ramp, and lane control on US 52 from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to Business 40/US 421. Scenario C Truck rollover detection and notification system at the US 52/I-40 interchange. Scenario D Close ramps between 3rd Street and Northwest Boulevard during peak periods. Scenario E Reversible lanes on University Boulevard and Patterson Avenue. Scenario F Close US 421/Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive on-ramp and extend westbound US 421/northbound US 52 Ramp Evaluation of Preliminary Scenarios The eighteen construction and eight ITS scenarios described above were analyzed individually. The following section summarized the results of the preliminary analysis. More detail and figures for each scenario are in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report and the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum. The initial screening process involved collaboration with the US 52 Study Advisory Committee, which was comprised local planning staff, FHWA, and NCDOT. The preliminary screening process was intended to eliminate those scenarios with major negative constructability, operation, or safety impacts. Another measure considered was the degree of consistency with the US 52 Corridor Study Land Use and Transportation Plan (2003) developed for the City of Winston-Salem. The long-range plan was to be accommodated when possible, but it was not be used to preclude a good short-term project. In other words, it would be ideal if the short-term project would contribute to the long-range plan for US 52; however, other good ideas were not eliminated if they would serve the community and travelers in the meantime Scenarios Considered but Not Recommended for Further Study. Five of the eighteen construction scenarios (Scenarios 3, 4, 6d, 8, and 9) and four of the eight ITS scenarios (B, D, E, and F) studied were determined not to warrant further study. A brief listing of advantages and disadvantages, and reasons for the elimination of these scenarios from further studies are described below: PAGE 2-7

8 Construction Scenarios Scenario 3 Eliminated from further study due to potential problems with driver confusion related to part-time shoulder use. Scenario 4 Similar to Scenario 3, Scenario 4 was eliminated from further study due to potential problems with driver confusion related to part-time shoulder use. Scenario 6d Eliminated from further study as part of this project due to cost and environmental issues. Currently, this project is being evaluated under separate STIP Project U Scenario 8 Eliminated from further study due to potential problems with driver confusion and congestion and safety issues related to the non-traditional freeway-to-local street traffic pattern requirements. Scenario 9 Eliminated from further study due to the design problems associated with the northbound loop ramp (tight horizontal curvature and short ramp length). Intelligent Transportation Systems Scenarios Package B Eliminated from further study due to the short ramps and limited applicability of ramp metering. Package D Eliminated from further study due to the limited benefits and potential for driver confusion. Package E Eliminated from further study due to design considerations. Package F Eliminated from further study due to design considerations Scenarios Retained for Further Study The remaining twelve construction scenarios and four ITS packages were carried forward for a technical analysis, in addition to the No-Build Alternative. The preliminary evaluation used the Triad Regional Travel Demand Model to evaluate regional improvements, Synchro traffic analysis software to evaluate the construction scenarios, and ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) software to evaluate the ITS improvements. A more detailed description of the analysis process is included in the US PAGE 2-8

9 52 Alternatives Analysis Report (December 2003), and an update of the evaluation results is in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum (December 2007). Following the evaluation, a blended approach of quantitative analysis and qualitative discussion was used to compare and rank the scenarios to determine those that would be carried forward for inclusion in the alternatives. The quantitative analysis included a survey completed by nine of the twenty Study Advisory Committee members in April These members, including NCDOT, FHWA, and local planning staff, ranked eleven evaluation factors that would be used to determine the effectiveness of each scenario in addressing the purpose and need of the project. These quantitative and qualitative performance measures were developed using the results obtained from the IDAS model, travel demand model, crash analysis, capacity analysis, roadway design, cost estimates, and right-of-way requirements (see Chapter 4 of the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Report, December 2003). Each Study Advisory Committee member assigned numerical values to each factor listed so that the total equated to 100 points. The results of the survey are indicated in Table 2-1, which lists the factors, their rank, and their relative importance on a 100 point scale. Table 2-1. Ranking of Evaluation Factors Rank Evaluation Factor Relative Importance 1 Safety 24 points 2 Relieve congestion on US 52 mainline 17 3 Relieve congestion on all roads in the study area other than US Relieve congestion on ramps 9 5 Cost 8 5 Duration of construction 8 7 Type 3 Design Exceptions 7 7 Type 2 Design Exceptions 7 9 Stay in existing right-of-way 5 10 Type 1 Design Exceptions 4 Total 100 points Notes: Type 3 Design Exceptions refer to highway design standards on the US 52 main line. Type 2 Design Exceptions refer to highway design standards on US 52 ramps. Type 1 Design Exceptions refer to standards for curb and gutter on US 52 main line Evaluation Matrix The next step in evaluating the performance of each improvement scenario was the development of an evaluation matrix. A matrix was developed to facilitate direct comparisons between each scenario and the No-Build Alternative. The ranking of evaluation factors that was developed by the Study Advisory Committee was applied to each scenario to produce a weighted value for each evaluation factor. The resulting PAGE 2-9

10 evaluation matrix is shown in Table 2-2. The scores in Table 2-2 for each evaluation factor have a maximum possible point value based on the rankings given in Table Results of the Evaluation Overall, the results of the evaluation indicate that the ITS scenarios typically ranked higher than the capacity improvement scenarios. However, Scenario 7 had the highest overall rank with points. Scenario 11b had the lowest overall rank with points. This information, along with the public workshop comments and direction from the Study Advisory Committee, was used to shortlist the scenarios. THIS PORTION OF THE PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. PAGE 2-10

11 Table Evaluation Matrix - Baseline and Scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5a Evaluation Factor Baseline Scenario 1 & (3) Scenario 2 & (4) Scenario 5a Scenario Description Close US 52 off-ramp to Liberty Street, modify Liberty Street/25th Street interchange Northbound Lane full time (part time) shoulder use Southbound lane full time (part time) shoulder use Close Stadium Drive interchange Safety weighted values based on existing crash rates and potential safety improvement at specific interchange locations (crash data source: NCDOT Crash Reports) Akron Dr. (165 crashes/3 yr), I-40 Bus (140 crashes/3 yr), 3rd-5th Sts. (115 crashes/3 yr), Stadium Dr. (78 crashes/3 yr), and MLK Jr. Blvd. (78 crashes/3 yr) Reduces congestion near 3rd, 4th, and 5th streets and near MLK, has the potential to reduce the number of merge/diverge crashes Reduces congestion near 3rd, 4th, and 5th streets and near MLK, has the potential to reduce the number of merge/diverge crashes Removes the 4 weaves between Stadium and I-40 business and Stadium and Vargrave, has potential to reduce weaving crashes due to increased weave distances US 52 Level of Service weighted values based on improving "worse" weaving areas along US 52 corridor (2015 design year) 10 Weaves LOS E or F Vargrave to Stadium, 5th to MLK Jr. improves, MLK Jr. to Liberty improves 3rd to I-40 Bus improves Stadium to I-40 Bus, 3rd to I-40 Bus improve Subarea Performance normal delay (2015 design year - PM) 4943 vehicle-hours 4921 vehicle-hours 4795 vehicle-hours 5072 vehicle-hours -average speed (2015 design year - PM) 42 mph 43.5 mph 43.5 mph 42.1 mph -unexpected delay (2015 design year - PM) 2401 hours 2356 hours 2331 hours 2394 hours Intersection Levels of Service based on worse than LOS D (2015 design year - PM) 8 worse than LOS D 7 worse than LOS D 8 worse than LOS D 7 worse than LOS D Cost dollars (construction only) $3.8 million $2.2 million $1 million Time to Construct duration in years 1.5 years 1.5 years 0.5 years Type 3 Design Exceptions mainline exceptions, horizontal and vertical alignment - points deducted for design exceptions horizontal and vertical clearance at bridges horizontal and vertical clearance at bridges Type 2 Design Exceptions ramp exceptions, grade, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Type 1 Design Exceptions curb and gutter exceptions, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Right-of-Way acres taken & property acquisition none 1 acre 1 acre none Total Additional Information Long Range Plan Consistency Yes Yes Yes Yes Individual factors were scored on a 100 % point basis. The highest (relative) scoring alternative for each factor received the maximum number of points. Lower scoring alternatives were scored on the same scale with the lowest scoring alternative receiving no points. Sub-area performance is scored in three parts, one for each component. For one alternative to receive the maximum number of points (11) would require that the alternative score the highest number of points for each part. Scenario 6d results are included in the analysis for TIP U Scenarios 8, 9, B, D, E, & F were found to be unfeasible. As a result, these scenarios are excluded in the Evaluation Matrix Page 2-11

12 Table Evaluation Matrix - Scenarios 5b, 6a, 6b, 6c, and 7 Evaluation Factor Scenario 5b Scenario 6a Scenario 6b Scenario 6c Scenario 7 Scenario Description Close Stadium Drive north side ramps Close Stadium Drive, rebuild Vargrave Interchange using Existing Bridge, & build Salem Creek Connector from Vargrave to MLK Close Stadium Drive, rebuild Vargrave Interchange with new Bridge, & build Salem Creek Connector from Vargrave to MLK Close Stadium Drive, & build Salem Creek Connector from Vargrave to MLK Close ramps at 3rd, 5th, and Liberty Streets, build mitigation* Safety weighted values based on existing crash rates and potential safety improvement at specific interchange locations (crash data source: NCDOT Crash Reports) Removes the 2 weaves between Stadium Drive and I-40 business, has potential to reduce weaving crashes due to increased weaving distances Removes dangerous weave between Stadium Drive and I-40, should reduce rear-end and run-off road crashes Removes dangerous weave between Stadium Drive and I-40, should reduce rear-end and run-off road crashes Removes dangerous weave between Stadium Drive and I-40, should reduce rear-end and runoff road crashes Increases the length of the weave between I-40 and MLK Jr. Blvd., should reduce rear-end, sideswipe, and run-off road crashes US 52 Level of Service weighted values based on improving "worse" weaving areas along US 52 corridor (2015 design year) Vargrave to Stadium, Stadium to I-40 Bus, 3rd to I-40 Bus, I-40 Bus loops to Stadium, Stadium to Diggs improve Vargrave to Stadium improves, Stadium to I- 40 Bus improves, I-40 Bus to Stadium improves, Stadium to Diggs improves Vargrave to Stadium improves, Stadium to I- 40 Bus improves, I-40 Bus to Stadium improves, Stadium to Diggs improves Vargrave to Stadium improves, Stadium to I- 40 Bus improves, I-40 Bus to Stadium improves, Stadium to Diggs improves I-40 Bus to 3rd improves, 5th to MLK Jr. improves, MLK Jr. to Liberty improves, Liberty to MLK Jr. improves, 3rd to I-40 Bus improves Subarea Performance normal delay (2015 design year - PM) 5005 vehicle-hours 4947 vehicle-hours 4947 vehicle-hours 4947 vehicle-hours 4083 vehicle-hours -average speed (2015 design year - PM) 42.1 mph 42.2 mph 42.2 mph 42.2 mph 43.7 mph -unexpected delay (2015 design year - PM) 2399 hours 2392 hours 2392 hours 2392 hours 2396 hrs Intersection Levels of Service based on worse than LOS D (2015 design year - PM) 8 worse than LOS D 7 worse than LOS D 7 worse than LOS D 8 worse than LOS D 6 worse than LOS D Cost dollars (construction only) $0.5 million $8.3 million $9.9 million $3.1 million $2.4 million Time to Construct duration in years 0.3 years 2.0 years 3.0 years 1.0 years 1.5 years Type 3 Design Exceptions mainline exceptions, horizontal and vertical alignment - points deducted for design exceptions Type 2 Design Exceptions ramp exceptions, grade, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Type 1 Design Exceptions curb and gutter exceptions, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Right-of-Way acres taken & property acquisition none 15 acres 15 acres 7 acres 3 acres Total Additional Information Long Range Plan Consistency Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Individual factors were scored on a 100 % point basis. The highest (relative) scoring alternative for each factor received the maximum number of points. Lower scoring alternatives were scored on the same scale with the lowest scoring alternative receiving no points. Sub-area performance is scored in three parts, one for each component. For one alternative to receive the maximum number of points (11) would require that the alternative score the highest number of points for each part. Scenario 6d results are included in the analysis for TIP U Scenarios 8, 9, B, D, E, & F were found to be unfeasible. As a result, these scenarios are excluded in the Evaluation Matrix This analysis was done for the original limits of Scenario 7, including closing ramps at 3rd, 5th, and Liberty Streets. Scenario 7 was modified following this analysis to only include closing ramps at 3rd and 5th Streets, and not at Liberty Street. Page 2-12

13 Table Evaluation Matrix - Scenarios 10, 11a, 11b, 12, and 13 Evaluation Factor Scenario 10 Scenario 11a Scenario 11b Scenario 12 Scenario 13 Scenario Description Close ramps at Liberty Street and modify the Northwest Boulevard interchange Modify access at Akron Drive Construct a loop at the Akron Drive interchange Construct a southbound auxiliary lane between MLK Jr. Boulevard and 5th Street Close Liberty Street (south) Ramps Safety weighted values based on existing crash rates and potential safety improvement at specific interchange locations (crash data source: NCDOT Crash Reports) Removes ramp, increases weave distance between MLK Jr. Blvd. And NW Blvd., should reduce rear-end and run-off road crashes Ramp geometry improvements may reduce crash frequency Ramp geometry improvements may reduce crash frequency Increases the length of the weave between MLK Jr. Blvd and 5th Street, should reduce rear-end and run-off road crashes Removes two weave sections US 52 Level of Service weighted values based on improving "worse" weaving areas along US 52 corridor (2015 design year) MLK Jr. to Liberty improves, Liberty to NW Blvd. Improves n/a n/a Weave added with new auxiliary lane Removes two weave sections Subarea Performance normal delay (2015 design year - PM) 5109 vehicle-hours 4943 vehicle-hours 4943 vehicle-hours 4943 vehicle-hours 5109 vehicle-hours -average speed (2015 design year - PM) 42.3 mph 42 mph 42 mph 42 mph 42.3 mph -unexpected delay (2015 design year - PM) 2418 hours 2401 hours 2401 hours 2401 hours 2418 hours Intersection Levels of Service based on worse than LOS D (2015 design year - PM) 7 worse than LOS D 8 worse than LOS D 8 worse than LOS D 8 worse than LOS D 7 worse than LOS D Cost dollars (construction only) $3.15 million $2.0 million $3.5 million $0.5 million $0.5 million Time to Construct duration in years 2.0 years 1.0 years 1.0 years 0.5 years 0.5 years Type 3 Design Exceptions mainline exceptions, horizontal and vertical alignment - points deducted for design exceptions Type 2 Design Exceptions ramp exceptions, grade, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Type 1 Design Exceptions curb and gutter exceptions, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Right-of-Way acres taken & property acquisition 2 acres 0.5 acres 0.5 acres none none Total Additional Information Long Range Plan Consistency No Yes Yes Yes Yes Individual factors were scored on a 100 % point basis. The highest (relative) scoring alternative for each factor received the maximum number of points. Lower scoring alternatives were scored on the same scale with the lowest scoring alternative receiving no points. Sub-area performance is scored in three parts, one for each component. For one alternative to receive the maximum number of points (11) would require that the alternative score the highest number of points for each part. Scenario 6d results are included in the analysis for TIP U Scenarios 8, 9, B, D, E, & F were found to be unfeasible. As a result, these scenarios are excluded in the Evaluation Matrix Page 2-13

14 Table Evaluation Matrix - Scenarios A1, A2, A3, and C Evaluation Factor A1 A2 A3 C Scenario Description Enhanced traveler information system, includes detection on US 52 and US 421, includes CCTV and DMS on US 52, US 421, and I-40 bypass Package A1 plus DMS and CCTV on arterials and a web-based interstate traffic flow condition map Package A2 plus a web-based flow condition map on alternate corridors, interface with 511, detection on alternate corridors, adaptive signal control, and display select O/D travel times on DMS and web Implement rollover detection notification system at US 52/I-40 bypass Safety weighted values based on existing crash rates and potential safety improvement at specific interchange locations (crash data source: NCDOT Crash Reports) n/a n/a n/a n/a US 52 Level of Service weighted values based on improving "worse" weaving areas along US 52 corridor (2015 design year) n/a n/a n/a n/a Subarea Performance normal delay (2015 design year - PM) 4943 vehicle-hours 4943 vehicle-hours 4618 vehicle-hours 4943 vehicle-hours -average speed (2015 design year - PM) 42 mph 42 mph 42.8 mph 42 mph -unexpected delay (2015 design year - PM) 1708 hours 1501 hours 1274 hours 2401 hours Intersection Levels of Service based on worse than LOS D (2015 design year - PM) n/a n/a n/a n/a Cost dollars (construction only) $3.0 million $4.0 million $5.5 million $0.25 million Time to Construct duration in years 1.0 year 1.5 years 2.5 years 0.4 years Type 3 Design Exceptions mainline exceptions, horizontal and vertical alignment - points deducted for design exceptions Type 2 Design Exceptions ramp exceptions, grade, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Type 1 Design Exceptions curb and gutter exceptions, etc. - points deducted for design exceptions Right-of-Way acres taken & property acquisition Total Additional Information Long Range Plan Consistency Yes Yes Yes Yes Individual factors were scored on a 100 % point basis. The highest (relative) scoring alternative for each factor received the maximum number of points. Lower scoring alternatives were scored on the same scale with the lowest scoring alternative receiving no points. Sub-area performance is scored in three parts, one for each component. For one alternative to receive the maximum number of points (11) would require that the alternative score the highest number of points for each part. Scenario 6d results are included in the analysis for TIP U Scenarios 8, 9, B, D, E, & F were found to be unfeasible. As a result, these scenarios are excluded in the Evaluation Matrix Page 2-14

15 2.5 Selection of Alternatives for Further Study Ten of the thirteen construction scenarios (1, 2, 5a, 6a, 6c, 7, 10, 11a, 12, and 13) and three of the four ITS scenarios (A1, A3, and C) retained after the screening process were grouped into sixteen alternatives. The scenarios not included in the alternatives were dropped because they ranked lower than similar scenarios. Scenario 5b ranked lower than Scenario 5a and also was undesirable because it included a partial ramp closure. Scenario 6b ranked lower than Scenarios 6a or 6c and had significantly higher cost. Scenario 11b ranked lower than Scenario 11a and had a much higher cost. Scenario A2 was not included because it was felt that Scenarios A1 and A3 represented a range of ITS solutions and a mid-level scenario was not needed. Thirteen of the alternatives were within the initial available funding of $15 million for roadway improvements (plus available funds for ITS improvements). Three additional alternatives (denoted with an m ) were intended for mid-term implementation since the opinion of probable cost exceeds the available preliminary available funding. The following sections describe each of the alternatives. Since the alternatives are comprised of individual scenarios, there may be modifications and design changes required to portions of the scenarios to accommodate combining them as alternatives Description of Alternatives Table 2-3 illustrates the full range of combinations of scenarios (hereafter referred to as alternatives) considered to date in this study. After the alternatives were defined, potential enhancements were developed for each alternative. These enhancements were selected based on discussions with the Advisory Committee and the City of Winston-Salem. A full description of the sixteen alternatives, including potential enhancements, is included in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Addendum (December 2007). THIS PORTION OF THE PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. PAGE 2-15

16 Table 2-3. Summary of Alternatives Scenario Number 0 1 Scenario Description No Build (no actions implemented under this project) NB US 52 shoulder use I-40 Bus. to Liberty St, full-time Alternative 0* m 2m 3m x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x SB US 52 shoulder use from MLK, Jr. Dr. to 2 x x x x x x x I-40 Bus., full-time 5a Close Stadium interchange ramps x 6a 6c 7 Close Stadium, rebuild Vargrave (existing bridge location), Salem Creek Pkwy. to MLK, Jr. Dr. (STIP Project U-2925) Close Stadium, build connector from Vargrave to MLK, Jr. Dr. (STIP Project U-2925) Close ramps at 3rd and 5th Sts; improve MLK, Jr. Dr. and 40 Bus. int. and Main St. and 40 Bus. int.; convert 4th and 5th Sts. to two-way x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 Close Liberty (south) and complete NW Blvd. Interchange x x x x x x x x x 11a Akron Drive interchange improvements x x x x x x x x x x x x 12 SB auxiliary lane between MLK, Jr. Dr. and 5 th x x x x x 13 Close Liberty St. interchange (south) x A1 Enhanced 511, including detection x x x PAGE 2-16 A3 A2 plus enhanced 511, detection and adaptive signal control on alt corridors x x x x x x x x x x x C Rollover warning system at US 52/I-40 x x x x x x x x x x x x x * No-Build Alternative x denotes Scenario is included in the Alternative

17 2.5.2 Summary of Costs Table 2-4 provides a comparison of each alternative based on the functional designs. The costs of some alternatives are within the NCDOT preliminary budget of $15 million for roadway improvements while several are not. The unit cost values used were based on NCDOT construction cost estimates. Other factors to be considered include estimated dwelling units, commercial building and acres of right of way that may be impacted, which are also noted in Table 2-4. The values shown in Table 2-4 represent planning level evaluations. Table 2-4. Opinion of Planning Level Cost (2003) Probable Cost*: Dwelling Units Commercial Buildings Construction + Alternative Required Within Required Within Right of way Right of Way Right of Way ($ Millions) Total Right of Way Required (Acres) m m m * Unit cost values provided by NCDOT Evaluation of Alternatives The alternatives analysis developed for this study included the use of several analytical tools and processes to narrow the field of alternatives from sixteen to three build alternatives for detailed study. With each successive step in the process, additional information was gathered for each improvement scenario and subsequent alternative. Both quantitative and qualitative performance measures and criteria were used in this process. All material was presented to the Study Advisory Committee so that an objective screening process could be performed. Year 2015 Performance Expectations Several performance measures (described below) were used in the screening process. An analysis year of 2015 was used as the base analysis. Although the study also considered PAGE 2-17

18 year 2025 performance, the worse case for many performance measures is 2015 since it is assumed (only for the purpose of this study) that the eastern portion of the Northern Beltway will be completed in early Construction of the Beltway relieves some of the traffic from US 52. Performance is measured relative to the No-Build Alternative, which includes only transportation improvements that are programmed in the NCDOT STIP. More detail on the results of the screening process is in the US 52 Alternatives Analysis Addendum (December 2007). Safety: Safety was based on a ranking of interchanges along US 52 using crash history. Safety of shoulder lane use is based on research published about shoulder lane use in other states. LOS: The level of service (LOS) is based on analyses using Synchro and 2015 travel demand forecasts, which were developed using the regional travel demand model and observed traffic count/turning movement data in the study area. Synchro was used to analyze intersections, and the Triad Regional Travel Demand Model was used to analyze freeway segments. Speed: Average peak hour speed is based on output from the regional travel demand model that reflects all of the roadways (mostly thoroughfares) that are included in the regional travel demand model that are within the study area. There are no local streets and few collector streets included in this measurement. Delay: Unexpected delay is an output from the IDAS model used in this study. It reflects delay created by incidents (for example, crashes). Intersection LOS: This is a measure of intersection level of service based on AM and PM peak hour analyses of 2015 turning movement forecasts. This measure provides an indication of where congestion may occur with diversion of traffic caused by ramp closures. Cost: The costs used during the screening process were construction costs based on year 2003 opinions of probable cost. Since the 2003 cost values were only used to rank the alternatives, they are still considered to be valid. Construction Duration: These are estimates based on functional design plans. Right of way: This includes estimates of acreage as well as relocation of homes and businesses based on functional design plans. PAGE 2-18

19 Design Exceptions: These are geometric design elements that do not meet current AASHTO standards for a freeway with a 60 mph design speed. These include such items as grade (AASHTO maximum grade on a ramp is five percent) or horizontal curvature (AASHTO minimum radius is 955 feet for a diagonal ramp and 150 feet for a loop ramp). Performance Evaluation Results Performance evaluations conducted on each of the alternatives are presented in Table 2-5 using icons to denote best to worst performers in various categories. The categories include safety, level of service on US 52 main line, average travel speeds on study area roadways, cost, duration of construction, amount of additional right-of-way required, and the extent to which exceptions (i.e. variances) from highway design standards would be necessary. Study Advisory Committee members agreed that safety is more important than all other factors, as demonstrated by the assignment of a weighted value of 30 points on a 100-point scale. Other factors ranged from 21 points for US 52 level of service to 6 points for right-of-way. Table 2-5 shows how weighted values were applied to the performance evaluations of all alternatives, and includes a ranking of the alternatives based on the weighted criteria. Based on the weighted rankings, the top build alternatives were (from highest to lowest): Alternatives 10, 7, 9, 12, 11, 1, and 13. The remaining alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 1m, 2m, and 3m) were eliminated from further study due to their low performance. Based on NCDOT design criteria, Alternative 7 was eliminated because it had a major variance from design standards (see description of Scenario 10 in Section 2.4). Alternative 1 was eliminated because it assumed that the Salem Creek Connector, now STIP Project U-2925, would be constructed (see description of Scenario 6a in Section 2.4). Alternative 11 was dismissed from further consideration because it included using shoulders as travel lanes (Scenarios 1 and 2) but did not include closing the 3rd and 5th Street ramps (Scenario 7), which would have created an unacceptable design exception. The Study Advisory Committee determined the closure of the Liberty Street ramps to be undesirable, removing the closure from Alternatives 9, 10, and 13. Since the closing of Liberty Street is the only factor separating Alternative 13 from Alternative 12, Alternative 13 was dismissed from further consideration. Therefore, the final four alternatives retained are the No-Build Alternative and Alternatives 9, 10, and 12. These alternatives all include closure of ramps at the US 52/Stadium Drive interchange, and include a provision indicating such ramp closures would not occur until the Salem Creek Connector is built and open to traffic between Martin Luther King Drive on the east and Patterson Avenue/Salem Avenue on the west. However, NCDOT reserves the right to close the southbound off-ramp and the northbound on-ramp should the accident rate reach an unacceptable level. PAGE 2-19

20 Table 2-5. Performance Results Weighted Value Performance Measure Alternative * 10* 11 12* 13 1m 2m 3m 30 Safety 21 Level of Service on US Speed on Study Area Roadways 10 Cost 10 Construction Duration 6 Right of Way 9 Design Exceptions Points** Overall Rank * Retained for further study ** Based on a maximum of 400 points. Points were calculated by multiplying the weighted value for each category by the value of its performance indicator. Performance Indicator: Best Worst PAGE 2-20

21 2.5.4 Retained Alternatives There are elements of each alternative that are more controversial with the public than other elements. For example, expanding the state s investment in ITS generally is favored by citizens. Similarly, increasing the capacity of US 52 by using shoulders as travel lanes also seemed to gain support. Some ramp closures, however, are controversial. The three build alternatives include different combinations of ITS, shoulder use and interchange modifications. Each is described below. A detailed figure for each alternative follows this section. No-Build Alternative (Alternative 0) Baseline, Existing + Committed US 52 Improvements The No-Build Alternative serves as a baseline against which to compare other alternatives. The No-Build Alternative means no actions would be implemented under this project (STIP Project U-2826B). Alternative 9 (Figure 2-2) Alternative 9 includes the following elements, in addition to the committed improvements included in the STIP and LRTP: Close US 52 ramps and loop at Stadium Drive (NCDOT may choose to complete this improvement following the construction of the Salem Creek Connector between Vargrave Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, which is part of STIP Project U-2925) Convert shoulders (north and south bound) to travel lanes full time from Business 40/US 421 at US 52 interchange to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 interchange Close US 52 ramps at 3rd and 5th Streets Build Akron Drive interchange modifications Southbound on-ramp remove two-way traffic from Leo Street, allowing one-way movement into Northside Shopping Center Southbound off-ramp delete two-way movements and remove Leo Street tie-in (north side of Leo Street) Leo Street wrap Leo Street around and tie into Sheridan Street ITS Improvements Provide enhanced 511 service (ITS) Expand use of dynamic message signs and closed-circuit cameras (ITS) Implement adaptive signal control and detection on parallel arterials (ITS) PAGE 2-21

22 Install truck rollover warnings (ITS) The following improvements are included as approved mitigation and enhancements for Alternative 9 as of this document: Mitigation for closing 3rd and 5th Street ramps. Mitigation of the loss of access to downtown Winston-Salem and the Research Park is included in the form of operational and intersection improvements along the Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive corridor and reversion of 5th and 4th Streets from one-way to two-way traffic. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at Business 40/US 421 Interchange revise loops to tie at intersections of First and Lowery Streets, remove slip ramp/access to Lowery from loop, and change access to Lowery Street from the on-ramp to right in / right out only Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at Excelsior Street/Lowery Street lengthen southbound left turn lane to approximately 530 feet Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at C.E. Gray Drive change eastbound to right in / right out only Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at First Street add new southbound left turn lane, rebuild westbound off-ramp from Business 40/US 421 at Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive interchange to tie directly to First Street (resulting in the closure of First Street from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to Dunleith Avenue), deadend/cul-de-sac of Wheeler Street prior to First Street, and tying/wrapping the eastern section of First Street into Dunleith Avenue Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at Lawrence Street change eastbound to right in / right out only Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at Second Street change eastbound and westbound to right in / right out only Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at 3rd Street on 3rd Street add new eastbound shared through-left lane, change eastbound through-right lane to right turn lane, on Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive lengthen northbound left turn lane to approximately 300 feet and lengthen southbound left turn lane, provide approximately 100 feet of storage Reversion of 5th and 4th Streets from one-way to two-way traffic Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at 4th Street change eastbound (west side) through-right lane to right in / right out only and change eastbound (east side) to a right in / right out only, remove traffic signal Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at 5th Street add new northbound left turn lane, provide approximately 325 feet of storage, lengthen southbound left turn lane, provide approximately 150 feet of storage PAGE 2-22

23 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at New Walkertown Road lengthen southbound left turn lane, provide approximately 440 feet of storage Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 northbound off-ramp restripe ramp approach to include a shared left-right turn lane, install traffic signal Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 southbound off-ramp add westbound right turn lane, restripe ramp approach to include a left turn, through and right turn lanes, install traffic signal Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 interchange add new southbound on-ramp Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at Patterson Avenue add northbound right turn lane on Patterson Avenue and restripe northbound Patterson Avenue to include a left turn, through and right turn lanes Mitigation and enhancement for converting shoulders on northbound and southbound US 52 to travel lanes. Since shoulder areas will be converted to travel lanes, mitigation is required to provide a safe alternative for drivers who need to stop suddenly in these areas. Replace existing curbs with rollover type curbs. Mitigation and enhancement for Akron Drive interchange modifications. Mitigation is required to guide drivers to the shopping center via an indirect route. Enhance signage from Akron Drive to shopping center using route via Sheraton Street and Patterson Avenue. Emergency services mitigation. Mitigation may be required for emergency medical service vehicles due to the loss of access as a result of closing 3rd and 5th Street ramps. If EMS response time is negatively affected by the proposed changes, this mitigation will be considered. Traffic signal pre-emption for emergency medical service (EMS) vehicles will be considered after the project is in place to mitigate for any potential problems for EMS access. Landscaping enhancement. NCDOT will work with the City to develop a landscaping plan for the areas impacted by this project. The following improvements are under consideration as mitigation and enhancements for Alternative 9 as of this document: Enhancement for closing US 52 ramps and loop at Stadium Drive. Enhance streetscape on Stadium Drive Enhance access to Salem Creek Greenway PAGE 2-23

24 Mitigation and enhancement for converting shoulders on northbound and southbound US 52 to travel lanes. Additional mitigation may be required following the conversion of shoulders to travel lanes to provide adequate safety measures for drivers. Modify ramp merge and diverge areas to provide comparable or more area to merge and diverge Widen to provide and replace auxiliary lanes between successive on- and off-ramps. Increase number and service time of the Incident Management Assistance Patrol (IMAP) trucks. Invest in one or more trucks with plows to push disabled vehicles out of the travelway. Build retaining walls as needed to create areas for disabled vehicles to move off the highway. Enhancement for Akron Drive interchange modifications. Enhance access, safety, and security on existing pedestrian bridge over US 52 near Happy Hills. The following improvement was previously proposed as mitigation, and is now included as part of the ITS portion of Alternative 9: Enhance ITS measures to detect vehicle breakdowns more quickly where converting shoulders on northbound and southbound US 52 to travel lanes. Alternative 10 (Figure 2.3) Alternative 10 includes the following elements, in addition to the committed improvements included in the STIP and LRTP: Close US 52 ramps and loop at Stadium Drive (NCDOT may choose to complete this improvement following the construction of the Salem Creek Connector between Vargrave Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, which is part of STIP Project U-2925) Build auxiliary lanes on southbound US 52 from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to 5th Street Close US 52 ramps at 3rd and 5th Streets Build Akron Drive interchange modifications Southbound on-ramp remove two-way traffic from Leo Street, allowing one-way movement into Northside Shopping Center Southbound off-ramp delete two-way movements and remove Leo Street tie-in (north side of Leo Street) PAGE 2-24

25 Leo Street wrap Leo Street around and tie into Sheridan Street ITS Improvements Provide enhanced 511 service (ITS) Expand use of dynamic message signs and closed-circuit cameras (ITS) Implement adaptive signal control and detection on parallel arterials (ITS) Install truck rollover warnings (ITS) The following improvements are included as approved mitigation and enhancements for Alternative 10 as of this document: Mitigation for closing 3rd and 5th Street ramps. Mitigation of the loss of access to downtown Winston-Salem and the Research Park is included in the form of operational and intersection improvements along the Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive corridor and reversion of 5th and 4th Streets from one-way to two-way traffic. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at Business 40/US 421 Interchange revise loops to tie at intersections of First and Lowery Streets, remove slip ramp/access to Lowery from loop, and change access to Lowery Street from the on-ramp to right in / right out only Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at Excelsior Street/Lowery Street lengthen southbound left turn lane to approximately 530 feet Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at C.E. Gray Drive change eastbound to right in / right out only Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at First Street add new southbound left turn lane, rebuild westbound off-ramp from Business 40/US 421 at Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive interchange to tie directly to First Street (resulting in the closure of First Street from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to Dunleith Avenue), deadend/cul-de-sac of Wheeler Street prior to First Street, and tying/wrapping the eastern section of First Street into Dunleith Avenue Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at Lawrence Street change eastbound to right in / right out only Martin Luther King Jr. Drive at Second Street change eastbound and westbound to right in / right out only Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at 3rd Street on 3rd Street add new eastbound shared through-left lane, change eastbound through-right lane to right turn lane, on Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive lengthen northbound left turn lane to approximately 300 feet and lengthen southbound left turn lane, provide approximately 100 feet of storage Reversion of 5th and 4th Streets from one-way to two-way traffic PAGE 2-25

26 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at 4th Street change eastbound (west side) through-right lane to right in / right out only and change eastbound (east side) to a right in / right out only, remove traffic signal Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at 5th Street add new northbound left turn lane, provide approximately 325 feet of storage, lengthen southbound left turn lane, provide approximately 150 feet of storage Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at New Walkertown Road lengthen southbound left turn lane, provide approximately 440 feet of storage Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 northbound off-ramp restripe ramp approach to include a shared left-right turn lane, install traffic signal Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 southbound off-ramp add westbound right turn lane, restripe ramp approach to include a left turn, through and right turn lanes, install traffic signal Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at US 52 interchange add new southbound on-ramp Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive at Patterson Avenue add northbound right turn lane on Patterson Avenue and restripe northbound Patterson Avenue to include a left turn, through and right turn lanes Mitigation and enhancement for Akron Drive interchange modifications. Mitigation is required to guide drivers to the shopping center via an indirect route. Enhance signage from Akron Drive to shopping center using route via Sheraton Street and Patterson Avenue. Emergency services mitigation. Mitigation may be required for emergency medical service vehicles due to the loss of access as a result of closing 3rd and 5th Street ramps. If EMS response time is negatively affected by the proposed changes, this mitigation will be considered. Traffic signal pre-emption for emergency medical service (EMS) vehicles will be considered after the project is in place to mitigate for any potential problems for EMS access. Landscaping enhancement. NCDOT will work with the City to develop a landscaping plan for the areas impacted by this project. The following improvements are under consideration as mitigation and enhancements for Alternative 10 as of this document: Enhancement for closing US 52 ramps and loop at Stadium Drive. Enhance streetscape on Stadium Drive Enhance access to Salem Creek Greenway PAGE 2-26

27 Enhancement for Akron Drive interchange modifications. Enhance access, safety, and security on existing pedestrian bridge over US 52 near Happy Hills. Alternative 12 (Figure 2.4) Although retained for additional study, Alternative 12 does not fully meet the safety element of the project s purpose and need because it will only partially reduce conflict points along the corridor and will not provide a dedicated weave section between Business 40/US 421 and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. Alternative 12 includes the following elements, in addition to the committed improvements included in the STIP and LRTP: Close US 52 ramps and loop at Stadium Drive (NCDOT may choose to complete this improvement following the construction of the Salem Creek Connector between Vargrave Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, which is part of STIP Project U-2925) Build auxiliary lanes on southbound US 52 from Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive to 5th Street Build Akron Drive interchange modifications Southbound on-ramp remove two-way traffic from Leo Street, allowing one-way movement into Northside Shopping Center Southbound off-ramp delete two-way movements and remove Leo Street tie-in (north side of Leo Street) Leo Street wrap Leo Street around and tie into Sheridan Street ITS Improvements Provide enhanced 511 service (ITS) Expand use of dynamic message signs and closed-circuit cameras (ITS) Implement adaptive signal control and detection on parallel arterials (ITS) Install truck rollover warnings (ITS) The following improvements are included as approved mitigation and enhancements for Alternative 12 as of this document: Mitigation and enhancement for Akron Drive interchange modifications. Mitigation is required to guide drivers to the shopping center via an indirect route. Enhance signage from Akron Drive to shopping center using route via Sheraton Street and Patterson Avenue. Landscaping enhancement. PAGE 2-27

28 NCDOT will work with the City to develop a landscaping plan for the areas impacted by this project. The following improvements are under consideration as mitigation and enhancements for Alternative 12 as of this document: Enhancement for closing US 52 ramps and loop at Stadium Drive. Enhance streetscape on Stadium Drive Enhance access to Salem Creek Greenway Enhancement for Akron Drive interchange modifications. Enhance access, safety, and security on existing pedestrian bridge over US 52 near Happy Hills. Cost Estimates Table 2-6 provides a comparison of the probable cost for each of the Detailed Study Alternatives based on the preliminary engineering designs. The preliminary budget was $15 million, which has been increased to $18.29 million in the Draft STIP. The costs of all three alternatives are within this budget. The unit cost values used were based on NCDOT construction cost estimates. Table 2-6. Opinion of Planning Level Cost (2007) Alternative Probable Cost* Construction Right of Way Utilities Relocation Total Cost 9 $13,658,000 $2,589,000 $199,302 $16,446, $11,558,000 $2,589,000 $199,302 $14,346, $7,708,000 $265,000 $53,291 $8,026,291 * Unit cost values provided by NCDOT THIS PORTION OF THE PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. PAGE 2-28

29 REYNOLDS FOURTEENTH TWELFTH EIGHTH STADIUM CARVER SCHOOL Legend Capacity Improvements, including: Closure of Stadium Drive ramps upon completion of Salem Creek Parkway Full-time shoulder lane use northbound and southbound between MLK Drive and I-40 Business Closure of ramps at 3rd & 5th Streets Improvements to MLK Drive/US 52, and MLK Drive/I-40 Business interchanges Intersection improvements along MLK Drive from Patterson Avenue to I-40 Business Improvements to US 52/Akron Drive BOWEN ATTUCKS GERALD NEW WALKERTOWN OLD GREENSBORO FIFTH )*+, Alignment to be determined under TIP #U-2925 (U-2925 Study Area) REYNOLDS PARK Alternative includes Enhanced ITS Strategies New Pavement Pavement Removal Study Area U-2925 Study Area k Intersection Improvements Major Road Minor Road Freeway DELLABROOK CAMERON CAMERON THIRD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR k k kk k kk k LIBERTY CLEVELAND VARGRAVE GLENN AKRON OGBURN 52 IVY PATTERSON INDIANA TWENTY-EIGHTH FARMALL TWENTY-SEVENTH TWENTY-FIFTH NORTHWEST k LINDEN MAPLE FOURTH THIRD BELEWS SALEM ALDER WAUGHTOWN MAIN CHURCH MAIN OLD SALEM TRADE SEVENTH LIBERTY CHERRY MARSHALL HIGH WACHOVIA F I G U R E 2. 2 DEACON THIRTIETH NORTHWEST CRAWFORD NORTHWEST CHATHAM SIXTH BROAD SECOND FIRST BROOKSTOWN A l t e r n a t i v e 9 ACADEMY US 52 Environmental Assessment TIP Project U-2826B ACADEMY ¹ POLO Forest Hills NB UNIVERSITY SB UNIVERSITY TWENTIETH THURMOND NORTHWEST WEST END GLADE BURKE PETERS CREEK ,000 2,000 Feet NB PETERS CREEK SB PETERS CREEK

30

31 REYNOLDS FOURTEENTH TWELFTH EIGHTH STADIUM CARVER SCHOOL Legend Capacity Improvements, including: Closure of Stadium Drive ramps upon completion of Salem Creek Parkway Auxiliary lane between MLK Drive and 5th Street Closure of ramps at 3rd & 5th Streets Improvements to MLK Drive/US 52, and MLK Drive/I-40 Business interchanges Intersection improvements along MLK Drive from Patterson Avenue to I-40 Business Improvements to US 52/Akron Drive Alternative includes Enhanced ITS Strategies BOWEN ATTUCKS GERALD NEW WALKERTOWN OLD GREENSBORO FIFTH )*+, Alignment to be determined under TIP #U-2925 (U-2925 Study Area) REYNOLDS PARK New Pavement Pavement Removal Study Area Freeway k U-2925 Study Area Intersection Improvements Major Road Minor Road DELLABROOK CAMERON CAMERON THIRD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR k k kk k kk k LIBERTY CLEVELAND VARGRAVE GLENN AKRON OGBURN 52 IVY PATTERSON TWENTY-EIGHTH FARMALL TWENTY-SEVENTH TWENTY-FIFTH NORTHWEST k LINDEN MAPLE FOURTH THIRD BELEWS SALEM ALDER WAUGHTOWN MAIN INDIANA CHURCH MAIN OLD SALEM TRADE SEVENTH LIBERTY CHERRY MARSHALL HIGH WACHOVIA F I G U R E 2. 3 DEACON THIRTIETH NORTHWEST CRAWFORD NORTHWEST CHATHAM SIXTH BROAD SECOND FIRST BROOKSTOWN A l t e r n a t i v e 1 0 ACADEMY US 52 Environmental Assessment TIP Project U-2826B ACADEMY ¹ POLO Forest Hills NB UNIVERSITY SB UNIVERSITY TWENTIETH THURMOND NORTHWEST WEST END GLADE BURKE PETERS CREEK ,000 2,000 Feet NB PETERS CREEK SB PETERS CREEK

32

33 REYNOLDS FOURTEENTH TWELFTH EIGHTH STADIUM CARVER SCHOOL Legend Capacity Improvements, including: Closure of Stadium Drive ramps upon completion of Salem Creek Parkway Auxiliary lane between MLK Drive and 5th Street Improvements to US 52/Akron Drive Alternative includes Enhanced ITS Strategies BOWEN ATTUCKS GERALD NEW WALKERTOWN OLD GREENSBORO FIFTH )*+, Alignment to be determined under TIP #U-2925 (U-2925 Study Area) REYNOLDS PARK New Pavement Pavement Removal Study Area Freeway U-2925 Study Area Major Road Minor Road DELLABROOK THIRD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR CAMERON CAMERON LIBERTY CLEVELAND VARGRAVE GLENN OGBURN AKRON 52 IVY PATTERSON INDIANA TWENTY-EIGHTH FARMALL TWENTY-SEVENTH TWENTY-FIFTH NORTHWEST LINDEN MAPLE FOURTH THIRD BELEWS SALEM ALDER WAUGHTOWN MAIN CHURCH MAIN OLD SALEM TRADE SEVENTH LIBERTY CHERRY MARSHALL HIGH WACHOVIA F I G U R E 2. 4 DEACON THIRTIETH NORTHWEST CRAWFORD NORTHWEST CHATHAM SIXTH BROAD SECOND FIRST BROOKSTOWN A l t e r n a t i v e 1 2 ACADEMY US 52 Environmental Assessment TIP Project U-2826B ACADEMY ¹ POLO Forest Hills NB UNIVERSITY SB UNIVERSITY TWENTIETH THURMOND NORTHWEST WEST END GLADE BURKE PETERS CREEK ,000 2,000 Feet NB PETERS CREEK SB PETERS CREEK