LAND USE AND ZONING - Rebuilding I93 [PDF]

APPENDIX A TRAFFIC WRITTEN REEVALUATION/TECHNICAL REPORT

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology and Approach..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 TRAFFIC........................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Traffic Analysis Terminology and Criteria............................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Traffic Volumes................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.2 Level of Service ................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 2004 FEIS Analysis Methods & Prevailing Regulations/Guidelines.................................... 7 2.3 Results from 2004 FEIS............................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Results from the 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................ 8 2.5 Record of Decision Commitments/Mitigation ........................................................................ 9 2.6 2008 Update Evaluations........................................................................................................ 10 2.6.1 Changes in Regulations/Guidelines ............................................................................... 10 2.6.2 2008 Update Analysis Methods...................................................................................... 11 2.6.3 Changes in the Existing Conditions .............................................................................. 19 2.6.4 Changes in the Future No Build and Build Conditions (Scenario 1) ......................... 22 2.6.5 Changes in the Future No Build and Build Conditions (Scenario 2) ......................... 27 2.6.6 Comparison Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2......................................................... 36 2.7 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 37 3.0 TOLLING SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.....................................................................................38 3.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.2 Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................................... 39 3.3 Capacity Analysis.................................................................................................................... 42 3.3 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 49

i

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Table 2-2. Table 2-3. Table 2-4. Table 2-5.

Basic Freeway Segment LOS Criteria Ramp Junction LOS Criteria Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Summary of 2004 FEIS Mainline Traffic Analysis Results, 2020 No Build Compared to Build Table 2-6. Summary of 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis Results, 2020 Delphi PBAA Build Condition Table 2-7. Base Year Average Daily Traffic Table 2-8. I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary, 2005 Base Year Table 2-9 I-93 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, 2005 Base Year Table 2-10 Intersection Analysis Summary, 2005 Base Year Table 2-11 Average Daily Traffic, Scenario 1 2020 Table 2-12 Directional Design Hourly Volumes, Scenario 1 2020 Table 2-13. I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary, Scenario 1 2020 Table 2-14. Scenario 1 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, 2020 Table 2-15. Scenario 1 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2020 Table 2-16. Scenario 1 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2020 Table 2-17. Scenario 1 VMT, VHT, and Average Speed, 2020 Table 2-18. Average Daily Traffic, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Table 2-19. Directional Design Hourly Volumes, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Table 2-20. I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Table 2-21. Scenario 2 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, 2020 and 2030 Table 2-22. Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2020 Table 2-23. Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2020 Table 2-24. Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2030 Table 2-25. Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2030 Table 2-26. Scenario 2 VMT, VHT and Average Speed, 2020 and 2030 Table 2-27. I-93 Mainline ADT and LOS, Comparison Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, 2020 Table 3-1. Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Table 3-4. Table 3-5. Table 3-6. Table 3-7. Table 3-8. Table 3-9. Table 3-10. Table 3-11.

Average Daily Traffic, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 Average Daily Traffic, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2030 DDHV, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 DDHV, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2030 I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, AM Peak Hour, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, PM Peak Hour, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak Hour, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, 2020 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak Hour, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, 2020 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak Hour, Build With Toll Compared to Build Without Toll, 2030 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak Hour, Build With Toll Compared to ii

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Build Without Toll, 2030

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Analyzed Intersection Location Map (5 Sheets) Figure 2-2. 2005 Base Year Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-3. 2005 Base Year Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-4. 2020 Scenario 1 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-5. 2020 Scenario 1 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-6. 2020 Scenario 1 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-7. 2020 Scenario 1 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-8. 2020 Scenario 1 Temporal Distribution of No Build and Build Average Daily Traffic Figure 2-9. 2020 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-10. 2020 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-11. 2020 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-12. 2020 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-13. 2030 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-14. 2030 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-15. 2030 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-16. 2030 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Figure 2-17 2020 Scenario 2 Temporal Distribution of No Build and Build Average Daily Traffic Figure 2-18 2030 Scenario 2 Temporal Distribution of No Build and Build Average Daily Traffic Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. Figure 3-5 Figure 3-6

2020 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) 2020 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) 2030 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) 2030 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Percent Change in Traffic Volumes bet. with and without Toll 2030 Scenario 2 Net Change in Traffic Volume bet. Build with and without Toll 2030 Scenario 2

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A-1: Appendix A-2: Appendix A-3: Appendix A-4:

2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis New Hampshire Statewide Model Documentation FHWA Memorandum Re: Consideration of Exit 4A in the NH I-93 SEIS I-93 Transit Investment Study Ridership Memo

iii

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

1.0 INTRODUCTION In April 2004, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) proposing the widening of I-93 to four-lanes in each direction between Salem and Manchester. On June 28, 2005, FHWA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the proposed alternative (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”). The Conservation Law Foundation subsequently challenged the ROD in U.S. District Court, contending that NHDOT and FHWA violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. and the Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. A “Memorandum and Order” was issued on August 30, 2007 by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on the case of the Conservation Law Foundation v. Federal Highway Administration and New Hampshire Department of Transportation (Case No. 06-cv-45-PB and Opinion No. 2007 DNH 106; hereinafter referred to as “the Order”). The Order directed NHDOT and FHWA to prepare “…an SEIS that specifically considers how the Delphi Panel’s population forecasts affect Defendants’ analysis of both the effectiveness of the Four Lane Alternative as a traffic congestion reduction measure and the indirect effects of the additional population predicted by those forecasts on secondary road traffic and air quality issues.” [pp. 85-86] NHDOT and FHWA are preparing a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) on the Project to address the Order, specifically, and to generally supplement the Project’s FEIS consistent with the guidance of FHWA Technical Advisory, entitled, “Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents”, dated October 30, 1987 (T6640.8a), relative to changes, new information, or further developments subsequent to the FEIS.

1.1

Purpose

This Written Re-evaluation/Technical Report has been prepared to: (1) identify whether or not there have been changes, new information, or further developments relevant to the Project’s traffic effects subsequent to the 2004 FEIS as a result of the Order; and (2) using this identification, assess whether new or updated analyses of the Project’s traffic effects are warranted.

1.2

Methodology and Approach

The following methodology and approach was used to evaluate if changes or updates to the analyses described for each respective environmental resource area analyzed in the 2004 FEIS will be required: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

Identify and describe previous analysis methods and criteria used to assess impacts; Describe current analysis methods, regulations and guidelines, industry standards, and criteria used to assess impact significance; Identify changes in analysis methods, regulations and guidelines, industry standards, and criteria used to assess impact significance; Reanalyze the effects of the proposed project using the Delphi Panel’s population and employment projections as well as the latest New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) projections with respect to traffic and air quality. Update the results of the other resource 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

ƒ

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

categories as warranted when substantial changes to the impact assessment methods or protocols, industry standards or guidelines, and applicable federal, state, or local government regulations have been identified; and Include a summary of findings from these evaluations as part of a stand-alone technical report for each resource category. Each technical report includes a section that provides an overview of the previous analysis methods and criteria used to assess impacts, the results and mitigation recommended in the 2004 FEIS, as well as any changes to the analysis methods, regulations, guidelines, industry standards or criteria used to assess impact significance that have been identified with the updated results. The findings described in each technical report will be incorporated into the Draft SEIS (DSEIS). Refer to Sections 2 and 3 for specific details.

2

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

2.0 TRAFFIC 2.1

Traffic Analysis Terminology and Criteria

This section introduces the traffic analysis terminology and criteria used in this Written Reevaluation/Technical Report. The traffic analysis evaluation criteria are based on the methodologies presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 1 2.1.1

Traffic Volumes

The general unit of measure used to quantify roadway usage is the average daily traffic (ADT), which is defined as the total volume of traffic during a given period of time divided by the number of days in that time period. A more specific unit of measure is known as the average annual daily traffic volume (AADT), which is determined by dividing the total yearly volume by the number of days in the year. Although an actual AADT can only be established at a continuous count station, AADTs can be estimated along segments of roadways by applying adjustment factors developed from data collected at continuous count stations to specific daily or hourly counts. While the AADTs are an important measure, it is the hourly volume condition that is primarily used to evaluate and design roadway facilities. However, because hourly traffic volumes can vary substantially over the course of a day and throughout the year, it is necessary to select an appropriate design hourly volume condition. A design based on the (maximum) peak hour traffic of the year is not an appropriate design hour volume condition. Designs based on such extreme conditions would be a poor investment of public funds given the size of the facility that would be required. Similarly, the average hourly traffic volume condition would result in an inadequate design as it would be exceeded half of the time. In accordance with industry practice, the hourly traffic volume used for the purpose of design should not be exceeded very often or by very much, while on the other hand, it should not be so high that the volume of traffic would rarely be high enough to make full use of the facility. As recommended in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2 , the hourly traffic volume that should generally be used for the design of a highway facility is the 30th highest hour volume of the year. Given the economic considerations involved in the planning and design of roadway facilities, this design criterion is selected since the 30th highest hourly volume generally reflects a “point of diminishing return” in that a substantial increase in design requirements would accommodate only very few periods of higher traffic volumes. The 2004 FEIS found that based on the data from the NHDOT permanent count station between Exits 3 and 4, the 30th highest hour volume for I-93 is approximately 9.4 percent of the ADT. The Directional Design Hour Volume (DDHV) split shows approximately 60 percent of the total hourly traffic traveling in the peak direction.

1

2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

2

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Washington, D.C., 2004.

3

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

2.1.2

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Level of Service

Level of service (LOS) is a measure describing operational conditions on a transportation facility and motorists' perceptions of those conditions. Level of service generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, density or freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety and, in so doing, provides an index to quality of traffic flow. LOS ratings range from A (no congestion on the road) to F (roadways that are overcapacity). It is important to note that there is considerable variance within the LOS F range for the various facility types that have been analyzed. When necessary, the results within the LOS F range will be differentiated to show relative congestion levels (e.g. average delay per vehicle for intersections). The criteria used to define LOS for freeways, ramp junctions, signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are described below. Basic Freeway Segments To qualify as a basic freeway segment for analysis purposes, a roadway must have limited vehicle access with interchanges spaced at two miles or greater, free-flow speeds between 55 and 75 miles/hour, 12 foot lane widths, level terrain, and a minimum lateral clearance of six feet for the shoulder and two feet for the median. For basic freeway segments, LOS is estimated based on the density of the vehicles (a measure that quantifies the proximity of vehicles to each other within the traffic stream) and indicates the degree of maneuverability within the traffic stream. The LOS criteria for basic freeway segments are provided on Table 2-1. LOS A describes completely free flow conditions with densities of up to 11 passenger cars per mile per lane. LOS C describes a stable flow condition and is considered desirable for peak or design hour traffic flow. LOS E is capacity. LOS F represents forced break down flow with densities in excess of 45 passenger cars per mile per lane. The theoretical capacity of a highway with a free flow speed of 65 mph is approximately 2,350 vehicles per lane per hour. However, because of factors such as the number of heavy vehicles, slope, driver characteristics (percentage of commuters), etc., this capacity is reduced based upon prevailing conditions. In addition, as congestion increases, the capacity of a highway lane decreases because the efficiency of traffic flow is reduced (e.g. lower speeds). For example, the approximate capacity of the segment of I-93 northbound between the State line and Exit 1 is estimated to be 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour under congested flow conditions (see the capacity analysis subsection of Section 2.6.2 for more information). In the design of new roadway facilities, NHDOT policy has established LOS C as desirable and LOS D as minimally acceptable. However, despite establishing LOS D as the minimally acceptable LOS, NHDOT has also expressed a general policy of not constructing highways with more than eight basic lanes (four lanes in each direction). An eight-lane facility, excluding auxiliary lanes required at interchanges, is the widest configuration that NHDOT considers appropriate for New Hampshire. Continued widening beyond eight lanes is not considered a feasible and prudent option to address future long-range transportation needs in the I-93 corridor. Therefore, LOS lower than LOS D (e.g. LOS E or LOS F) is considered acceptable where more than four-lanes in each direction would be required to achieve LOS D.

4

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-1 Basic Freeway Segment LOS Criteria Density Range LOS (Passenger cars per mile per lane) A 0 to 11 B > 11 to 18 C >18 to 26 D >26 to 35 E >35 to 45 F >45 Source: HCM 2000.

Ramp Junctions The LOS for ramp junctions (merge and diverge areas) is determined based on the density (passenger cars per mile per lane) in the influence area of the ramp. The LOS criteria for ramp-freeway junctions, as defined in the HCM, are provided in Table 2-2. LOS A through E represent stable operation at the merge or diverge influence areas without adversely disrupting through vehicles. LOS F represents breakdown conditions where the demand exceeds the capacity of upstream or downstream freeway sections or the capacity of an off-ramp. No density value is calculated for LOS F once the density exceeds 35 passenger cars per mile per lane.

LOS A B C D E F

Table 2-2 Ramp Junction LOS Criteria Density (Passenger cars per mile per lane) ≤ 10 > 10 to 20 > 20 to 28 > 28 to 35 > 35 Demand exceeds capacity

Source: HCM, 2000

Signalized Intersections The LOS of a signalized intersection is defined in terms of control delay per vehicle (seconds per vehicle). Control delay is the portion of total delay experienced by a motorist that is attributable to the traffic signal. It is composed of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. At signalized intersections the control delay (and associated LOS) can be calculated for individual movements, an entire approach leg, or the overall intersection. The LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as defined in the HCM, are provided in Table 2-3. LOS A describes operations with minimal delays, up to 10 seconds per vehicle, while LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Under LOS F, excessive delays and longer queues are common as a result of over-saturated conditions (i.e., demand rates exceeding the capacity). 5

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-3 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Control Delay per Vehicle LOS (Seconds Per Vehicle) A ≤ 10 B > 10 to 20 C > 20 to 35 D > 35 to 55 E > 55 to 80 F > 80 Source: HCM, 2000.

An additional intersection performance measure is the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Capacity is defined as the maximum rate at which vehicles can pass through a given point in an hour under prevailing conditions. The V/C ratio, also referred to as degree of saturation, represents the sufficiency of an intersection to accommodate the vehicular demand. A V/C ratio less than 0.85 generally indicates that adequate capacity is available and vehicles are not expected to experience substantial queues and delays. As the V/C ratio approaches 1.0, traffic flow may become unstable, and delay and queuing conditions may occur. Once the demand exceeds the capacity (a V/C ratio greater than 1.0), traffic flow is unstable and excessive delay and queuing is expected. Under these conditions, vehicles may require more than one signal cycle to pass through the intersection (known as a cycle failure). 3 Unsignalized Intersections The LOS for a stop sign controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. The LOS control delay is the portion of total delay experienced by a motorist that is attributable to a stop sign. The control delay is defined for each critical traffic movement in the intersection and is not defined for the intersection as a whole. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections, as defined in the HCM, are provided in Table 2-4. Table 2-4 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Control Delay per Vehicle LOS (Seconds Per Vehicle) A ≤ 10 B >10 to 15 C >15 to 25 D >25 to 35 E >35 to 50 F >50 Source: HCM, 2000.

3

Federal Highway Administration. 2004. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide

6

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

2.2

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

2004 FEIS Analysis Methods & Prevailing Regulations/Guidelines

The 2004 FEIS utilized traffic volume data collected in 1997 as the base year for establishing existing traffic volumes. The existing traffic volumes for 1997 were provided for the I-93 mainline, entrance/exit ramps, and the intersections of the ramps with the feeder roadways. The future analysis year was 2020 and future traffic volumes were projected using the New Hampshire Statewide Travel Demand Modeling System (NHSTMS) and the I-93 sub-area model of the NHSTMS. The 2020 highway network included proposed improvements expected to be completed by 2020, such as the I-293 reconstruction, the Manchester Airport Access Road, the Nashua Circumferential Highway, and the F.E. Everett Turnpike expansion. 4 The 2020 population levels in the model were based on projections by the New Hampshire Office of State Planning (now the Office of Energy and Planning) from the mid-1990s. The 2004 FEIS analyzed the projected 2020 traffic volumes and the operating LOS for the mainline section of I-93 from the New Hampshire State line in Salem to the interchange between I-93 and I-293 in Manchester as well as all of the interchanges, entrance/exit ramps, and the intersections of the freeway ramps with the feeder roadways. For the mainline segments of I-93, the 2004 FEIS presented ADT, DDHV and the LOS results for the No Build and Build conditions. For the intersections at the ramp terminals and other near-by intersections, turning movement volumes and LOS data were provided for the AM and PM peak hours.

2.3

Results from 2004 FEIS

The ADT, DDHV, and LOS results from the 2004 FEIS for the I-93 mainline are summarized in Table 2-5. The results showed that the 2005 Selected Alternative would substantially reduce mainline congestion in comparison to the No Build Alternative by eliminating LOS E and F conditions on all but one segment. The segment of I-93 south of Exit 1 would be improved from LOS F to LOS E as a result of the 2005 Selected Alternative. The 2005 Selected Alternative was expected to increase traffic volumes (ADT and DDHV) within the I-93 corridor in comparison to the No Build Alternative since the number of vehicles projected to be diverted from I-93 to other roadways would be substantially reduced. Table 2-5 Summary of 2004 FEIS Mainline Traffic Analysis Results, 2020 No Build Compared to Build ADT Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

No Build 137,000 103,600 98,000 73,000 81,200 84,300

DDHV

LOS

Build

No Build

Build

No Build

Build

143,600 116,500 108,900 76,600 85,200 88,900

7,700 5,800 5,500 4,100 4,600 4,800

8,100 6,600 6,100 4,300 4,800 5,000

F F F E E F

E D C B C C

The interchange ramp junction analysis presented in the 2004 FEIS showed that all ramp movements would operate at LOS D or better under the 2005 Selected Alternative. The signalized intersection 4

The 2004 FEIS analysis did not include I-93 Exit 4A, a new interchange between the existing Exits 4 and 5 proposed by the Towns of Londonderry and Derry. The Exit 4A project was not considered reasonably foreseeable at the time of the 2004 FEIS. In 2007, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Exit 4A project was published. As noted in Section 2.6.2, the Exit 4A project is included in the SEIS Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 future No Build conditions.

7

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

analysis found all analyzed intersections near the corridor interchanges to operate at LOS D or better under the 2005 Selected Alternative, with the exception of NH 102/Fordway Street intersection which would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. This intersection was found to be at LOS F under existing conditions, as well as under the future No Build condition.

2.4

Results from the 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis

In response to comments on the 2004 FEIS concerning the potential effects of the Delphi Panel's population and employment projections, a Traffic Sensitivity Analysis reflecting the induced traffic that may possibly occur was conducted and referenced in the 2005 Record of Decision. The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis used the same I-93 sub-area model used in the 2004 FEIS (1997 base year) and all model parameters except for population and employment remained the same as in the model runs conducted for the 2004 FEIS. The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis included model runs for the following two conditions: •

Build (four-lanes in each direction) with current New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) population projections.

•

Build (four-lanes in each direction) with Delphi Panelist’s Blended Average Allocation (PBAA) population and employment estimates.

The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis results for the Delphi PBAA Build condition are summarized in Table 2-6. The results showed that when the added potential traffic associated with the Delphi PBAA population and employment estimates was considered, the 2005 Selected Alternative would provide LOS F from Exit 1 south, LOS E from Exit 3 south, and LOS C north of Exit 3. The 2005 Record of Decision made the following conclusions based on the results of the Traffic Sensitivity Analysis: Even when you consider the additional potential traffic from the Delphi process, the following conclusions are still valid: • • • • • •

There is substantial new capacity being added. There will be an improved level of service compared to the existing condition. Operating conditions will be substantially better than the No Build condition of corridor-wide failure. The conclusion does not change, i.e. the southern tier was known to be congested, and the NHDOT will not pursue an improvement greater than four lanes in each direction. The observable benefit was not necessarily in the peak hour but in the reduction of congested hours each day. The higher volumes increase the need for capacity and safety improvements in the corridor and reinforce the decision to pursue the Selected Alternative (four lanes in each direction).

Traffic Sensitivity Analysis also provided ridership projections for the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative based on Delphi PBAA build condition population and employment levels. The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis concluded that design hour volumes (the basis for LOS determinations) would not be substantially affected by the rail ridership and that a rail alternative does not reduce the travel demand such that I-93 would not have to be widened. The full text of the Traffic Sensitivity Analysis is provided in Appendix 1. 8

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Note that even though they are both based on the Delphi PBAA population and employment estimates, the Traffic Sensitivity Analysis results are not directly comparable to SEIS Scenario 1 due to the use of a different transportation model (e.g. updated New Hampshire Statewide model with a 2005 base year) and different No Build projects (e.g. Scenario 1 includes I-93 Exit 4A). Table 2-6 Summary of 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis Results, 2020 Delphi PBAA Build Condition Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2.5

ADT 187,160 151,112 140,304 96,632 97,642 100,131

DDHV 10,556 8,253 7,913 5,450 5,507 5,674

LOS F E E C C C

Record of Decision Commitments/Mitigation

The Record of Decision made the following commitments with respect to traffic: ƒ

NHDOT will coordinate with the town of Windham to accommodate the town’s planning goals for the Exit 3 Interchange area.

ƒ

Three new park-and-ride lots will be constructed at Exits 2, 3 and 5, in addition to the overall corridor highway improvements to support carpooling and enhance ride-sharing opportunities. The new park-and-ride facilities will include the construction of terminal facilities to support expanded and enhanced bus service in the corridor. A terminal facility will also be constructed within the existing park-and-ride lot at Exit 4 to promote consistent service within the corridor. The park-and-ride facilities at Exit 2 and Exit 5 will be constructed in advance of the mainline highway widening work to provide options for commuters seeking alternatives during construction.

ƒ

NHDOT will continue to work with regional and local officials to implement the recommendations of the “Salem to Concord Bikeway Feasibility Study” in lieu of in-corridor bicycle facilities. Paved shoulders along intersecting side roads are proposed for shared-use bicycle lanes. In addition, providing suitable accessibility for bicycle users through interchange areas will be considered in more detail during final design.

ƒ

The current bus service to Boston that operates in the corridor will be expanded to provide service from the new park-and-ride bus station facilities along with the existing Exit 4 lot. NHDOT is committed to supplementing transit service as an integral component of the Transportation System in the I-93 corridor as part of the funding strategy being developed.

ƒ

All appropriate avenues of funding for bus service will be pursued including Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds. Full funding of bus purchases is anticipated along with construction of other required capital improvements (i.e. terminal and bus maintenance facilities). Assistance with operating costs for a three-year start-up period is proposed with the expectation that the bus 9

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

service will achieve financial viability and be self-sufficient beyond this start-up period. As part of the overall funding strategy, funds for a transit marketing program are included. ƒ

NHDOT will continue to work towards providing enhanced ride-sharing opportunities. NHDOT will continue working cooperatively with public transit agencies, the MPOs, the Transportation Management Organizations and Transportation Management Associations (TMA), as well as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to develop a coordinated transit program for the I-93 corridor. NHDOT will work with “CARAVAN for Commuters” to develop concepts for a ride-sharing program from southern New Hampshire that serves the entire I-93 corridor. NHDOT further proposes to subsidize a commuter incentive program in its early stages.

ƒ

NHDOT will continue to develop and improve on incident management procedures in the corridor relative to response time, minimizing traffic delays and addressing traffic diversion issues. A number of incident management practices will be considered and implemented in the near-term, during construction, and over the long-term, following construction.

ƒ

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies will be incorporated into the overall I-93 improvements to better manage traffic/travel demand, enhance safety and capacity, and supplement incident management initiatives.

ƒ

The proposed layout will not preclude future mass transit opportunities within the I-93 corridor or along the former Manchester-Lawrence line. The Selected Alternative will accommodate space within the median to allow future mass transit opportunities in the corridor. In addition, the proposed layout will provide provisions, such as bridge replacements and continued gradeseparated crossings at Exit 5 to facilitate possible future rail service on the Manchester-Lawrence line.

ƒ

A Bi-State Transit Investment Study has been jointly undertaken with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in April 2005 to consider in more detail the long-term rail and transit needs and identify viable options for the overall I-93 corridor between Manchester and Boston. NHDOT and the Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) signed a Memorandum of Understanding that allowed initiation of this study in March 2005.

The execution or implementation of many of the ROD commitments, such as the construction of the park and ride facilities, the bus terminal facilities, and the initiation of the transit investment study are already underway. Other commitments, such as design of the Incident Management and Intelligent Transportation System have been initiated and will be included in the design of the project.

2.6

2008 Update Evaluations

2.6.1

Changes in Regulations/Guidelines

There have been no changes in the regulations and guidance pertaining to the traffic analysis since the 2004 FEIS.

10

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

2.6.2

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

2008 Update Analysis Methods

Traffic Data Collection Updated traffic volume information was collected to represent the 2005 base year (existing) condition for the SEIS. The base year for the SEIS traffic analysis is 2005 in order to match the base year of the updated New Hampshire Statewide Model. NHDOT maintains a traffic counting program that includes Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts on major highways. ATR counts have been recorded for each segment of the I-93 corridor within the last few years. These counts provide hourly traffic volumes over a minimum 24-hour period, thereby providing both ADT and peak hour traffic volumes. The 24-hour counts were adjusted using NHDOT monthly variation factors to obtain 2005 ADTs for each segment. Directional design hour volumes (DDHV) were derived by applying a directional factor of 60 percent and a design peak hour factor of 9.4 percent, consistent with the values utilized in the 2004 FEIS and supported by expected future trends. The 2004 FEIS included an analysis of traffic data collected at the continuous counting station located on I-93 between Exits 3 and 4. This analysis showed that the 30th highest hourly volume (design hour volume) was approximately 9.4 percent of the ADT in 1997. Historical records at the same counting station have recorded a gradual decrease in the percentage of ADT represented by the design hour volume. This trend can be attributed to the fact that the facility is becoming more congested during the peak hour and drivers are seeking to alter their driving habits by shifting to shoulder hours on each side of the peak hour. The widening of I-93 would provide additional capacity that would reduce or eliminate peak hour congestion. As a result, some drivers would revert to their historical preference by traveling during the peak hour, and the percentage of ADT represented by the design hour volume would be expected to increase. Therefore, the 9.4 percent design peak hour factor used in the 2004 FEIS remains a reasonable value for the SEIS. In addition to the ATR 24-hour counting program, extensive Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) were collected during the AM and PM peak hours at all intersections studied in the 2004 FEIS. These included all of the ramp terminal intersections, as well as other intersections in the vicinity of the ramps. A list of the 19 intersections counted and studied in the 2004 FEIS and re-analyzed in the SEIS is provided below. The locations of the studied intersections are shown in Figure 2-1. Intersections near Interchanges - Studied in the 2004 FEIS and SEIS: Exit 1 • Rockingham Park Boulevard/Mall Road (#1) Exit 2 • Pelham Road (NH 97)/Stiles Road/Manor Parkway (#2) • Pelham Road (NH 97)/Keewaydin Drive (#3) • Pelham Road (NH 97)/SB Ramps (#4) • Pelham Road (NH 97)/NB Ramps (#5) • Pelham Road (NH 97)/South Policy Street/North Policy Street (#6) Exit 3 • NH 111/Village Green/Post Office Drive (#7) • NH 111/Wall Street (#8) • NH 111/SB Ramps (#9) • NH111/NB Ramps (#10) • NH 111/NH 111A (#11) 11

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Exit 4 • • • • • Exit 5 • • •

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

NH 102/Gilcreast Road (#12) NH 102/Market Basket Drive/Hampton Drive (#13) NH 102/SB Ramps (#14) NH 102/NB Ramps (#15) NH 102/Fordway Street (#16) NH 28/Symmes Drive/Vista Ridge Drive (#17) NH 28/NB Ramps (#18) NH 28/SB Ramps (#19)

To meet the requirement of the Court Order to study secondary road traffic conditions as an indirect impact, the update analysis included traffic counts at intersections on the secondary roadway network. The secondary roadway network consists of the parallel roadways and feeder roads in the vicinity of I93. The primary parallel roadways are NH Route 28 and NH Route 128. The feeder roadways include NH Routes 97, 111, 111A, and 102. The update analysis also included intersections not in the immediate vicinity of the I-93 exits in order to measure the effects of the project at other locations that could be affected by the project. These locations included intersections of State routes with other State routes, and State routes with major cross streets. The primary consideration in the selection of secondary road intersections for analysis was the likelihood of the intersection being affected by changes in traffic patterns as a result of the widening of I-93. The level of congestion under existing conditions was also a factor in order to identify locations where traffic and/or air quality impacts could occur. A list of the additional 13 intersections included in the update analysis is provided below: Secondary Roadway Intersections – Studied in the SEIS • NH 102/NH 121, Chester (#20) • NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Road, Salem (#21) • NH 28/Rockingham Park Boulevard, Salem (#22) • NH 28/NH 97, Salem (#23) • NH 111A/Main Street/Nashua Road, Pelham (#24) • NH 111/N. Lowell Road/Fellows Road, Windham (#25) • NH 111/Lowell Road/Hardwood Road, Windham (#26) • NH 111/NH 128, Windham (#27) • NH 102/NH 128, Londonderry (#28) • NH 102/NH 28, Derry (#29) • NH 128/Pillsbury Road, Londonderry (#30) • NH 28/Tsienneto Road/Folsom Road, Derry (#31) • NH 111/NH 121, Hampstead (#32) Analysis Scenarios Two different demographic scenarios were used to provide population and employment inputs into the New Hampshire Statewide Model for the update analysis: •

Scenario 1: Delphi Panel’s Blended Average Allocations (PBAA) of population and employment, 2020, No Build and Build. There is no Scenario 1 analysis for the year 2030 because the Delphi panel’s work was focused on an analysis year of 2020. 12

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

•

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Scenario 2: New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) population forecasts, 2020 and 2030, No Build and Build.

The objective of Scenario 1 (Delphi PBAA) is to understand the effects of the Delphi PBAA population and employment on traffic volumes, travel patterns, congestion, and air quality on I-93 and secondary, parallel and feeder roads to I-93. The Scenario 1 traffic analysis reflects the future population and employment as determined through the Delphi PBAA at the time the Delphi process was conducted (2000-2001). Scenario 1 does not take into account the possible land use effects of a future Exit 4A or the potential tolling of I-93. This is because neither of these conditions was explicitly factored into the Delphi process reported in the 2004 FEIS, i.e., the panelists were not requested to consider Exit 4A and tolling had not been proposed at that time. For these reasons, it would be methodologically inappropriate to adjust the Delphi PBAA results for either the potential land use effects of Exit 4A or the potential tolling of I-93. The objective of the Scenario 1 analysis is met by the analysis reported in this Written Reevaluation/Technical Report and the Air Quality Written Reevaluation/Technical Report. Scenario 2 was developed to use official State population and employment projections as inputs in the New Hampshire Statewide Model, consistent with the objective of the SEIS to provide updated project information based on the latest available information. Scenario 2 included a 2020 analysis year in order to match the analysis year used by the Delphi PBAA and also a 2030 analysis year in order to match the analysis year of the updated model (i.e., a 20-year horizon typically used in transportation planning). As discussed in detail in Section 3.0, a sensitivity analysis of the potential traffic effects of tolling on I93 was performed for Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Build conditions. A proposed $2.00 toll for passenger cars would be located on I-93 only in the southbound direction between Exit 1 and the State line. The tolling sensitivity analysis compares the conditions both with and without the toll as a means to measure the incremental effect of tolling. Updated Design Information In order to update and analyze the future Build conditions, the most recent design plans for the I-93 project were assembled and reviewed. These plans provided the currently proposed roadway layout, lane use, traffic control measures, and signal phasing and timing for the project. New Hampshire Statewide Model NHDOT maintains a statewide transportation model in order to systematically plan for future transportation needs. The model is called the “New Hampshire Statewide Travel Model System” or NHSTMS. The purpose of the NHSTMS is to estimate future travel patterns and their effects on transportation infrastructure associated with changes in population and employment in the State. The NHSTMS was developed in 1997, and underwent substantial updates between 2005 and 2007. There are a total of 499 internal Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) and 29 external TAZs in the model. The external TAZs are used to represent trips with origins or destinations outside the model area. The model area covers all of New Hampshire, and portions of Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont. The base year of the updated model is 2005. The model update process included the use of recent baseline and future year population and employment forecasts. The data sources utilized in these updates included 2000 U.S. Census data, 2005 OEP population projections for New Hampshire, the Massachusetts Statewide Travel Demand 13

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Forecasting Model, Maine Office of State Planning population projections for York County, New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau employment forecasts, and employment growth rates from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. During the 2005 updates, extensive coordination was conducted with the regional planning commissions in the New Hampshire portion of the model area to adjust the employment forecasts based on local knowledge of upcoming developments and conditions. The update process also included changes to the highway and transit networks, and tourist trip purpose modeling, see Appendix 2: New Hampshire Statewide Model Documentation for detailed information. The NHSTMS was used for the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 traffic analyses. For Scenario 1, the Delphi PBAA population and employment estimates for the No Build and Build conditions were used in the model. For Scenario 2, population and employment inputs based on official state projections were used, along with a gravity model analysis to assess the possible indirect land use effects of the project based on changes in accessibility. The Scenario 2 2030 analysis includes employment adjustments to account for the potential indirect land use effects of I-93 Exit 4A (a future No Build project). More information on the development of the population and employment inputs for Scenario 2 No Build and Build conditions is provided below. New Hampshire Population and Employment Control Totals A control total is the aggregate sum of the population or employment of all of the individual traffic analysis zones in a regional (multicounty) or larger (e.g., statewide) geographic area. Control totals are commonly used in the demographic analysis of transportation projects to maintain a consistent sum for the entire model area of analysis while accounting for the expected shifts in future development activity, and associated population and employment growth, within the model area under the Build condition with shifts from areas further removed from the project (where the level of future development will be lower than that which would occur under the No Build condition) to areas in the immediate vicinity of the project under the Build condition (because of the improved relative accessibility improvement that will occur in those areas). The net effect of the shifts is zero when aggregated to the control total level. In this way, the use of control totals avoids projections of population and employment from merely adding population and employment to areas in the immediate vicinity of the project that would lead to an overstatement of the projections of the model area as a whole. The New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) (part of the Executive Department within the Office of the Governor) produces official population forecasts. After extensive discussions with OEP, OEP and NHDOT determined that the OEP’s forecasts represent the Build Condition for the SEIS Scenario 2 analysis. In making population projections, OEP assumed that infrastructure, including sufficient highway capacity would exist. OEP planners believed that population and employment growth surrounding the I-93 corridor would be lower than forecasted due to congestion if the project was not constructed. Therefore, the accessibility analysis was conducted to determine population and employment allocations for the No Build Alternative. The difference in the location of growth between the No Build and Build conditions is the indirect effect of the project. OEP’s most recent population forecast (October 2007) provides municipal-level population forecasts in five year increments from 2005 to 2030. The OEP municipal forecasts were allocated to TAZs in the New Hampshire portion of the New Hampshire Statewide Model. The methodology used to allocate municipal population forecasts to TAZs is explained in Appendix A of the New Hampshire Statewide Model Documentation. The population control total for the entire statewide model is 6,184,400 for 14

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

2020, and 6,478,200 for 2030. The 2030 population represents an increase of 746,900 persons or 13.0 percent from the 2005 population of the model area. OEP does not produce municipal-level employment forecasts. The New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (ELMI) produces statewide and county-level employment forecasts. The most recent county-level forecast covers the years 2004 to 2014. There are no official State forecasts for employment beyond 2014. TAZ-level employment in the New Hampshire portion of the statewide model was adjusted based on the most recent OEP population forecasts, anticipating that employment and population would maintain the same proportion to each other as they do in the forecasts prepared for the New Hampshire Statewide Model updates, which included coordination and adjustments based on input from the RPCs. The employment control total for the entire statewide model area is 3,453,200 for 2020 and 3,648,700 for 2030. The 2030 employment forecast represents an increase of 493,800 jobs or 15.7 percent from the 2005 employment of the model area. Accessibility Index and No Build Population and Employment Allocations The New Hampshire Statewide Model was used to calculate the relative accessibility of each TAZ to jobs in all other TAZs in the model using the No Build and Build transportation networks. The difference in the transportation network between the No Build and Build Alternatives is that the Build Alternative network includes the additional capacity associated with widening I-93 to four lanes in each direction. Based on these accessibility indexes, the model was used to reallocate the Build (OEP) population and employment for the No Build Alternative. TAZs that would be relatively less accessible without the project would be relatively less attractive to future development under the No Build Alternative. The increment between the No Build and Build population and employment allocations is the indirect effect of the project for Scenario 2. Detailed information regarding the calculation of the accessibility index is provided in Appendix A of the New Hampshire Statewide Model Documentation. Indirect Land Use Effects of I-93 Exit 4A The towns of Derry and Londonderry, NH have proposed the construction of I-93 Exit 4A, a new interchange between the existing Exit 4 and Exit 5. This project is separate from the NHDOT I-93 Improvements project. A Draft EIS for the I-93 Exit 4A Interchange Study Derry-Londonderry project was published in July 2007. The purpose of the project includes “providing improved Interstate access for commercial and industrially-zoned lands near NH Route 28 in both Derry and Londonderry, thus allowing for the planned and orderly development of such lands to further locally-defined economic development goals and tax base diversification.”(Exit 4A DEIS, Page 1-3). The possible construction of I-93 Exit 4A and the associated connector roadway to Folsom Road in Derry, near its intersection with North High Street, would provide access to land for commercial/industrial development on the east side of I-93. The Exit 4A project was not included in the 2005 New Hampshire Statewide Model update or accounted for in the updated baseline population and employment estimates prepared in coordination with the Regional Planning Commissions during the model update process. As a reasonably foreseeable transportation project, Exit 4A is included in both the No Build condition and Build condition traffic modeling for the SEIS. However, the New Hampshire Statewide Model does not explicitly account for the localized industrial and commercial development that could occur as a result of the construction of Exit 4A. Through coordination with FHWA, the I-93 SEIS project team decided to update the 2030 analysis year model for the SEIS Scenario 2 (No Build and Build) to account for the potential indirect land use effects 15

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

of Exit 4A. The year 2030 was used for the analysis based on the reasonable assumption that there would be a time lag between the construction of the Exit 4A project and potential changes in land use. While the Exit 4A project may be completed by 2020, any land use effects of the new interchange would be more likely to occur by 2030. 5 The methodology developed for assessing the indirect land use effects of I-93 Exit 4A is consistent with the overall SEIS Scenario 2 analysis framework because it maintains the county-level No Build and Build condition employment totals. The methodology allows for the additional employment growth estimated for the Exit 4A area to be shifted from other areas in Rockingham County. The process for estimating indirect land use effects of the Exit 4A project in the 2030 analysis year involved the following steps: 1. Define study area boundaries where indirect land use effects would be the most likely based on the availability of appropriately zoned land in the vicinity of Exit 4A. 2. Estimate the total possible employment growth in the study area assuming all of the available land was developed at a density similar to existing industrial employment centers in Londonderry and Derry. 3. Estimate the portion of the total possible employment growth that could occur during the ten year period between 2020 and 2030. 4. Adjust the county-level distribution of employment to account for the expected increase at Exit 4A, while maintaining the SEIS Scenario 2 county-level employment totals. The SEIS Scenario 2 Build condition employment totals are based on New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (ELMI) forecasts. For additional information on the methodology and results of the Exit 4A indirect land use effects assessment, refer to the memo entitled Revised Employment Estimates to Account for the Potential Indirect Land Use Effects of I-93 Exit 4A (included in the Indirect Effects Written Reevaluation/Technical Report). Future No Build Transportation Projects Reasonably foreseeable transportation projects that would be completed by 2020 or 2030 were identified for inclusion in the No Build roadway network in the NHSTMS based on discussions and communications that occurred among NHDOT, FHWA, the New Hampshire Regional Planning Commissions and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The following major roadway projects were included as part of the 2020 No Build for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: 6 • • • • •

Bedford- Manchester- Airport Access Road (F.E. Everett Turnpike to airport only) Manchester- Complete Granite Street interchange Windham- Salem- Relocate NH 111 Nashua- Broad Street Parkway I-93 Exit 4A

The following major roadway project was included as part of the 2030 No Build for Scenario 2: 5

See Appendix A-3: Memorandum dated March 4, 2009 from Jamie Sikora, Environmental Programs Manager, Re: Consideration of Exit 4A in the NH I-93 SEIS

6

The 2020 No Build projects are the same for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 in order for the differences in the traffic analysis results between the two scenarios to be only the result of different population and employment levels. The Delphi panel was not given instructions on specific No Build transportation projects to consider in making their estimates.

16

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

•

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Bow-Concord- Widen I-93 to six lanes between I-89 and Exit 15

For the 2020 roadway network it was assumed that the portion of I-93 in northern Massachusetts would have its current configuration of three lanes in each direction plus use of the breakdown lane as a travel lane in the peak periods. For the 2030 roadway network, it was assumed that the fourth travel lane would be fully operational and that the shoulder would be restored. These assumptions were based on input from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Planning. I-93Bi-State Transit Investment Study Future transit service developed based on the recommendations of the I-93 Bi-State Transit Investment Study is not reasonably foreseeable at this time because it is not currently included in statewide or MPO fiscally constrained long-range transportation plans. NHDOT and MA EOT have undertaken the I-93 Bi-State Transit Investment Study to identify potential and feasible transportation modal alternatives for travel between southern New Hampshire and the Greater Metropolitan Boston area, including outlying suburbs along I-93, I-495 and 1-95 (Route 128). The objective of the study is to determine future transit investments necessary to meet mobility needs within the study area and to develop a strategic plan for funding and phased implementation of the recommended options. As part of the study, a Draft Preliminary Definition and Evaluation of Alternatives report was prepared that evaluated conceptual alternatives and recommended implementation of bus-on-shoulder service on I-93 and preservation of the M&L right-of-way for potential future use. A new rail transit service was found to not meet cost effectiveness criteria in comparison to the bus-on-shoulder alternative, but may be feasible in the future, possibly beyond the study’s 2030 horizon year. In addition to not being included in long-range transportation plans, the bus-on-shoulder service recommended by the study is not reasonably foreseeable for 2030 because it is based on preliminary strategic planning and requires major infrastructure improvements in Massachusetts. Key steps to the implementation of the bus-on-shoulder concept have not yet been taken, such as the creation of an implementation agreement between NHDOT, MA EOT, MassHighway, transit agencies and operators, FTA, FHWA, and area RPCs. Although bus-on-shoulder service is not included in the No Build condition, even if it was included, it would not generate sufficient ridership to alter the need to widen I-93 to four lanes in each direction. Refer to the Transit Investment Study Ridership Memo included as Appendix A-4 to this report for detailed information on the ridership projections. Traffic Volume Assignments The mainline I-93 volumes were based on the most recent available NHDOT automatic traffic recorder (ATR) data. This data was adjusted to reflect average annual conditions, factored to a consistent base year (2005), and then balanced to provide volume assignment networks for the entire corridor. Intersection turning movement volume assignments for the 2005 base year condition were based on the most recent available turning movement count (TMC) data, the application of monthly variation factors and by balancing volumes between adjacent intersections. Based on the future traffic volume data projections from the New Hampshire Statewide Model, balanced 2020 and 2030 traffic volume networks were developed for the AM and PM peak hours for both the future No Build and Build Conditions. The future volumes were determined by applying the net change in AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes projected by the model results for each scenario to the 2005 base year volumes. 17

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Capacity Analysis For all of the mainline roadway segments, ramp junction points and study intersections, capacity analyses were conducted based on the methodologies presented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCS) software, HCS+ was used for the update evaluation instead of the HCS 4.f version used in the 2004 FEIS. The mainline capacity analysis produces LOS results for a single hour (the design hour) based on the Directional Design Hour Volumes (DDHV). In order to provide information on the effect of the 2005 Selected Alternative on congestion at other time periods, a separate temporal distribution analysis was conducted for the segment of I-93 northbound between the State line and Exit 1. The State line to Exit 1 segment was used for the analysis because it is the most congested segment of the corridor. The temporal distribution analysis utilized hourly northbound traffic volumes from the NHDOT permanent 24-hour count station (#01399001) to calculate the percentage of total daily traffic occurring in each hour. The ATR data used in the analysis was from August, 2008. The hourly percentages were then used to estimate hourly volumes for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 based on the DSEIS ADT projections. The ADT projections were based on the model generated net change in traffic volumes between the 2005 baseline condition and the future No Build and Build conditions. It was assumed that approximately 50 percent of the daily traffic would travel northbound and 50 percent would travel southbound over a 24-hour period. The northbound traffic volume was seasonally adjusted for August (traffic in on I-93 in August is typically 10 percent higher than average). The result of these calculations was an hourly traffic volume demand for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 unconstrained by capacity. An approximate congested flow capacity of 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane for the existing three-lane segment of I-93 between the State line and Exit 1 was estimated based on the Highway Capacity Manual and ATR data for 2008. The ATR data shows that the maximum number of vehicles per hour during the PM peak period is approximately 5,400 (1,800 per hour per lane). This results in a No Build capacity of 5,400 vehicles per hour (three lanes) and a Build capacity of 7,200 vehicles per hour (four lanes). The No Build and Build unconstrained hourly traffic demand values were compared to the estimated congested capacities. Where the congested capacity was exceeded, the volumes were adjusted to account for the effect of peak spreading to the shoulder hours (e.g. drivers choosing hours on either side of the peak hour to avoid peak hour congestion). The peak spreading adjustments were only performed for the No Build condition because the estimated capacity was not exceeded in the Build condition under Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. A chart illustrating the hourly volumes and the number of hours where the congested capacity of I-93 northbound is exceeded was developed to represent the output of the temporal distribution analysis. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) were calculated based on the assignment results of the New Hampshire Statewide Model. After the final assignments were developed for each scenario, VMT was calculated by multiplying the simulated traffic volumes for each link in the network by its corresponding link length. VHT was calculated by multiplying the simulated traffic volumes for each link in the network by its corresponding link travel time. The VMT and VHT values for each of the individual links were summed to calculate total VMT and VHT for the model region, which consists of all of New Hampshire and portions of Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. 18

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

As part of the calculations for VHT, congested speeds were used to determine the link travel times. After the model runs were completed, the travel times for each link were calculated based on the volume to capacity ratios for each link. The Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) 7 Speed Volume Curve equation was used to determine the congested speed that was used in the calculations for VHT. 2.6.3

Changes in the Existing Conditions

Traffic Volumes The 2005 base year AM and PM peak hour volume assignments are provided on Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively. Table 2-7 provides a comparison between the 1997 ADT presented in the 2004 FEIS and the 2005 base year ADT developed for the SEIS. The traffic volumes listed in the table show that the ADT on I-93 has increased by an average of 10.5 percent from 1997 to 2005, with the greatest increases occurring in the central portion of the corridor. For example, between Exit 3 and Exit 4, ADT increased by 11,200 or 18 percent between 1997 and 2005. Table 2-7 Base Year Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2004 FEIS – 1997 Base Year 104,400 81,100 74,900 61,800 64,900 69,300

SEIS – 2005 Base Year 109,000 87,000 84,000 73,000 72,000 77,000

Capacity Analysis Table 2-8 shows the results of the mainline capacity analysis for the 2005 base year in comparison to the 2004 FEIS 1997 base year. Consistent with the traffic volume increases since 1997, congestion on the corridor has continued to increase. The segments of I-93 between Exit 1 and Exit 3 have worsened from LOS E in 1997 to LOS F in 2005. Between Exit 3 and Exit 5, LOS has worsened from LOS D in 1997 to LOS E in 2005. When considering the operating conditions of a highway, it is important to consider the magnitude of congestion in terms of the time frame over which a poor level of service occurs. The level of service ratings in Table 2-8 are based on a one-hour period. The peak period for I-93 actually extends well beyond a single hour. This phenomenon, which is known as “peak hour spreading,” occurs when segments of a corridor are so congested that the poor level of service extends into the hour before and the hour following the peak hour. In doing so, the actual operating conditions of the highway are somewhat worse (and the number of motorists affected greater) than what is indicated by evaluating a single one-hour period.

7

The Bureau of Public Roads is the predecessor of the Federal Highway Administration.

19

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-8 I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary, 2005 Base Year Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2004 FEIS – 1997 Base Year E E E D D D

SEIS – 2005 Base Year

E F F E E E

Table 2-9 provides the results of the ramp junction capacity analysis for the 2005 base year. LOS E and LOS F conditions occur at ramp junctions on I-93 southbound between Exits 1 and 3 during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, LOS E conditions occur at the Exit 2 northbound on-ramp and the Exit 3 northbound off-ramp. The remaining ramp junctions operate at LOS D or better in the 2005 base year. 8

Table 2-9 I-93 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, 2005 Base Year 2005 Base Year AM PM

From/To I-93 Northbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp Exit 4 Off Ramp Exit 4 On Ramp Exit 5 Off Ramp Exit 5 On Ramp I-93 Southbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp Exit 4 Off Ramp Exit 4 On Ramp from East Exit 4 On Ramp from West Exit 5 Off Ramp Exit 5 On Ramp

B C C C B B B C C C

C D D E E D D C D D

F F F F E F D C D D D

D D D D C C C B C D C

A total of 32 intersections (19 intersections near interchanges and 13 secondary road intersections) were analyzed for the AM and PM peak hours. Table 2-10 summarizes the intersection capacity analysis for the 2005 base year. For the 19 intersections near interchanges, one intersection operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour and two intersections operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. For the 13 8

Note that although the capacity analysis results show LOS D or better, traffic queues extending onto the I-93 mainline are anecdotally observed at Exit 5 due to the relatively short length of the ramps.

20

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

secondary road intersections, seven intersections operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour and eight intersections operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. A total of seven and eight of the secondary road intersections are operating poorly (at LOS E or LOS F) during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Table 2-10 Intersection Analysis Summary, 2005 Base Year Intersection Number 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable.

21

V/C

AM Delay

LOS

V/C

PM Delay

LOS

0.45

20.5

C

1.04

44.0

D

0.62

26.8

C

0.78

30.7

C

0.79 0.59 0.75

23.7 12.0 28.4

C B C

0.70 0.70 0.85

26.8 22.7 45.5

C C D

0.57

24.1

C

0.86

52.1

D

0.78

19.3

B

0.77

21.3

C

0.68 * 0.74 0.71

7.8 84.3 22.3 48.8

A F C D

0.57 * 0.97 0.82

14.9 84.4 52.5 36.5

B F D C

0.70 0.58 0.65 0.78 0.76

23.6 31.9 17.5 26.0 45.7

C C B C D

0.78 0.73 0.78 0.89 0.90

40.5 35.9 21.3 43.2 20.9

D D C D C

0.48 0.66 0.65

5.9 24.3 28.2

A C C

0.61 0.74 0.89

11.0 25.6 85.1

B C F

* 0.41 0.73 0.68 * 1.11 0.70 1.06 0.95 0.96 0.68 0.56 1.10

103.9 20.9 29.3 23.8 310.3 107.3 28.0 155.4 86.0 60.3 28.4 47.2 299.5

F C C C F F C F F E C D F

* 0.79 0.79 0.83 * 0.98 0.81 1.09 1.04 1.26 0.65 0.95 1.20

127.4 41.2 35.0 26.8 394.9 59.8 28.1 81.2 104.1 148.3 29.8 92.5 225.8

F D C C F E C F F F C F F

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

2.6.4

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Changes in the Future No Build and Build Conditions (Scenario 1)

Traffic Volumes The Scenario 1 traffic volume assignments are shown in Figures 2-4 through 2-7. Tables 2-11 and 2-12 provide the Scenario 1 I-93 mainline ADT and DDHV volumes, respectively. The results show that the Build condition increases traffic volumes by between 19 and 43 percent over the No Build condition volumes. Table 2-11 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Scenario 1, 2020 Scenario 1, 2020 No Build – Build No Build Build Percent Change

2005 Base Year

Segment

MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A* Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

109,000 87,000 84,000 73,000 72,000 72,000 77,000

134,500 106,000 104,400 93,000 77,800 96,800 95,100

160,400 143,600 145,100 126,900 111,500 131,000 129,700

19% 35% 39% 36% 43% 35% 36%

*Exit 4A is a future No Build project that is not part of the 2005 base year condition.

Table 2-12 Directional Design Hourly Volumes (DDHV) Scenario 1, 2020

MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

No Build

Build

No Build – Build Percent Change

7,600 6,000 5,900 5,200

9,000 8,100 8,200 7,200

18% 35% 39% 38%

4,400

6,300

43%

5,500 5,400

7,400 7,300

35% 35%

Capacity Analysis I-93 Mainline Table 2-13 summarizes the results of the I-93 mainline LOS analysis for Scenario 1. The 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate LOS F conditions along the I-93 corridor north of Exit 1. The segment of I93 between Exit 1 and the State line would remain at LOS F in the design hour under the Scenario 1 22

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Build condition. However, as discussed below, shoulder hour congestion on this segment would be substantially reduced as a result of the 2005 Selected Alternative. It is important to recognize that the future design hour volumes and LOS represent traffic congestion in a one-hour period. However, because the peak commuter period currently extends beyond a single hour, the design hour is expected to experience an inflow of volume from the hour before and hour after the design hour as the capacity of the highway is increased with the widening. As a result, one substantial benefit of the additional capacity will be the shrinking of the duration of the peak period congestion that is experienced today by motorists. Figure 2-8 provides the results of the I-93 northbound temporal distribution analysis for Scenario 1. In the 2020 No Build condition, the congested capacity is exceeded for six hours between 1:00 PM and 7:00 PM. The 2020 Build condition eliminates this extended period of severe congestion, with congested capacity being closely approached for only a single hour (4:00 PM to 5:00 PM). The results demonstrate that the congestion reduction benefits of the 2005 Selected Alternative extend beyond the design hour considered in the DDHV LOS analysis. A similar benefit in shoulder hour congestion reduction would occur on the southbound direction of the Exit 1 to State line segment in the AM peak period as a result of the additional capacity added by the 2005 Selected Alternative. Table 2-13 I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary Scenario 1, 2020 Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2005 Base Year E F F E E E E

Scenario 1, 2020 No Build Build F F F D F E F D E C F D F D

Ramp Junctions Table 2-14 provides the results of the ramp junction LOS analysis for Scenario 1. Under the No Build condition, the majority of the ramps to and from I-93 northbound and southbound at Exits 1 through 3 would operate at LOS E or LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The 2005 Selected Alternative would greatly improve operating conditions since all ramps are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under the Build condition.

23

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-14 Scenario 1 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, 2020 From/To I-93 Northbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp Exit 4 Off Ramp Exit 4 On Ramp Exit 4A Off Ramp Exit 4A On Ramp Exit 5 Off Ramp Exit 5 On Ramp I-93 Southbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp Exit 4 Off Ramp Exit 4 On Ramp from East Exit 4 On Ramp from West Exit 4A Off Ramp Exit 4A On Ramp Exit 5 Off Ramp Exit 5 On Ramp

AM Peak No Build Build

PM Peak No Build Build

B C C C C C C C C C D D

B B C B B B A B B B C B

F F F F F F F D D F F F

C C D D C C C B B C C C

F F F F E F D C D E C D E

C D C D D D C B C C B C C

F F F F D C C C C D C E D

B D C B B B B B B C B C B

Intersections The results of the intersection analysis for Scenario 1 are summarized in Table 2-15 (AM Peak) and Table 2-16 (PM Peak). During the AM peak hour, the 2005 Selected Alternative would reduce the delay at seven intersections that were projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition and lengthen the delay at four intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition. During the PM peak hour, the 2005 Selected Alternative would reduce the delay at 12 intersections that were projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition and lengthen the delay at 11 intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition. The 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate LOS E or F conditions at three intersections during the AM peak and at six intersections during the PM peak hour. The 2005 Selected Alternative would create LOS E or F conditions at three intersections (Intersection 2 - NH 97 and Stiles Road/Manor Parkway; Intersection 12 - NH 102 and Gilcreast Road; and Intersection 31 - NH 28 and Tsienneto Road/Folsom Road) during the AM peak hour. The 2005 Selected Alternative would create LOS E or F conditions at three intersections along NH 102 (Intersection 12 - NH 102 and Gilcreast Road; Intersection 13 - NH102 and Market Basket Drive/Hampton Drive, and Intersection 16 - NH 102 and Fordway Street) during the PM peak hour. 24

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

The LOS projected at Intersection 3 - Pelham Road (NH 97)/Keewaydin Drive would improve dramatically in the AM peak hour as a result of the diamond interchange proposed in the build condition at Exit 2. The existing eastbound left turn movement used by vehicles to enter southbound I-93 would be shifted to an eastbound right turn movement at Intersection 4 - Pelham Rd (NH 97)/SB Ramps. Table 2-15 Scenario 1 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2020 Intersection Number 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

V/C Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

Delay No Build Build

No Build

Build

0.52

0.64

25.5

0.83

1.01

0.00 0.87 1.12

LOS No Build

Build

21.1

C

C

38.4

71.8

D

E

0.58 0.66 0.70

311.4 17.9 104.5

12.8 19.1 23.4

F B F

B B C

0.82

0.89

30.4

51.4

C

D

0.99

0.92

52.4

33.8

D

C

0.86 * 0.57 0.59

0.51 0.53 0.41 0.60

9.9 ** 18.9 24.4

19.1 20.8 18.8 19.9

A F B C

B C B B

0.88 0.00 0.61 0.74 0.90

1.04 0.78 0.54 0.66 0.95

32.7 62.9 12.2 32.3 53.9

56.4 122.7 13.1 23.1 54.1

C E B C D

E F B C D

0.75 0.76 0.62

0.53 0.65 0.64

20.9 38.3 27.1

28.2 29.9 24.6

C D C

C C C

* 0.71 0.84 1.31 * 1.39 0.87 1.52 1.19 1.48 1.02 0.73 1.72

* 0.69 0.88 1.46 * 1.31 0.85 1.33 1.25 1.31 0.99 0.87 1.66

** 31.4 34.5 65.9 ** 191.8 52.9 302.6 125.2 154.5 77.7 46.8 341.2

** 27.6 33.2 86.5 ** 167.9 48.4 184.6 144.8 183.8 67.4 66.4 311.0

F C C E F F D F F F E D F

F C C F F F D F F F E E F

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable.

25

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-16 Scenario 1 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2020 Intersection Number 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable.

V/C No Build Build

Delay No Build Build

LOS No Build Build

1.36

1.26

114.6

95.3

F

F

1.10

1.25

84.2

161.8

F

F

1.10 1.09 1.39

1.06 0.85 0.68

113.2 110.0 196.3

150.1 88.2 21.2

F F F

F F C

1.27

1.33

115.0

130.2

F

F

1.04

0.90

76.0

39.1

E

D

0.77 * 0.84 0.77

0.69 0.52 0.63 0.69

22.0 ** 30.2 26.6

34.3 17.6 22.8 24.9

C F C C

C B C C

0.87 0.85 0.79 0.94 0.96

1.12 0.97 0.77 0.80 1.10

51.5 42.3 15.0 125.5 29.1

102.7 61.1 21.1 34.6 65.4

D D B F C

F E C C E

0.99 0.75 0.83

0.60 0.51 0.51

129.4 25.7 0.8

39.6 17.0 22.6

F C D

D B C

* 1.15 1.13 1.53 * 1.30 1.06 1.44 1.17 1.31 0.66 1.25 1.49

* 1.21 1.10 1.68 * 1.19 0.96 1.45 1.25 1.71 0.64 1.32 1.38

** 80.5 74.6 158.3 ** 162.0 73.4 189.8 129.7 171.3 30.8 132.1 230.4

** 88.9 74.1 139.3 ** 108.0 45.1 198.3 159.6 230.5 28.5 148.1 185.4

F F E F F F E F F F C F F

F F E F F F D F F F C F F

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled Table 2-17 provides the Scenario 1 VMT, VHT and average speed for the New Hampshire Statewide Model region. VMT is projected to increase by approximately 1.7 percent between the No Build and the Build condition under Scenario 1. In addition to changes due to different land use conditions, VMT increases in the Build condition because travelers would be able to travel longer distances in the same amount of time due to reduced congestion and increased speeds on I-93. As a result, some of the trip 26

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

origin/destinations throughout the region would change in the Build condition (e.g. some travelers would choose to make longer trips). VHT would increase as well in the Build condition due to the longer travel distances. However, the increase in VHT in the Build condition would be 0.2 percent greater than the No Build condition, a proportionally smaller increase than the increase in VMT (1.7 percent). VHT would increase less than VMT because the increased capacity and reduced congestion on I-93 in the Build condition. The 1.5 percent increase in network-wide average daily speed in the Build condition shows that the 2005 Selected Alternative would improve the efficiency of the transportation system in the region under Scenario 1. An increase in the average daily speed of one-half mile per hour over a whole day for the entire model region (not only in New Hampshire) is substantial.

Table 2-17 Scenario 1 VMT, VHT and Average Speed, 2020 No Build Build Percent Change

2.6.5

VMT

VHT

74,306,502 75,543,678 1.7%

2,228,086 2,231,969 0.2%

Average Speed 33.34 33.84 1.5%

Changes in the Future No Build and Build Conditions (Scenario 2)

Traffic Volumes The Scenario 2 traffic volume assignments are shown in Figures 2-9 through 2-16. Tables 2-18 and 2-19 provide and Scenario 2 I-93 mainline ADT and DDHV volumes, respectively. The results show that by 2030, Build condition traffic volumes would be between 18 and 41 percent higher than the No Build condition traffic volumes. The following general observations are made with respect to traffic volume projections for Scenario 2: •

Interchanges. The ramp volumes in Scenario 2 are affected by two factors, the addition of Exit 4A and the expansion of I-93 from four lanes to eight lanes. Generally, traffic on the ramps increases from 2005 to 2030. When traffic volumes from Exits 4, 4A, and 5 are combined they show a consistent increase in traffic versus the existing traffic in Exits 4 and 5.

•

Parallel Roads. Under Scenario 2, the parallel roads are affected by the construction of Exit 4A and the expansion of I-93 from a 4 lane facility to 8 lanes. The expansion of the I-93 mainline draws traffic from the corridor parallel roads. This is shown by the drop in traffic on parallel roads between the 2030 No Build condition and the 2030 Build condition. The same reduction in parallel road traffic is also shown in the forecasted traffic assignment for 2020. For parallel roads nearest to Exit 4A, new traffic patterns are created and there is a tendency for some of the parallel traffic volumes in future years to be lower than the existing traffic due to the new traffic patterns.

•

Feeder Roads. With the construction of Exit 4A, traffic patterns in the Interchange 4 area change substantially. The new traffic patterns in the Interchange 4 area result in a reduction in the traffic in this area on the feeder road system especially on the east side of the corridor. 27

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Feeder roads that are not near the Interchange 4 area show no reduction in traffic, but rather a modest increase due to growth in the population and employment. Table 2-18 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Scenario 2, 2020 and 2030 2020 Segment

MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A* Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2005 Base Year

No Build

109,000 87,000 84,000 73,000 72,000 72,000 77,000

123,100 96,700 93,700 76,500 69,300 81,000 78,400

2030

Build

No Build – Build Percent Change

No Build

Build

No Build – Build Percent Change

137,000 118,000 116,900 94,800 88,200 100,600 97,600

11% 22% 25% 24% 27% 24% 24%

129,800 101,900 98,100 79,700 72,200 84,500 81,700

152,900 134,900 135,800 109,000 101,500 116,100 113,100

18% 32% 38% 37% 41% 37% 38%

*Exit 4A is a future No Build project that is not part of the 2005 base year condition.

Table 2-19 Directional Design Hourly Volumes (DDHV) Scenario 2, 2020 and 2030 2020

2030

Segment

No Build

Build

No Build – Build Percent Change

MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

6,900 5,500 5,300 4,300 3,900 4,600 4,400

7,700 6,700 6,600 5,300 5,000 5,700 5,500

12% 22% 25% 23% 28% 24% 25%

No Build

Build

No Build – Build Percent Change

7,300 5,700 5,500 4,500 4,100 4,800 4,600

8,600 7,600 7,700 6,100 5,700 6,500 6,400

18% 33% 40% 36% 39% 35% 39%

Capacity Analysis I-93 Mainline Table 2-20 summarizes the results of the I-93 mainline LOS analysis for Scenario 2. Under Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 conditions, the 2005 Selected Alternative would improve LOS on all segments in comparison to the No Build condition. LOS E or F conditions would be eliminated on all segments except for the segment south of Exit 1 (which would be improved from LOS F to LOS E in both 2020 and 2030). It is important to recognize that the future design hour volumes and LOS represent traffic congestion in a one-hour period. However, because the peak commuter period currently extends beyond a single hour, the design hour is expected to experience an inflow of volume from the hour before and hour after the design hour as the capacity of the highway is increased with the widening. As a result, one substantial 28

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

benefit of the additional capacity will be the shrinking of the duration of the peak period congestion that is experienced today by motorists. Figures 2-17 and 2-18 provide the results of the I-93 northbound temporal distribution analysis for Scenario 2 2020 and 2030, respectively. In the 2020 No Build condition, the congested capacity is exceeded for one hour between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM, and is near capacity on the hours on either side of this peak hour. By the 2030 No Build condition, the period during which capacity is exceeded increases to four hours (2:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The 2005 Selected Alternative eliminates this severe congestion in 2020 and 2030. The results demonstrate that the congestion reduction benefits of the 2005 Selected Alternative extend beyond the design hour considered in the DDHV LOS analysis. A similar benefit in shoulder hour congestion reduction would occur on the southbound direction of the Exit 1 to State line segment in the AM peak period as a result of the additional capacity added by the 2005 Selected Alternative. Table 2-20 I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary Scenario 2, 2020 and 2030 Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2005 Base Year E F F E E E E

2020 No Build F F F E D F E

2030 Build E D D C C C C

No Build F F F F E F F

Build E D D C C C C

Ramp Junctions Table 2-21 summarizes the results of the ramp junction capacity analysis for Scenario 2. In the 2020 No Build condition, six ramps would operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, while ten ramps would operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. In the 2030 No Build condition, six ramps would operate at LOS E or F during the AM peak hour, while 15 ramps would operate at LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. All of the ramps that would operate LOS E or F in the No Build condition would improve to LOS D or better as a result of the 2005 Selected Alternative in both 2020 and 2030. This represents a substantial reduction in congestion as a result of the 2005 Selected Alternative.

29

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-21 Scenario 2 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, 2020 and 2030 From/To I-93 Northbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp Exit 4 Off Ramp Exit 4 On Ramp Exit 4A Off Ramp Exit 4A On Ramp Exit 5 Off Ramp Exit 5 On Ramp I-93 Southbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp Exit 4 Off Ramp Exit 4 On Ramp from East Exit 4 On Ramp from West Exit 4A Off Ramp Exit 4A On Ramp Exit 5 Off Ramp Exit 5 On Ramp

2020 AM Peak PM Peak No Build Build No Build Build

2030 AM Peak PM Peak No Build Build No Build Build

B C C C C C C C C C D D

A B B B A B A B B B B B

F F F F F E E D D D E E

C B C C C C B B B B C B

B D C C C C C C C D D D

A B B B B B A B B B B B

F F F F F F F F F F F F

C C D D D C B C C C C C

F F F F E F D C D D C D D

C D B C B C B B B B B B B

D D D D C C C B C D C E D

B C B B B B B B B B B C B

F F F F E F D C D D C D D

C D C C C D B B B B B B B

D D D D C C C B C E C E E

B C B B B B B B B C B C B

Intersections The results of the intersection capacity analysis for Scenario 2 2020 are summarized in Table 2-22 (AM Peak) and Table 2-23 (PM Peak). The results of the intersection capacity analysis for Scenario 2 2030 are summarized in Table 2-24 (AM Peak) and Table 2-25 (PM Peak). During the 2020 AM peak hour, the 2005 Selected Alternative would reduce the delay at seven intersections that were projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition and would not lengthen the delay at any intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition. During the 2020 PM peak hour, the 2005 Selected Alternative would reduce the delay at six intersections that were projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition and would lengthen the delay at seven intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition. The 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate LOS E or F conditions at two intersections during the AM peak and at three intersections during the PM peak hour. The 2005 Selected Alternative would not create LOS E or F conditions at any intersections during the AM and PM peak hours in 2020. In the 2030 AM peak hour, the 2005 Selected Alternative would reduce the delay at eight intersections that were projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build Alternative and would not lengthen the delay at any intersection projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build Alternative. During the 2030 PM peak hour, the 2005 Selected Alternative would reduce the delay at seven intersections that 30

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

were projected to operate at LOS E or F during the No Build Alternative and would lengthen the delay at eight intersections projected to operate at LOS E or F under the No Build condition. The 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate LOS E or F conditions at five intersections during the AM peak hour and at four intersections during the PM peak hour. The 2005 Selected Alternative would create LOS E conditions at one intersection during the PM peak hour by increasing the average delay by 5.5 seconds (Intersection 21- NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Road). The 2005 Selected Alternative would not create LOS F conditions at any intersections in the AM or PM peak hours. The results show in general that intersections improve as a result the 2005 Selected Alternative. This demonstrates that the project benefits the transportation network surrounding the I-93 corridor and would not degrade travel conditions on the secondary road system as a whole.

31

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-22 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2020 Intersection Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

V/C No Build Build

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable

32

Delay No Build Build

LOS No Build Build

0.48

0.42

23.3

18.3

C

B

0.70 0.00 0.70 0.89

0.68 0.41 0.47 0.49

21.2 196.6 12.3 46.9

28.2 10.6 17.9 20.1

C F B D

C B B C

0.66

0.72

23.6

28.5

C

C

0.92 0.81 * 0.57 0.69

0.89 0.49 0.39 0.39 0.56

37.1 8.5 ** 18.8 26.4

33.2 16.2 19.2 18.2 16.7

D A F B C

C B B B B

0.69 0.71 0.66 0.72 0.58

0.70 0.53 0.47 0.56 0.64

23.3 13.0 20.2 25.9 20.7

23.2 32.4 12.7 23.1 27.5

C B C C C

C C B C C

0.54 0.65 0.61

0.42 0.52 0.42

10.6 25.5 24.6

26.5 20.4 20.2

B C C

C C C

* 0.41 0.78 0.74 * 1.26 0.79 1.26 0.93 0.73 0.84 0.66 1.11

* 0.41 0.73 0.81 * 1.22 0.78 1.16 0.89 0.74 0.76 0.66 1.10

47.7 20.7 32.5 25.7 ** 150.0 35.4 215.6 82.2 35.2 39.3 46.3 144.1

45.4 20.7 31.8 33.2 ** 135.8 33.2 178.3 70.4 34.5 32.9 46.3 143.7

E C C C F F D F F D D D F

E C C C F F C F E C C D F

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-23 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2020 Intersection Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

V/C No Build Build

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable.

33

Delay No Build Build

LOS No Build Build

1.12

1.04

59.4

40.0

E

D

0.82 0.79 0.77 1.05

0.78 0.59 0.53 0.55

30.8 32.1 37.7 100.9

29.8 18.3 21.1 21.0

C C D F

C B C C

0.98

1.00

71.0

69.9

E

E

0.97 0.72 * 0.80 0.71

1.00 0.75 0.56 0.62 0.65

56.3 20.3 ** 27.4 24.0

63.1 36.2 17.2 23.2 18.0

E C F C C

E D B C B

0.80 0.76 0.81 0.91 0.83

0.82 0.79 0.64 0.70 0.85

42.9 37.2 22.6 48.3 20.0

43.2 38.5 15.0 25.7 20.1

D D C D B

D D B C C

0.84 0.71

0.53 0.55

52.2 24.5

36.6 19.2

D C

D B

0.90

0.48

44.2

19.9

D

B

*

*

122.8

126.2

F

F

0.86

0.89

46.8

49.4

D

D

0.86 0.84 * 1.23 1.01 1.31 1.08 1.10 0.65 1.04 1.19

0.85 0.85 * 1.25 1.03 1.26 1.08 1.12 0.61 1.06 1.16

39.4 28.0 ** 135.9 59.8 143.1 111.5 113.7 30.1 88.7 130.5

43.3 29.8 ** 138.5 65.7 130.1 120.1 115.5 27.7 89.5 121.2

D C F F E F F F C F F

D C F F E F F F C F F

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-24 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2030 Intersection Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

V/C No Build Build

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable.

34

Delay No Build Build

LOS No Build Build

0.49

0.41

26.2

17.1

C

B

1.02 0.77 0.98 0.73

0.76 0.47 0.54 0.56

25.5 72.2 14.0 66.4

37.3 11.0 18.6 20.9

C E B E

D B B C

0.00

0.82

27.9

38.8

C

D

1.02 0.89 * 0.60 0.81

0.97 0.55 0.40 0.40 0.64

58.9 14.3 ** 19.8 31.8

49.9 18.7 19.3 18.5 17.7

E B F B C

D B B B B

0.70 0.58 0.67 0.68 0.42

0.71 0.61 0.46 0.53 0.56

23.2 32.1 22.2 27.4 10.3

23.2 34.9 12.5 23.7 19.1

C C C C B

C C B C B

0.73 0.65 0.58

0.40 0.53 0.41

23.3 26.3 22.9

27.2 21.4 18.7

C C C

C C B

* 0.42 0.81 0.78 * 1.36 0.86 1.41 0.93 0.58 0.96 0.72 1.19

* 0.41 0.72 0.87 * 1.29 0.84 1.24 0.85 0.60 0.82 0.74 1.17

32.9 20.7 34.5 26.9 ** 179.9 44.7 260.7 82.4 29.9 57.6 46.8 168.4

31.9 20.5 33.7 44.1 ** 154.8 39.4 196.1 60.0 29.5 39.6 47.9 164.4

D C C C F F D F F C E D F

D C C D F F D F E C D D F

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-25 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2030 Intersection Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

V/C No Build Build

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Exit 4: NH 102 / Gilcreast Rd NH 102 / Market Basket Drive NH 102 / SB Ramps NH 102 / NB Ramps NH 102 / Fordway Street Exit 5: NH 28 / Symmes Drive NH 28 / NB Ramps NH 28 / SB Ramps Secondary Road Intersections NH 102 / NH 121 NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 128 NH 102 / NH 28 NH 128/ Pillsbury Rd NH 28 / Tsienneto Rd / Folsom Rd NH 111 / NH 121

*Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable.

Delay No Build Build

LOS No Build Build

1.18

1.03

70.8

38.3

E

D

0.84 0.87 0.82 1.17

0.78 0.62 0.58 0.62

32.2 49.8 48.5 150.4

29.6 19.1 22.1 22.1

C D D F

C B C C

1.06

1.09

88.6

86.5

F

F

1.11 0.82 * 0.88 0.82

1.14 0.87 0.65 0.71 0.78

96.0 23.8 ** 32.8 28.0

103.5 36.8 19.6 26.0 21.0

F C F C C

F D B C C

0.82 0.77 0.83 0.92 0.79

0.84 0.82 0.67 0.71 0.81

44.5 38.1 23.9 51.7 21.6

46.2 41.3 15.2 26.1 21.4

D D C D C

D D B C C

1.00 0.72 0.84

0.65 0.56 0.47

136.6 24.9 31.0

49.2 20.5 18.6

F C C

D C B

* 0.91 0.90 0.88 * 1.38 1.13 1.46 1.10 1.05 0.65 1.16 1.31

* 0.97 0.88 0.90 * 1.43 1.17 1.38 1.11 1.08 0.59 1.20 1.26

122.8 50.8 44.0 30.6 ** 196.6 91.3 191.2 115.3 93.1 30.1 104.5 169.6

124.5 56.3 53.3 32.8 ** 199.1 101.7 175.8 132.9 98.6 26.9 113.6 150.9

F D D C F F F F F F C F F

F E D C F F F F F F C F F

V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled Table 2-26 provides the Scenario 2 VMT, VHT and average speed for the New Hampshire Statewide Model region. VMT is projected to increase by approximately 3.7 percent between the No Build and the Build condition under Scenario 2 in 2020 and 2030. In addition to changes due to different land use conditions, VMT increases in the Build condition because travelers would be able to travel longer distances in the same amount of time due to reduced congestion and increased speeds on I-93. As a 35

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

result, some of the trip origin/destinations throughout the region would change in the Build condition (e.g. some travelers would choose to make longer trips). VHT would increase as well in the Build condition due to the longer travel distances. However, the increase in VHT in the Build condition would be 2.0 percent greater than the No Build condition, a proportionally smaller increase than the increase in VMT (3.7 percent). VHT would increase less than VMT because of the increased capacity and reduced congestion on I-93 in the Build condition. The 1.6 percent increase in network-wide average daily speed in the Build condition in 2020 and 2030 shows that the 2005 Selected Alternative would improve the efficiency of the transportation system in the region under Scenario 2. An increase in the average daily speed of slightly more than one-half mile per hour over a whole day for the entire model region (not only in New Hampshire) is substantial. Table 2-26 Scenario 2 VMT, VHT and Average Speed, 2020 and 2030

2.6.6

VMT

VHT

2020 No Build 2020 Build Percent Change

69,784,819 72,335,118 3.7%

1,895,748 1,933,578 2.0%

Average Speed 36.81 37.41 1.6%

2030 No Build 2030 Build Percent Change

75,577,315 78,339,302 3.7%

2,056,207 2,097,287 2.0%

36.75 37.35 1.6%

Comparison Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

Table 2-27 provides a comparison between the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 2020 Build condition mainline ADT and LOS. The results show that that higher population and employment levels in the Delphi PBAA Build condition increase traffic volumes on I-93 by between 15 and 25 percent over the traffic volumes based on current OEP population projections. As a result, LOS is lower on several segments of I-93 under Scenario 1 in comparison to Scenario 2. The Delphi PBAA Build condition population levels were very similar to previous OEP population projections (e.g. the OEP population projections used in the 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis). However, the 2007 OEP population projections used in Scenario 2 reflect reduced future growth compared to the previous projections due to slowing economic growth.

36

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 2-27 I-93 Mainline Average Daily Traffic and Level of Service Comparison Between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, 2020 ADT Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

DDHV LOS Scenario Scenario 1 Build 2 Build

Scenario 1 Build

Scenario 2 Build

Difference

Percent Difference

160,400

137,000

23,400

15%

F

E

143,600

118,000

25,600

18%

D

D

145,100

116,900

28,200

19%

E

D

126,900

94,800

32,100

25%

D

C

111,500

88,200

23,300

21%

C

C

131,000

100,600

30,400

23%

D

C

129,700

97,600

32,100

25%

D

C

Comparing the Scenario 1 (Table 2-17) and Scenario 2 (Table 2-26) VMT and VHT results shows that the overall VMT and VHT for Scenario 1 in 2020 are higher than the corresponding VMT and VHT values for Scenario 2 in 2020, consistent with the higher levels of population and employment estimated in Scenario 1. Under Scenario 1, the population and employment levels estimated by the Delphi panel for the No Build and Build conditions were used to replace the existing model population and employment levels, resulting in a net increase in population and employment in the model region as a whole between the No Build and Build conditions. In contrast, under Scenario 2 the same control total population and employment levels were kept constant between the No Build and Build, as is consistent with standard demographic forecasting practice (see Section 2.6.2). The percentage increase in VMT and VHT between the No Build and Build conditions is higher in Scenario 2 than in Scenario 1. This difference is explained by the combination of several differences in the modeling of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, including a different zonal structure in Scenario 1 analysis (no changes to the TAZ boundaries and network detail around I-93 Exit 4A under Scenario 1), and increased congestion under Scenario 1 relative to Scenario 2 due to the higher population and employment levels. It is important to note that the relative increase in regional speeds under the Build condition (approximately 1.5 percent) is approximately the same between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.

2.7

Conclusions

The Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 mainline traffic volume and LOS analyses reaffirm the need for and transportation benefits of the 2005 Selected Alternative. For Scenario 1, the 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate LOS F conditions along the I-93 corridor north of Exit 1 (the segment between the State line and Exit 1 would be at LOS F in the No Build and Build conditions). For Scenario 2, the 2005 Selected Alternative eliminates LOS F conditions on all segments in 2020 and 2030. Under Scenario 2, the 2005 Selected Alternative also eliminates LOS E conditions on all segments, except for the segment south of Exit 1, which would be improved from LOS F to LOS E. LOS F (Scenario 1) or LOS E (Scenario 2) for the segment of I-93 south of Exit 1 is considered acceptable given NHDOT’s policy to not construct roadways with more than four-lanes in each 37

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

direction. In addition to reducing peak hour congestion, the 2005 Selected Alternative would also reduce the congestion experienced by travelers in the shoulder hours on either side of the peak hour. The Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 ramp junction LOS analyses show that the 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate all LOS E and LOS F conditions as a result of the reconstruction of the interchanges along the project corridor. The Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 intersection LOS analyses show both positive and negative effects of the 2005 Selected Alternative on congestion near interchanges and on secondary roads. Particularly for Scenario 2, the 2005 Selected Alternative reduces delay at more intersections than it increases. For Scenario 2 2030, the 2005 Selected Alternative would eliminate LOS E or F conditions at five intersections during the AM peak hour and four intersections in the PM peak hour, but would only create LOS E conditions at one intersection during the PM peak hour. The results demonstrate that the 2005 Selected Alternative would not degrade travel conditions on the secondary road system as a whole.

3.0 TOLLING SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS On December 12, 2008, NHDOT submitted an Expression of Interest to the FHWA Tolling and Pricing Team to pursue tolling on I-93 as part of FHWA’s Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program. The pilot program allows up to three existing Interstate facilities nationwide to be tolled to fund needed reconstruction or rehabilitation (two of the three slots have already been filled by projects in other states). The proposed toll would be on I-93 southbound between Exit 1 and the State line and is conceptually envisioned to be $2 for passenger cars. The revenue generated by the proposed toll would be used to fund the construction of the I-93 improvements. At the time of the preparation of this DSEIS, the tolling proposal has not been approved by FHWA or the New Hampshire Legislature. Nonetheless, NHDOT and FHWA decided to conduct a sensitivity analysis of the potential traffic, air quality and noise effects of tolling on I-93 in this DSEIS. While it is not certain whether or not tolling will eventually occur, the tolling sensitivity analysis discloses the potential impacts of tolling on travel and traffic patterns. The tolling sensitivity analysis compares the Build condition with the toll (“Build with Toll”) to the Build condition without the toll (“Build without Toll”). The difference is the incremental effect of tolling on travel and traffic patterns. Tolling was not analyzed for the No Build condition because the toll is being considered as a mechanism for funding the construction of the project. If the project is not built, NHDOT would no longer consider tolling for the corridor. In addition, tolling was not analyzed for Scenario 1 (Delphi PBAA) demographics because tolling was not proposed at the time of the Delphi panel estimates were made (2000-2001). The sensitivity analysis of Scenario 2 traffic conditions provides a reasonable basis for establishing the general pattern and magnitude of the effects of the proposed tolling on I-93. Although the numerical results would be different, similar patterns would be shown if a tolling sensitivity analysis was performed using Scenario 1 demographics.

3.1

Methodology

The tolling sensitivity analysis modeling procedure was based on the existing toll methodology in the New Hampshire Statewide Transportation Model. The model toll procedure applies a toll at specified locations on the link system. The tolls are converted into time equivalents based on the value of time and then added to the network travel time. The network travel times, including the time added based on the tolls, affect the mode and route choices made travelers. 38

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

The location of the toll collection facility for the I-93 Scenarios is on the southbound mainline lanes on I-93 prior to where it crosses the New Hampshire/Massachusetts State line border. The toll is a one way toll and only collected in the southbound direction. There are no tolls on the on or off ramps. The proposed toll structure and value of time used for each vehicle category in the analysis are as follows (in 2007 dollars): Passenger Car Toll = $2.00 Light Trucks = $2.70 Medium Trucks = $5.35 Heavy Trucks = $9.35

Value of Time = $9.50 per hour Value of Time = $9.50 per hour Value of Time = $38.50 per hour Value of Time = $76.00 per hour

The value of time is based on the existing toll models in New Hampshire. Typically, the value of time is based on 1/3 to ½ the average hourly wage of the drivers. Heavy commercial truck value of time is based on operating hourly operating costs and typically ranges from $60 to $100 per hour. Toll levels by vehicle class were based on the current toll structure on the F.E. Everett Turnpike. The toll was applied in the southbound direction for the traffic assignment. However, during the distribution phase of the model, the tolls were split in half and applied in both the south and northbound direction. The toll splitting procedure was used to better replicate the trip decision of a driver when deciding on their destinations as part of making a roundtrip. Splitting the toll during the trip distribution process is commonly done in toll studies, including for Massachusetts (specifically for the Harbor crossings serving Boston which have directional tolls) and assures having a balanced trip table. In addition to the delays added to the model travel times to reflect the cost of the toll, an additional 30 seconds of delay was added to vehicle travel time through the toll facility. The 30 seconds of delay was established on the basis that 40% of the traffic would go through a cashier and 60% would have a transponder for an E-ZPass. The 30 second estimate includes the lost time for acceleration and deceleration at the toll booths as well as service time. The 30 second delay estimate would be based on the cash lanes having a typical queue of 4 to 5 vehicles with each vehicle having a service time between 10 to 15 seconds. For each time period during the day, the estimated time delay would vary, however, the 30 seconds represents average conditions for the entire day. With a value of time at $9.25 the passenger car toll of $2.00 represents a 12 to 13 minute delay versus the 30 second delay for collection of tolls. The biggest effect of tolling in the model would be the toll itself, not the time for collection of the toll.

3.2

Traffic Volumes

The traffic volume assignments for the Build with Toll condition are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-4. The ADT volumes for the Build with Toll condition are presented in Table 3-1 (2020) and Table 3-2 (2030). The Directional Design Hour Volumes are presented in Table 3-3 (2020) and Table 3-4 (2030). The traffic volume data shows that the Build with Toll condition would reduce traffic volumes in comparison to the Build without toll condition. As would be expected, the largest ADT reduction as a result of tolling occurs on the segment of I-93 south of Exit 1 (the segment where the toll would be located). Under Scenario 2 2020 conditions, ADT on the segment south of Exit 1 is reduced by 12,900 39

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

or 9.4 percent as a result of the toll. In 2030, ADT south of Exit 1 is reduced by 19,000 or 12.4 percent as a result of the toll. For the northern portions of the corridor, the drop in the mainline volumes as a result of tolling is smaller.

Table 3-1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2020 Build with Toll

2020 Build without Toll

Difference

Percent Change

124,100 113,000 113,700 93,000 88,300 100,200 97,000

137,000 118,000 116,900 94,800 88,200 100,600 97,600

-12,900 -5,000 -3,200 -1,800 100 -400 -600

-9.4% -4.2% -2.7% -1.9% 0.1% -0.4% -0.6%

Table 3-2 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2030 Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2030 Build with Toll

2030 Build without Toll

Difference

Percent Change

133,900 122,700 127,400 103,200 97,400 111,500 108,600

152,900 134,900 135,800 109,000 101,500 116,100 113,100

-19,000 -12,200 -8,400 -5,800 -4,100 -4,600 -4,500

-12.4% -9.0% -6.2% -5.3% -4.0% -4.0% -4.0%

Table 3-3 Directional Design Hourly Volumes (DDHV) Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2020 Build With Toll

2020 Build Without Toll

Difference

Percent Change

7,000 6,400 6,400 5,200 5,000 5,700 5,500

7,700 6,700 6,600 5,300 5,000 5,700 5,500

-700 -300 -200 -100 0 0 0

-9.1% -4.5% -3.0% -1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 3-4 Directional Design Hourly Volumes (DDHV) Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2030 Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2030 Build With Toll

2030 Build Without Toll

Difference

Percent Change

7,600 6,900 7,200 5,800 5,500 6,300 6,100

8,600 7,600 7,700 6,100 5,700 6,500 6,400

-1,000 -700 -500 -300 -200 -200 -300

-11.6% -9.2% -6.5% -4.9% -3.5% -3.1% -4.7%

The introduction of a toll would change the trip distribution patterns since the model converts the toll to time, then the travel time is used in the destination choice model. The effect of a toll on I-93 would be that fewer people would leave New Hampshire to travel to Massachusetts. The reason traffic volumes are reduced northbound as well as southbound is because the toll is being used on trip distributions in both directions. There would be some trips that would never go to Massachusetts and their destinations are being diverted. If they no longer travel to south to Massachusetts, it follows that they will not return back to the north across the State line to New Hampshire. The effect of the toll would be greater at the State line because that is where the toll would be collected. All trips that continue to use I-93, but never cross the State line would not be affected by the toll. Therefore, the effect of the toll on traffic volumes would dissipate as you move further north of the State line. The traffic volumes on the parallel routes generally increase by a small amount in comparison to the Build without Toll condition. These are the trips that actually divert off of I-93 to avoid paying the toll. The number of people that are projected to avoid the toll at the local level is not high because many trips take a substantially longer time because of lower travel speeds on the local roads. The model considers the longer travel times during the assignment process. The parallel roads (NH 28 at Cluff Crossing) near the State line show that the volumes rise due to the potential diversion to the local road system by drivers trying to avoid the tolls. Although the increase in traffic is not large, the diversion pattern is shown in the traffic assignment. The most substantial reduction in the feeder road system for the toll scenario occurs at Exit 2. By tolling the mainline at the State line, traffic would be reduced on the mainline. The reduction in traffic on the mainline would result in a reduction in traffic in the corresponding feeder roads to I-93. The effect of tolls on the feeder system to the north of Exits 1 and 2 would be negligible as most of these trips do not have an origin or a destination affected by the toll. This is consistent with the pattern of traffic on the I93 mainline. Maps were prepared that summarize the effect of tolling on all of the major roadways in the vicinity of the I-93 corridor and the region. The maps categorize the percentage change between the Build with Toll and Build without Toll conditions for the AM and PM peak periods in Figures 3-5a and 3-5b, respectively. In addition, the net change between the Build with Toll and Build without Toll conditions was also prepared for the AM and PM peak periods in Figures 3-6a and 3-6b, respectively. Based upon these figures, it is apparent that the implementation of the I-93 toll not only affects the I-93 corridor and the surrounding local roads but it has a region-wide effect. Generally, the change in volume is spread throughout the region and is not focused on the roads closest to the I-93 corridor. For example, although 41

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

the greatest reduction in traffic is along the I-93 corridor, some of the largest increases in traffic are on F.E. Everett Turnpike to the west and NH 121A to the east. This trend is especially pronounced during the AM peak period. What these patterns show is that the current users of I-93 are sensitive to tolling and trips to and from Massachusetts have the option based upon origins and destinations to divert a considerable distance to other regional roadway systems as opposed to just the parallel routes closest to I-93.

3.3

Capacity Analysis

I-93 Mainline Table 3-5 compares the results of the LOS analysis for the Build with Toll and the Build without Toll conditions. The results indicate that with the exception of three segments in 2020, the change in traffic volumes as result of tolling would not change the LOS results. The freeway segment between MA Line to Exit 3 would improve from LOS E for the 2020 Build without Toll condition to LOS D for the 2020 Build with Toll condition. The two freeway segments between Exit 1 and Exit 3 would improve from LOS D for the 2020 Build without Toll condition to LOS C for the 2020 Build with Toll condition. Table 3-5 I-93 Mainline DDHV LOS Summary Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Scenario 2

Segment MA. Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 4A Exit 4A to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2020 Build Build with Toll without Toll D E C D C D C C C C C C C C

2030 Build Build with Toll without Toll E E D D D D C C C C C C C C

Ramp Junctions The results of the ramp junction analysis are summarized in Table 3-6 for AM Peak Hour and in Table 3-7 for the PM Peak Hour. The results indicate that all ramps for the Build with Toll condition would operate at the same LOS as the Build condition except for two to five ramps to and from I-93 southbound. LOS would improve at these ramps due to a combination of traffic diversion and drivers readjusting their origins and destinations due to the implementation of a toll south of Exit 1. Ramps further from the location of the toll show less of an effect on ramp volumes and thus no effect on LOS.

42

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 3-6 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, AM Peak Hour Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Scenario 2

Segment I-93 Northbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp I-93 Southbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp

2020 Build Build with Toll without Toll

2030 Build Build with Toll without Toll

A B B B A B

A B B B A B

A B B B B B

A B B B B B

B C B C B C

C D B C B C

B C B C B C

C D C C C D

Table 3-7 Ramp Junction LOS Summary, PM Peak Hour Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll, Scenario 2 2020 and 2030 Scenario 2

Segment I-93 Northbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp I-93 Southbound Exit 1 Off Ramp Exit 1 On Ramp Exit 2 On Ramp Exit 2 Off Ramp Exit 3 Off Ramp Exit 3 On Ramp

2020 Build Build with Toll without Toll

2030 Build Build with Toll without Toll

B B C C C C

C B C C C C

B C D D D C

C C D D D C

B B B B B B

B C B B B B

B B B B B B

B C B B B B

43

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Intersections Intersection capacity analysis was conducted for intersections in the vicinity of Exit 1, Exit 2, and Exit 3 for the Build with Toll condition. Intersections in the vicinity of these exits were selected for analysis because the model results showed that within the I-93 corridor, the influence of the toll decreases as the distance from the toll location increases. The intersections beyond Exit 3 did not exhibit substantial change in volumes as a result of the toll. The results of the analysis for 2020 are summarized in Table 38 (AM Peak) and Table 3-9 (PM Peak). The results of the analysis for 2030 are summarized in Table 310 (AM Peak) and Table 3-11 (PM Peak). For the analyzed intersections associated with the I-93 interchanges at Exit 1, Exit 2, and Exit 3, the capacity analyses indicate that the Build with Toll condition would generally improve traffic congestion at these intersections in comparison to the Build without Toll condition in both 2020 and 2030 in the AM and PM peak hours. As discussed in Section 3.2, this result occurs because the addition of the toll affects trip making patterns broadly at a regional level, including a decrease in the number of trips between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. For the 2020 Build with Toll condition, all of the analyzed intersections would operate at the same LOS as the Build without Toll condition in both the AM and PM peak hour except two. Intersection 1, Rockingham Park Boulevard and Mall Road at Exit 1 would improve from LOS D for the Build without Toll condition to LOS C for the Build with Toll condition in the PM peak hour. Intersection 5 would worsen in the AM peak hour from LOS B to LOS C as a result of the toll. For intersections that would operate at LOS E or F in both conditions, the average delays would improve by between 3 to 28 seconds between the Build without Toll condition to the Build with Toll condition in both the AM and PM peak hours except one. The average delay for Intersection 25 (NH Route 111 and Lowell Road/Fellows Road) would increase by approximately 55 seconds in the AM peak hour. For the 2030 Build with Toll condition, the analyzed intersections would operate at the same LOS as the Build condition in both the AM and PM peak hour except for five intersections in the AM peak hour and four intersections in the PM peak hour. In the AM peak hour, three intersections (Intersection 6, NH Route 97 and Policy Road; Intersection 23, NH Route 28 and NH Route 97; and Intersection 26, NH Route 111 and Lowell Road/Hardwood Road) would improve from LOS D for the Build without Toll condition to LOS C for the Build with Toll condition and two intersections (Intersection 4, NH Route 97 and Exit 2 SB Ramps; and Intersection 9, NH Route 111 and Exit 2 SB Ramps) would worsen from LOS B to LOS C. In the PM peak hour, Intersection 1 ( Rockingham Park Boulevard and Mall Road) and Intersection 8 (NH Route 111 and Wall Street) would improve from LOS D for the Build without Toll condition to LOS C for the Build with Toll condition; Intersection 6 (NH Route 97 and Policy Road) would improve from LOS F to LOS E; and Intersection 34 (NH Route 28 and Cluff Crossing/Cluff Road) would improve from LOS E to LOS D. For intersections that would operate at LOS E or F in both conditions, the average delays would improve by between 5 to 44 seconds between the Build without Toll condition to the Build with Toll conditions in both the AM and PM peak hours except one. The average delay for Intersection 28 (NH Route 102 and NH Route 128) would increase by approximately 13 seconds in the PM peak hour.

44

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 3-8 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2020 Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll Intersection Number

1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Secondary Road Intersections NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128

Build with Toll

V/C Build without Toll

Build with Toll

Delay Build without Toll

Build with Toll

LOS Build without Toll

0.40

0.42

17.2

18.3

B

B

0.66

0.68

29.6

28.2

C

C

0.42

0.41

10.2

10.6

B

B

0.49

0.47

19.7

17.9

B

B

0.46

0.49

19.6

20.1

C

B

0.68

0.72

26.5

28.5

C

C

0.87

0.89

28.8

33.2

C

C

0.48 0.40 0.36 0.56

0.49 0.39 0.39 0.56

16.2 19.7 18.1 16.9

16.2 19.2 18.2 16.7

B B B B

B B B B

0.42

0.41

20.6

20.7

C

C

0.68

0.73

32.10

31.8

C

C

0.73

0.81

26.6

33.2

C

C

*

*

**

**

F

F

1.20

1.22

189.4

135.8

F

F

0.76

0.78

30.5

33.2

C

C

1.09 1.16 150.0 178.3 F F *Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable. Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

45

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 3-9 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2020 Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll Intersection Number

1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Intersection Location

Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Secondary Road Intersections NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128

Build with Toll

V/C Build without Toll

Build with Toll

Delay Build without Toll

Build with Toll

LOS Build without Toll

0.96

1.04

29.1

40.0

C

D

0.75

0.78

29.0

29.8

C

C

0.58

0.59

17.5

18.3

B

B

0.52

0.53

21.0

21.1

C

C

0.53

0.55

20.5

21.0

C

C

0.98

1.00

69.3

69.9

E

E

0.98

1.00

58.1

63.1

E

E

0.74 0.56 0.60 0.61

0.75 0.56 0.62 0.65

36.1 17.2 23.2 18.0

36.2 17.2 23.7 18.0

D B C B

D B C B

0.85

0.89

45.0

49.4

D

D

0.78

0.85

37.9

43.3

D

D

0.77

0.85

25.8

29.8

C

C

*

*

**

**

F

F

1.23

1.25

129.9

138.5

F

F

1.02

1.03

62.7

65.7

E

E

1.26 1.26 127.1 130.1 F F *Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable. Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

46

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 3-10 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, AM Peak 2030 Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll Intersection Number

1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Secondary Road Intersections NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128

Build with Toll

V/C Build without Toll

Build with Toll

Delay Build without Toll

Build with Toll

LOS Build without Toll

0.37

0.41

15.8

17.1

B

B

0.71

0.76

39.6

37.3

D

D

0.48

0.47

10.4

11.0

B

B

0.57

0.54

24.1

18.6

C

B

0.52

0.56

20.0

20.9

C

C

0.76

0.82

28.9

38.8

C

D

0.93

0.97

40.5

49.9

D

D

0.53 0.41 0.37 0.63

0.55 0.40 0.40 0.64

18.8 20.2 18.2 17.9

18.7 19.3 18.5 17.7

B C B B

B B B B

0.44

0.41

20.8

20.5

C

C

0.68

0.72

32.9

33.7

C

C

0.77

0.87

29.4

44.1

C

D

*

*

**

**

F

F

1.24

1.29

143.1

154.8

F

F

0.79

0.84

32.3

39.4

C

D

1.13 1.24 152.9 196.1 F F *Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable. Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

47

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Table 3-11 Scenario 2 Intersection Analysis Summary, PM Peak 2030 Build with Toll Compared to Build without Toll Intersection Number

1

2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Intersection Location Exit 1: Rockingham Park Blvd / Mall Road Exit 2: Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Stiles Rd / Manor Pky Pelham Rd (NH 97) / Keewaydin Dr Pelham Rd (NH 97) / SB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / NB Ramps Pelham Rd (NH 97) / So Policy/No Policy St Exit 3: NH 111 / Village Green/ Post Office Dr NH 111 / Wall Street NH 111 / SB Ramps NH 111 / NB Ramps NH 111 / NH 111A Secondary Road Intersections NH 28/Cluff Crossing/Cluff Rd NH 28/ Rockingham Park Blvd NH 28 / NH 97 (Main St) NH 111A / Main St/ Nashua Rd NH 111 / N Lowell Rd / Fellows Rd NH 111 / Lowell Rd / Hardwood Rd NH 111 / NH 128

Build with Toll

V/C Build without Toll

Build with Toll

Delay Build without Toll

Build with Toll

LOS Build without Toll

0.91

1.03

23.2

38.3

C

D

0.73

0.78

28.5

29.6

C

C

0.60

0.62

17.6

19.1

B

B

0.56

0.58

21.6

22.1

C

C

0.59

0.62

21.5

22.1

C

C

1.07

1.09

75.0

86.5

E

F

1.12

1.14

94.4

103.5

F

F

0.85 0.64 0.69 0.71

0.87 0.65 0.71 0.78

34.3 19.5 24.7 21.0

36.8 19.6 26.4 21.0

C B C C

D B C C

0.89

0.97

48.0

56.3

D

E

0.77

0.88

41.6

53.3

D

D

0.76

0.90

25.2

32.8

C

C

*

*

**

**

F

F

1.39

1.43

183.3

199.1

F

F

1.15

1.17

94.3

101.7

F

F

1.38 1.38 171.0 175.8 F F *Unsignalized Intersection- LOS and Delay for Side Street only V/C – Volume to Capacity Ratio ** Volume exceeds capacity. Delay not measurable. Delay- Average Delay per Vehicle in Seconds LOS- Intersection Level of Service

48

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

3.3

Written Reevaluation/Technical Report No. 1 Traffic

Conclusions

The Build with Toll condition would reduce traffic volumes and improve LOS on the I-93 mainline. The effect of tolling in the New Hampshire Statewide Model shows a diffuse effect on travel patterns at a regional scale, including both changes in trip destinations (e.g. less trips from New Hampshire to Massachusetts) and changes in trip route (e.g. shifts to north-south roadway corridors other than I-93). As a result of the regional effect of tolling in the model, the effects of tolling on intersections in the vicinity of I-93 are primarily positive. The tolling sensitivity analysis shows that the proposed toll would not create substantial or widespread congestion on the secondary road network in the vicinity of I-93.

49

Mil

Av

lvil l

eR

Martin

on

tR

r

d

Gerem onty D

Maple Pl

d R m ha Pe l irm Fa

Av

5

treet

Bernice

ll Ct

Loren Av

v e.

Pine A

ve. Park A e Av. Granit

Cornwe

Main St

St

wy

Church

Pk

ring

SB ro a

Exit 2

dw

Bailey R

4

ay

d

3

y St olic th P

B

Ve t'

sM

.

t

er Muse T

S sant

Salem

er p Ent

22

ay

Ln

dw

ey

d

roa SB

Dr

lR Mal

rise

1

R

oc

Mac

n ki

gh

am

r Pa

k

Bl

vd

21 Cluff Rd

Rac Far la

e Tr ac k

nd R

d

Rd

Playcam p Rd

ll Tro

Delawar e Dr.

Lowell Rd

uff Cl

Ke

0

1,250

2,500 Feet

al

. Av

Plea

din D r

d

93

nt

o ri

Sou

Ke e w a y

Stiles R

o elm

Pk

wy

2

em

or

23

al St.

6

M

Centr

I-93

an

Main S

.

St

ve

t.

nA

nS

licy

Town Boundaries

iv a ull

nt o

Po

Analysis Locations

llo Wi

s

lle

R ing ss o Cr

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

d

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement le Sil

yR

d.

r nD

Figure 2-1a Exit 1 and Exit 2 Analyzed Intersections New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Exit 1

Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Oriole Rd

Analysis Locations M

oc

kin

gb

ird

Rd s Gov Din

Camelot Road

I-93

Low ell Rd

Town Boundaries

m ore R

d

Wall St

Se a

9 Indian

Roc k R

93

11

Exit 3 Ran ge Rd

Windham

25

d

10

7

ch R d.

sR

d

8 Chur

rle

Ed

Ar

m

26

str

on

g

ge

wo

od

Rd

d ue R

dv Woo

Rd

Low ell R d

0

1,300

hn

sto

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

re

Figure 2-1b

Ho

2,600 Feet

Ro

rs

e

Rd

ho dR

gR New Hampshire idg Department of Transportation

es

ho

llin

e

.

Federal Highway Administration

tS

rch

wo Exit 3 Analyzed Intersections o

W es

Bi

Rd

nS

Rd

d D r.

er

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Jo

Ministerial Rd.

Fa

rm

d

Wildwo o

Gaumont Rd

st R

t.

Loc u

d

Rd

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Salem

hS

St Rol lins

Central S t

A th

o ils W

cu er

e

d rR we

c Lan

elot

D

r

Derry

Bo

ecc

rl e st own

Av r

M

Cha

Dr ry

all

Mc

sD

2,500 Feet

tA v

Ed

a Ln

Na Rd ist er

Londonderry

Exit 4 Analyzed Intersections r New Hampshire Department of Transportation

wD

ua sh

Vie ard Or ch Rd

ve

Figure 2-1c aA Rit

the

ca La n

Rd

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Ma

r rD ste

Rd n wi ld Ba

Dr

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

Av

t

Bo

n sto

ve lA

w

Av

Reb

b

Rd

ae

d Dr

Al

y an

Rd

ay S

Ln

ld

ich

rwo o

re

Dr

Rd

Rd

hi

st

N

rry

fie

t on

ir

ea

ns

mp

an

m or

w Ford

vo

Gi lcr

r

ll P

Pelic an C

12 De

De Ha

da

Rd

Dr Shilah

13 Pa lm er D

d

ilp

Ln

tR

Ros

1,250

nd

n Dr

n Ke

as

Ph

Susa

t

tS

Po

d on

M

ing

lia

urs

14

re

Av ie rv en

St

no

eh

dS

Gi lc

W ind

ag

M

Pin

Co

Win te

Fa i

rry

ve

15

t

lan urt

Ave

w

No Be

aA

Ln

rce

Av e rto n

t St

Av

Pleasan

ok Bro

St

Av

St

Highland

Union

St

St

St

ve

Pie

El

w

Exit 4

0

nA

y

A

s

St

Su m Av m i

Av Hillside

Rd g rin

Elm St

St

High St

t e

Av

t

Law rence St

rch

lS

ad

tt C

v

u So

e

St

Bi

al W

Sp

Av ov Gr

wa

k

y

Ela

ilro

rd n ike

lle Va

Rd

St in

Cl ar

St

ry

Fo

ey

er

d

y wa

iff Gr

ck Di

d

nd

bo

St

yR

do

Ab

on

Av

Lo n

Reo Ln

St

Ra

ac

Kim rd

Tree Ln

an

oa Br

W

16

29

St

k Oa

Be

Ln

n

Ha

Apple

tin

B

E

ay

rk

ar

L tt

W ym

ar

dw

Pa

C

d Rd

bury

M

a ro

ve

y

yR

Ki

Pills

t al A

As

le

ve

I-93

t

t hS

ol Tr

Ho

Town Boundaries

W illo

Crys

As

Analysis Locations

Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Ma

Analysis Locations

tth e

w

Dr

Rd

Town Boundaries

Ol d

De

rry

Rd

o Wo

Rd

Cla

rk R

on Wils

d

Au

bu

Sheridan Dr

rn

I-93

ds Av

d

or

S

Liberty Dr

nR

Symmes Dr

b an

Exit 5 17 19 e Stok

s Rd

Ro

m

18

In d

ep

en

de

nc

e

Londonderry

Ln

Dr

in Joseph

it h

Sm

n cki

a gh

Rd

e Dr Pe d

oth

sR

mm

rkin

Ma Rd

Me

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Rd

l ch We

d am R

Rd

odh Wo

ye sR d

0

1,250

2,500 Feet

n

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

ham

ingh

Dr

No

Buck

ster

king

in stm We

ry Ct

yL

Roc

Danbu

lod

H tley Bar

ill R

eng

Cir 2-1d e Figure

Exit 5 Analyzed Intersections

d Stoneh

RdHampshire engeNew

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Location 27, Windham

Location 32, Hampstead An

ond ll P

m oth Rd

nda

rs

on

ll R rhi e v Ha

Ke

de

Stage Rd

ury R

Mam

30

b Pills

Rd

Locations 28 andd 30, Londonderry

R

d

s King

P ond

Rd

d Mary E C la

rk Dr

27 Ma

32

Na

shu a

Bricke

C

28

M an ch es te r

Rd

Ch

ien Ts

dge S Old Bri

bur

Rd Rd

rry

d

t

20

n St

ll R

nS

Pinkerto

St

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

rhi

Mai

om

St

Fo ls

n

y Av

Co

o mm

Crystal Ave

Common St

24

31

es

ter

ne

d

l Rd

Location 20, Chester

Rd

y

Rd

Location 31, Derry

Ln

Wo od

R

Rd

a

rsh

hu

se

ial

to

Windham Rd

as

Ma

N

Mo

n olo

tts M il

ve

Location 24, Pelham

111

Ha

Rd

Rd

NH

Stag e Rd

oth

d

De

mm

R ill rh e v Ha

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

t

Figure 2-1e Secondary Road Analyzed Intersections New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

435 0

15

380 195 425

65

2

5 145 50

NH Rte 28 / N Broadwa y

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

40

90

200

950 115

3

170 215 40

35

10

4 55

270

260 255 735

EX 2

5

100 415

330 245

160 630

P e lh a m R d

360 225

4685

25 365 1 0 5 Main St

275 220 10

6

175 260 205

55 350 2 1 5 Main St

110 545 90

23

95 275 115

150 120 105

75 230 150

15 Nashua Rd

395 30 5 75 280

24

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

585 S Policy St

575

Mall Rd

4110 2325

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

1740

190

35 25 110 Main St

2135 1130

EX 1

190 1130

110 50

1

230

105 120 115

1100 870

15 375

65 1210

100 560 Veterans 85 Memorial Pkwy

595 230 70

R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

75 225 125

22

120 180 95

710

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4110

230

1130 3880

3005

Cluff Crossing

110 250 80

5010

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

55 235 25

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

185 60 70

50 65 25

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-2 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2005 Base Year Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93

Symmes Dr

3275 2925

605

10

0

15

NH Rte 28

17

5 415 5

880

30 665 5 10

0

215 390 350 255

20

19

625 170

2045

EX 5 165 575

715 535

18 260

NH Rte 28

90

2670 425

2395

135 220

100 55 20 Pillsbury Rd

185 100 30

3095

2395

Gilcreast Rd 25 155 95

50

10 545 235

30 26

5 655 120

90

15 200

235 5 80 795 10

380

25 10

5

45

10

5

80

790 590

14

485 585 1490

2965

15

420 145

440

605 10

7 50

10

10

40

50 1060

140 210

60

130 255 80

340 30

29

70 Broadway 400 NH Rte 102 40

Derry Rd/ NH Rte 102 55 125 95

30 195 3 5 Raymond Rd

20

50 320 55

80 270 30

3555

I-93

50 510

15

8

400 715

9

520 355 710

875

EX 3

65 310

1930

35

75

70

10

645 65

635 250

240 145

650 190

35

11

650 115

560 235

NH Rte 111

235 230

32

35 260 85

105 90 95 40 230

85

315 3180

1615 385

Post Office Dr

Fellows Rd

16

195 245

1070 Lowell Rd

15

590

375 NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

20

1930 30 460 30

60

70 1010 105

10

Wall St

Village Green 5 545 5

10

5

4250

2000

NH Rte 111A

27

10

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd 55 500 80

13

50 1205 50

EX 4

420 975

Haverhill Rd/ NH Rte 121

240

460 280

NH Rte 121

50

95

610 560

NH Rte 121

40

15

905

610

NH Rte 28/ Birch St

12

90 845 20

70 260 275

40

160 810 50

NH Rte 111

220

2395 2355

Fordway St

65

60 680 120

Chester St

Market Basket Dr 28

150

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd 90 540 10

Tsienneto Rd

35 285 150

740

Hampton Dr

35 380 185

320 200 145 N H R te 1 1 1

405 280 145

20 400 10

60 225 90 65 530 110

31

140 135 45

3095

NH Rte 102

290

Folsom Rd

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

130 160 55

NH Rte 28 / Rockin gham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd 65

350 3095

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-2 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2005 Base Year Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit A

650 20

115

150 145 180

380

2

5 300 50

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

40

60

480

335 730 60

575 135

3 30

75

4 130

860

950 240 565

EX 2

5

430 635

145 205

520 425

P e lh a m R d 380 240

3255

5 340 115

250 255 35

6

300 440 135

130 390 110

Main St

23

185 375 85

355 315 85

100 285 1 6 0 Main St

100 735 300

5 Nashua Rd

180 10 5 50 115

24

30 70 130

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

620 S Policy St

350

Mall Rd

2905 3660

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

3040

290 3370 Main St

920

EX 1

290 920

460 400

2110

75 1360

1

290

210 305 125 1820

280 750

210 400 135

R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

590 565 605

22

130 340 Veterans 240 Memorial Pkwy

480 585 190

675

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

2905

290

5190

920 2615

430 645 170 Cluff Crossing

3535

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

200 740 85

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

345 160 180

145 150 85

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-3 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2005 Base Year Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 3260 Symmes Dr

##

3225

910

25

0

25

NH Rte 28

17

5 790 15

665

5 450 10 5

0

230 680 370 220

5

19

2560

715 160

EX 5 170 880

495 640

18

NH Rte 28

235 250

2350 380

3045

170 400

80 180 25 Pillsbury Rd

430 80

30

2730

3045

20

26

5 675 90

80

30 240

105 5 140 780 15

160

25 20

10

80

40

5

1060 280

14

EX 4 550 890 2195

2090

695 240

555 10

7 60

10

60

20

205 480 75

260 60

150

29

80 Broadway 380 NH Rte 102 60

Derry Rd/ NH Rte 102 70 90 80

20

40 245 50

70 380 40

80 320 5 0 Raymond Rd 50 110

50

NH Rte 121

2370

I-93

80 1050

130

70 790

115 335

Haverhill Rd/ NH Rte 121

1130

8

480 400

9

1035 155 720

1190

EX 3

80 240

3325

10

655 65

605 235

585 380

640 200

45

770 290

395 135

NH Rte 111

11 230 290

35 110 55

32

230 290 95 80 580

85

300 2050

3025

Post Office Dr

Fellows Rd

5

16

550 580

555 Lowell Rd

60

280

320 NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

15

5

3325 60 980 70

40

35 760 45

60

Wall St

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

20

10 995 40

20

300 780

2605

3990

965

NH Rte 121

60 140 105

5

45 880 195

55

245 1085

NH Rte 111A

27

30 520 400

13

160 965 55

850

245 505 380

NH Rte 28/ Birch St

180

305 1145 140

315

NH Rte 111

90

3045 1845

Fordway St

70

245 95

Gilcreast Rd

200 35 50 630 105

12

65 860 55

110 290 290

185 1020 240

Chester St

Market Basket Dr 200 115 140

Harwood Rd N H R te 1 1 1

50 370 245

885

Hampton Dr

28

65 530 240

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd 70

330 180 130 Tsienneto Rd

75 460 50

145 280 120 95 470 110

31

245 380 90

2730

NH Rte 102

440

Folsom Rd

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockin gham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd 70

485 2730

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-3 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2005 Base Year Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy 0

20

645 565 290 630

95

2

5 215 75

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

I-93

60

135 295

1410 170

3

250 320 60

50

15

4 80

400

490

390 380 1090

EX 2

365

5

150 615

240 935

P e lh a m R d 535 335

5350

35 540 155 Main St

410 325 15

6

240 425 285

165 810 135

23

140 410 170

225 180 155

80 520 320 Main St

110 340 225

30 Nashua Rd

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

870

S Policy St

855

Mall Rd

4495 2675

660 55 10 140 425

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

1805

24

195

65 45 205 Main St

2480 1325

EX 1

195 225 215

195 1325

425

165

1

1750 1325

120 1355

95

185 640 Veterans 160 Memorial Pkwy

R o c k in gh a m 675 430 130 P a r k B lv d 140 420 230

30 695

22

160 335 175

1025

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4495

425

1325

3805

4070

g

205 470 145

21

295 105 125

90 115 45

95 410 45

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

5395

I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-4 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

## EX #

I-93 3625 Symmes Dr

Exit #

3290

405

10

0

115

17

150 480 5

580

70 610 10 35

0

790 255

225 180

19

380 470

70

2710

EX 5 80 480

500 645

18

1145

NH Rte 28

610 400 130

3220 725 530

935 2305 155 85 30 Pillsbury Rd

30

30 470 15

300

31

230 390 245

2305

420 600 150 Tsienneto Rd

75 295 155

250

27

35 205 125

10

60

35

26

10 850 140

105

15 710 270 15

295

230

5

480

25

100 1000 15

15

5 685 5 5

55

15

5

15

465 910

110

865 905

14

EX 4

2985

330 685 1710

Chester St 350 1195

15

515 150

405

350

165 355

7 65

15

15

50

65 1340

80

175 345 95

50

95 Broadway/ 515 NH Rte 102 85 190 145 55 29 20 D er r y R d/ 75 90 365 40 N H R te 1 0 2 4 8 5 55 85

3890

I-93

65 645

20

8

470 840

9

610 415 835

745

1025

10 2 9 5

EX 3

75 365

2115

45 295 5 5 Raymond Rd 115 105

760 75

280 170

765 225 765 135

55

855 360

NH Rte 111

11 275 270

55 395 130

32

160 135 145 60 350 130

370 3450

Dr

Fellows Rd

745 20

35

16

180 225

1255 1745 450 Post

Lowell Rd

20

905

440 NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

5

2115 40 585 40

75

90 1285 135

15

680

465 375 150

W a ll S t

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd 75 665 105

13

60 1535 60

200 1020 65

Haverhill Rd/ NH Rte 121

300

125

NH Rte 121

65

20

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

50

50

4705

2195

NH Rte 121

12

115 1080 25

85 305 325

75 860 150

NH Rte 28/ Birch St

275

NH Rte 111

80

2520

NH Rte 111A

190

2390 525

Fordway St

40 450 220 NH Rte 102

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

Ma r k e t B a s k e t D r

3045

H a m p to n D r

28

75 625 130

120 720 15

290 230 Folsom Rd

85

425 265 195 N H R te 1 1 1

935 250

EX 4A 2795

70 365 105 NH Rte 102

NH Rte 28/ Rockingham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

3240

1150

100 285 155 200 250 85

3945

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-4 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy 20

1325 195 190 230

130 480

2

5 550 55

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

I-93

45

65

605

785 275

3

680 1015 120

60

155 265

4 1280

295

1650 490 765

EX 2

415

5

745 950

905 595

P e lh a m R d 660 410

4435

10 590 200 Main St

375 380 60

6

445 715 200

195 580 165

23

275 560 125

535 415 150

150 425 240 Main St

1 5 0 1095 445

5 Nashua Rd

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

1070

S Policy St

710

Mall Rd

3725 4590

220 10 5 60 140

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

3520

24

485

35 85 160 Main St

4105 1440

EX 1

485 1440

880

1

420

255 375 155

2575 2155

530 1045

760

R o c k in gh a m 325 570 195 P a r k B lv d

22

810 765 830

100 1645

185 515 Veterans 345 Memorial Pkwy

735 835 270

830

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

3725

420

6260

1440 3305

g

605 895 245

21

505 235 265

215 220 125

295 1085 125

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

4745

I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-5 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4025 Symmes Dr

##

4465

815

130

0

240

17

15 865 15

555

25 455 65 30

0

750 200

265 550

19

425 295

30

3910

EX 5 125 850

430 725

18

1155

NH Rte 28

1090 225 240

3210 495 465

4375

1115 1200 3175 80 185 25 Pillsbury Rd

EX 4A 2590

75 475 50

75 175 130

25

26

5 875 115

100

40

140

310

5

210

25

180 1010 20

25

15

110 5

55

1240 295

14

2500

415 920 2750

Chester St

15

7 80

15

80

5

775 250

1535

260

475 10

15

25

95 1065

435 190 210 555 80

65

80 Broadway/ 400 NH Rte 102 45 120 105 60 20 29 D er r y R d/ 55 70 380 40 N H R te 1 0 2 3 3 0 55 65

2795

I-93

110 1415

175

8

645 530

9

1405 205 960

835 10 3 1 0

1610

EX 3

105 315

4285

875 85

775 505

880 275 1055 400

105 360 6 5 Raymond Rd 145 65

60

525 180

NH Rte 111

11 315 400

45 145 75

32

305 385 125

105 770 115

395 2375

Dr

Fellows Rd

65

16

895 640

735 3890 1280 Post

Lowell Rd

5

295

420 NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

175 825

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

75

EX 4

4285 80 1320 95

55

45 1025 60

20

95

W a ll S t

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

25

15 1315 55

65

355

260 1460

3110

5170

NH Rte 111A

27

5

65 1160 255

13

180 1105 65

590

260

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

100 200

355 1295 165

NH Rte 111

80

2240

265 110 355

Gilcreast Rd

250 45 65 795 130

12

70 995 60

205 1150 270

3340 450

Fordway St

225 130 155

125 325 325

50 675 505

Tsienneto Rd

140 460 305

NH Rte 28 / Crystal Ave

Ma r k e t B a s k e t D r 70 595 270 NH Rte 102

Harwood Rd N H R te 1 1 1

3175

2690

H a m p to n D r

28

110 535 125

31

370 730 275

410 375 160

100

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd 90

545

165

165 315 135 NH Rte 102

325 495 Folsom Rd

NH Rte 121

30

1200 100

NH Rte 121

445 80 70 95 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 70

3705

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-5 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Exit #

0

30

965

2

10 330 115

450

615 445 685

125

60

105 265

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

EX #

N Policy St

Intersection #

Manor Pkwy

##

1670 190

3 680 65

50

505 460

100

465 315

4

2610 1355 460 EX 2 180 745 4960

5

270 1055 760 475

35 690 155

410 325 15

6

P e lh a m R 255 660 305

225 690 135 Main St

23

185 545 225

225 180 155

80 585 310

Main St

135 310 240

775

10 170 535

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St Mall Rd

5735 3845

3650 195

65 45

35 835 65 Nashua Rd

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

1235

24

145 565

110

205 Main St

1150

EX 1

195 225 220

195 1150 485

1 65 920

1895 1410

1245

100 60

660 340 160 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

165 550 265

22

145

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

130 360 195

1040

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

5735

485

1150

5250

5060

Cluff Crossing

190 430 130

6400

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

100 430 45

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

275 90 110

105 140 55

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-6 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4995

S y m m es Dr

##

4415

745

15

0

120

17

145 530 0

695

85 745 10 40

0

345 400

19

440 470

75

820 285

3720

EX 5 140 700

555 690

18

NH Rte 28

415 135

4250 755 V i s ta R i d g e D r

4270

1155 840

140 80 25 Pillsbury Rd

225 120

30

180 225 80

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

840 415

EX 4A 3850

35 560 15

335 300 390 Folsom Rd

3430 75

65

20

135

13

65 1870 65

320

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

50

50

15

170 865 55 15

870

640 640 725

365 145

120

1055 1070

14

EX 4 430 770 2635

4395

440 1180

15

0

5

820 20

25

16

185 235

590 170

180 365 80 180 410 100

355 60

1070 420

110 Broadway/ 45 590 NH Rte 102 360 100 165 125 60 6 0 Raymond Rd 20 29 D er r y R d/ 80 75 335 25 N H R te 1 0 2 5 2 5 70 120 110 90

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

12

140 1355 30

90 340 350

65 735 130

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

325

3755

Fordway St

95

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

225

3505 510

Hampton Dr

35 390 190

15 315 125 85 790 150

Tsienneto Rd

80 325 170

415

4265

NH Rte 102

31

260 415 255

475 640 175

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

80

550 5005

65 785 90

380 185 140 N H R te 1 1 1

120 705 15

27

30 165 100

10

70

30

26

10 760 135

V illa ge G r e e n

110

15 800 270 20

285 5

225

100 900 15

5 785 5

470

25 15

5

55

10

5

735 40 685 40

70

7

85 1180 130

3055

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 5465

65

15

15

50

0

20

8

65 1230 20

375

65 745 55 25

0

130 605

40

430 770

9

655 425

2680

EX 3

10

35 1000

4730

235 145

340 845

11 970 145

900 225

50

50 370 125

285 270

175 145 155

815 325

NH Rte 111

32 65

385 140

5925

3060

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

380 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

1195

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-6 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

20

2 50

70

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

735 1370

190 160 220

140 505 5 735 55

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

735 280

3 680

1975 125

65

305 430

405

1515 865

4

5195 710 465 EX 2 705 1240 2645

5

665 665 510 315

10 445 200

360 380 50

6

P e lh a m R 455 885 215

165 540 155 Main St

23

320 655 135

525 415 140

135 340 220

Main St

1 2 0 1080 4 4 0

1330

5 Nashua Rd

5415 605

35 85

24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St 6020

235 10 5 45 105

3975

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

825

190 640

560

165 Main St

1480

EX 1

300 440 180

605 1480 450

1 95 1485

2315 1865

1175

910 785

315 555 175 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

740 710 820

22

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

405

780 850 290

925

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

3975

450

7280

1480 3525

615 915 250 Cluff Crossing

5005

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

300 1115 125

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

535 250 275

235 240 140

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-7 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4765

S y m m es Dr

##

5555

940

125

0

235

17

15 855 15

560

25 470 65 25

0

295 645

19

430 270

25

735 160

4995

EX 5 130 945

430 685

18

NH Rte 28

210 220

3825 430 V i s ta R i d g e D r

5425

1195 1065

345 60

30

95 210 30 Pillsbury Rd

1065 275

EX 4A 3060

60 390 40

350 535 590 Folsom Rd

4360 110

70

380 1540 180 25

660

285 285 1585 EX 4

515 215

85

1280 305

14

405 1090 3810

2890

255 775

10 105

# # # 670

955 270

15

500 10

10

16

20 460 190 260 670 100

260 65

305 1765

Raymond Rd 75 Broadway/ 110 415 NH Rte 102 385 35 110 95 55 70 20 29 D er r y R d/ 70 75 425 40 N H R te 1 0 2 4 0 5 45 120 55 90

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

13

185 1140 65

160 200 265

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

300 125 360

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

12

70 950 60

130 345 345

245 1350 315

2605

Fordway St

250 145 175

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

80 705 320

4470 730

Hampton Dr

145 275 120 60 465 115

Tsienneto Rd

150 520 340

275

3335

NH Rte 102

31

380 745 280

445 390 175

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

80 110 75

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 55

430 4255

100 275 45 N H R te 1 1 1

55 655 115

27

45 595 445 90 205 140

5

25

25

26

5 745 115

V illa ge G r e e n

110

60 1005 245 45

155 5

310

180 880 20

10 1130 50

210

25 25

20

105 5

55

475 70 1135 80

45

7

40 905 55

5575

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 3195

75

10

70

25

0

160

8

95 890 45

360

95 1170 70 45

0

1175 195

120 355

65

565 465

9

5215

EX 3

10

90 830

2720

635 715

270 735

11 1180 440

740 260

40

40 135 70

330 425

300 375 120

510 170

NH Rte 111

32 65

725 105

3380

6565

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

1350 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

660

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-7 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 1 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Figure 2-8 2020 Scenario 1 Temporal Distribution of No Build and Build Average Daily Traffic in August I-93 Northbound Between State Line and Exit 1 8,000 7,000 Build Congested Flow Capacity

5,000 4,000

No Build Congested Flow Capacity

3,000 2,000 1,000

A 2: M 00 A 3: M 00 A 4: M 00 A 5: M 00 A 6: M 00 A 7: M 00 A 8: M 00 A 9: M 00 AM 10 :0 0 AM 11 :0 0 AM 12 :0 0 A 1: M 00 P 2: M 00 P 3: M 00 P 4: M 00 P 5: M 00 P 6: M 00 P 7: M 00 P 8: M 00 P 9: M 00 PM 10 :0 0 PM 11 :0 0 PM 12 :0 0 PM

0 1: 00

Vehicles Per Hour

6,000

Time of Day 2020 No Build Constrained Demand with Peak Spreading No Build Congested Flow Capacity (5,400 vehicles per hour with three lanes) 2020 Build Demand Build Congested Flow Capacity (7,200 vehicles per hour with four lanes)

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy 0

20

520 435 220 485

75

2

5 165 55

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

I-93

45

100 230

1125 135

3

200 255 45

40

15

4 65

320

395

315 305 865

EX 2

295

5

120 495

195 735

P e lh a m R d 435 270

4840

30 430 125 Main St

325 260 15

6

205 320 240

60 370 225 Main St

120 610 100

23

100 290 120

175 140 125

85

255 170

20 Nashua Rd

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

705

S Policy St

690

Mall Rd

4150 2710

490 35 5 95 350

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

2005

24

195

45 30 135 Main St

2515 1210

EX 1

130 150 140

195 1210

250

120

1

1055 805

70 1285

55

R o c k in gh a m 635 245 75 P a r k B lv d 80 235 135

15 395

105 595 Veterans 90 Memorial Pkwy

22

125 190 100

645

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4150

250

3320

1210 3900 50 65 25

120 270 80 g 180 60 70

21 55

230

25

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

5110 I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-9 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

##

I-93 3370

EX #

Symmes Dr

Exit #

3350

520

10

5

70

17

90 430 5

595

55 660 10 25

5

650 130

225 295

19

365 265

45

2755

EX 5 170 490

425 515

18

940

NH Rte 28

560

265

70

2850 395 335

3090

225 555 2535 120 65 25 Pillsbury Rd

EX 4A 3020

25 485 15

100 620 10

50

235

15

30 180 110

55

26

5 740 135

100

20

270

225

5

435

25

90 900 10

10

5

55

10

5

10

Chester St 760

500 500 490

480 230

85

780 610

14

EX 4

2905

495 515 1915

265 820

15

320 110

320

260

105 160

7 60

15

15

45

60 1265

45

100 190 60

25

50 Broadway/ 305 NH Rte 102 50 115 85 30 29 D er r y R d/ 45 60 205 25 N H R te 1 0 2 2 8 5 50

3515

I-93

60 610

20

8

465 830

9

605 410 825

735

1015

10 2 9 0

EX 3

75 360

2235

20 30

25 175 3 0 Raymond Rd 65

65

750 75

280 170

885 260 885 155

40

610 255

NH Rte 111

11 320 315

40 285 95

32

115 100 105 45 250 95

365 3080

Dr

Fellows Rd

460 5

10

16

170 150

1240 1870 450 Post

Lowell Rd

15

610

435 NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

5

2235 35 545 35

70

80 1195 125

10

150 785 35

W a ll S t

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

35

5 620 5

13

50 1205 50

Gilcreast Rd

27

10

10 625 265

100

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

40

40

NH Rte 28/ Birch St

12

85 855 20

55 665 115

NH Rte 111

215

2405

4320

2320

NH Rte 111A

65

2675 710

Fordway St

145

Harwood Rd 65 575 90

60 290 155

NH Rte 28 / Crystal Ave

Ma r k e t B a s k e t D r 35 375 180 NH Rte 102

70 255 270

370 230 165 N H R te 1 1 1

2535

3115

H a m p to n D r

28

31

195 185 65

415 500 150 Tsienneto Rd

95

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

65 520 105

295

140

60 220 90 NH Rte 102

245 225 Folsom Rd

NH Rte 121

30

555 95

NH Rte 121

225 120 155 195 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 80

3245

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-9 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy 25

720 180 170 215

135 390

2

5 310 60

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

I-93

50

70

500

655 165

3

365 815 65

35

80

4 140

955

165

1270 275 655

EX 2

5

575 610

230

695 455

P e lh a m R d 475 290

3380

5 415 140 Main St

305 315 45

6

300 470 130

130 385 110

23

180 370 85

430 390 105

100 280 160 Main St

1 1 0 820 335

5 Nashua Rd

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

765

S Policy St

395

Mall Rd

2985 4300

225 15 5 60 145

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

3535

24

310

40 90 165 Main St

3990 990

EX 1

265 385 160

310 990

325

495

1

2360 2035

300 805

430

R o c k in gh a m 230 450 155 P a r k B lv d

22

635 605 650

80 1460

145 360 Veterans 270 Memorial Pkwy

515 655 215

820

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

2985

325

6025

990 2660 470 715 185 g

21

380 175 200

220

160 165 95 805

95

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

3650 I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-10 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

I-93

EX #

Symmes Dr

3740

Exit #

4045

750

90

5

155

17

10 835 15

515

15 450 45 20

5

800 125

205 545

19

340 245

20

3530

EX 5

385 655

18

130 755

1040

NH Rte 28

955 270 200

2990 370 470

4000

725 355 3645 80 185 25 Pillsbury Rd

EX 4A 2635

75 465 50

165 1005 60

27

70 160 125

5

25

26

5 825 110

100

35

130

295

5

195

25

170 955 20

25

15 1245 50 15

100 5

50

65

1105 290

14

EX 4

2090

565 855 2945

Chester St 260 790

15

7 75

15

75

605 205

1050

275

505 10

105 305 135 185 435 70

65

25

90 995

75 Broadway/ 345 NH Rte 102 70 90 80 55 20 D er r y R d/ 40 65 345 35 N H R te 1 0 2 2 4 5 50 50

29

2380

I-93

100 1320

165

8

620 480

9

1365 190 910

840

1555

10 2 9 0

EX 3

100 290

3995

830 80

715 465

845 270 945 375

80 315 5 0 Raymond Rd 110 50

50

445 155

NH Rte 111

11 295 390

40 125 60

32

260 325 105 90 655 95

370 1990

Dr

Fellows Rd

5

16

565 485

670 3625 1180 Post

Lowell Rd

65

290

390 NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

5

3995 75 1230 90

50 45 955 55

20

235 1120

W a ll S t

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

25

60 1095 245

60

825

235 520 315

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

190

13

315 1180 145

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

95

Gilcreast Rd

235 40 60 730 125

75

255 100 325

NH Rte 111

70 895 60

1855

2660

4805

NH Rte 111A

N H R te 1 1 1

12

195 1050 250

3770 835

Fordway St

210 120 145

115 300 300

35 600 465

70 380 250

NH Rte 28 / Cr ystal Ave

Ma r k e t B a s k e t D r 70 550 250 NH Rte 102

Harwood Rd 80

3645

2690

H a m p to n D r

28

31

400 620 145

340 275 135 Tsienneto Rd

55

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

100 490 115

450

125

150 290 125 NH Rte 102

255 410 Folsom Rd

NH Rte 121

30

355 55

NH Rte 121

435 80 70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 70

3360

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-10 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

0

20

2 45

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

720 410

455 230 510

75

5 175 55

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

1175 140

3

100 235

470 45

40

410 310

75

330 215

4

2115 905 350 EX 2 140 500 4195

5

270 805 450 280

30 540 125

345 260 15

6

Pelham R 2 0 5 335 240

135 605 100 Main St

23

105 300 125

190 140 125

60 450 225

Main St

1 0 0 260 170

565 NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

2645 200

45 35

24

10 110 350

S Policy St 2845

20 460 35 Nashua Rd

4760

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

730

135 Main St

1045

EX 1

130 140 135

200 1045 255

1 20 400

1060 805

85 1130

115 55

110 465

630 250 75 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

80 240 135

22

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

90

120 200 100

680

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4760

255

3450

1045 4505

120 275 80 g

5550

I-93

21 50

225 20

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

175 55 65

45 65 25

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-11 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 3610

S y m m es Dr

##

3645

520

10

2

70

17

95 450 10

625

55 670 10 25

2

225 295 365 280

45

19

665 145

3020

EX 5 170 490

455 530

18 280

NH Rte 28

70

3090 425

3370

230 590

115 45 30 Pillsbury Rd

195 110

30

590 150

EX 4A 3285

25 420 15

2780

Tsienneto Rd

75 275 155

150 130

95 910 20

40

50

15

100

13

55 1245 55

235

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

70 210 265

40

10

145 755 30 10

795

565 565 495

435 205

85

785 645

14

EX 4 505 485 2115

3360

290 890

15

15

15

515 5

10

16

170 160

290 110

120 120 40 95 180 60

275 35

645 330

29

45 Broadway/ 30 345 NH Rte 102 200 55 110 85 30 3 0 Raymond Rd 20 D er r y R d/ 45 70 205 25 N H R te 1 0 2 2 7 5 35 50 65 45

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

12

55 640 110

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

210

2795

Fordway St

55

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

130

2910 640

Hampton Dr

25 235 175

55 205 85 60 555 100

31

190 185 60

3435

NH Rte 102

405 560 145

260 200 295 Folsom Rd

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

155 175 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockin gham Rd

V i s ta R i d g e D r

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 80

350 3515

50 555 75

370 195 170 N H R te 1 1 1

100 625 10

27

30 135 85

10

55

35

26

5 725 135

V illa ge G r e e n

100

5 580 260 20

255 5

225

90 885 10

0 580 0

415

25 10

5

50

10

5

300 25 510 25

65

7

80 1165 120

2445

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 4005

55

10

10

40

0

15

8

55 1220 10

340

45 560 35 15

0

55 245

25

445 810

9

570 400

2105

EX 3

10

55 635

3705

245 175

285 725

11 760 110

880 260

45

115 100 105

600 255

NH Rte 111 30 280 90

315 305

32 45

250

95

4915

2525

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

420 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

1210

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-11 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

25

2 45

65

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

550 1290

190 215 225

125 385 5 280 55

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

710 185

3 490

1125 65

35

230 320

225

915 435

4

4255 665 275 EX 2 575 660 2520

5

715 465 475 290

5 440 145

310 305 45

6

Pelham R 2 9 5 525 130

100 305 160

135 340 110 Main St

23

190 410 90

430 390 105

Main St

1 2 0 820 335

710

5 Nashua Rd

4695 325

40 90

24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St 5020

190 10 5 50 120

3230

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

765

145 375

305

170 Main St

985

EX 1

320 470 195

325 985 350

1 85 1335

2200 1850

820

490 425

230 395 155 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

595 560 605

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

270

22

520 715 215

950

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

3230

350

6545

985 2880

450 645 175 g

3865

I-93

21 225

845 95

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

395 185 215

170 170 95

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-12 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4275

S y m m es Dr

##

4575

760

90

5

155

17

10 885 15

530

15 470 45 20

5

205 555 355 275

20

19

820 140

4045

EX 5 135 775

395 675

18

NH Rte 28

285 215

3515 415 V i s ta R i d g e D r

4545

810 380

80 185 25 Pillsbury Rd

375 75

30

70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

380 65

EX 4A 3120

70 420 45

255 410 450 Folsom Rd 415 655 155

4165

350 295 135

Tsienneto Rd

70 380 250

65 90

13

165 915 60

185

60

315 1255 145 20

805

250 250 1170 EX 4

545 340

65

1035 270

14

540 835 3450

2550

265 805

15

5

65

530 10

5

16

615 530

625 205

105 305 135 185 455 70

275 65

270 1145

75 Broadway/ 75 360 NH Rte 102 330 75 80 80 55 4 5 Raymond Rd 20 29 D er r y R d/ 45 65 340 35 N H R te 1 0 2 2 5 5 55 105 50 55

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

95

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

75

255 100 325

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

12

60 815 55

115 305 305

2300

Hampton Dr

28

85 420 95

205 1100 265

175 105 140

885

Fordway St

70 575 260

135 260 110

4255

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

3185

NH Rte 102

31

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

65

500 3930

80 N H R te 1 1 1

40 630 465

225 40 55 635 105

27

75 175 130

5

25

25

26

5 740 105

V illa ge G r e e n

100

60 1130 245 35

130 30

300

165 880 20

15 1280 50

185

25 25

15

100 5

45

340 75 1270 90

45

7

45 875 55

4595

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 2820

75

15

75

25

0

165

8

90 905 25

360

100 1355 40 25

0

1415 180

85 255

40

600 410

9

4235

EX 3

10

75 780

2480

770 540

285 825

11 960 385

795 255

45

40 120 60

330 470

255 315 105

435 155

NH Rte 111

32 85

645 95

3070

5545

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

1310 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

590

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-12 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Exit #

0

20

575 470 240 525

80

2

5 180 60

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

EX #

N Policy St

Intersection #

Manor Pkwy

##

50

110 250

1240 150

3

220 280 50

45

15

4 70

350

440

350 340 950

EX 2

330

5

135 545

215 805

P e lh a m R d 485 300

4955

30 470 135 Main St

355 285 15

6

225 355 265

60 380 235 Main St

130 650 105

23

105 300 125

195 155 135

90

275 180

20 Nashua Rd

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

785

S Policy St

770

Mall Rd

4185 2960

555 40 5 105 395

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

2175

24

195

50 35 155 Main St

2765 1260

EX 1

145 170 160

195 1260

260

120

1

1025 765

70 1335

55

R o c k in gh a m 655 255 75 P a r k B lv d 85 245 140

15 415

110 620 Veterans 95 Memorial Pkwy

22

130 200 105

595

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4185

260

3530

1260 3925

g

50 65 25

125 285 80

21

180 60 70

55

230

25

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

5185

I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-13 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

I-93

Intersection #

## EX #

Symmes Dr

3435

Exit #

3635

460

10

5

105

17

150 440 5

400

70 655 10 35

5

670 100

230 230

19

375 275

60

3235

EX 5

230 500

18

170 435

730

NH Rte 28

490 270

55

2975 375 325

3560

375 925 2635 135 75 25 Pillsbury Rd 2975

25 540 15

50

235

15

30 195 120

60

26

5 800 145

110

20

290

245

5

470

25

100 970 10

10

5

60

10

5

10

Chester St 665

430 430 445

490 200

85

775 625

14

EX 4

2875

505 470 2205

160 725

15 150

7 65

15

15

250 85

235

205

360 5

85

125

50

65 1400

35

80 150 50

20

40 Broadway/ 240 NH Rte 102 45 105 80 25 29 D er r y R d/ 40 50 160 20 N H R te 1 0 2 2 6 5 45

3500

I-93

65 675

20

8

510 910

9

660 450 905

805

1110

10 3 2 0

EX 3

85 395

2440

20 30

25 160 3 0 Raymond Rd 60

60

820 85

305 185

1045 3 0 5

40

1045 185

645 270

NH Rte 111

11 380 370

40 300 100

32

120 105 110 45 265 100

405 3020

Dr

Fellows Rd

10

16

85

1360 2035 490 Post

Lowell Rd

10

625

480 NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

5

2440 40 600 40

80

90 1320 135

10

145 765 25

W a ll S t

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

35

5 675 5

13

50 1215 50

Gilcreast Rd

27

10

10 680 285

100

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

40

40

NH Rte 28/ Birch St

12

85 865 20

55 650 110

NH Rte 111

215

2445

4380

2525

NH Rte 111A

65

2870 690

Fordway St

145

Harwood Rd 110 675 10

70 625 100

Tsienneto Rd

80 295 155

NH Rte 28 / Cr ystal Ave

Ma r k e t B a s k e t D r 35 370 180 NH Rte 102

70 255 270

400 250 180 N H R te 1 1 1

2635

3135

H a m p to n D r

28

31

230 220 75

420 650 150

160

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

65 515 105

300

235

60 220 90 NH Rte 102

315 230 Folsom Rd

NH Rte 121

30

925 160

EX 4A

NH Rte 121

250 135 175 215 75

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 90

3350

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-13 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Exit #

25

765 200 190 240

150 400

2

5 320 65

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

EX #

N Policy St

Intersection #

Manor Pkwy

##

55

80

510

710 185

3

385 860 70

35

85

4 150

1010

180

1480 295 715

EX 2

250

5

670 590

810 470

P e lh a m R d 540 325

3465

5 455 160 Main St

345 355 50

6

300 490 125

100 280 160 Main St

130 385 110

23

180 370 85

480 440 120

1 2 0 880 360

5 Nashua Rd

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

865

S Policy St

430

Mall Rd

3035 4725

255 15 5 70 165

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

3860

24

325

45 100 185 Main St

4400 1040

EX 1

325 1040

520

1

345

300 435 180

2525 2180

315 845

450

155 380 Veterans 290 Memorial Pkwy

R o c k in gh a m 245 485 165 P a r k B lv d

22

665 635 680

85 1530

535 705 230

910

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

3035

345

6580

1040 2690 170 175 100

500 760 195 g

21

400 185 210

230

860 100

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

3730

I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-14 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

## EX #

I-93 4060 Symmes Dr

Exit #

4580

640

130

5

240

17

15 865 15

415

25 450 65 30

5

850 105

185 455

19

320 260

30

4165

EX 5 105 670

310 665

18

975

NH Rte 28

835

290 165

3420 365 455

4620

1205 590 4030 80 185 25 Pillsbury Rd

EX 4A 2580

75 465 50

27

75 175 135

5

30

26

5 920 125

110

40

145

335

5

220

25

190 1075 20

25

15 1410 55 15

115 5

55

65

1135 295

14

2095

575 835 3435

Chester St

15

540 185

995

285

95

285 125 175 405 65

65

7 85

15

85

30

100 1130

70 Broadway/ 320 NH Rte 102 70 90 80 50 20 29 D er r y R d/ 40 60 320 35 N H R te 1 0 2 2 4 5 50 50

2390

I-93

115 1500

185

8

715 535

9

1585 210 1040

990

1795

10 3 2 5

EX 3

110 325

4430

950 90

805 520

980 3 2 0 1065 430

80 315 Raymond Rd 50 110 50

55

480 165

NH Rte 111

11 340 460

45 135 65

32

280 350 115 95 705 105

415 1955

Dr

Fellows Rd

470 10

5

16

575 420

745 4015 1325 Post

Lowell Rd

65

295

435 NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

5

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

20

230 795

4430 85 1400 100

55

50 1085 65

60

225 1145 EX 4

W a ll S t

Village Green

N Lowell Rd

30

70 1235 275

13

170 1030 60

805

225 530 275

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

195

325 1200 150

NH Rte 111

95

260 100 335

Gilcreast Rd

255 45 65 795 135

75

1870

2700

5340

NH Rte 111A

N H R te 1 1 1

12

70 915 60

200 1060 260

4240 805

Fordway St

215 125 150

115 305 305

40 655 505

Tsienneto Rd

80 385 255

NH Rte 28 / Cr ystal Ave

Ma r k e t B a s k e t D r 70 560 255 NH Rte 102

Harwood Rd 90

4030

2675

H a m p to n D r

28

31

505 780 185

345 335 135

95

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

100 500 115

455

210

155 295 125 NH Rte 102

310 415 Folsom Rd

NH Rte 121

30

590 95

NH Rte 121

435 80 70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockin gham Rd

Vista Ridge Dr

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 70

3785

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-14 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 No Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

0

20

2 50

110 255

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

815 505

505 255 570

85

5 195 60

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

1335 160

3 525 50

45

465 350

85

370 240

4

2365 1030 415 EX 2 165 555 4555

5

340 935

510 315

30 660 135

395 285 20

6

Pelham R 2 2 5 380 265

155 645 105 Main St 110 315 135

220 155 135

23

60 520 235

Main St

115 280 180

655

10 135 395

2985 205

55 40

24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St Mall Rd

5210 3190

20 505 40 Nashua Rd

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

825

155 Main St

985

EX 1

145 155 145

205 985 275

1 25 415

1035 760

100 1070

120 55

120 395

655 260 75 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

85 245 140

22

95

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

120 215 105

645

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

5210

275

985 4935

3745

g

130 285 80

5920

I-93

21

50 220 20

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

175 55 65

70 65 25

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-15 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 3835

S y m m es Dr

##

4125

460

10

5

105

17

155 470 10

460

70 675 10 35

5

230 230 380 300

60

19

3665

690 1 3 0 EX 5

175 435

285 530

18 290

NH Rte 28

60

3375 430 V i s ta R i d g e D r

4015

380 980

205 115

30

125 40 40 Pillsbury Rd

980 250

EX 4A 3425

25 435 15

340 190 300 Folsom Rd

3035 215

12

95 945 20

40

50

40

15

100

13

55 1275 55

235

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

70 180 255

50 605 105

10

135 710 20 10

720

535 535 450

415 155

85

780 680

14

EX 4 520 415 2530

3640

200 830

15

25

10

455 5

10

16

155 100

205 90

105 60 75 130 45

235 35

680 255

30

Raymond Rd 30 Broadway/ 30 305 NH Rte 102 200 55 100 80 25 30 20 29 D er r y R d/ 40 60 165 20 N H R te 1 0 2 2 4 5 35 35 60 40

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

205

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

50

3105

Fordway St

120

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

15 140 165

3250 570

Hampton Dr

55 195 85 55 575 95

Tsienneto Rd

100 265 155

250

3675

NH Rte 102

31

225 215 70

405 750 145

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

175 185 70

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 90

350 3805

400 195 185 N H R te 1 1 1

110 685 10

27

50 595 70 30 125 80

10

60

35

26

5 775 145

V illa ge G r e e n

110

5 600 275 20

265 5

245

100 945 10

0 605 0

435

25 10

5

50

10

5

250 25 540 25

70

7

90 1265 130

2785

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 4320

55

10

10

40

0

15

8

60 1330 20

360

40 590 55 25

0

45 205

40

475 870

9

605 430

2425

EX 3

10

50 630

4070

250 195

310 785

11 835 110

1030 305

50

25 290 95

365 355

120 105 115

630 265

NH Rte 111

32 45

260 100

5370

2870

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

445 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

1300

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-15 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

25

2 45

70

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

680 1520

215 260 255

135 390 5 265 60

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

800 215

3 500

1170 70

35

285 395

235

955 450

4

5075 730 295 EX 2 675 675 2700

5

845 490 535 320

5 510 165

345 340 50

6

Pelham R 2 9 5 575 125

140 305 110 Main St

23

190 430 95

480 440 120

100 315 160

Main St

135 880 360

745

5 Nashua Rd

5580 350

45 100 24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St 5930

195 10 5 50 120

3445

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

855

195 Main St

1030

EX 1

395 580 240

390

1870

350 1030

515 445

2260

95 1320

325 865

1

155 400

245 395 165 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

595 565 605

22

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

290

545 805 230

1035

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

3445

390

7450

1030 3055

460 650 180 g

4085

I-93

190 185 105

240 920 105

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

430 205 235

21

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-16 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4955

S y m m es Dr

##

5490

665

130

5

240

17

15 945 15

440

25 485 65 30

5

190 475 340 315

30

19

890 125

5050 EX 5

110 705

330 695

18

NH Rte 28

320 195

4290 440 V i s ta R i d g e D r

5565

1350 630

80 185 25 Pillsbury Rd

335 75

30

630 105

EX 4A 3380

70 395 45

315 420 460 Folsom Rd

4935 150

95

13

170 885 60

190

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

75

260 100 335

60

325 1325 150 20

780

250 250 1225 EX 4

575 310

65

1020 265

14

535 795 4305

2850

245 820

15

5

65

510 10

5

16

655 495

575 185

100 285 125 175 435 70

285 65

265 1150

Raymond Rd 75 Broadway/ 75 350 NH Rte 102 335 80 75 80 50 45 20 29 Der r y R d/ 45 65 315 35 N H R te 1 0 2 2 6 5 55 100 50 55

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

12

60 785 55

115 315 315

215 1150 280

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

140

2600

Fordway St

95

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

160

5085 885

Hampton Dr

75 605 275

125 245 105 75 385 85

Tsienneto Rd

85 385 255

105

3485

NH Rte 102

31

525 835 195

360 375 140

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 65

515 4730

85 N H R te 1 1 1

45 705 510

240 45 55 635 105

27

85 195 145

5

30

30

26

5 780 115

V illa ge G r e e n

110

70 1295 275 40

145 45

340

185 945 20

15 1470 55

205

25 25

15

115 5

50

355 85 1460 100

45

7

50 950 65

5455

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 3115

85

15

85

25

0

185

8

100 980 45

400

115 1560 70 45

0

1665 200

90 265

65

680 420

9

5055

EX 3

10

80 865

2760

895 645

320 970

11 1090 445

895 295

45

45 130 60

400 590

270 335 110

460 165

NH Rte 111

32 90

685 105

3380

6595

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

1540 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

620

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 2-16 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Figure 2-17 2020 Scenario 2 Temporal Distribution of No Build and Build Average Daily Traffic in August I-93 Northbound Between State Line and Exit 1 8,000 7,000 Build Congested Flow Capacity

5,000 4,000

No Build Congested Flow Capacity

3,000 2,000 1,000

A 2: M 00 A 3: M 00 A 4: M 00 A 5: M 00 A 6: M 00 A 7: M 00 A 8: M 00 A 9: M 00 AM 10 :0 0 AM 11 :0 0 AM 12 :0 0 A 1: M 00 P 2: M 00 P 3: M 00 P 4: M 00 P 5: M 00 P 6: M 00 P 7: M 00 P 8: M 00 P 9: M 00 PM 10 :0 0 PM 11 :0 0 PM 12 :0 0 PM

0 1: 00

Vehicles Per Hour

6,000

Time of Day 2020 No Build Constrained Demand with Peak Spreading No Build Congested Flow Capacity (5,400 vehicles per hour with three lanes) 2020 Build Demand Build Congested Flow Capacity (7,200 vehicles per hour with four lanes)

Figure 2-18 2030 Scenario 2 Temporal Distribution of No Build and Build Average Daily Traffic in August I-93 Northbound Between State Line and Exit 1 8,000 7,000 Build Congested Flow Capacity

5,000 4,000

No Build Congested Flow Capacity

3,000 2,000 1,000

A 2: M 00 A 3: M 00 A 4: M 00 A 5: M 00 A 6: M 00 A 7: M 00 A 8: M 00 A 9: M 00 AM 10 :0 0 AM 11 :0 0 AM 12 :0 0 A 1: M 00 P 2: M 00 P 3: M 00 P 4: M 00 P 5: M 00 P 6: M 00 P 7: M 00 P 8: M 00 P 9: M 00 PM 10 :0 0 PM 11 :0 0 PM 12 :0 0 PM

0 1: 00

Vehicles Per Hour

6,000

Time of Day 2030 No Build Constrained Demand with Peak Spreading No Build Congested Flow Capacity (5,400 vehicles per hour with three lanes) 2030 Build Demand Build Congested Flow Capacity (7,200 vehicles per hour with four lanes)

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

0

20

2 30

70

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

875 380

465 235 525

75

5 180 55

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

1210 140

3 185

425 45

40

500 375

75

300 200

4

1990 850 310 EX 2 155 520 3565

5

225 750 410 255

30 450 125

340 260 15

6

Pelham R 2 0 5 330 240

130 565 90 Main St

23

100 300 125

185 140 125

75

55 390 225

Main St

255 165

510

10 100 300

2450 205

45 35

24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St Mall Rd

4075 2655

20 485 35 Nashua Rd

Keewaydin Dr

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

665

105 410

85

145 Main St

970

EX 1

100 110 105

205 970 270

1 20 390

980 710

1065

110 45

620 265 65 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

80 220 135

22

100

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

120 205 100

610

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4075

270

3160

970 3805

130 285 85 Cluff Crossing

4775

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

50 210 20

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

175 55 65

65 65 25

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-1 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 3395

S y m m es Dr

##

3590

520

10

5

70

17

90 430 5

595

50 640 5 25

5

225 295 365 265

45

19

630 125

2995

EX 5 170 490

425 515

18 240

NH Rte 28

60

2875 390 V i s ta R i d g e D r

3295

235 610

110 45 30 Pillsbury Rd

195 105

30

610 120

EX 4A 3030

25 420 15

260 200 300 Folsom Rd 190 185 55

2685 125

50

15

95

13

55 1215 55

235

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

40

40

10

145 765 35 10

795

525 525 510

435 205

85

765 630

14

EX 4 490 480 2015

3035

305 865

15

15

15

505 5

10

16

170 160

290 110

120 115 40 90 190 55

275 35

630 330

Raymond Rd 45 Broadway/ 25 335 NH Rte 102 190 55 115 85 30 30 20 29 D er r y R d/ 45 70 205 25 N H R te 1 0 2 2 8 0 35 50 65 50

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

12

95 885 20

70 210 260

55 645 115

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

205

2510

Fordway St

55

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

130

2810 640

Hampton Dr

25 250 180

60 215 90 55 540 100

Tsienneto Rd

80 310 155

120

3150

NH Rte 102

31

405 545 140

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

155 170 60

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 80

300 3265

50 525 70

340 180 155 N H R te 1 1 1

100 600 10

27

30 135 85

10

55

35

26

5 690 130

V illa ge G r e e n

100

5 540 260 20

245 5

230

90 855 10

0 550 0

410

25 10

5

45

10

5

340 25 485 25

65

7

80 1130 120

2345

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 3665

45

10

10

40

0

15

8

55 1190 10

330

45 530 35 15

0

60 280

25

460 755

9

530 360

2015

EX 3

10

60 680

3325

205 150

270 685

11 775 120

820 240

NH Rte 111

45

35 305 100

315 310

105 90 100

595 250

32 45

240 90

4440

2370

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

355 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

1115

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-1 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

25

2 50

70

NH Rte 28 / N Broadway

575 1260

185 210 220

125 380 5 250 55

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

695 180

3 485

1085 65

35

240 335

225

885 425

4

4110 635 250 EX 2 570 650 2260

5

690 425 460 270

5 390 145

300 305 40

6

Pelham Rd 2 9 5 490 135

135 340 110 Main St

23

190 370 90

425 390 105

95

95 280 170

Main St

740 300

675

5 Nashua Rd

4500 340

35 80

24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St 4840

190 10 5 45 115

2935

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

730

155 Main St

800

EX 1

305 450 185

340 800 365

1 95 1235

2040 1675

275 665

475 410

90 250

205 430 140 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

555 505 585

22

320

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

485 650 195

900

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

2935

365

6175

800 2570

465 695 175 Cluff Crossing

21

Cluff Rd

225 775 95

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

365 185 210

150 170 95

3370

I-93

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-2 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4235

S y m m es Dr

##

4470

770

90

5

155

17

10 870 15

520

15 450 45 20

5

205 565 345 270

20

19

800 130

3950

EX 5

18

130 780

390 665

NH Rte 28

265 195

3465 400 V i s ta R i d g e D r

4410

845 410

75 180 25 Pillsbury Rd

315 70

30

410 55

EX 4A 3020

75 425 45

260 410 450 Folsom Rd 415 665 155

4000 75

60

20

805

245 245 1155 EX 4

575 360

65

1030 260

14

540 855 3270

2385

265 800

15

5

65

525 10

5

16

600 515

630 205

105 310 140 185 460 75

275 65

260 1115

Raymond Rd 85 Broadway/ 75 360 NH Rte 102 340 75 80 75 55 45 20 29 D er r y R d/ 45 65 345 35 N H R te 1 0 2 2 6 5 55 105 50 55

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

13

165 900 60

185

315 1270 145

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

95

255 100 325

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

75

2140

Fordway St

12

60 805 55

115 310 310

205 1115 265

935

Hampton Dr

28

175 105 135

4075

Chester St

Market Basket Dr 75 595 270

120 230 100 85 420 95

Tsienneto Rd

75 380 255

55

3075

NH Rte 102

31

355 315 140

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 60

460 3865

80 N H R te 1 1 1

40 615 465

220 35 50 615 105

27

80 175 125

5

25

20

26

5 715 100

V illa ge G r e e n

100

55 1115 240 35

130 30

305

165 855 20

15 1255 50

180

25 20

15

100 5

45

365 75 1245 90

45

7

45 845 55

4385

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 2645

75

15

75

25

0

165

8

90 875 25

340

100 1330 40 25

0

1380 175

90 275

40

595 380

9

4045

EX 3

10

75 795

2280

780 545

265 775

11 975 390

765 250

40

40 120 60

285 415

250 315 105

425 150

NH Rte 111

32 85

635 95

2835

5370

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

1325 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

555

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-2 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2020 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

0

20

2 25

55

NH Rte 28/ N Broadway

1075 460

525 265 590

80

5 200 60

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

1385 160

3 175

445 50

45

615 460

85

320 210

4

2150 930 350 EX 2 190 590 3500

5

270 835 445 275

30 510 135

385 285 20

6

Pelham Rd 2 2 5 375 265

55 420 230

145 580 90 Main St

23

105 320 130

210 155 135

75

Main St

275 175

560 NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

2655 215

55 40

24

10 115 315

S Policy St 2870

20 545 40 Nashua Rd

4060

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

720

165 Main St

860

EX 1

100 105 95

215 860 300

1 25 400

905 605

95 970

105 45

110 305

640 285 60 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

80 220 145

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

110

22

120 225 105

530

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

4060

300

3260

860 3760

140 310 90 Cluff Crossing

4620

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

50 220 20

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

180 55 65

75 65 25

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-3 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 3475

S y m m es Dr

##

4035

460

10

5

105

17

150 440 5

410

65 625 5 35

5

230 230 380 270

60

19

630 95

3625

EX 5 175 435

235 495

18 230

NH Rte 28

40

3015 365 V i s ta R i d g e D r

3895

390 1015

205 110

30

120 35 40 Pillsbury Rd

1015 200

EX 4A 2990

25 435 15

340 190 305 Folsom Rd

2880 205

12

95 910 20

40

50

40

15

95

13

55 1230 55

235

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

70 175 250

50 620 110

10

135 730 25 10

720

465 465 475

415 155

85

750 660

14

EX 4 495 410 2365

3085

225 790

15

25

10

440 5

10

16

150 100

200 90

105 55 65 145 35

235 35

660 250

30

30 Broadway/ 25 290 NH Rte 102 185 55 105 80 25 3 0 Raymond Rd 20 29 D er r y R d/ 40 60 165 20 N H R te 1 0 2 2 5 5 35 30 60 45

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

195

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

50

2620

Fordway St

120

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

15 160 175

3085 570

Hampton Dr

60 210 90 50 550 90

Tsienneto Rd

110 325 155

200

3190

NH Rte 102

31

225 220 65

405 725 140

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

170 180 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 90

270 3380

355 165 165 N H R te 1 1 1

105 640 10

27

45 545 65 30 125 80

10

60

35

26

5 715 140

V illa ge G r e e n

110

5 540 265 20

250 5

250

95 895 10

0 550 0

430

25 10

5

45

10

5

320 20 500 20

70

7

90 1210 130

2615

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 3745

45

10

10

40

0

15

8

60 1275 20

345

40 540 55 25

0

60 260

40

505 785

9

540 365

2270

EX 3

10

60 705

3425

185 155

285 720

11 860 120

935 270

NH Rte 111

50

35 335 110

370 360

105 90 100

615 260

32 45

250

95

4575

2610

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

340 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

1150

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-3 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

##

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

25

2 55

80

NH Rte 28 / N Broadwa y

720 1465

210 250 245

135 380 5 215 55

N Policy St

Manor Pkwy

I-93

775 210

3 490

1100 70

35

300 420

235

900 435

4

4825 685 260 EX 2 665 655 2270

5

800 435 510 290

5 430 165

335 340 45

6

Pelham Rd 2 9 5 525 125

140 305 110 Main St

23

190 370 95

470 440 115

95

90 275 175

Main St

745 300

695

5 Nashua Rd

5255 370

40 90

24

NH Rte 28 / S Broadwa y

S Policy St 5625

200 10 5 45 115

2965

Mall Rd

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

Stiles Rd

Keewaydin Dr

800

170 Main St

720

EX 1

370 545 225

370 720 415

1 105 1155

1995 1580

270 605

485 420

60 185

200 450 140 R o c k ingha m Park Blvd

535 465 575

22

Veterans Memorial Pkwy

370

490 695 200

945

NH Rte 111A Windham Rd

2965

415

6835

720 2550

490 725 180 Cluff Crossing

3270

I-93

21

Cluff Rd

240 815 105

NH Rte 28/ S Broadway

375 200 230

155 180 100

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-4 (Sheet 1 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Intersection #

EX #

Exit #

I-93 4885

S y m m es Dr

##

5305

675

130

5

240

17

15 920 15

420

25 450 65 30

5

190 485 325 305

30

19

855 110

4885

EX 5 100 710

320 680

18

NH Rte 28

285 155

4210 415 V i s ta R i d g e D r

5325

1405 680

75 180 25 Pillsbury Rd

240 60

30

680 95

EX 4A 3220

75 400 45

320 420 460 Folsom Rd 530 855 200

4645 125

12

60 765 55

75

95

260 100 335

13

170 855 60

185

Gilcreast Rd

NH Rte 128/ Mammoth Rd

120 325 325

220 1165 285

60

325 1350 150 20

775

245 245 1200

625 350

65

1010 245

14

EX 4 530 830 3995

2585

245 815

15

5

65

505 10

5

16

630 470

585 185

100 295 130 170 445 75

285 65

245 1100

Raymond Rd 85 Broadway/ 75 345 NH Rte 102 350 75 75 75 55 45 20 29 D er r y R d/ 45 65 320 35 N H R te 1 0 2 2 7 5 55 100 50 60

Haverhill Rd / NH Rte 121

135

NH Rte 28 / Birch St

95

2340

Fordway St

160

Chester St

Market Basket Dr

28

80 640 290

4770 975

Hampton Dr

105 200 85 75 385 85

Tsienneto Rd

90 385 260

95

3315

NH Rte 102

31

370 405 150

NH Rte 28/ Crystal Ave

70 90 65

NH Rte 28 / Rockingham Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd 50

440 4625

85 N H R te 1 1 1

235 35 50 605 105

27

45 680 505 90 200 140

5

30

20

26

5 740 110

V illa ge G r e e n

115

65 1260 270 40

145 45

345

185 900 20

15 1430 55

195

25 20

15

115 5

50

395 85 1420 100

45

7

50 900 65

5095

Wall St

N Lowell Rd

Harwood Rd

I-93 2830

85

15

85

25

0

185

8

100 930 45

370

110 1520 70 45

0

1610 185

100 295

65

680 370

9

4725

EX 3

10

85 890

2435

910 655

285 885

11 1110 460

850 280

40

40 125 60

325 495

265 330 110

445 160

NH Rte 111

32 85

675 105

2990

6290

NH Rte 121

NH Rte 111A

1565 Old Rte 111

P o s t O ffic e D r

Fellows Rd

Lowell Rd

NH Rte 128 / Mammoth Rd

555

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-4 (Sheet 2 of 2) 2030 Scenario 2 Build with Toll Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour

Not to Scale Revised on July 2, 2009

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

% Change in Traffic Volume bet. with and without Toll NH

-15% and below -15% to -5% -5% to -0% 0% to 5% 5% to 15% 15% and above

By

R oa

N H 3A

p

ins d

eR

1

2

P in ke rt o

3

Miles

s te a d

n

Fo

G ilc res t R oa d

oad

Other

28

P erk

W ir

rd w ay ee

S tr

E verett T

t Is l an dP o

11 NH 1

NH

12

5

I -9

NH

28

-

NH

10

2

N H 12 1A

3 NH

N P oli c y R oa d

8 NH 1 2

US 3

it

c

D in K e eW ay oa d S ti le s R

ns

121

NH 97

c e n tr

S

Po

lic

y

Ro

o id

ad

I -4

95

tr a

Ro

ut

e3

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

A

p

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-5a

Danie l W

ram

0

Hamp

Percent Change in Traffic Volumes bet. with and without Toll 2030 Scenario 2 AM Peak Period

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

% Change in Traffic Volume bet. Build with and without Toll

P in ke rt o

s te a d

n

Fo

G ilc res t R oa d

oad

Miles

Hamp

p

N H 3A

By

3

28

2

ad s Ro

eR

1

in Pe r k

W ir

r dw ee S tr ay t

E verett T

Is l an dP o

11 NH 1

NH

12

5

I -9

NH

28

-

NH

10

2

N H 12 1A

3 NH

8

N P oli c y R oa d

NH 1 2

US 3

D in K e eW ay oad S ti le s R

it

c

S

ns

121

NH 97

c e n tr

Po

lic

y

Ro

o id

ad

I -4

95

tr a

M A 21 3

ut

e

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

3A

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Figure 3-5b Percent Change in Traffic Volumes bet. with and without Toll 2030 Scenario 2 PM Peak Period

p

Ro

t

NH 3

D ra c u

Danie l We

ram

0

Other

NH

-15% and below -15% to -5% -5% to -0% 0% to 5% 5% to 15% 15% and above

Exit 1

New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Net Change in Traffic Volume bet. Build with and without Toll NH

125 NH

ay rdw Fo

Gilcrest Road

n Pinkerto

a Isl

t ee Str

Everett T

Miles

Hamp stead

p By

NH 3A

28

oad ns R

nd Po

1

3 US

NH 97

Road licy S Po Din KeeWay d oa Stiles R

oid cent r

MA 213

3 te

A

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester) Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement NH 38

Ro

NH 128

t Dracu

Daniel We

r am p

u Ro

21

NH 108

N Policy Road

NH 1

NH 121A

NH

10 2

3 I -9

NH

28

-

1 NH 1

I-4 95

oad eR

3

i Perk

Wir

0

-200 and below -200 to 0 0 to 150 150 to 250 250 to 350 350 and above 1 2

tr

Exit 1

MBTA

Figure 3-6a Net Change in Traffic Volume bet. Build with and without Toll tc si Scenario 2 AM Peak Period 2030 n a New Hampshire Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Net Change in Traffic Volume bet. Build with and without Toll

93 NH

yp

3

Miles

101

Gilcrest Road

125

Hamp stead

oad

NH

Pinkerton

y wa rd Fo et

a Isl

re St

Everett T

oad eR

NH 3A

Wir

R ins Perk

NH

107

10 2

B 28 NH

0

NH

I-2

-200 and below -200 to 0 0 to 150 150 to 250 250 to 350 350 and above 1 2

nd Po

11 NH 1

NH

N Policy Road

Sou th

3 US

Mer

Bo st on P NH o 101 A

121

NH 121A

3 I -9

NH

28

-

Co

rli ss

H

I-495 NH 97

Road licy S Po yDin KeeWaoad Stiles R

oid centr

MA 213

3A

Interstate 93 Improvements (Salem to Manchester)

p r am

2

Exit 1

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ns

Figure 3-6b

c it

Net Change in Traffic Volume bet. Build with and without Toll tra 2030 Scenario 2 PM Peak Period MBTA Com

MA 113

NH 38

NH 128

t Ro Dracu

Daniel We

NH 12

e ut Ro

New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

The Louis Berger Group, Inc.

APPENDIX A-1 2005 TRAFFIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

May 31, 2005

I-93 TRAFFIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION: The potential for induced traffic and secondary growth in conjunction with widening I-93 have been specific issues of concern and have received much discussion and consideration. Specifically the Delphi process/Expert panel used to consider the issue indicated that population in the I-93 study area may increase by an additional 40,000 with the 4-lane build condition (total projected study area 2020 population: 784,000) as compared to the no build or existing 2-lane condition (total projected study area 2020 population: 743,000) or a difference of approximately 5.5%. The FEIS provides a thorough discussion and consideration of the possible effects and consequences of this potential growth. The purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to examine and consider the ramification of this potential growth on traffic projections and operations. The analysis compares the design year (2020) population projections utilized in the Statewide traffic model with current revised 2020 population projections from the NH Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) and the Delphi Panel’s build condition population allocations, along with the traffic volumes and operations associated with each. The analysis is not intended to validate any one set of population and traffic projections. Population projections are by their nature speculative and constantly being reconsidered and updated. This analysis considers the full range of potential population and associated traffic projections and operations with respect to the project’s purpose and need – to improve transportation efficiency and reduce safety problems along this section of I-93.

BACKGROUND: The New Hampshire Statewide Travel Demand Model System (NHSTMS) was developed as part of this study. The model is based on statewide data collected on highway, bus, and rail systems, and on land use, and social and economic characteristics. Household travel, roadside motorists, and transit rider surveys were conducted as part of the data collection effort in 1994. The model is intended to identify potential new or improved transportation services and strategies, in an effort to improve overall transportation services, reduce congestion and improve air quality. The NHSTMS is a tour-based model system consisting of many sub-models, or components. The system is intended to model travel by auto and transit modes for a summer weekday. The base year of the model is 1990 with analysis capabilities for all forecast years ranging from 1997 to 2020, although years beyond 2020 could be analyzed using extrapolation of socio-economic forecasts.

1

The I-93 sub-area is one of the sub-models or components of the Statewide model. The I-93 sub-area model is more detailed, that is, it has smaller and consequently more traffic zones and somewhat finer highway networks that the Statewide model. The zones and the highway network for the I-93 sub-area model were developed in consultation with the appropriate regional planning commissions (RPC’s), local officials and others. The zones and the network for the I-93 sub-area are consistent with the Statewide overlapping regional models. All links in the Statewide transportation network which are located in the I-93 sub-area are included in the model. The zones are subsets of the Statewide model zones and consistent with the zones in overlapping regional models. The trip tables for the I-93 sub-area model were developed from the Statewide model. These trip tables were imported into the sub-area model and then traffic assignments were made for the sub-area. The 1997 base year sub-area model was considered to be calibrated when the traffic assignments reasonably reflected the traffic volumes estimates made by the NHDOT on I-93 from the State line to the I-93 and I-293 split in Manchester. Based on the guidelines published in the Federal Highway Administration’s Report Calibration and Adjustment of System Models, the 1997 sub-area model traffic assignments fell within the acceptable range of accuracy for freeways. Similarly, the sub-area model assignments for other major roadways such as NH 28, NH 111, and NH 102 were also compared to actual 1997 data and were determined to be within the acceptable range of accuracy for these types of facilities. Therefore, with the model calibrated, it was determined that the 1997 sub-area model accurately reflects the actual traffic volume conditions within the project area and could be used for planning and forecasting purposes. Traffic forecasts were made for year 2020 for the I-93 sub-area using the model. The 2020 highway network includes proposed improvements (expected to be completed by 2020) such as the I-93 widening, the Manchester Airport Access Road, the Nashua Circumferential Highway, and the F.E. Everett Turnpike (FEET) expansion. Traffic forecasts from the I-93 sub-area model were compared with traffic forecasts for 2020 from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission model, the Manchester Airport Access Model, the Windham-Salem NH 111 model, and the Nashua Regional Planning Commission model, and correlations were found to be acceptable.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS: Population projections for 2020 used in the Statewide traffic model were based on Office of State Planning (now Office of Energy and Planning – OEP) population projections at the time the model was developed in the mid-1990’s. These projections were extrapolated from 1990 Census Data. Figure 1 contains a side-by-side comparison of several future year 2020 population and employment projections for the I-93 study area communities including data extracted from the Statewide traffic model, current

2

revised OEP projections, and the Delphi Panel allocations. For reference the table also includes the 1990 census population upon which the Statewide traffic model projections were based, and the current (year 2000) population per the 2000 census. Population projections are constantly being revised and updated. There appears to be a trend toward higher future population projections in the State. This is presumably driven by the 2000 census results. For the State of NH as a whole, the 1990 population (1990 census) was 1,110,000 with a projected (at that time) year 2020 State population of 1,400,000. The current State population (2000 census) is 1,300,000 with a currently projected 2020 State population (per OEP) of 1,520,000. This represents an 8% increase over previous projections. The difference between the population projections extracted from the Statewide traffic model and current projections reflect this trend. Current revised OEP 2020 population projections are approximately 11% higher than the 2020 population estimates extracted from the Statewide model. The Delphi Panel 2020 population allocations for the no-build condition coincide with the current revised OEP 2020 population projections, with an approximate 1% difference. As previously noted, the Delphi Panel’s 2020 population allocations for the build condition are approximately 5.5% higher than the no-build condition for the overall study area (approximately 7.5% difference in NH communities). It should be noted that the Delphi Panel’s results do not replace official population growth projections but are a tool to consider the possible influence the project may have on growth and development. The ramifications of such possible growth have been thoroughly considered in the secondary impacts section of the FEIS. NHDOT is currently in the process of updating and enhancing the Statewide traffic model to reflect the most recent 2000 census and socio-economic data. This will include an update to the I-93 sub-area model as well. As part of this process, the socio-economic data and future year (2030) forecasts will be coordinated through the regional planning commissions and the State Office of Energy and Planning. Presumably these agencies will consider the Delphi Panel’s results in determining the future year forecasts and socio-economic input data to the model.

3

4

METHODOLOGY: The Statewide traffic model utilized 2020 population projections which were based on the best available data at the time it was developed in the mid 1990’s. For the purpose of this sensitivity analysis, two iterations of the Statewide and I93 sub-area model were run for the design year (2020) full-build condition utilizing differing population data sets for the I-93 study area communities. The model was run utilizing the current revised 2020 OEP population projections and the Delphi Panel’s 2020 build condition population allocations. For each model run the population and employment data were used to modify the traffic model input tables. No other model parameters were altered, strictly the population and employment values. In cases where a community is comprised of several Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ’s) in the model, the alternate population projections were prorated between TAZ’s per the same percentages as the model population data. For the purposes of this analysis, no assumptions were made as to where differential growth may occur. Also no attempt was made to consider any demographic changes the 2000 census data and current revised OEP projections may reflect. Additionally, rail ridership projections were re-run using the higher Delphi Panel 2020 build condition population and employment allocations. The same methodology as described in the FEIS and Rationale Report was used. The mode combination that resulted in the highest projected rail ridership in the FEIS (3,365 daily trips) was the existing or no-build condition of two-lane in each direction with I-93 enhanced rail. Since this is not a valid mode combination with respect to the Delphi Panel’s build condition population allocations, the condition of 3 lanes in each direction with the I-93 enhanced rail was considered for this analysis.

RESULTS The results of the I-93 mainline traffic analysis for the different 2020 population projections are summarized in Figure 2. Projected traffic volumes and associated levels of service for each scenario are compared. As a result of the alternate population projections, the projected 2020 traffic volumes based on the revised OEP projections would increase between 3.5% - 10% compared to the original Statewide traffic model volumes. The projected 2020 traffic volumes based on the Delphi Panel build allocations would increase an additional 10% - 20%. The increases are more pronounced in the southern tier of the corridor, from Exit 3 south. The level of service (LOS) in the southern tier of the corridor would be somewhat degraded by these higher traffic volume projections. The southern tier of the corridor, and south of Exit 1 in particular, has been consistently recognized as requiring more than 4 lanes in each direction to provide a desirable LOS D operation. NHDOT’s general guidance is to not consider greater than 4-lanes in each direction. The LOS south of Exit

5

1 will be at failure (LOS F) with the revised OEP projections as compared to approaching capacity (LOS E) with the original Statewide traffic model volumes. The section between Exit 1 and Exit 3 will be approaching capacity with Delphi Panel based traffic volumes. The northern tier of the corridor will operate at desirable levels of service under all scenarios considered. Figure 3 compares the annual traffic growth rates of the various conditions considered with the annual traffic growth rate from the recent past based on known traffic counts between 1997 and 2003. Between 1997 and 2003, traffic volumes increased at a rate of approximately 1.5% - 2% per year. The original Statewide traffic model 2020 volume projections result in an annual growth rate of approximately 1% - 2% with the southern tier ranging from 1.5% to 2 % annual growth. The revised OEP projections result in an annual growth rate of approximately 1.25% to about 3% with the southern tier greater than 2%. The Delphi Panel based traffic volumes result in an annual growth rate of approximately 2% to more than 4% with the southern tier greater than 3.5 % annual growth in traffic. These later traffic growth rates would appear to be exceptional, especially compared with historic growth rates. Also note that the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission’s projected 2025 ADT at the border is about 152,500 vpd per their recently completed feasibility study for I-93 in northern Massachusetts.

6

Figure 2 - Comparison of 2020 traffic projections and LOS for different population & employment scenarios 2020 build - 8 lanes Original 2020 model population& employment Interstate Volumes MA State Line to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

2020 build - 8 lanes Revised OEP 2020 population& employment

2020 build - 8 lanes Delphi Panel 2020 population& employment

AADT

DHV

DDHV

LOS

AADT

DHV

DDHV

LOS

143,600 116,500 108,900 76,600 84,400 87,900

13,498 10,951 10,237 7,200 7,934 8,263

8,099 6,571 6,142 4,320 4,760 4,958

E D C B C C

157,605 128,662 116,621 82,739 87,427 91,119

14,815 12,094 10,962 7,777 8,218 8,565

8,889 7,257 6,577 4,666 4,931 5,139

F D D C C C

AADT 187,160 151,112 140,304 96,632 97,642 100,131

DHV

DDHV

17,593 14,205 13,189 9,083 9,178 9,412

10,556 8,523 7,913 5,450 5,507 5,647

Note: DHV = 9.4% of AADT DDHV = 60% of DHV

Figure 3 - Comparison of 2020 traffic projections and annual growth rates 1997 ADT 104,400 81,100 74,900 61,800 64,900 69,300

2003 % growth /yr 1.53% 1.21% 2.02% 3.02% 1.82% 1.85%

POPULATION NH Communities Total Secondary Study Are

ADT 114,000 87,000 84,000 73,000 72,000 77,000

2020 no build (original ) % growth /yr ADT 1.19% 137,000 1.12% 103,600 0.98% 98,000 0.00% 73,000 0.75% 81,200 0.56% 84,300

2020 build (original) % growth /yr ADT 1.53% 143,600 1.99% 116,500 1.74% 108,900 0.29% 76,600 1.01% 84,400 0.83% 87,900

2020 build (revised OEP proj.) % growth /yr ADT 2.25% 157,605 2.82% 128,662 2.28% 116,621 0.78% 82,739 1.26% 87,427 1.08% 91,119

422,918 691,600

422,918 691,600

470,000 740,000

2020 build (Delphi panel proj.) % growth /yr ADT 3.78% 187,160 4.33% 151,112 3.94% 140,304 1.90% 96,632 2.09% 97,642 1.77% 100,131

2000 373,000 605,000

7

509,600 783,700

LOS F E E C C C

The rail ridership projections were rerun using the higher, or worst case, Delphi Panel 2020 Build population and employment estimates and associated traffic projections. The daily rail ridership and the changes in peak period (3-hour) reductions are summarized as follows:

2020 Peak Period Vehicle reductions resulting from added rail service: Location MA Stateline to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

Daily Rail Ridership:

previous 1856 1856 1487 1286 849 354

3365

revised w/Dephi Panel pop. 2456 2456 1890 1596 1022 428

4178

change 600 600 403 310 173 74

813

Note that all of the reduction would occur outside of the design hour during the shoulder peak hours. In effect the benefit would be the shrinking of the 3-hour peak congestion period. As a result, the Direction Design Hour Volumes (DDHV) which is the basis for LOS determination, would not be affected by the rail ridership. To encourage motorists to use rail requires a substantial level of congestion on the highway, which is contrary to the project purpose and need.

CONCLUSIONS: This sensitivity analysis considers the potential ramification the Delphi Panel’s growth projections may possibly have on induced traffic. A range of potential 2020 traffic volumes has been assessed with respect to differing population projections in the study area. The higher population projections would result in somewhat higher traffic volume projections and the associated LOS degraded to some extent. The study confirms previous results that the lower tier of the corridor, from Exit 3 south, will experience impeded conditions during the design peak hour in the design year 2020. These conditions would be exacerbated by higher traffic volume projections. However, while the lower tier of the corridor will be at or approaching capacity with Delphi Panel based traffic volumes during the peak design hour, there is still substantial capacity being provided in the corridor. Even with the “worst case” Delphi Panel population assumptions, the LOS is an improvement over existing corridor conditions and a significant improvement over the design year no-build condition

8

(corridor wide failure). The principle benefit of the additional capacity would be the shrinking of the 3-hour congestion period that is experienced today and that would lengthen over time. The need for capacity improvements to meet the travel demand in the corridor is also heightened by these higher potential traffic volume projections. They reinforce the need to address safety and capacity problems with the existing facility and support the Selected Alternative of widening to the full four lanes in each direction. The analysis also confirms the previous conclusions that a rail alternative does not reduce the travel demand such that I-93 would not have to be widened. While these “worst case” traffic volume projections result in minor increases in potential rail ridership and additional reductions in I-93 peak period volumes, they are not out of proportion to the projected increase in traffic volume. Even the most optimistic ridership projections are overshadowed by the daily traffic volumes projected to use I-93. The study points out the volatility of population projections and the need for coordination with regional planning commissions and input from the communities in determining consensual population projections as a traffic modeling parameter. Future year forecasts should include consideration of community and regional plans and land use policies. The current update of the Statewide transportation model will do that. The future traffic projections based on the Delphi panel population projections are dubious considering the extreme traffic growth rates and the need to reconcile projected traffic volumes with Massachusetts projections at the border. S:\SALEM\10418C\MISCDOCS\TRAFFICSENSITIVITYANALYSIS.DOC

9

APPENDIX A-2 NEW HAMPSHIRE STATEWIDE MODEL UPDATE DOCUMENTATION

New Hampshire Statewide Model Update Documentation

Prepared for New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. July 9, 2009

Table of Contents

Introduction .........................................................................................................1 Convert to TransCAD .........................................................................................2 Update Zonal Data ..............................................................................................2 Network Update...................................................................................................2 Land Use Update and Modeling.........................................................................3 Population Update....................................................................................................... 5 Employment Update.................................................................................................... 7

Tourist Trip Purpose Modeling ........................................................................10 Transit Model Update .......................................................................................10 Intercity Rail Service ................................................................................................. 12 Intercity Bus Services ............................................................................................... 13

Freight Model Update .......................................................................................14 Subarea Post Processing.................................................................................14 User Interface ....................................................................................................14 Appendix A. I-93 SEIS Socioeconomic Updates ...........................................15 Introduction................................................................................................................ 15 Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................. 15 Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................. 16

Appendix B. I-93 SEIS Tolling Sensitivity Analysis ......................................23 Appendix C. Speed Capacity Detail.................................................................24 Appendix D. Profile of Intercity Public Transportation Service in New Hampshire .........................................................................................................25 Table of Figures Figure 1 Land Use Update TAZ Map ................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 Methodology for 2000 and Forecast Year Population Data Update .................. 5 Figure 3 Methodology for 2000 Employment Data Update ............................................... 7 Figure 4 Methodology for Forecast Year Employment Data Update ................................ 8 Figure 5 New Hampshire Public Transportation Services............................................... 12 Figure 6 Downeaster Average Daily Boardings by Month .............................................. 13 Figure 7 Downeaster Average Daily Boardings by Station ............................................. 13 Table of Tables Table 1 RPC Adjustments to New Hampshire Employment Forecasts ........................... 9

i

Introduction New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) maintains a statewide transportation model in order to systematically plan for future transportation needs. The model is called the “New Hampshire Statewide Travel Model System” or NHSTMS. The purpose of the NHSTMS is to estimate future travel patterns and their effects on transportation infrastructure, associated with changes in population and employment in the state. NHDOT in 2005 contracted with the Louis Berger Group, Inc. to update the NHSTMS, using new forecasts of population and employment, and at the same time convert the model to a more up-to-date software operating platform. The new software, called TransCAD, has more power, greater flexibility, integrated network and land use databases, and is easier to use than the previous software. The converted and updated model (herein called TransCAD NHSTMS) retains the basic structure and inputs of the original model, herein referred to as EMME/2 NHSTMS. The EMME/2 NHSTMS was developed in 1997 by Cambridge Systematics. It used the EMME/2 travel modeling software platform for assignment and network skimming, FoxPro and Excel databases for population and employment data storage and processing, Arc/Info geographic information system (GIS.) to display data; and a suite of “C” programs to implement the destination and tour model components. The documentation for that model development is described in the NHSTMS Reference Guide (New Hampshire Statewide Travel Model System), which details the model structure, data/survey sources, parameters, constants, coefficients and inputs. That report is incorporated here by reference. A separate document on Model Implementation, New Hampshire Statewide Travel Model System, User’s Guide, describes the files and programs used by the model. Only the C Program description from this second source document is pertinent to the current effort, as TransCAD is used for all other functions. The purpose of this report is to summarize the process of updating and converting the model. The major steps and components of the Statewide Model Update, accomplished in 2005, are as follows and are discussed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Convert to TransCAD Update Zonal Data Network Update Land Use Update and Modeling Tourist Trip Purpose Modeling Transit Model Update Freight Model Update Subarea Post Processing User Interface

Subsequent to the 2005 model updates, the NHSTMS was used for the I-93 Improvements Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Appendix A of this report provides documentation of the socioeconomic data updates conducted for the I-93 SEIS. Appendix B provides the modeling assumptions used to assess the potential effects of tolling on I-93 for the SEIS.

Page 1

It should be noted that a separate Statewide Model Update is underway and includes a doubling of the number of zones in the Statewide Model. That update is not yet complete, and thus was not available for use at the time the I-93 SEIS study was undertaken in 2007.

Convert to TransCAD The conversion to TransCAD was accomplished by duplicating all of the procedures in TransCAD GISDK scripting software. Those procedures were previously coded into ArcView, FoxPro, and Excel. These procedures dealt with the storage and display of the network scenario data; storage and display of the population and employment data; data preparation and formatting prior to the utilization of the C programs; post processing of the C program output; conversion from PA to OD format; time of day factoring; and trip assignment. Both the older and newer models are tour-based models, built from household survey data. Inputs to the tour-based models include: data on demographics, land use, road networks, and economics. A tour-based model basically starts with a straight forward destination choice model based on the log sums of a series of variables such as travel time; employment at the trip attraction end; out of pocket travel costs (tolls, parking, and operation costs), and destination setting (such as central business district [CBD] or rural). As an output of the trip generation process, the number of trips with 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4+ intermediate stops are determined. The determination of the destination of the intermediate stop is based on minimizing the additional distance traveled to reach the intermediate stop. After the first stop is reached, if there are more stops, then the distance minimization is again used.

Update Zonal Data Meetings were held with the nine New Hampshire Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) to review the State’s County projected population and employment growth and to allocate this growth to communities and eventually traffic analysis zones.

Network Update The 1997 version of the model kept the highway network in ArcInfo files. To run the model, the user would select a network scenario using ArcInfo tools, and then ArcInfo would build an EMME/2 compatible network file. EMME/2 would then develop the travel time skims and network assignments based on these network files. For the update, TransCAD was used to store all the network scenarios; consequently, the ArcInfo files were converted to TransCAD. After conversion, it was readily apparent that the ArcInfo line representation did not align properly with recent aerial photography. Consequently, it was necessary to go through a manual conflation process to adjust the alignment to match the aerials. With the proper alignment completed, network segment lengths could be properly computed instead of being permanently stored as part of the network database. After completion of the conflation, TransCAD GISDK script was developed to implement network scenario management as well as implementation of speed/capacity lookup tables.

Page 2

Model Updates: Speed and Capacity Documentation The capacity for the hour is computed first, and then the hourly capacity is factored to a period capacity. Please refer to Appendix C for the speed and capacity lookup tables. Each speed or capacity value is shown as an array. For example, HighwaySpeed[1] = {70, 70, 70, 70} Alpha[1] = 0.15 Beta[1] = 4.00 //Rural Freeway and Interstate For a Rural Freeway and Interstate, there are four values for the speed 70,70,70,70. The 4 values represent CBD, Urban, Suburban, and Rural. Actually, since this is a Rural condition, only the last value is used by the program because we don't have roads coded as Rural Freeway in Urban areas. In the model assignments are conducted for the AM peak period, Midday, PM peak period and off peak (everything else). To get the AM or PM peak period capacity, the hourly capacity is multiplied by 3.0. 1 The midday is computed by multiplying the hourly by 4.0, and the off-peak night time is computed by using a factor of 3.2. So the daily capacity is 3.0 + 4.0 + 3.0 + 3.2 or 13.2 times the hourly. Finally, in the New Hampshire model, the user can choose to override the lookup table on any individual link.

Land Use Update and Modeling There are a total of 528 traffic analysis zones (TAZ) in the New Hampshire statewide model. Of the 528 TAZ, 441 TAZs are located in New Hampshire, eight (8) in Maine, nine (9) in Vermont, and 41 in Massachusetts. There are 29 external zones. Please see Figure 1 for the map of the TAZ. The following section discusses data sources and the methodology used for the socioeconomic data update for TAZs in each state.

1

The lead modeler tested the use of different factors by facility type, but found that the simplification did not make a difference in the results.

Page 3

Figure 1 Land Use Update TAZ Map

Page 4

Population Update New Hampshire As part of the socioeconomic data forecast update effort, the available population forecast information was obtained. Extensive county and municipality level population forecast data (2005 through 2025) was available from the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP). Meetings, data exchanges, and many discussions were held with the nine RPCs in New Hampshire in order to synchronize population and employment forecasts with the RPCs at the fine Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) level while maintaining consistency with authoritative forecasts at the county level. The foundation of the forecast was the 2000 census, at block group, municipality and county level. The steps to assign future forecast population to each TAZ are shown in Figure 2. The output was reviewed with each RPC. Adjustments were made between some TAZs based on local knowledge of planned development patterns, while keeping the control totals at the county and municipality levels consistent with the OEP’s forecasts. The full forecasts by RPC, TAZ, and forecast year are provided in the Excel file Pop&Emp_7_6_05_(Adjusted).xls. Figure 2 Methodology for 2000 and Forecast Year Population Data Update

Page 5

Methodology for 2000 and Forecast Year Population Data Update 1. Obtained block group, municipality, county level 2000 census data. Municipality and county level population forecast from 2005 to 2025 was available from OEP. 2. Developed equivalency table for TAZ with municipalities and with block groups. Municipality boundary information was obtained from the http://www.nhes.state.nh.us/elmi/communpro.htm 3. Calculated the population percentage of each TAZ corresponding to each municipality based on 1997 data. (The New Hampshire model was developed in 1997). The TAZ percentage based on 1990 data was similar to the 1997 data. 4. Applied the TAZ percentage to 2000 census municipality data to estimate 2000 TAZ level population data. 5. Compared the data proportioned to the 2000 census block group level (where block groups are identical to the TAZ) to validate 2000 population estimates at the TAZ level and adjusted, if necessary. 6. Using municipality level population forecast data for 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025, applied the municipality growth rate to the appropriate TAZ. TAZs within the same municipality were assumed to have same growth rate for each incremental forecast year. Massachusetts Population 1. Using the Massachusetts Statewide Travel Demand Forecasting Model for 2000 and 2025, MA model TAZ was aggregated into the zone structure for MA from the 1997 NH model. 2. Since no incremental year data was provided, the average growth rate between 2000 and 2025 for the aggregated NH TAZ was applied to forecast the incremental years of 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. Maine Population 1. Obtained 2005, 2010, and 2015 county and municipality level population forecast from the Maine State Planning Office for York County. 2. NH model TAZs 442 through 449 are located in York County, Maine. These TAZs were associated with specific municipalities. 3. Calculated TAZ level percentage to the county total based on 1990 data. 4. Using the 1990 TAZ percentage, estimated TAZ level 2000 data. 5. Applied municipality level growth rate to appropriate TAZ to forecast years 2005, 2010, and 2015. For forecast years beyond 2015, a straight line approach based on the growth rate between 2010 and 2015 was taken. Vermont Population 1. No forecast data was found for any level of geography in Vermont. 2. There are portions of five counties in VT included in the NH model: Essex, Caledonia, Orange, Windom, and Windsor Counties. 3. Calculated TAZ percentage in each county based on 1990 census data. 4. Applied the 1990 percentage to 2000 census to calculate TAZ level 2000 population data. 5. Based on growth rate between 1990 and 2000 for each county, population was forecast for the years beyond 2000.

Page 6

Employment Update New Hampshire Employment The New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (ELMB) produces employment forecast data at the county level. The latest employment forecast year available from ELMB for employment is the year 2012. The steps in the employment forecast methodology are graphically shown in Figures 3 and 4, and verbally described. The full forecasts by RPC, TAZ, and forecast year are provided in the Excel file Pop&Emp_7_6_05_(Adjusted).xls.

Figure 3 Methodology for 2000 Employment Data Update

1. Obtained 2000 census data and county level forecast for 2010 from the New Hampshire ELMB center. On April 21, 2005, the county level 2012 employment forecast was made available with the 2002 estimate. 2. Aggregated labor categories from 11 categories to 8 for ease of use in the model at the TAZ level and for consistency 2 3. Calculated TAZ percentages in a municipality based on 1997 data. (The New Hampshire model was developed in 1997). The TAZ percentage based on 1990 data was similar to the 1997 data percentage. 4. Applied the TAZ percentage to 2000 census data to estimate 2000 TAZ level employment data. 2

The Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau, New Hampshire projections were made for 11 different employment categories. The county-level employment categories were summarized into eight employment categories for the model. The following categories from the original categories were added together:

OTHER Agricultural Services; Non-metallic Minerals, except Fuels; Self-Employed and Unpaid Family Workers

PRIVATE Services; construction

Page 7

Figure 4 Methodology for Forecast Year Employment Data Update

5. Using the growth rate from 2000 to 2002, applied the same growth rate to forecast 2005 employment figures. 6. Using the latest 2012 employment forecast data and 2002 estimate, adjusted the 2010 ELMB employment forecast data. The new 2012 county level employment forecast projected a faster growth (compared to the previous 2010 forecast) in Belknap, Grafton, Strafford, and Sullivan Counties while the growth rate drops slightly for Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham Counties. 7. For forecast years 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030, it was assumed that the ratio of employment and population at the county level remains the same. The population forecast at the county level is available for years 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. The 2010 employment per person ratio was applied to the county level population forecast to project employment data. 8. The New Hampshire 1997 model used the forecast years 2007, 2009, 2017, and 2020. The TAZ level percentage to the county total for these forecast years was

Page 8

calculated. Then the TAZ percentage were applied to employment forecast for 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 in a following manner: - Previous 2007 TAZ percentage Æ applied to new 2005 forecast - Previous 2009 TAZ percentage Æ applied to new 2010 forecast - Previous 2017 TAZ percentage Æ applied to new 2015 forecast - Previous 2020 TAZ percentage Æ applied to new 2020, 2025, and 2030 forecast 8. Consulted with all RPCs to fine-tune the forecasts based on local knowledge of upcoming developments and conditions. Adjusted forecasts in coordination with local jurisdictions. Table 1 summarizes the adjustments to the employment forecasts developed in consultation with the RPCs. The full forecasts by RPC, TAZ, employment category, and forecast year are provided in the Excel file Pop&Emp_7_6_05_(Adjusted).xls. Table 1 RPC Adjustments to New Hampshire Employment Forecasts

Comparison of May 16, 2005 Figures and Adjusted Employment Figures by Regional Planning Commissions

CNHRPC LRPC NCC NRPC RPC SNHPC SRPC SWRPC UVLSRPC Total

5_16_05 Base Year 2000 Employment 63,453 44,160 45,560 107,217 113,113 114,594 49,301 45,764 47,969

Adjusted 2000 66,261 41,896 45,086 107,234 109,974 118,564 48,946 45,916 47,253

5_16_05 2030 Forecast Employment 94,125 61,630 64,505 126,756 163,660 163,328 65,386 58,882 62,409

631,131

631,130

860,682

Adjusted Abs. Diff. 2030 % Diff. 2000 % Diff. 2030 2000 95,619 4.4% 1.6% 2,808 60,448 -5.1% -1.9% -2,264 62,676 -1.0% -2.8% -475 131,473 0.0% 3.7% 17 155,070 -2.8% -5.2% -3,139 167,258 3.5% 2.4% 3,971 65,777 -0.7% 0.6% -355 59,164 0.3% 0.5% 152 63,196 -1.5% 1.3% -717 860,681

-1

Abs. Diff. 2030 1,494 -1,182 -1,830 4,717 -8,590 3,930 392 281 788 -1

Massachusetts Employment Same approach as population forecast. 1. Using the Massachusetts demand model for 2000 and 2025, MA model TAZ was aggregated into the zone structure for MA from the 1997 NH model. 2. Since no incremental year data was provided, the average growth rate between 2000 and 2025 for the aggregated NH TAZ was applied to forecast the incremental years of 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2030. Maine Employment 1. Percentage for each TAZ was calculated based on 1990 employment data. 2. Using the county level 2000 census as a control total, year 2000 TAZ level employment was estimated using the 1990 TAZ percentage. 3. Historic employment growth rate was obtained from BEA. The growth rate between 1990 and 2000 was used to forecast the years from 2005 to 2030 in five year increments Vermont Employment 1. The percentage for each TAZ was calculated based on 1990 employment data. 2. Using the county level 2000 census as control, year 2000 TAZ level employment was estimated using the 1990 TAZ percentage. 3. Historic employment growth rate was obtained from BEA. The growth rate between 1990 and 2000 was used to forecast the years from 2005 to 2030 in five year increments.

Page 9

Tourist Trip Purpose Modeling Hotel, motel and Bed and Breakfast data for the state of New Hampshire was purchased from a professional database. This included the address, geocode location, number of rooms (within a range), number of employees, and website (where available). From the combined sources, actual room information was obtained for approximately 172 out of over 650 properties. For the remaining properties, the study team applied an employee to room ratio of 0.72 3 (an industry average as reported by the University of Vermont). The database is found in the Excel file All_Hotel_Data.xls.) The geocoded (to traffic analysis zones) information on employees and rooms associated with temporary lodging for visitors and tourists was entered into the model database This information was then used in a Tourist model to estimate vehicle trips. These tourist vehicle trips were then combined with the destination choice model output to yield a total passenger vehicle trip table which is assigned in the later stages of the model.

Transit Model Update The existing transit system model is based on 1995 to 1998 transit route data. Since that time, a number of service changes have occurred including the extension of the MBTA commuter rail to Haverhill, MA. These transit services were updated in the current model. The transit service update focused on the service changes to the MBTA rail system serving the Massachusetts north shore, and Massachusetts border communities along the New Hampshire state line. The transit service update also focused on inter-city fixed route bus service in New Hampshire, examining private carrier service between major New Hampshire communities, and private carrier service with stops in New Hampshire. Major findings are summarized below, with the report as an appendix. In addition to the service updates, the transit model improvements also examined the model structure. Basically, since the development of the original NHDOT statewide model, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has taken a more active role in the design of transit mode split models. Consequently, FTA has identified a range of acceptable constants and coefficients for use in mode split models. FTA has also identified acceptable service parameters for the equations. FTA requires new-start applicants to use models which meet these requirements. 4 The existing NHDOT mode split equations were reviewed in light of FTA guidelines and were found to be consistent with the guidelines. These equations were then programmed into the newer TransCAD version of the Statewide Model. The assessment of intercity passenger travel examined Amtrak and intercity bus services, reporting fares, route information, service frequencies and passenger information where available. The complete report is attached as Appendix D. Highlights

3

"Employment and Wages in Vermont's Lodging Industry in 1999" , University of Vermont, http:\\www. uvm.edu/tourismresearch/ publications /State_Report_2001.pdf . 4 See the presentations and handouts available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_7275.html

Page 10

are provided below. Figure 5, from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation website, summarizes public transportation services across the state.

Page 11

Intercity Rail Service

Figure 5 New Hampshire Public Transportation Services

The Downeaster, an Amtrak service, offers four round-trips every day, operating roughly along the coast from Portland, ME to Boston, MA. Each train has 234 available seats. New Hampshire stations include Dover, Durham and Exeter. Amtrak, as a public entity, provides extensive ridership and revenue information. The Downeaster has been steadily improving its services, as noted in customer surveys and statistics such as on-time performance. Its ridership has been increasing as well. Boardings from New Hampshire stations represent approximately 22 percent of all boardings along the line. As shown in the Figure 6, (lower pair of lines) 2005 boardings at New Hampshire stations are very consistent with 2004 boardings, with moderate increases over 2004 in the last half of the year. Average daily boardings for the Downeaster as a whole have shown significant increases from 2004 to 2005 beginning in May. Note: The graph represents average daily boardings, calculated by dividing monthly boardings by the total number of days in the month (not weighted for weekdays).

Page 12

Figure 6 Downeaster Average Daily Boardings by Month Average Daily Boardings by Month 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

2005 Downeaster

2005 NH Stations

2004 Downeaster

2004 NH Stations

N

D

As shown in Figure 7, New Hampshire stations represent approximately 22 percent of Downeaster boardings. Figure 7 Downeaster Average Daily Boardings by Station

Average Daily Boardings by Station

NH Stations 22%

All Other 14%

Exeter 9%

Boston 43%

Durham 7%

Portland 21%

Dover 6%

Intercity Bus Services Intercity bus service operates along major transportation corridors throughout the state, as shown in Figure 5 above. Frequencies of service vary based on population and typical travel patterns. All services are provided by private operators. Service frequencies and fare levels are current as of February 2006, based on published schedules and interviews where necessary. Ridership information and patterns were based on discussions with senior personnel for each provider, most taking place in late April and early May, 2006. Ridership information was used in the model but has been redacted from the public report, per agreements with the proprietors.

Page 13

Coastal Services The most intensive intercity service in the state takes place along the coast, with two major providers of service: C& J Trailways and Vermont Transit. C&J Trailways operates approximately 19 roundtrips per day between Dover, NH and Boston South Station with stops in Portsmouth and Newburyport, NH. C&J Trailways also operates 19 roundtrips per day between Logan Airport and Portsmouth, also stopping in Newburyport. Approximately five of these trips operate via South Station in Boston, yielding a total of approximately 33 daily roundtrips between Portsmouth and the Boston area. Vermont Trailways also offers services along the coast (approximately five round trips per day) extending north to Bangor and Bar Harbor, with connections to the Maritime Provinces, and south to Boston, with connections to points south and west. The major New Hampshire stops are in Portsmouth and Newburyport.

Inland Services Services inland from the coast have lower frequencies than found along the coast. Service patterns and ridership patterns are very strongly oriented to serving Boston and Logan Airport. Service providers include The Coach Company (offering commuter service from Plaistow to Boston), Concord Trailways, Peter Pan, Dartmouth Coach, and Vermont Transit Lines (inland service.) Please see Appendix D for details. Please note that proprietary ridership information has been redacted from the report, as agreed with the private operators during discussions.

Freight Model Update The freight model update consisted of a review of the recently published Freight trip generation rates. The NHDOT Statewide model was found to be consistent with these rates. Consequently the freight model was re-implemented in the TransCAD software.

Subarea Post Processing TransCAD GISDK scripts were developed to extract data and format that data into DBF files for processing by other software.

User Interface TransCAD GISDK scripts were used to develop a user interface. This interface controls network and land use inputs and scenarios. The interface significantly streamlines the model execution process as all modeling functions are launched by the TransCAD program. The user simply selects the desire model inputs, and then the model executes the individual model steps.

Page 14

Appendix A. I-93 SEIS Socioeconomic Updates Introduction The population and employment inputs in the NHSTMS were updated for the two different demographic scenarios evaluated in the I-93 SEIS: • •

Scenario 1: Delphi Panel’s Blended Average Allocations (PBAA) of population and employment, 2020, No Build and Build. There is no Scenario 1 analysis for the year 2030 because the Delphi panel’s work was focused on an analysis year of 2020. Scenario 2: New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) population forecasts, 2020 and 2030, No Build and Build.

The socioeconomic updates for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 used the 2007 NHSTMS database as an input. The 2007 NHSTMS database includes the demographic updates conducted in 2005 and described in the main body of the Statewide Model Documentation Update report. This appendix describes how the 2007 NHSTMS database was modified for the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 analysis conditions. The Scenario 1 update involved replacing the population and employment numbers in the model with the Delphi PBAA population and employment estimates for the study area considered by the Delphi panel. The Scenario 2 update involved using the latest OEP population forecast (October, 2007) as the basis for the Build condition demographics. A gravity model analysis was conducted to establish population and employment patterns for the Scenario 2 No Build condition.

Scenario 1 Delphi Panel Background The Delphi Panel convened to estimate the indirect land use effects of widening I-93 for the 2004 FEIS considered a 29-community study area covering portions of southern New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts. The study area boundaries were first recommended by the Executive Oversight Committee of representatives of federal and state agencies and regional planning commissions, and later subject to further consideration by the members of the Delphi Panel. The analysis year for the indirect effects evaluation was the year 2020. The Delphi Panel was tasked with projecting the potential change in population and employment in the 29community study area based on their best professional judgment. The panelists were directed to explain the rationale for their estimates in memos that were anonymously presented to the other panelists. After reviewing the work of their peers, the panelists had the opportunity to revise their population and employment estimates. Detailed information about the Panel’s work is included in the “I-93 Manchester to Salem Delphi Panel Analysis Final Report, December 28, 2001 (revised January 22, 2002)” and is summarized in Section 4.12 of the 2004 FEIS. After two rounds of estimates for both the No Build and Build scenarios, the panelists could not reach consensus. Therefore, the results of the Delphi Technique process were summarized through the calculation of the Panelist’s Blended Average Allocation (PBAA)—the average of the median and the mean. The blended average method gives some weight to very high and low outlying values, but gives less weight to these values than using a mean. The PBAA is a convenient measure to consider the opinions of the panel, but it is important to note that it does not represent a group consensus. The individual panelists’ findings represent “informed opinions” which cross a broad spectrum ranging from large additional increases in growth if the highway is widened to no additional increase in growth associated with the widening.

Page 15

Scenario 1 Methodology The 2007 NHSTMS database population and employment for the 29-community study area was replaced with the Delphi PBBA population and employment levels for the No Build and Build conditions. The Delphi study area corresponds to 85 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) in the model. Some towns contain multiple TAZs, while other TAZs represent a single town. For towns containing a single TAZ, the Delphi PBAA population and employment numbers could be used directly. For towns containing multiple TAZs, the Delphi PBAA population and employment for the town as a whole needed to be allocated down to individual TAZs. This was accomplished based on the percentage of population and employment in the TAZ out of the total population and employment in the municipality for the year 2020 as reported in the 2007 NHSTMS database. The relative share of population and employment between TAZs within a town was kept constant, but the absolute population and employment levels were adjusted to match the town-level Delphi PBAA demographics. The households in each TAZ were adjusted to match the new population levels based on the 2007 NHSTMS database ratio of persons per household. The distribution of employment by industry within each TAZ was maintained in the same proportions as in the 2007 NHSTMS database. For the 414 TAZs outside the 29-community Delphi study area, the year 2020 population and employment levels remain the same as in the 2007 NHSTMS database (for both the Scenario 1 No Build and Build conditions).

One TAZ in the Delphi study area (TAZ 478), contains two towns—Andover and North Andover, MA. The population and employment for this TAZ was established by summing the Delphi PBAA estimates for these towns.

Scenario 2 Scenario 2 was developed to use official state population and employment projections as inputs in the New Hampshire Statewide Model, consistent with the objective of the SEIS to provide updated project information based on the latest available information. After extensive discussions with OEP, OEP and NHDOT determined that the OEP’s forecasts represent the Build Condition for the SEIS Scenario 2 analysis. In making population projections, OEP assumed that infrastructure, including sufficient highway capacity would exist. OEP planners indicated that population and employment growth surrounding the I-93 corridor would be lower than forecasted due to congestion if the project was not constructed. Therefore, the accessibility analysis was conducted to determine population and employment allocations for the No Build Alternative. The difference in the location of growth between the No Build and Build conditions is the indirect land use effect of the project for Scenario 2. The details of the methodology used to alter the NHSTMS database for Scenario 2 Build and No Build conditions are provided below.

Scenario 2 Build Condition Methodology Population The Scenario 2 Build condition methodology for population involved replacing the 2007 NHSTMS database 2020 and 2030 population information for New Hampshire with the October, 2007 municipal-level population OEP forecasts. Similar to the methodology for the Scenario 1 analysis, population was allocated to TAZs within towns based on the percentage of population in each TAZ out of the total population of each town. For TAZs outside of New Hampshire, the 2007 NHSTMS database population levels were maintained. In addition, the 2007 NHSTMS database population levels were also used for a few very small towns within New Hampshire for which OEP does not produce population forecasts. The NHSTMS TAZs and 2005 population numbers for these towns are shown below.

Page 16

NHSTMS 2005 Population of Towns Not Included in OEP Forecast 2005 Name Population TAZ 3: Atkinson & Gilmanton /Dixs Grant / Second C 76 TAZ 5: Dixville / Ervings Location / Millsfield 92 TAZ 34: Beans Purchase / Pinkham's Grant 12 TAZ 45: Cutts Grant / Hart's Location* / Hadleys Purchase 30 *Note- Hart’s Location is included in the OEP forecast, but Cutts Grant and Hadleys Purchase are not. Therefore, the 2007 NHSTMS population levels were used for TAZ 45.

The net effect of using the 2007 NHSTMS database population numbers for these small towns is that the Scenario 2 2030 Build condition population of New Hampshire is 232 persons higher than the OEP forecast population of New Hampshire for 2030. The Scenario 2 update analysis uses OEP’s “smooth” population forecast numbers, which are rounded to the nearest integer. OEP also produces “publication” forecast numbers which are rounded to the nearest 10. The smooth numbers were used instead of the publication numbers because the publication municipal numbers are inconsistent with their county and state totals. Employment OEP does not produce municipal-level employment forecasts. The New Hampshire Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau (ELMI) produces statewide and county-level employment forecasts. The most recent county-level forecast covers the years 2004 to 2014. There are no official State forecasts for employment beyond 2014. Future TAZ-level employment in the New Hampshire portion of the statewide model was adjusted based on the most recent OEP population forecasts, anticipating that employment and population would maintain the same proportion to each other as they do in the forecasts prepared for the New Hampshire Statewide Model 2005-2007 base year updates, which included coordination and adjustments based on input from the RPCs. The calculation used to adjust the employment levels for 2005, 2020 and 2030 based on the latest OEP population forecast is provided below.

OTE i

=

MTE i ________ MMP i

x

OTP i

Where: OTE i MTE i

= =

MTP i

=

OTP i I j

= = =

OEP-based TAZ Employment, zone i September 2007 NHSTMS database (“ Model”) TAZ Employment, for zone i September 2007 NHSTMS database (“ Model”) TAZ Population, for zone i OEP-based TAZ Population, zone i individual TAZ (I = 184, 189, 199… 486) individual Municipalities (Concord, Pembroke… Tewksbury)

Page 17

The distribution of employment by industry within each TAZ was maintained in the same proportions as in the 2007 NHSTMS database. The Scenario 2 Build condition retains the 2007 NHSTMS database employment numbers for TAZ 51 (Unorganized Territory, employment 2) and TAZ 64 (Hales Location, employment 188) because these locations have employment in the NHSTMS database, but have a population of zero and are not included in OEP forecasts.

Scenario 2 No Build Condition Methodology The Scenario 2 No Build condition population and employment was established using a gravity model analysis. Gravity models are used often in transportation and travel modeling. They are based on the observation that the overall attractiveness of an area to potential residents is a function of the capacity of an area for development (vacant developable land in valued and affordable locations) and accessibility to employment and activity centers. It is important to understand that within a gravity model analysis, regional population and employment totals do not change as a result of the transportation project—only the location of growth changes. This use of “control totals” is in contrast to the Delphi panel methodology which did not use control totals. For the Scenario 2 analysis, this means that the population and employment control totals for the New Hampshire Statewide Model region are the same between the No Build and Build, but the locations of growth are redistributed based on an accessibility analysis. This assumption is supported by the literature regarding the effects of transportation improvements on development. Several recent studies have contained comprehensive reviews of the literature on transportation improvements and regional development. 5 Each of these literature reviews has concluded that in an age where most metropolitan locations are connected by the interstate highway network and other major roadways, roadway improvements, such as a widening, generally do not bring new growth to a region, but instead, influence where growth and development occurs on a local level. The model region control totals (including all of New Hampshire and portions of Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont) for Scenario 2 are as follows: Y2005 Y2020 Y2030 Population

5,731,268

6,184,423

6,478,233

Employment

3,154,912

3,648,689

3,648,689

The first step in the gravity model analysis was to calculate an accessibility index for each TAZ. Accessibility refers to “the number of opportunities available within a certain distance or travel time.” 6 As movement becomes less costly, either in terms of time or money, between any two places, accessibility increases. The propensity for interaction between any two places increases as the cost of movement between them decreases. Accessibility can also be understood as the attractiveness of a place of origin (how easy it is to get from there from all other destinations) and as a destination (how easy is it is to get to there to all other origins and destinations). Consequently, the structure and capacity of the transportation network affect the 5

Marlon G. Boarnet and Andrew F. Haughwout, Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways Influence on Metropolitan Development, The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000; NCHRP Report 423A, Land Use Impacts of Transportation: A Guidebook, Transportation Research Board, 1999; NCHRP Report 456, Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, Transportation Research Board, 2001; NCHRP Report 403, Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects, Transportation Research Board, 1998.

6

Susan Hanson, The Geography of Urban Transportation, The Guilford Press, New York, 1995, p. 4.

Page 18

level of accessibility in a given area. The accessibility of places can have an impact on land value, and hence the use to which land is put. Holding all other factors constant, the gravity model formulation assumes that areas where accessibility increases as a result of a transportation project will be relatively more attractive for development than if the project had not been built. The equation for the accessibility index calculation is provided below. Aj =

Σ

Ei D ijλ

Where: Aj Ei D ij λ

= = = =

accessibility of any particular TAZ j employment in all other TAZs i (where i = 1, 2, 3…, i ≠ j ) travel time (“D” for distance) between TAZ j and all other TAZs impedance factor (derived from the regional travel model)

The procedure for the above calculation is to first calculate the Ei / Dijλ ratio for all the zone pairs (i.e. all i to - j combinations); and then sum the result for each zone j . That is, the computer program produces 248,502 ratios for 499 TAZs; and once that is complete, it totals the ratios for each zone j, to produce the accessibility value Aj’. The accessibility index is a series of all Aj’s, where j represents each of the 499 TAZs in the model. Each TAZ’s specific Aj is a relative weight, indicating it is more attractive (larger value) or less attractive (smaller value) to employers and residents. After producing the accessibility value Aj accessibility results for each zone were normalized so that the sum of Aj for all zones equals one. This produces the weights representing greater or lesser probability of attracting businesses and residents within each zone. The model then compares No Build accessibility to the Build accessibility and factors that by the Build growth rate in each zone. These two factors determine population (and employment) growth in each zone. The process is described in more detail as follows: For each period 2010-20 and 2020-30, and for each TAZ: ƒ

Calculate the accessibility index for each TAZ, normalize the results ("Normalized Accessibility") for both build and no-build.

ƒ

Divide the no-build normalized accessibility by the build normalized accessibility (“Relative Accessibility”); and normalize that ("Normalized Relative Accessibility.")

ƒ

Furthermore, standardize the normalized relative accessibility to values centered around 1 ("Standardized Relative Accessibility.") Values below one apply to TAZs relatively less accessible under no-build as for instance those near interchanges along the I-93 corridor. Standardized relative accessibility values greater than one are relatively more accessible.

ƒ

Calculate the change in build population and build employment in each TAZ ("Build Population Change," " Build Employment Change") between the beginning of a period and the end of a

Page 19

period, and calculate the corresponding growth rate (“Population Growth Rate,” (“Employment Growth Rate”), ƒ

Multiply the population and employment growth rate times the standardized relative accessibility to produce new population and employment growth rate for no-build ("No-Build Growth Rate") for each TAZ

ƒ

Multiply the No-Build Growth Rate times the Build Population Change and Build Employment Change. The result is the change in population and employment under no-build. ("No-Build Population Change," "No-Build Employment Change") for each TAZ.

ƒ

Add the no-build population change to the build population for the previous period for each TAZ to produce the no build population (“No-Build Population”) for the following period; and do the same for employment (“No-Build Employment”)

Page 20

Build Travel Times, Year n+10

Build Employment, Year n

No-Build Travel Times, Year n+10

Build Accessibility Index

No-Build Employment,

No-Build Accessibility Index

Year n

Build Normalized Accessibility

No-Build Normalized Accessibility

Relative Accessibility, Normalized Build Population, Year n

Build Population Change ; Build Employment Change, Year n to Year n+10

Standardized Relative Accessibility Population Growth Rate ; Employment Growth Rate

No-Build Employment & Population Growth Rates

Build Population and Employment, Year n+10

No-Build Employment & Population Change

No-Build Population, Employment Year n+10

Page 21

Indirect Land Use Effects of I-93 Exit 4A The socioeconomic updates for the SEIS also included adjustments of the Scenario 2 2030 No Build and Build condition employment levels to take into account the potential for growth around I-93 Exit 4A. The rationale and methodology for this analysis is provided in a separate memorandum dated April 28, 2008 and entitled “Revised Employment Estimates to Account for the Potential Indirect Land Use Effects of I-93 Exit 4A” (included in the DSEIS Indirect Effects Written Reevaluation/Technical Report). As part of the Exit 4A analysis, a finer level of TAZ detail was established by disaggregating the existing TAZs into smaller TAZs around Exit 4A. The modeling effort included the creation of zonal (origin/destination) disaggregation factors to disaggregate the trip matrix to the smaller zones. The disaggregation was performed following the application of the mode split model, time of day adjustments, and auto occupancy adjustments. The disaggregation process was based on applying the model trip generation equations to the new land use data in the Exit 4A area. Matrix disaggregation is a built in function in TransCAD.

Page 22

Appendix B. I-93 SEIS Tolling Sensitivity Analysis The tolling sensitivity analysis modeling procedure was based on the existing toll methodology in the New Hampshire Statewide Transportation Model. The model toll procedure applies a toll at specified locations on the link system. The tolls are converted into time equivalents based on the value of time and then added to the network travel time. The network travel times including the time added based on the tolls are then used to create skim trees and also are used during the assignment process. The location of the toll collection facility for the I-93 Scenarios is on the southbound mainline lanes on I-93 prior to where it crosses the New Hampshire/Massachusetts state line border. The toll is a one way toll and only collected in the southbound direction. There are no tolls on the on or off ramps. The proposed toll structure and value of time used for each vehicle category in the analysis are as follows (in 2007 dollars): Passenger Car Toll = $2.00 Light Trucks = $2.70 Medium Trucks = $5.35 Heavy Trucks = $9.35

Value of Time = $9.50 per hour Value of Time = $9.50 per hour Value of Time = $38.50 per hour Value of Time = $76.00 per hour

The value of time is based on the existing toll models in New Hampshire. Typically, the value of time is based on 1/3 to ½ the average hourly wage of the drivers. Heavy commercial truck value of time is based on operating hourly operating costs and typically ranges from $60 to $100 per hour. Toll levels by vehicle class were based on the current toll structure on the Everett Turnpike. The toll was applied in the southbound direction for the traffic assignment. However, during the distribution phase of the model, the tolls were split in half and applied in both the south and northbound direction. The toll splitting procedure was used to better replicate the trip decision of a driver when deciding on their destinations as part of making a roundtrip. Splitting the toll during the trip distribution process is commonly done in toll studies, including for Massachusetts (specifically for the Harbor crossings serving Boston which have directional tolls) and assures having a balanced trip table. In addition to the delays added to the model travel times to reflect the cost of the toll, an additional 30 seconds of delay was added to vehicle travel time through the toll facility. The 30 seconds of delay was established on the basis that 40% of the traffic would go through a cashier and 60% would have a transponder for an EZPass. The 30 second estimate includes the lost time for acceleration and deceleration at the toll booths as well as service time. The 30 second delay estimate would be based on the cash lanes having a typical queue of 4 to 5 vehicles with each vehicle having a service time between 10 to 15 seconds. For each time period during the day, the estimated time delay would vary, however, the 30 seconds represents average conditions for the entire day. With a value of time at $9.25 the passenger car toll of $2.00 represents a 12 to 13 minute delay versus the 30 second delay for collection of tolls. The biggest effect of tolling in the model would be the toll itself, not the time for collection of the toll.

Page 23

Appendix C. Speed Capacity Detail // //

Speed Alpha Beta Description --------------------- ---------------- ------------------------------------------HighwaySpeed[1] = {70, 70, 70, 70} Alpha[1] = 0.15 Beta[1] = 4.00 //Rural Freeway and Interstate HighwaySpeed[2] = {55, 55, 60, 55} Alpha[2] = 0.15 Beta[2] = 4.00 //Rural Principal Arterial HighwaySpeed[3] = {25, 35, 35, 35} Alpha[2] = 0.15 Beta[2] = 4.00 //Rural Ramp HighwaySpeed[6] = {50, 50, 55, 50} Alpha[6] = 0.15 Beta[6] = 4.00 //Rural Minor Arterial HighwaySpeed[7] = {45, 45, 55, 45} Alpha[7] = 0.15 Beta[7] = 4.00 //Rural Major Collector HighwaySpeed[8] = {40, 40, 55, 40} Alpha[8] = 0.15 Beta[8] = 4.00 //Rural Minor Collector HighwaySpeed[9] = {35, 35, 35, 35} Alpha[9] = 0.15 Beta[9] = 4.00 //Rural Local Street HighwaySpeed[11] = {55, 55, 55, 55} Alpha[11] = 0.15 Beta[11] = 4.00 //Urban Freeway and Interstate HighwaySpeed[12] = {55, 55, 55, 55} Alpha[12] = 0.15 Beta[12] = 4.00 //Urban Expressway HighwaySpeed[13] = {25, 35, 35, 35} Alpha[13] = 0.15 Beta[13] = 4.00 //Urban Ramp HighwaySpeed[14] = {35, 40, 40, 40} Alpha[14] = 0.15 Beta[14] = 4.00 //Urban Principal Arterial HighwaySpeed[16] = {30, 35, 35, 35} Alpha[16] = 0.15 Beta[16] = 4.00 //Urban Minor Arterial HighwaySpeed[17] = {25, 35, 35, 35} Alpha[17] = 0.15 Beta[17] = 4.00 //Urban Collector HighwaySpeed[19] = {30, 30, 30, 30} Alpha[19] = 0.15 Beta[19] = 4.00 //Urban Local Street HighwaySpeed[90] = {40, 40, 40, 40} Alpha[90] = 0.15 Beta[90] = 4.00 //External Centroid Connector HighwaySpeed[99] = {35, 35, 35, 35} Alpha[99] = 0.15 Beta[99] = 4.00 //Internal Centroid Connector //******* Capacity Adjustment **************************************************************************** // Lane Capacity Description // -------------------------------------------------HighwayCapacity[1] = {1900, 1900, 1900, 1900} //Rural Freeway and Interstate HighwayCapacity[2] = {1120, 1120, 1120, 1120} //Rural Principal Arterial HighwayCapacity[3] = { 720, 720, 720, 720} //Rural Ramp HighwayCapacity[6] = {1120, 1120, 1120, 1120} //Rural Minor Arterial HighwayCapacity[7] = { 960, 960, 960, 960} //Rural Major Collector HighwayCapacity[8] = { 960, 960, 960, 960} //Rural Minor Collector HighwayCapacity[9] = { 720, 720, 720, 720} //Rural Local Street HighwayCapacity[11] = {1700, 1700, 1700, 1700} //Urban Freeway and Interstate HighwayCapacity[12] = {1500, 1500, 1500, 1500} //Urban Expressway HighwayCapacity[13] = { 720, 720, 720, 720} //Urban Ramp HighwayCapacity[14] = {1120, 1120, 1120, 1120} //Urban Principal Arterial HighwayCapacity[16] = {1120, 1120, 1120, 1120} //Urban Minor Arterial HighwayCapacity[17] = { 960, 960, 960, 960} //Urban Collector HighwayCapacity[19] = { 720, 720, 720, 720} //Urban Local Street HighwayCapacity[90] = {2000, 2000, 2000, 2000} //External Centroid Connector HighwayCapacity[99] = {2000, 2000, 2000, 2000} //Internal Centroid Connector

Page 24

Appendix D. Profile of Intercity Public Transportation Service in New Hampshire Intercity Rail Service: The Downeaster The Downeaster, an Amtrak service, offers four round-trips every day, operating roughly along the coast from Portland, ME to Boston, MA. Each train has 234 available seats. New Hampshire stations include Dover, Durham and Exeter. One-way fares on the Downeaster to and from NH stations are as follows:

Portland Old Orchard Beach Saco Wells Dover Durham Exeter Haverhill Woburn/Anderson Boston

Dover $11 9 7 5 5 7 9 13 16

Durham $13 11 9 7 5 5 7 11 14

Exeter $15 13 11 9 7 5 5 8 11

Amtrak, as a public entity, provides extensive ridership and revenue information. The Downeaster has been steadily improving its services, as noted in customer surveys and statistics such as on-time performance. Its ridership has been increasing as well. Boardings from New Hampshire stations represent approximately 22 percent of all boardings along the line. As shown in the Figure 1, (lower pair of lines) 2005 boardings at New Hampshire stations are very consistent with 2004 boardings, with moderate increases over 2004 in the last half of the year. Average daily boardings for the Downeaster as a whole have shown significant increases from 2004 to 2005 beginning in May. Note: The graph represents average daily boardings, calculated by dividing monthly boardings by the total number of days in the month (not weighted for weekdays).

Page 25

Figure 1 Downeaster Daily Boardings by Month

Average Daily Boardings by Month 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

2005 Downeaster

2005 NH Stations

2004 Downeaster

2004 NH Stations

N

D

As shown in Figure 2, New Hampshire stations represent approximately 22 percent of Downeaster boardings. Figure 2 Downeaster Average Daily Boardings by Station Average Daily Boardings by Station

NH Stations 22%

All Other 14%

Exeter 9%

Boston 43%

Durham 7%

Portland 21%

Dover 6%

Page 26

Intercity Bus Service Intercity bus service operates along major transportation corridors throughout the state, as shown in Figure 3 to the left- from the NH DOT website. Frequencies of service vary based on population and typical travel patterns. All services are provided by private operators. Service frequencies and fare levels are current as of February 2006, based on published schedules and interviews where necessary. Ridership information and patterns are based on discussions with senior personnel for each provider, most taking place in late April and early May, 2006.

Coastal Services The most intensive intercity service in the state takes place along the coast, with two major providers of service: C& J Trailways and Vermont Transit.

C&J Trailways C&J Trailways operates approximately 19 roundtrips per day between Dover, NH and Boston South Station with stops in Portsmouth and Newburyport, NH. C&J Trailways also operates 19 roundtrips per day between Logan Airport and Portsmouth, also stopping in Newburyport. Approximately five of these trips operate via South Station in Boston, yielding a total of approximately 33 daily roundtrips between Portsmouth and the Boston area.

Page 27

One-way fares for the services are as follows: C&J Trailways City Pairs Fare Dover- Portsmouth $4 Dover – Newburyport $8 Dover – Boston $17 Newburyport - Portsmouth $5 Newburyport – Boston $12 Newburyport – Logan AP $19 Portsmouth – Boston $16 Portsmouth – Logan AP $22 (All private provider ridership data was provided under promise of confidentialityredacted from report.)

Vermont Trailways – Coastal Service Vermont Trailways offers services along the coast (approximately five round trips per day) extending north to Bangor and Bar Harbor, with connections to the Maritime Provinces, and south to Boston, with connections to points south and west. The major New Hampshire stops are in Portsmouth and Newburyport. The one-way fares are as follows: Vermont Trailways City Pairs Newburyport - Portsmouth Newburyport – Boston Newburyport – Logan AP Portsmouth – Boston Portsmouth – Logan AP

Fare

$18.50 $20.50

Inland Services Services inland from the coast have lower frequencies than found along the coast. Service patterns and ridership patterns are very strongly oriented to serving Boston and Logan Airport.

The Coach Company Just west of the coast, the Coach Company operates commuter service from Plaistow, NH to Boston. There are three trips in each weekday morning, and four return trips in the evening. The one-way fare to Boston is $10.50, with a charge of $17 to go to the airport. The Coach Company also offers a Foxwoods Line Run to Foxwoods Resort and Casino, from Portsmouth, Newburyport and Haverhill. It makes one round-trip per day for a round-trip fare of $31.

Concord Trailways Concord Trailways operates extensive service within the state, from north to south and southeast, as shown in Figure 3.

Page 28

• • • •

The northwest “branch” from Littleton south through Plymouth to Manchester, Concord, Boston and Logan Airport operates one trip per day in each direction. The northeast “branch” to and from Berlin operates one trip per day in each direction to Boston and Logan Airport, with a second daily round-trip beginning and ending at North Conway. Where the two branches join there are three round trips per day for towns such as Tilton. Concord to Manchester to Boston/Logan represent the most intensive levels of service in this part of the state. Not all trips serve Concord, Manchester and Logan Airport, but all serve Boston South Station. The level of scheduled service, as of February, 2006, is illustrated in the following table: Southbound 13 (leave) 11 (leave) 18 (arrive) 13 (arrive)

Concord Manchester Boston Logan Airport

Northbound 15 (arrive) 13 (arrive) 18 (leave) 13 (leave)

One-way Adult Fares are as follows: From: To: Littleton Franconia Lincoln Plymouth

Concord, NH $17.50 $16.00 $13.50 $9.50

Manchester, NH $20.50 $19.00 $16.00 $12.50

Boston, MA $29.00 $28.00 $25.00 $21.00

Logan Airport $35.00 $33.00 $30.00 $27.00

Berlin Gorham Pinkham Notch Jackson N. Conway Conway West Ossipee Moultonborough Center Harbor Meredith New Hampton

$22.50 $21.50 $19.50 $17.50 $16.50 $15.50 $13.00 $10.50 $10.00 $9.00 $6.50

$25.50 $24.50 $22.50 $20.50 $19.50 $18.50 $16.00 $13.50 $12.50 $12.00 $9.50

$34.00 $33.00 $31.00 $29.00 $28.00 $28.00 $24.50 $22.00 $21.50 $20.50 $18.50

$39.00 $38.00 $36.00 $34.00 $33.00 $33.00 $30.00 $28.00 $27.00 $26.00 $24.00

Tilton Concord Manchester Londonderry Boston, MA Logan Airport

$5.50 $5.00 $13.50 $18.00

$8.50 $5.00 $11.00 $15.00

$17.00 $13.50 $11.00 $10.00 -

$22.00 $18.00 $15.00 $14.00 $8.00

Page 29

Peter Pan Peter Pan operates one trip per day originating in Concord going south along I-293 into Massachusetts. It stops in Manchester and Nashua. Full adult one-way fares are as follows: Concord - Manchester Manchester - Nashua

$6 $6

Dartmouth Coach Dartmouth Coach, which is a subsidiary of Concord Trailways, operates service from Hanover, Lebanon and New London to Boston South Station and Logan Airport, bypassing Concord. There are approximately seven round trips each weekday. Adult One-Way Fares are as follows: To Boston South Station From Hanover $40 From Lebanon $30 From New London $25

To Logan Airport $35 $35 $30

Vermont Transit Lines – Inland Service Vermont Transit Lines offers a service which parallels the Dartmouth Coach route from Hanover to Concord, then cuts south on US 293 to approach Boston via Nashua, NH and Lowell (see Figure 3). Six round trips per day are operated between White River Junction and Boston, with five of those trips proceeding to Logan Airport. Most of those trips also stop in Hanover and at Manchester Airport. Only one trip per day in each direction stops in Concord, Manchester, Manchester Airport, and Nashua. The trip into Boston leaves Hanover at 12:30 pm and arrives in Boston at 4:40 pm; the trip from Boston to Hanover with full stops in New Hampshire leaves Boston at 1:15 pm and arrives in Hanover at 4:50 pm. In other words, the Vermont Transit Lines service with full stops within New Hampshire is not really round trip service (within the same day), and is not conducive to most types of activity in Boston. However, the more “express” services between Hanover or White River Junction, Manchester Airport, and Boston provide greater schedule flexibility and more convenient travel times. Adult one-way fares are as follows: From Concord Manchester Manchester AP Boston Logan AP

To Hanover $26 $29 $22 $30 $35

To Concord $6 $11 $19 $24

Page 30

To Manchester $8 $13.50 $19.50

Vermont Transit Lines also operates north-south service along the Vermont-New Hampshire border from White River Junction, VT to Bellows Falls, VT, Keene NH and Brattleboro, VT, progressing south to Springfield, MA and Hartford, CT. Because it has only the one stop in New Hampshire, it does not appear relevant to this analysis.

Page 31

APPENDIX A-3 FHWA MEMORANDUM RE: CONSIDERATION OF EXIT 4A IN THE NH I-93 SEIS

1

Memorandum New Hampshire Division Subject:

Consideration of Exit 4A in the NH I-93 SEIS

Date: March 4, 2009

From:

Jamie Sikora, Environmental Programs Manager

In Reply Refer To:

To:

Salem-Manchester, 10418C I-93 SEIS File

Thru:

Tracy White, Attorney Advisor

This memorandum is to document the extensive coordination that has occurred between the FHWA New Hampshire Division Office and Headquarters regarding consideration of the Exit 4A project in the NH I-93 SEIS. Both our Division Office and Headquarters have consulted with the appropriate subject matters experts within HEPE (Mike Culp) and HEPP (Fred Ducca) and the following provides a summary of the recommendations which have resulted from this consultation: Inclusion of 4A in 2020 and 2030 Model Runs As discussed between our Division and HQ Office, FHWA’s previous decision to include 4A in both the I-93 SEIS 2020 and 2030 runs (in/in) should stand for the following reasons: •

Although the Exit 4A project has now been removed from the State’s most current 10 Year Plan (June 25, 2008), it is still included in the current MPO’s (Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission) long-range transportation plan. The conformity documentation for the current MPO long-range plan lists the project with an open to traffic date of 2017.

•

New Hampshire’s 10 Year Plan is not a federally required or recognized document as are the MPO long-range plans, and our current guidance allows more flexibility in determining reasonable availability of revenues forecasted for the outer years of the MPO long-range transportation plan.

•

The Exit 4A project currently maintains an active EIS process.

•

The Town of Derry continues to pursue financing options, including ongoing discussions with large property abutters to leverage private investment.

•

Bill Watson, NHDOT’s Administrator for the Bureau of Planning and Community Assistance, also noted in his 4/9/08 e-mail that the MPO staff feels that there may be local support and funding opportunities to bring the Exit 4A project to implementation.

2 •

Modeling activities for the ongoing I-93 Transit Investment Study are consistent with 2020 and 2030 roadway network assumptions that would include Exit 4A.

Potential differences/discrepancies between the 4A land use forecasts and those used in the I-93 SEIS Regarding the potential differences/discrepancies between the 4A land use forecasts and those used in the I-93 SEIS, we have recommended that NHDOT not change any Scenario 1 "Delphi" forecasts, and not alter the 2020 forecast under Scenario 2 "OEP." This recommendation was based upon: The reason given for a potential change in the I-93 forecasts is that the Scenario 1 "Delphi" and 2020 Scenario 2 "OEP" forecasts for 2020 did not account for the building of exit 4A, and there was concern that differences between the Exit 4A work and that supporting the I-93 project would become an issue. Since the 4A project is anticipated to open to traffic in 2020, the same as the horizon year for 2020 Scenario 1 and 2 forecasts, the project would likely not have enough time to influence development and job creation to justify revisiting the 2020 forecast. Typically forecasters assume some "lag effect" between the time in which changes in accessibility occur (the result of a capacity improvement), and the time in which subsequent or "induced" development would occur. As a follow-up, FHWA-HEPP has sent an email dated 11-18-08 clarifying whether the lag effect is a reasonable assumption, consistent with forecasting state-ofthe-practice. The email from Fred Ducca, Team Leader of the Planning Methods Team, states: In land use forecasting, conventional practice is to model land use changes as a lagged effect from transportation changes. That is, the land use forecasts assume that the new transportation infrastructure is in place, then respond to it. Land use forecasts do not operate with an anticipatory effects, that is, they do not forecast land use changes based on anticipated changes to the transportation system. While there may be an anticipatory effect, the provision of new transportation infrastructure is never certain and it is difficult to identify who is likely to make location decisions in anticipation of new transportation. 2030 Scenario 2 "OEP" forecast Regarding the 2030 Scenario 2 "OEP" forecast, we have recommended a "balanced" approach be followed to evaluate the accessibility effect of Exit 4A on population, employment and traffic volumes. Although we have less overall confidence in the Exit 4A methodology (assumes build out of the local land use plan), there is a compelling case to be made that some development would likely occur in the Exit 4A as a result of the project, and considering that the 4A project is included in the 2020 and 2030 model runs, it would make sense to represent an appropriate amount of growth in the Exit 4A area in the I-93 2030 Scenario 2 forecast. Under the “balanced” approach, the SEIS model would be revised to have a finer zonal structure in the vicinity of Exit 4A, and the population and employment input developed to reflect the development potential of the area within 5-to-10 years of the new interchange’s completion as tempered by expected growth trends and the statewide and county control totals. Although this approach deviates from the baseline TAZ shares in the 2005 Statewide Model Update, and may not be entirely consistent with the “top down” approach of the SEIS, it will better conform to the overall I-93 SEIS methodology of control totals and gravity model. It should also help account for the more focused, local effects of improved accessibility offered by

3 a newly constructed Exit 4A Interchange, is more consistent with State projections at the town and county level, and more realistic than the Exit 4A DEIS forecast of full build out within five years of the completion and opening of the interchange. The above recommendations have been supported by our Headquarters office based upon their review of material provided to them, and the extensive coordination that has occurred between their office, our Division, and the NHDOT and their consultant.

Jamie Sikora Cc: File 10418C, I-93 SEIS

APPENDIX A-4 I-93 TRANSIT INVESTMENT STUDY RIDERSHIP MEMO

THE

Louis Berger Group ,

INC.

rd

1 9 9 W a t e r S t r e e t , 2 3 F l o o r , N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k Tel 212 612 7900 Fax 212 363 4341

10038

www.louisberger.com

DATE:

June 30, 2009

TO:

I-93 Improvements SEIS Project File

FROM:

Larry Pesesky

RE:

I-93 Transit Investment Study Ridership

The purpose of this memo is to summarize the results of the 2001 Rationale Report and 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis transit alternative ridership levels, as well as the ridership projected for the I-93 Transit Investment Study alternatives in order to draw conclusions about the ability of these alternatives to affect the need to widen I-93 between Salem and Manchester. Rationale Report The rail alternatives evaluated in the 2001 Rationale Report included: • •

•

East Corridor, rail shuttle service utilizing the Manchester and Lawrence Branch (M&L) from Manchester, NH to Lawrence, MA. West Corridor, an extension of the MBTA Lowell line to Manchester utilizing the New Hampshire Mainline. The Lowell to Nashua portion of the corridor was assumed as part of the No Build condition, therefore the segment evaluated was Nashua to Manchester. I-93 Corridor, new light rail line in the I-93 right-of-way. The I-93 Basic Rail Corridor would connect to the M&L line south of Exit 1 and terminate at Lawrence, MA. The I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor would continue within the right-of-way to the Anderson Regional Transportation Center in Woburn, MA.

The ridership analyses were based on methodologies from NCHRP Report 187: QuickResponse Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters. The data inputs included the market service area for each station, 1990 journey-to-work data, and auto and rail impedances (e.g. travel times, cost of driving, cost of parking, waiting time and transfers at stations etc.). The mode choice equation was calibrated to local conditions based on bus boarding counts in downtown Manchester and park-and-ride counts at Exit 4 in Londonderry. The preliminary round of ridership estimates for the various alternatives were completed under the assumption that I-93 would be widened to four lanes in each direction between

1

Salem and Manchester by the analysis year of 2020. The I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative had the highest projected daily inbound boardings at 1,811. After the preliminary ridership analysis, additional ridership analyses were conducted for various combinations of rail, bus, and HOV. The number of general purpose lanes on I93 was also varied to determine if the rail and bus alternatives could divert enough trips from the roadway to reduce the number of lanes needed to accommodate the expected future traffic volumes. Of the 15 mode combinations analyzed, the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative with no widening of I-93 (mode combination 3) resulted in the highest total daily southbound trips (3,365). The Rationale Report determined the effect of the ridership projections on traffic operations on I-93. The first step was to subtract the number of transit trips that would occur on existing bus service in the No Build condition (853) from the total estimated transit ridership of 3,365. The resulting 2,512 person trips represented the net diversion to transit as a result of the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative for the Exit 1 to state line segment of I-93. Person trip diversion was converted to vehicle diversion based on average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.11 for the area from 1990 U.S. Census journey to work data. Therefore, the daily southbound vehicle diversion for the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor was 2,263, or approximately 3.4 percent of the 67,550 daily southbound traffic volume projected for the segment of I-93 between Exit 1 and the state line in 2020. The daily reduction in traffic volumes were converted into a three hour peak period volume reduction based on MBTA commuter rail ridership data showing that 82 percent of daily one-way volume occurs in the peak period. For the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative, the three hour peak period vehicle reduction between Exit 1 and the state line would be 1,856 or 8.5% of the AM peak period southbound No Build volume of 21,716. However, only about 73 vehicles would be diverted from this segment of I-93 during the design hour, the majority of the diversions would occur during the shoulder hours. The I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative was projected to result in LOS F conditions on all segments of I-93 based on design hour volumes. The Rationale Report and 2004 FEIS concluded that the various alternative modes of travel would result in little or no reduction in travel on I-93 during the design hour: “These various alternative modes of travel result in little or no reduction in the volume of traffic during the design hour because the level of congestion along the corridor extends well beyond a one-hour period. Currently, commuters routinely experience substantial delays that extend beyond a one-hour period and this situation will worsen over time. Reductions in traffic that would result from the implementation of the various alternative modes of transportation would serve to reduce the period of time in which congestion occurs, but not the level of congestion within the design hour. ” (2004 FEIS, page 2-88) The Rationale Report concluded that not even the most effective rail alternative (I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor) reduces the number of additional travel lanes needed to provide acceptable operating levels of service in 2020.

2

Traffic Sensitivity Analysis The 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis provided ridership projections for the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor alternative based on Delphi Panel Blended Average Allocations (PBAA) build condition population and employment levels. The same methodology as used in the Rationale Report was applied in the Traffic Sensitivity Analysis, with the exception of the number of lanes assumed on I-93. The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis assumed three lanes in each direction for the entire corridor, while the Rationale Report assumed no widening of I-93 (e.g. two lanes in each direction north of Exit 1, three lanes in each direction south of Exit 1). The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis found that the Delphi PBAA build condition population and employment would increase daily southbound transit trips from the 3,365 projected in the Rationale Report to 4,178, a 24 percent increase (See Table 1). Peak period vehicle reductions between Exit 1 and the state line would increase from 1,856 estimated previously to 2,456 under the Delphi build condition demographics. However, traffic volumes on I-93 would also increase under the Delphi build condition demographics, therefore the proportion of total traffic diverted as a result of the hypothetical rail service would not substantially change. The Traffic Sensitivity Analysis concluded that design hour volumes (the basis for LOS determinations) would not be substantially affected by the rail ridership and that a rail alternative does not reduce the travel demand such that I93 would not have to be widened. Table 1 2005 Traffic Sensitivity Analysis 2020 Peak Period Vehicle Reductions Resulting from Added Rail Service Location MA Stateline to Exit 1 Exit 1 to Exit 2 Exit 2 to Exit 3 Exit 3 to Exit 4 Exit 4 to Exit 5 North of Exit 5

Daily Rail Ridership:

Rationale Report 1856 1856 1487 1286 849 354

3365

Revised w/Dephi PBAA 2456 2456 1890 1596 1022 428

4178

Change 600 600 403 310 173 74

813

I-93 Transit Investment Study The I-93 Transit Investment Study evaluated conceptual rail alternatives, including variations on the East Corridor (M&L), West Corridor, and I-93 corridor options, as well as bus rapid transit alternatives. After several rounds of alternatives screening, two build alternatives (Level 5 Alternatives) were identified for environmental screening and additional analysis:

3

•

Bus on Shoulder on I-93 in New Hampshire and existing HOV lanes approaching Boston.

•

Commuter Rail Service from Exit 5 to Boston, using the M&L Branch, Haverhill Line, and Wildcat Branch to connect to the Lowell Line

The 2030 ridership estimates for the Transit Investment Study were based on a custom transportation model of the I-93 corridor area. The model is a hybrid between the CTPS (Boston-MPO) model and the Massachusetts Statewide Model. The I 93 corridor travel demand model was developed to comply with accepted Federal Transit Administration methodologies. For the New Hampshire portion of the corridor, the highest 2030 ridership projections are for the Bus on Shoulder alternative. The daily southbound boardings at the New Hampshire stations are as follows: • • • • •

Manchester: 625 to 725 Exit 5 Londonderry: 865 to 965 Exit 4 Derry: 260 to 315 Exit 3 Windham: 360 to 410 Exit 2 Salem: 560 to 620

The total daily southbound boardings in New Hampshire with the Bus on Shoulder alternative would be 2,670 to 3,035. Conclusions Even if it is assumed that the Transit Investment Study Bus on Shoulder alternative projected ridership (2,670 to 3,035) is all new transit trips (e.g. not diversions from other bus services), the diversion of person trips from I-93 would not be substantially higher than the diversion estimated for 2020 in the Rationale Report (e.g. 2,512 with the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor). In addition, not all of the riders would be diverted from I-93 as some would divert from other routes. The Transit Investment Study model included the widening of I-93 to four lanes in each direction between Salem and Manchester. Therefore, the projected Bus on Shoulder ridership would be higher if tested under a scenario with no widening of I-93 because the increased highway congestion would make transit relatively more attractive. The Bus on Shoulder ridership without widening on I-93 was estimated based on the relative increase in total transit ridership projected in the Rationale Report for different numbers of travel lanes on I-93. For example, the total ridership projected in the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor was 1,811 assuming four-lanes in each direction on the I-93 corridor. Additional analysis of the I-93 Enhanced Rail Corridor in the Rationale Report showed ridership increasing by 86 percent to 3,365 if I-93 was not widened. Applying an 86 percent increase to the Transit Investment Study Bus on Shoulder ridership of 3,035 could increase the daily ridership to 5,645 person trips. Assuming a mean vehicle

4

occupancy rate of 1.12 1 , this is equivalent to the diversion of approximately 5,040 daily vehicle trips. If all of these vehicle trips were diverted from I-93, this would represent approximately 7.66 percent of the SEIS Scenario 2 2030 No Build southbound daily traffic volumes on I-93 between Exit 1 and the State line (65,800). This level of daily traffic diversion would not substantially affect design hour traffic volumes or level of service. Therefore, the proposed Bus on Shoulder service does not have the potential to alter the basic lane requirements for I-93 corridor (e.g. four lanes in each direction). Since the Bus on Shoulder alternative had the highest ridership in New Hampshire of the options examined by the Transit Investment Study, it can be concluded that none of the alternatives from this study would substantially affect traffic volumes on I-93 or the need for the I-93 widening project.

1

U.S. Census 2000 SF 3. Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties, New Hampshire.

5