CHAPTER 5 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC AND TOLL REVENUE

CHAPTER 5 ESTIMATED TRAFFIC AND TOLL REVENUE Estimated traffic and toll revenue for the proposed ICC is based on the volume of traffic that would be diverted from existing routes in the travel corridor, plus induced traffic resulting from the implementation of the ICC facility. Motorists would be expected to divert to the ICC due to time and/or distance savings afforded over the present highway system after recognizing the cost of tolls. The primary objective of this study was to develop annual traffic and toll revenue forecasts for the proposed ICC. In developing these estimates, a comprehensive computerized transportation model provided by the WMCOG through the MdTA was utilized to determine optimum toll rates and develop annual traffic and revenue forecasts. Chapter 5 presents an overview of the modeling methodology and general approach used in this analysis. It also includes the discussion of selected per mile toll rates, weekday traffic estimates for multiple years, and annual traffic and revenue forecasts for the proposed ICC. A series of sensitivity tests aimed at gauging the potential impacts associated with hypothetical variations in basic assumptions are also addressed. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS Base-case traffic and revenue estimates for the proposed Intercounty Connector are predicated on the following basic assumptions, all of which are considered reasonable for purposes of this traffic and revenue study. 1. The proposed ICC is assumed to provide three travel lanes in each direction, or a total of six lanes, over its entire length. 2. The SHA phasing schedule for the proposed ICC was segmented into five major contracts having varying completion dates. For the purpose of this analysis the SHA phasing schedule was simplified by grouping contracts B, C, D and E into one phase. Under the revised phasing schedule it was assumed the ICC project would open in two phases: June 12, 2006 Page 5-1

Phase 1 I-370 to MD 97 October 2009; and Phase 2 MD 97 to U.S. 1 October 2012. 3. The configuration of the ICC, including the location and timing of proposed interchanges, will be as described in this report. 4. Toll rates on the facility are in future year dollars and will be as set forth subsequently in this chapter. Commercial vehicle rates will be proportionately higher than passenger cars. 5. An inflation rate of 2.5 percent per year has been assumed. Annual toll revenue estimates, and per mile toll rates are expressed in future year dollars. 6. Per-mile toll rates utilized in this study analysis were developed assuming base case $0.17 peak and $0.13 off-peak per mile toll rates calculated in 2004 dollars inflated by 2.5 percent per year resulting in equivalent 2010 per mile toll rates rounded to the nearest nickel of $0.20 peak and $0.15 off-peak. Due to rounding to the nearest nickel the $0.20 peak and $0.15 off-peak rates remain in affect through 2015. Equivalent per mile toll rates are assumed to equal $0.25/$0.20 in 2020, $0.30/$0.20 in 2025 and $0.35/$0.25 in 2030. 7. ETC and video equipment will be provided and will be available to all passenger car vehicles using the project. The video tolling option would not be available to commercial vehicles. Electronic tolls will be based on distance traveled with an assumed minimal toll equal to a minimum distance of three-miles of travel on the ICC. Video tolls will also be based on distance traveled but will also be assessed an administration fee of $2.50. Toll collection operations are assumed to be actively monitored and strictly enforced to minimize potential revenue losses due to toll evasion and/or system failure. 8. For purposes of this analysis, the $2.50 per transaction video surcharge was not assumed to be changed in future years. 9. An 8 percent reduction has been made to annual toll revenue estimates included in this report to reflect the impacts associated with possible toll evasion, or other form of uncollectible tolls; 10. Base case annual transactions and toll revenue have been adjusted downward to reflect ramp-up during the first three years of operation. June 12, 2006 Page 5-2

11. Only those highway improvements which are committed in the regional transportation improvement plan will be implemented during the projection period. Specific improvements assumed in future year networks are described below. No other competing highway projects, toll or toll-free or other significant competing improvements are assumed to be constructed in the project corridor during the forecast period. 12. Regional and corridor socioeconomic growth will generally be in accordance with forecasts provided by WMCOG, as reviewed and adjusted by the independent economic consultant, Market-Economics, Inc. 13. Travel demand modeling was performed through estimating weekday travel on the ICC. For purposes of annualization of transactions and revenue, weekend transactions were assumed to be 67 percent (twothirds) of weekday transactions. Weekend revenue was assumed to be 60 percent of weekday revenue. This differential reflects the fact that peak period pricing is not assumed to be in place on weekends for the purposes of this analysis. 14. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that 80 percent of potential ICC users would be equipped with electronic toll collection; 20 percent would be video users. However, since video tolls would be higher, the project would attract a smaller portion of video users. Therefore the actual video share of traffic on the ICC would be less than the initial 20 percent. 15. The proposed ICC will be well-maintained, efficiently-operated and effectively signed and promoted to encourage maximum usage. Effective promotion, both before and after opening of the road, is critical to minimizing the negative revenue impacts of ramp up during the early months of operation. 16. Motor fuel will continue to remain in adequate supply and the rate of price increase will not significantly exceed the overall rate of inflation. A sensitivity test assuming a doubling of assumed gasoline prices ($2.50 per gallon) was conducted as part of this study analysis the impacts of which are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 6 of this report. 17. No local, regional or national emergency will arise which would abnormally restrict the use of motor vehicles, or substantially alter economic activity or freedom of mobility. June 12, 2006 Page 5-3

Any significant departure from the above basic assumptions could materially affect estimated traffic and revenue for the proposed Intercounty Connector. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS The most recent regional transportation improvement plan was obtained and reviewed to identify any committed improvements which could potentially impact traffic and revenue on the proposed Intercounty Connector. Only two committed improvements were identified in the primary corridor; both of these were included in appropriate future year networks and considered in the traffic and revenue analysis. U.S. 29 (Columbia Pike) is currently being upgraded to increasingly controlled access, with grade separations at major intersections, from M.D. 198 to a point south of Randolph Road. Since this is now underway, it is assumed to be completed prior to opening of the Intercounty Connector. A new interchange on I-95 is also planned, to connect with a relocated Contee Road. The project includes distributor roads which will also serve the interchange with the Intercounty Connector. This improvement is assumed to be completed by 2015. No other significant improvements in the project corridor were included in the committed transportation improvement plan. The long-range transportation plan includes a proposal for widening of M.D. 28/M.D. 198 to an ultimate six lanes, between M.D. 97 (Georgia Avenue) and U.S. Route 1. This improvement is not committed or funded, and is not even contemplated before 2030. As such, it was not assumed to be implemented for purposes of this traffic and revenue analysis. It would, however, provide additional competing capacity to significant portions of the Intercounty Connector. Finally, while not included in the committed transportation improvement plan, studies are underway concerning the possible establishment of HOT lanes along I-270 and/or I-495 within Maryland. Neither of these projects is committed at this point in time and were not assumed for purposes of this analysis. If ultimately implemented, the projects may or may not result in any significant increase in net capacity, and may ultimately only constitute a change in operating parameters for existing HOV lanes. June 12, 2006 Page 5-4

These operational changes were also not assumed for purposes of the traffic and revenue forecasts on the Intercounty Connector. MODELING METHODOLOGY Models obtained from the MWCOG were used as the basis for the current estimates of traffic and revenue. The model inputs are Version 2.1D, #50. The models use as part of the inputs socioeconomic data at the traffic zone level for their forecast dataset Round 6.4a. The following sections discuss the modeling framework, highway network and trip table development and give an overview of the parameters and traffic assignment process used in this study. WMCOG MODEL FRAMEWORK The WMCOG regional transportation model is a computer-based traffic forecasting model designed to forecast traffic volumes in the Washington, DC region, which includes parts of Maryland and Virginia as well as the District itself. WSA was provided with trip tables and networks for a base year (2000), as well as forecast years at five-year increments from 2010 through 2030. The model has a sequential procedure for generating trips based on the traditional four-step transportation demand modeling process (trip generation, trip distribution, person-to-vehicle trip factoring, and highway assignment) with several loop-back steps to take congestion levels into account. Trip tables representing a.m. peak period, p.m. peak period, midday, and overnight travel are developed in the WMCOG model using factors from regional household surveys. New trip tables for each of the forecast years (2005, 2010, 32015, 2020, 2025 and 2030) were generated using the Round 6.4a socioeconomic forecasts, but with adjustments recommended by Market-Economics, as detailed in Chapter 4. This resulted in increases in trips across the region ranging from 1.2 percent in 2005 to 4.1 percent in 2030. HIGHWAY NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS The WMCOG model contains highway networks for each forecast year representing the highways, arterial and local streets of the region. The year 2005 roadway network, in combination with 2005 traffic assignments, was reviewed and adjusted based on current speed observations and number of roadway lanes. June 12, 2006 Page 5-5

The future year networks were then reviewed against the current transportation improvement plans to confirm that committed and funded improvements were included. For this study, we have assumed that important improvements that would affect the project (such as the projected interchange at I-95 and Contee Road) would be included. However, after discussions with MDOT staff, other improvements that were not committed (such as high occupancy toll lanes on I-495) were not assumed to be in place. TRIP TABLE ADJUSTMENTS WSA ran a series of 2005 traffic assignments initially using trips generated solely by the WMCOG model to understand the underlying model output. Adjustments were made to attempt to obtain a better fit between the ground counts at several screenline locations and traffic volumes assigned by the model. As a result of this review process, WSA shifted traffic from the p.m. peak period trip tables into the midday trip tables for all years since it appeared that the base assignments did not match the observed time-of-day distribution of traffic across several screenline locations. In addition, it appears that the model consistently over assigned northsouth roadways in the study area. This was a pattern that was also reflected in the model documentation from WMCOG s website. For the purposes of this study, a select-link adjustment process was used to adjust the north-south trips crossing the south survey screenline downward by 10 percent. The base year trip tables were adjusted to better reflect the travel pattern information obtained from the origin-destination surveys. Trips passing through links that represent locations where the travel pattern surveys were collected were extracted and adjusted to match the trip patterns from the survey. This ensures that a better representation of actual travel patterns is incorporated in the early part of the forecast period. OVERVIEW OF TOLL DIVERSION ASSIGNMENT PROCESS A series of tolled diversion assignments at the years 2009, 2012, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 were run under no-build, toll-free, and build conditions, with a range of different toll rates charged for travel on the ICC, and different combinations of video processing fees. Trip tables were divided into five potential market segments for the project based on different trip purposes and methods of payment, including: passenger car work ETC, passenger car non-work ETC, passenger car work video, passenger car non-work video, and commercial June 12, 2006 Page 5-6

vehicle traffic. These market segments were assigned to the network using a modified version of a multi-class user equilibrium assignment process. Appropriate toll rates and fees were used for each of these categories of vehicles; only the trips in the video categories were subjected to an additional fee during the assignment process. For the tolled condition, WSA used software which is designed to estimate the share of traffic for each travel movement which would be expected to choose the toll routing at each toll rate. This is specifically designed to assess motorists willingness to pay tolls at varying toll levels and congestion conditions. The process builds two sets of minimum time paths for each origin-destination zone pair: one using the toll facility (where appropriate) and the other using competing toll-free facilities. A proportion of the total trips moving between the zones are assigned to each network path based on the relative total cost between the two paths considering vehicle operating costs, travel time costs, and tolls. As the cost of the tolled routing increases as compared to the toll-free routing, the share of traffic using the toll road decreases; and vice versa. The time cost is equal to the time spent traveling between two zones, multiplied by the weighted average value-of-time of the two zones. The total number of households in each of the two zones is used as the weighting criteria for the calculation of the average value-of-time. The distance cost for each of the two paths is equal to the vehicle operating cost multiplied by the distance traveled for each path. VALUES-OF-TIME AND VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS Traffic and revenue on a toll facility is dependent on motorists willingness to pay a toll for benefits received in using the toll facility. These benefits can include mileage savings, improved quality of travel, safety, and reduced congestion. The motorist s value of-time, vehicle operating cost, and toll charges are the three key elements in determining the cost of making a particular trip and, therefore, the share of traffic assigned to tolled vs. toll-free paths to travel from the origin to the destination of the trip. As described previously in Chapter 3, based on the results of the stated preference surveys conducted for this study by Resource Systems Group, Inc. (RSG), the year 2005 overall average value-of-time (VOT) for trips in the corridor was calculated to be $0.238 per minute for motorists traveling during peak periods, for work/business trip purposes. VOT for non-work trips was calculated at $0.212 per minute. Off-peak VOT s were calculated to be $0.22 and $0.149 for work/business and non-work trip purposes, respectively. These VOT s were assumed to inflate 2.5 percent June 12, 2006 Page 5-7

each year up to 2030. (A copy of the RSG report summarizing the methodology and results of the stated preference surveys is provided in Appendix B of this document). The traffic assignments actually used differential values-of-time estimated by traffic analysis zone, which was developed using income information from the MWCOG socioeconomic data files. For each zone, there is a field with a factor that represents the ratio of median household income in that zone as compared to the regional average. This factor was applied to the average value-of-time for the region to develop an estimate of current VOT for each TAZ. In general, zones in the ICC corridor tend to have median household incomes that are greater than the regional average. However, since the SP surveys were conducted mostly in the project corridor, income levels of survey percentages were, on average, about 15 percent higher than the regional average. As such, values of time were reduced by 15 percent for each traffic zone to bring the baseline VOT in line with regional averages. This enables the modeling process to recognize the variance in incomes in the corridor and throughout the region. The vehicle operating cost used in the analysis was calculated by taking into account the average per-mile costs of gasoline and oil, and to a lesser extent, maintenance, and wear and tear of tires for the regions drivers. This value was calculated to be around $0.14 per mile at 2005 levels. No adjustment was made to reflect the impact of recent increases in gasoline prices. A sensitivity test was performed to test the impact of future major increases. The values-of-time and vehicle operating costs used in the analysis were inflated to future year levels assuming a 2.5 percent annual inflation rate for all future year traffic assignments. ASSUMED ETC/VIDEO MARKET SHARES Since electronic tolls and video payment categories will have different effective toll rates, an important factor in estimating traffic and revenue for the ICC was making reasonable assumptions regarding the share of motorists which might be expected to use electronic toll collection. WSA reviewed actual experience on other new urban toll facilities with non-cash toll collection, and it was determined that it would be appropriate June 12, 2006 Page 5-8

to use a split of 80 percent utilizing ETC and 20 percent utilizing video within the range of the administration fee ($2.50) tested, for purposes of this analysis. It is important to note that the ETC/video market share was used to subdivide the model trip tables before actually making traffic assignments. For example, if the total travel volume between two pairs of zones were 100 trips, this particular travel movement would be divided into two categories, 80 trips as potential ETC users and 20 trips as potential video users. Each of these respective trip tables were then subjected to individual diversion analyses, based on the individual pricing assumptions for each payment mode. Since the ETC toll rates would be lower than video for many movements, the electronic toll capture rates were higher for ETC than video. As such, the net final mix of ETC and video components were slightly different than the nominal shares input into the analysis process. TOLL DIFFERENTIAL ASSUMPTIONS As indicated, it was assumed that there will be a toll differential between ETC collection and video collection, and between passenger cars and commercial vehicles. The differential between ETC and video use is designed to encourage the use of ETC as well as to cover the additional transaction processing costs. Table 5-1 displays the assumed toll differential factors used for the purposes of this study. Table 5-1 Toll Differential Structure Collection Type Vehicle Type ETC Video Passenger Car $X X + $2.50 Commercial Vehicle 2.5(X) Not Allowed Note: Assumed Average Commercial Vehicle = 3.5 Axles June 12, 2006 Page 5-9

As indicated in Table 5-1 passenger car ETC vehicles would be assessed a base per-mile toll rate with traffic paying through the video toll collection system paying that same per-mile toll rate plus a flat per-trip administration fee. For example, if the ETC passenger car per mile toll rate was $0.20, a vehicle traveling six miles on the ICC would be assessed a toll of $1.20. If this same six-mile trip was made by a passenger car using the video payment option, that vehicle would be assessed the same $1.20 toll plus a $2.50 administration fee, or a total fare of $3.70. Commercial vehicle average per mile toll rates were calculated assuming an average per-mile toll rate 2.5 times those assessed to passenger cars. This commercial vehicle factor was developed based on a summary of commercial vehicle class counts conducted in the corridor which indicated that average commercial vehicle equated approximately to 3.5 axles. TOLL RATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Traffic assignments were performed at multiple toll levels for each analysis year 2012, 2020, 2025 and 2030. For years 2012 and 2020 ETC passenger per mile toll rates ranging from $0.10 to $0.50 per mile were tested. ETC per mile toll rates tested at 2025 year levels ranged from $0.10 to $0.70 per mile and from $0.10 to $0.80 per mile for year 2030. As a result of this, toll sensitivity curves were prepared to determine optimum rates. Separate curves were prepared for peak and off-peak conditions. The toll sensitivity analysis assumed a three mile minimum toll and reflects the assumed ETC/Video market share and toll differential structure described above. Toll sensitivity curves for the full project opening year, 2012, and future year, 2030, are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2. While the levels shown on the x-axis of the graphs in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 are expressed in terms of the passenger car ETC per mile toll rates, proportionately higher rates were assumed to be charged for trucks and video toll collection during the actual toll diversion process. As shown in Figure 5-1, maximum revenue potential during peak periods at 2012 levels would be in the range of $0.35 per mile. In off-peaks, maximum revenue potential would be in the range of $0.25/$0.30 per mile. Toll rates are increased, of course, total weekday trips estimated to use the ICC would, of course, decrease. Peak period users, for example, would likely exceed 1 at very low toll rates, dropping to less than June 12, 2006 Page 5-10

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC Peak Period Off Peak Period $175 $150 $175 $150 Revenue (Thousands) $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate 125 125 100 100 Trips (Thousands) 75 50 25 0 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate 75 50 25 0 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates 2012 TOLL SENSITIVITY CURVES FIGURE 5-1

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC Peak Period Off Peak Period $500 $500 Revenue (Thousands) $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate Trips (Thousands) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 $0.10 $0.20 $0.30 $0.40 $0.50 $0.60 $0.70 $0.80 Passenger Car Per Mile Toll Rate ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates 2030 TOLL SENSITIVITY CURVES FIGURE 5-2

75,000 at a rate of $0.30 per mile and about 50,000 per weekday at a rate of about $0.45 per mile. Off-peak users would decline slightly more sharply, as might be expected. Toll rates assumed at 2012 levels for purposes of base case revenue forecasts are noted with a dot. Peak period rates would begin at $0.20 per mile while off-peak rates would begin a $0.15 per mile. These rates are well below the maximum point on the toll sensitivity curves, in terms of revenue production. However, they are consistent with toll rates assumed in the environmental impact study for the project, nominally adjusted for inflation to 2012 levels. It is noted that 2012 is the first year in which the full ICC project (including Phases 1 and 2) will be open to traffic. The relative position of opening-year toll rates on the toll sensitivity curves show that additional revenue could likely be generated by using rates in excess of those assumed in the base case forecast. Figure 5-2 shows toll sensitivity curves at 2030 levels, the most distant forecast year for which model inputs and trip tables were available. In 2030, the optimum peak period toll would be at least $0.60 per mile, while maximum revenue during off-peak periods would be in the range of $0.40 to $0.50. Base case revenue forecasts were calculated at rates shown with a dot; $0.35 per mile in peak periods and $0.25 per mile in off-peak periods. It is noted that the rates selected for base case revenue forecasts are well below the maximum revenue point on the toll sensitivity curves in both 2012 and 2030. This indicates that it would be possible to increase revenue by using rates higher than those assumed in the analysis, if needed. In practice, it may ultimately be necessary to use higher rates in the later years of the forecast period, particularly beyond 2025, to more effectively manage peak period traffic demand. Per mile toll rates utilized in this analysis have not been adjusted to levels which may be required to effectively manage demand during future year peak periods. It is a goal of MdTA to establish pricing on the ICC to manage demand and ensure a high level of service during all travel hours. Selected rates in 2030, and all prior years, generally follow a nominal inflation assumption of 2.5 percent per year by 2025 or 2030, peak period traffic volumes on isolated locations along the ICC may necessitate higher tolls. These volumes are below the theoretical capacity of the facility, but might result in degraded operating conditions if higher tolls are not used. June 12, 2006 Page 5-11

The slopes of the curves in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 indicate that if higher rates were needed, for demand management reasons, this would likely produce higher revenue than assumed in the base case forecast. As noted above, based on the desire of MdTA staff to maintain a level of consistency between the previous ICC Final EIS Study and the current traffic and revenue analysis, it was determined that a combination of base case selected peak and off-peak period per mile toll rates would be appropriate. The EIS Study analysis assumed mid-range per mile toll rates of $0.17 during peak-periods and $0.13 during off-peak periods calculated in 2004 dollars. Utilizing the EIS Study per mile toll rates as a baseline, year 2010 per mile toll rates were calculated by applying a 2.5 percent per year inflation rate to the 2004 per mile rates and rounding to the nearest nickel. As shown in Table 5-2 from opening-year 2009 through future-year 2015 the peak-period per mile toll rate of $0.20 and off-peak per mile toll rate of $0.15 was maintained. By 2020 per mile toll rates would increase to $0.25 peak and $0.20 off-peak. In 2025 peak period per mile toll rates would increase to $0.30 with the $0.20 off-peak period rate being retained. By 2030 per mile toll rates would equal $0.35 peak and $0.25 off-peak based on assumed inflation levels. These per mile toll rates were developed utilizing the identical methodology employed to calculate the 2010 per mile rates and are thus very comparable to those assumed in the EIS analysis. All of the above per mile toll rates fall well below the apex point of the toll sensitivity curves and would provide the opportunity for future toll increases. While it continues to be the intent of the MdTA to maintain free-flow conditions along all segments of the ICC (generally 5,000 vehicles per hour, per direction), implementation of the above per mile toll rates may not accomplish this task. This could especially be the case in future-years 2025 and 2030 where additional peak period per mile toll rate increases might be required to meet desired capacity targets. However, the magnitude and exact timing of these potential per mile toll rate increases were not part of this study analysis and are therefore not addressed in this report. Toll rates for point to point movements are presented in Figure 5-3 for opening-year conditions. The figure illustrates the selected rates used for this analysis for passenger cars vs. trucks, for electronic transponder vs. video toll collection. It also shows the effect of the minimum toll assumption, as trips between interchanges that are less than three miles apart are assessed the equivalent to three miles of travel. Minimum tolls June 12, 2006 Page 5-12

are typically used to discourage short distance trips from using the toll road for only one or two segments, and to ensure that the tolls collected for each trip are sufficient to cover transaction processing and other accounting costs. Table 5-2 Selected Per Mile Toll Rates Based On $0.17 Peak/$0.13 Off-Peak Per Mile Toll Rates Expressed In 2004 Dollars Per Mile Toll Rates Year Peak Period Off-Peak Period 2009 $0.20 $0.15 2012 $0.20 $0.15 2015 $0.20 $0.15 2020 $0.25 $0.20 2025 $0.30 $0.20 2030 $0.35 $0.25 TYPICAL TIME-DISTANCE COMPARISONS To illustrate the benefits to motorists of the ICC, a comparison of travel time and distance under a.m. and p.m. peak period travel conditions at 2012 and 2030 levels was made for selected typical movements within the project corridor under the preferred alternative configuration. This timedistance comparison for three hypothetical movements is presented in Figures 5-4 and 5-5. The time-distance relationship compares the mileage and distance between the project (blue routing) versus the best alternative routing via the existing roadway system depicted in Figures 5-7 and 5-8 by the purple, green, pink and orange routings. Any savings in distance for a motorist can be translated into savings in vehicle operating costs, while a June 12, 2006 Page 5-13

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC Passenger Car ETC $0.20 Per Mile Peak 5.65 2.28 2.84 2.51 0.96 1.76 1.06 0.47 I-370 MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 BCR I-95 VMR US 1 I-370 0 1.15 1.60 2.15 2.65 2.85 3.20 3.40 3.50 MD 97 1.15 0 0.60 1.00 1.55 1.70 2.05 2.30 2.40 MD 182 1.60 0.60 0 0.60 1.05 1.25 1.60 1.80 1.90 MD 650 2.15 1.00 0.60 0 0.60 0.70 1.05 1.25 1.35 US 29 2.65 1.55 1.05 0.60 0 0.60 0.60 0.75 0.85 BCR 2.85 1.70 1.25 0.70 0.60 0 0.60 0.60 0.65 I-95 3.20 2.05 1.60 1.05 0.60 0.60 0 0.60 0.60 VMR 3.40 2.30 1.80 1.25 0.75 0.60 0.60 0 0.60 US 1 3.50 2.40 1.90 1.35 0.85 0.65 0.60 0.60 0 Passenger Car ETC $0.15 Per Mile Off-Peak 5.65 2.28 2.84 2.51 0.96 1.76 1.06 0.47 I-370 MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 BCR I-95 VMR US 1 I-370 0 0.85 1.20 1.60 2.00 2.15 2.40 2.55 2.65 MD 97 0.85 0 0.45 0.75 1.15 1.30 1.55 1.70 1.80 MD 182 1.20 0.45 0 0.45 0.80 0.95 1.20 1.35 1.45 MD 650 1.60 0.75 0.45 0 0.45 0.50 0.80 0.95 1.00 US 29 2.00 1.15 0.80 0.45 0 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.65 BCR 2.15 1.30 0.95 0.50 0.45 0 0.45 0.45 0.50 I-95 2.40 1.55 1.20 0.80 0.45 0.45 0 0.45 0.45 VMR 2.55 1.70 1.35 0.95 0.55 0.45 0.45 0 0.45 US 1 2.65 1.80 1.45 1.00 0.65 0.50 0.45 0.45 0 Commercial Vehicle ETC 5.65 2.28 2.84 2.51 0.96 1.76 1.06 0.47 I-370 MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 BCR I-95 VMR US 1 I-370 0 2.90 4.00 5.40 6.60 7.10 8.00 8.50 8.80 MD 97 2.90 0 1.50 2.50 3.90 4.30 5.10 5.80 6.00 MD 182 4.00 1.50 0 1.50 2.60 3.10 4.00 4.50 4.80 MD 650 5.40 2.50 1.50 0 1.50 1.80 2.60 3.10 3.40 US 29 6.60 3.90 2.60 1.50 0 1.50 1.50 1.90 2.10 BCR 7.10 4.30 3.10 1.80 1.50 0 1.50 1.50 1.60 I-95 8.00 5.10 4.00 2.60 1.50 1.50 0 1.50 1.50 VMR 8.50 5.80 4.50 3.10 1.90 1.50 1.50 0 1.50 US 1 8.80 6.00 4.80 3.40 2.10 1.60 1.50 1.50 0 Commercial Vehicle ETC 5.65 2.28 2.84 2.51 0.96 1.76 1.06 0.47 I-370 MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 BCR I-95 VMR US 1 I-370 0 2.10 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.40 6.00 6.40 6.60 MD 97 2.10 0 1.10 1.90 2.90 3.30 3.90 4.30 4.50 MD 182 3.00 1.10 0 1.10 2.00 2.40 3.00 3.40 3.60 MD 650 4.00 1.90 1.10 0 1.10 1.30 2.00 2.40 2.50 US 29 5.00 2.90 2.00 1.10 0 1.10 1.10 1.40 1.60 BCR 5.40 3.30 2.40 1.30 1.10 0 1.10 1.10 1.30 I-95 6.00 3.90 3.00 2.00 1.10 1.10 0 1.10 1.10 VMR 6.40 4.30 3.40 2.40 1.40 1.10 1.10 0 1.10 US 1 6.60 4.50 3.60 2.50 1.60 1.30 1.10 1.10 0 2.50 Video Administration Fee Passenger Car Video 5.65 2.28 2.84 2.51 0.96 1.76 1.06 0.47 I-370 MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 BCR I-95 VMR US 1 I-370 0 3.65 4.10 4.65 5.15 5.35 5.70 5.90 6.00 MD 97 3.65 0 3.10 3.50 4.05 4.20 4.55 4.80 4.90 MD 182 4.10 3.10 0 3.10 3.55 3.75 4.10 4.30 4.40 MD 650 4.65 3.50 3.10 0 3.10 3.20 3.55 3.75 3.85 US 29 5.15 4.05 3.55 3.10 0 3.10 3.10 3.25 3.35 BCR 5.35 4.20 3.75 3.20 3.10 0 3.10 3.10 3.15 I-95 5.70 4.55 4.10 3.55 3.10 3.10 0 3.10 3.10 VMR 5.90 4.80 4.30 3.75 3.25 3.10 3.10 0 3.10 US 1 6.00 4.90 4.40 3.85 3.35 3.15 3.10 3.10 0 2.50 Video Administration Fee Passenger Car Video 5.65 2.28 2.84 2.51 0.96 1.76 1.06 0.47 I-370 MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 BCR I-95 VMR US 1 I-370 0 3.35 3.70 4.10 4.50 4.65 4.90 5.05 5.15 MD 97 3.35 0 2.95 3.25 3.65 3.80 4.05 4.20 4.30 MD 182 3.70 2.95 0 2.95 3.30 3.45 3.70 3.85 3.95 MD 650 4.10 3.25 2.95 0 2.95 3.00 3.30 3.45 3.50 US 29 4.50 3.65 3.30 2.95 0 2.95 2.95 3.05 3.15 BCR 4.65 3.80 3.45 3.00 2.95 0 2.95 2.95 3.00 I-95 4.90 4.05 3.70 3.30 2.95 2.95 0 2.95 2.95 VMR 5.05 4.20 3.85 3.45 3.05 2.95 2.95 0 2.95 US 1 5.15 4.30 3.95 3.50 3.15 3.00 2.95 2.95 0 ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates PEAK AND OFF-PEAK PER MILE TOLL RATE TABLES YEARS 2009 THROUGH 2015 FIGURE 5-3

savings in travel time can be translated into value-of-time savings for the motorist. A.M. PEAK PERIOD As shown in Figure 5-4, a.m. peak period travelers wishing to use the proposed ICC for travel between I-95 and I-270 (movement D to A highlighted in blue) would experience the greatest time savings when compared to the arterial D to A routing highlighted in orange). Trips using the project route would save about 14.0 minutes at opening-year 2012 levels. By year 2030 time savings would equal 14.6 minutes. Average speeds for this movement are approximately 19 mph faster using the project route versus the existing route. It is important to recognize that the overall average speeds for each movement include the total route of travel. In many cases, the routing which uses the ICC also will include a portion of travel on alternative routes, which would have average operating speeds lower than the ICC. Hence, there may be increases in travel time between 2012 and 2030 on the ICC routing, even though travel conditions on the ICC itself have not degraded. A.M. peak-period movements (D to B), which would only use a portion of the project along with a segment of the existing arterial roadway system (MD 28) would also be expected to accrue travel time savings over their best alternative using existing routes (highlighted in pink). Movements using the D to B ICC alignment would save an estimated 12.1 minutes at year 2012 levels. These time savings are expected to increase to 14.5 minutes by year 2030. Average travel speeds are approximately13.0 to 14.0 mph faster using the ICC routing in 2012 and 2030, respectively. Motorists traveling along the E to C project routing would experience the least amount of time savings when compared to the best existing alternative route (highlighted in purple) as indicated in Figure 5-4. Opening-year 2012 are estimated to equal 5.5 minutes, decreasing slightly to 5.2 minutes by year 2030. These lower travel time savings can be attributed to the need for the project routing to utilize a portion of existing U.S. 1 which negatively impacts overall travel speeds along the project routing. A.M. peak-period movements traveling between F to C would experience time savings of 7.3 minutes during 2012 when choosing the ICC for their travel as shown in Figure 5-4. By 2030 time savings would equal 6.4 minutes. These time savings translate to average speeds approximately 21 June 12, 2006 Page 5-14

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC 190 A Gaithersburg 355 270 Rockville Muncaster Mill Laytonsville 370 115 B Norbeck Rockville 586 108 28 Montgomery Veirs Mill Pike Georgia C onnecticut 185 Ave. 97 182 270 97 495 495 Ave. C Georgia Ave. Randolph Ashton New Hampshire Ave. 108 Spencerville Briggs Fairland Chaney 29 650 F 198 Van Dusen 95 Howard 29 95 D Virginia Manor Laurel Prince George's 1 E Movement D-A 2012 2030 Alt Rte 2 ICC Alt Rte 2 ICC Distance (miles) 23.1 18.2 23.1 18.2 Time (min.) 31.3 17.2 31.8 17.3 Time Saved (min.) 14.0 14.6 Movement D-B 2012 2030 Alt Rte ICC Alt Rte ICC Distance (miles) 17.5 15.7 17.5 15.7 Time (min.) 33.6 21.5 36.6 22.1 Time Saved (min.) 12.1 14.5 Movement E-C 2012 2030 Alt Rte ICC Alt Rte ICC Distance (miles) 14.0 16.1 14.0 16.1 Time (min.) 24.7 19.2 24.3 19.1 Time Saved (min.) 5.5 5.2 495 Fairfax 355 District of Columbia 1 1 95 Distance (miles) Time (min.) Time Saved (min.) Movement F-C 2012 2030 Alt Rte 1 ICC Alt Rte 1 ICC 10.2 9.0 10.2 9.0 16.7 9.4 16.6 10.2 7.3 6.4 ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates TIME - DISTANCE COMPARISON A.M. Peak Period FIGURE 5-4

mph faster in 2012 and 16 mph faster when using the ICC routing versus the arterial routing. P.M. PEAK-PERIOD Project patrons making the trip between I-270 and I-95 along the ICC project configuration (movement A to D) during the p.m. peak-period will save 17.7 minutes over the existing A to D I-270, I-495, I-95 routing during 2012, increasing to 21.2 minutes by year 2030. This translates to improved travel speeds of approximately 23 to 24 mph (see Figure 5-5). The partial B to D routing experienced p.m. peak-period time savings of 13.5 minutes during opening-year 2012, increasing to 17.6 minutes by design-year 2030. These time savings produce improved travel speeds of approximately 12 mph when using the project over the existing B to D routing. As shown in Figure 5-5, ICC p.m. peak-period patrons traveling along the C to E routing are afforded time savings of 6.7 and 8.4 minutes over the existing C to E routing during opening-year 2012 and future-year 2030 respectively. This leads to improved average travel speeds of approximately 15 to 18 mph. P.M. peak-period movements traveling between C to F would experience time savings of 8.0 minutes during 2012 when choosing the ICC for their travel as shown in Figure 5-5. By 2030 time savings would equal 8.1 minutes. Average travel speeds would improve by approximately 23 mph in 2012 and 18 mph in 2030 when using the ICC routing versus the arterial routing. ESTIMATED AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC As noted previously, traffic assignments were run using trip table information supplied by MWCOG and modified for this project by WSA. Traffic assignments were run at 2009 levels (the assumed opening-year of the Phase 1 Segment of the ICC from I-370 to MD 97), 2012 ( the assumed opening-year of the Phase 2 Segment of the ICC from MD 97 to U.S. 1), 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 levels under the proposed ICC preferred configuration. The assignment results were reviewed for reasonableness, using both select link and screenline corridor share analyses. In the screenline review, special attention was paid to the overall level of growth in traffic June 12, 2006 Page 5-15

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC 190 A Gaithersburg 355 270 Rockville Muncaster Mill Laytonsville 370 115 B Norbeck Rockville 586 108 28 Montgomery Veirs Mill Pike Georgia C onnecticut 185 Ave. 97 182 270 97 495 495 Ave. C Georgia Ave. Randolph Ashton New Hampshire Ave. 108 Spencerville Briggs Fairland Chaney 29 650 F 198 Van Dusen 95 Howard 29 95 D Virginia Manor Laurel Prince George's 1 E Movement A-D 2012 2030 Alt Rte 2 ICC Alt Rte 2 ICC Distance (miles) 23.1 18.2 23.1 18.2 Time (min.) 35.2 17.5 39.7 18.5 Time Saved (min.) 17.7 21.2 Movement B-D 2012 2030 Alt Rte ICC Alt Rte ICC Distance (miles) 17.5 15.7 17.5 15.7 Time (min.) 37.1 23.7 43.2 25.6 Time Saved (min.) 13.5 17.6 Movement C-E 2012 2030 Alt Rte ICC Alt Rte ICC Distance (miles) 14.0 16.1 14.0 16.1 Time (min.) 27.8 21.1 28.6 20.2 Time Saved (min.) 6.7 8.4 495 Fairfax 355 District of Columbia 1 1 95 Distance (miles) Time (min.) Time Saved (min.) Movement C-F 2012 2030 Alt Rte 1 ICC Alt Rte 1 ICC 10.2 9.0 10.2 9.0 17.2 9.2 18.5 10.5 8.0 8.1 ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates TIME - DISTANCE COMPARISON P.M. Peak Period FIGURE 5-5

throughout the projection period, and the relative share of total screenline demand expected to be accommodated by the proposed ICC. The traffic assignment process utilized the selected per mile toll rates described previously. For years 2009 through 2015 a $0.20 peak per mile toll rate and a $0.15 off-peak per mile toll rate was assumed. Based on inflation assumptions, in 2020, $0.25 peak and $0.20 off-peak per mile toll rates were employed. In the 2025 and 2030 assignments per mile toll rates of $0.30 peak and $0.20 off-peak and $0.35 peak and $0.25 off-peak were assumed, respectively. During each assignment year a minimal per mile toll rate equal to three miles of travel was assumed. It was also assumed that all video toll trips would be assessed a flat per trip $2.50 administration fee in addition to the base per mile toll charge associated with a specific trip. The surcharge rate of $2.50 was assumed to remain at that level throughout the future forecast years. ESTIMATED 2009 PHASE 1 WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Traffic estimates were made for the proposed ICC under the planned phasing schedule. The I-370 to MD 97 segment (Phase 1) was assumed to open on October 1, 2009. The Phase 2 portion from MD 97 to U.S.1 was assumed to open on October 1, 2012. Traffic volumes represent traffic levels on an average weekday in 2009 are presented graphically in Figure 5-6. Average weekday traffic volumes for the ICC project at Phase 1 openingyear 2009 is presented in Figure 5-6. The proposed ICC is expected to accommodate 24,720 vehicles per day (VPD) on an average weekday in 2009. This is expected to generate a.m. peak-hour volumes between 740 and 1,330 vehicles per hour (VPH) and p.m. peak-hour volumes of between 1,000 and 2,050 VPH. We recognize that the Phase 1 project only connects between two interchanges. Only one travel movement is possible, although this has a length of more than five miles. Also, weekday traffic estimates shown in Figure 5-6 have not been adjusted downward to reflect the effect of rampup. This adjustment is made subsequently as described below. ESTIMATED 2012 WEEKDAY TRAFFIC As might be expected, the completion of the entire project would also act to increase traffic on the Phase 1 section, which is estimated to reach slightly more than 42,000 vehicles per weekday in 2012. In no case is estimated peak hour volumes, in either travel direction, levels which would result in degraded operating performance. However, should peak period traffic volumes be significantly higher than those estimated in June 12, 2006 Page 5-16

Figure 5-7, it might be necessary for MdTA to use higher toll rates to manage demand. If this proved to be necessary, it would likely result in an increase in revenue, as compared to the base case forecast. It is also noted that traffic estimates shown in Figure 5-7 (and similar figures for other years in this report) reflect weekday traffic conditions. It should be assumed that traffic levels on weekend day conditions would be somewhat lower. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that weekend day traffic would be approximately two-thirds of the weekday volumes shown in Figure 5-7. Average weekday traffic volumes for the full ICC project configuration at 2012 opening-year levels are presented in Figure 5-7. Mainline two-way average weekday traffic volumes range from a low of 20,190 VPD to a high of 54,110 VPD. At the mainline segment located between I-95 and Briggs Chaney Road, average weekday traffic volumes are expected to reach 54,110 VPD, producing a.m. peak-hour volumes between 1,970 and 2,230 VPD and p.m. peak-hour volumes between 2,420 and 3,080 VPD well below the hourly capacity targets outlined previously. The I-95 Interchange would generate the highest entering and exiting traffic volumes. The I-95 Interchange would accommodate more than 57,060 entering and almost 25,780 exiting VPD in 2012. CORRIDOR SHARE ANALYSIS In reviewing the overall reasonableness of the opening-year 2012 and future-year 2030 traffic estimates, an analysis was made of the share of total corridor demand which is expected to be accommodated by the ICC facility. As shown in Figure 5-8, a series of three traffic screenlines were developed to examine the share of the project corridor that would be expected to patronize the ICC and its competing routes. Corridor share is defined as the amount of traffic utilizing each of the various routes within a specific screenline, including the proposed facility, as a proportion of the total screenline value. Screenline No. 1 is located west of MD 97. Screenline No. 2 is positioned west of MD 650 and Screenline No. 3 west of I-95. The results of the corridor share analysis at opening-year and future-year levels for the proposed ICC, under no-build and tolled conditions are shown in Figure 5-8. At Screenline No. 1 under 2012 no-build conditions, I-495, Norbeck Road and Randolph Road accommodate 47.0, 15.2 and 10.6 percent, respectively, of total corridor demand. The remaining routes currently accommodate the balance of corridor demand. In opening-year 2012, the newly opened ICC full project would accommodate about 7.4 June 12, 2006 Page 5-17

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC LEGEND Total Day WB Total Day EB P.M. A.M. A.M. P.M. Mainline Peak Hour Volume Total Two-Way Mainline Peak Hour Volume Total Day Ramp Volume Note: Higher peak period per mile toll rates would be required to manage traffic demand where mainline peak hour traffic volumes exceed the 5,000 peak hour capacity target in a single travel direction. Not to Scale INT. 1 I-370 INT. 2 MD 97 INT. 3 MD 182 INT. 4 MD 650 20,320 1,970 2,040 5,900 6,570 20,990 2,100 1,790 3,710 4,000 21,280 2,120 1,630 3,420 9,020 28,880 2,570 2,200 42,140 43,920 44,350 53,370 21,820 1,380 3,160 6,380 7,490 22,930 1,850 2,630 4,430 4,570 23,070 1,990 2,290 5,210 8,630 26,490 2,180 2,600 INT. 5 US 29 INT. 6 Briggs Chaney INT. 7 I-95 INT. 8 Virginia Manor INT. 9 Baltimore Ave./ Route 1 10,500 7,930 24,310 2,640 1,760 4,190 28,500 3,080 1,970 20,540 6,360 14,320 1,920 840 3,550 10,770 1,580 740 47,390 54,110 27,030 20,190 10,970 7,560 23,080 1,950 2,150 2,530 25,610 2,230 2,420 19,420 6,520 12,710 1,080 1,220 3,290 9,420 810 1,060 ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates ESTIMATED FULL PROJECT - 2012 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES $0.20 Per Mile Peak - $0.15 Per Mile Off-Peak - $2.50 Video Administration Fee With Minimum Toll / No Maximum FIGURE 5-7

percent of total corridor demand under the tolled conditions. While traffic on I-495 would decline slightly, it still would handle over 44 percent of the total corridor demand, about six times the share of the ICC. As shown in Figure 5-8 at Screenline No. 2 the proposed Intercounty Connector captures 9.1 percent of total corridor demand under the tolled alternative at 2012 levels. I-495 total corridor demand declines from 51.5 percent under no-build conditions to 48.4 percent assuming the implementation of the ICC. Norbeck Road corridor demands levels fall from 7.2 percent under no-build conditions to 5.8 percent assuming the project is in place under tolled conditions. At the Screenline No. 3 location, the ICC mainlanes capture 11.9 percent of total corridor demand during opening-year 2012 assuming tolls were in place. As shown in Figure 5-8, I-495, Scaggsville Road and MD 198 contribute the lion s share of the ICC demand. Figure 5-8 also shows corridor screenline information at 2030 levels. As might be expected, the share of corridor traffic carried by the ICC generally increases while the share carried by I-495 and other routes slightly decreases. This is due to the fact that in spite of toll increases, the ICC becomes increasingly competitive over time, as congestion levels on competing routes continue to deteriorate. This is particularly true with respect to I-495, which shows relatively small traffic growth between 2012 and 2030, due to capacity constraints which are already quite severe. By 2030, the ICC is expected to capture between 10 and 15 percent of total corridor demand, depending on screenline location. However, even with this increased share, it is still a relatively small proportion of total travel in the corridor, which is from over 450,000 per day to almost 570,000 per day in 2012. ESTIMATED 2025 AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRAFFIC Traffic estimates were made for the proposed ICC under the preferred project configuration at future-year 2030. Traffic volumes represent traffic levels on average weekday in 2030 and are presented graphically in Figure 5-9. The proposed ICC mainlanes are expected to accommodate average weekday traffic volumes ranging from a low of 22,320 VPD on the mainlane section west of U.S. 1 to a high of 86,080 VPD along the mainlane section east of MD 650 in 2030. At the peak load point east of MD 650, this equates to a.m. peak-hour volumes of 1,930 and 4,760. June 12, 2006 Page 5-18

MD 531640 / Graphics / Final Report / landscape.ppt / 5-23-06 ICC 88 190 Fairfax 495 124 Proposed Inter-County Connector 270 Rockville Gaithersburg 370 Muncaster Mill 355 495 270 495 Laytonsville Norbeck 108 Montgomery Rockville 586 115 28 355 Georgia Veirs Mill Pike 1 1 C Ave. 185 Ave. 97 Georgia onnecticut 182 Ave. 97 Randolph 495 2 2 District of Columbia Ashton New Hampshire Ave. 650 108 Spencerville Briggs Fairland 3 Chaney 29 198 1 1 Howard 95 08 29 Van Dusen Virginia Manor 3 Laurel Prince George's 1 95 95 Screenline No. 1 West of MD 97 MD 108 ICC Muncaster Mill Norbeck Veirs Mill Randolph Strathmore I-495 Other Total Screenline No. 2 West of MD 650 Ashton Norbeck Norwood ICC Randolph University I-495 Other Total Screenline No. 3 West of I-95 Scaggsville MD 198 ICC Briggs Chaney Fairland Cherry Hill I-495 Other Total Full Project Opening Year 2012 Future Year 2030 No Build 5.0 --- 5.5 15.2 9.8 10.6 4.1 47.0 2.8 100.0 No Build 6.5 7.2 5.1 --- 12.6 14.5 51.5 2.6 100.0 No Build 12.5 8.8 --- 2.1 2.5 3.1 60.9 10.1 100.0 Tolled 4.5 7.4 4.6 14.0 8.9 10.1 3.9 44.4 2.2 100.0 Tolled 5.7 5.8 4.1 9.1 12.1 12.8 48.4 2.0 100.0 Tolled 9.8 7.2 11.9 2.4 2.4 2.1 55.7 8.5 100.0 Full Project No Build 5.6 --- 6.6 11.9 8.8 10.7 4.1 49.5 2.8 100.0 No Build 6.8 6.5 5.4 --- 13.9 13.4 50.3 3.7 100.0 No Build 6.7 9.8 --- 2.9 4.3 6.4 58.4 11.5 100.0 Tolled 4.7 10.8 5.3 10.4 7.7 9.8 3.8 45.3 2.2 100.0 Tolled 5.3 5.3 4.1 12.1 13.2 11.6 45.9 2.5 100.0 Tolled 5.2 7.3 15.3 3.6 3.9 4.5 51.2 9.0 100.0 ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates PROJECT CORRIDOR SHARE COMPARISON FIGURE 5-8