35(3$5(' )25 3(116</9$1,$ 78513,.( &200,66,21 83'$7(' %< '(/$:$5( 9$//(< 5(*,21$/ 3/$11,1* &200,66,21 -DQXDU\

Transcription

1 3(116</9$1,$78513,.(, (',17(5&+$1*(75$)),&678'< 3(11$ 95 3(11$ 35(3$5(')25 3(116</9$1,$78513,.(&200,66,21 83'$7('%<'(/$:$5(9$//(< 5(*,21$/3/$11,1*&200,66,21 -DQXDU\

2

3 PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE/ 1-95 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED FOR PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE COMMISSION UPDATED BY DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The Bourse Building. 111 South Independence Mall East Philadelphia, PA January This report is printed on recycled paper -

4 Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency which provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning to shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties as well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical assistance and services; conducts high priority studies that respond to the request and demands of member state and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents to forge a consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of the private sector; and practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way communication and public awareness of regional issues and the commission. Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole while the diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. DVRPC is funded by a variety offunding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC's state and local member governments. This report was primarily funded by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies.

5 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v I. INTRODUCTION II. THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE STUDY AREA Existing Highway Facilities and Land Use... ~ Existing Traffic Volumes... 6 III. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE 11 IV. TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCEDURE Socio-Economic Estimates Supplemental Development Surcharge Regional Travel Simulation Models Focused Simulation Process Validation of the Highway Assignment Future Trip Table Preparation V. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS Analysis of 2025 Traffic Forecasts 2. Analysis of 2005 Traffic Forecasts APPENDICES A. 24 HOUR MACHINE TRAFFIC COUNTS A-1

6 ii Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study LIST OF MAPS 1. Pennsylvania Turnpike/l-95 Proposed Interchange Location Map LIST OF FIGURES 1. Current Traffic Counts Build Alternative Highway Network Modifications DVRPC Travel Simulation Process Area Wide Traffic Impacts Current Traffic Counts and 2025 No-Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes PA 413 and Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange with 1-95 Current Traffic Counts and 2025 No-Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 1 Business and US 1 Expressway Interchanges with 1-95 Current Traffic Counts and 2025 No-Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 1, Rockhill Rd and Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchanges Current Traffic Counts and 2025 No-Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 13/Pennsylvania Turnpike and US 130/New Jersey Turnpike Interchanges. Current Traffic Counts and 2025 No-Build Average Daily Traffic Volumes Area Wide Traffic Impacts 2025 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes PA 413 and Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchanges 2025 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 1 Business and US 1 Expressway Interchanges with No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 1, Rockhill Rd and Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchanges 2025 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 13/Pennsylvania Turnpike and US 130/New Jersey Turnpike Interchanges 2025 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchange 2025 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes

7 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study iii LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 15. Area Wide Traffic Impacts 2005 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes PA 413 and Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchanges 2005 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 1 Business and US 1 Expressway Interchanges with No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 1, Rockhill Rd and Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchanges 2005 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes US 13/Pennsylvania Turnpike and US 130/New Jersey Turnpike Interchanges 2005 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes Proposed Pennsylvania Turnpikell-95 Interchange 2005 No-Build and Build Alternative Average Daily Traffic Volumes LIST OF TABLES 1. Comparison of 1993 Report and Current Traffic Volumes Current and Future Population in the Study Area Current and Future Employment in the Study Area Study Area Development Surcharge Pennsylvania Turnpike I 1-95 Model Calibration Accuracy Calibration Root Mean Square Deviation (RMS) by Volume Group A Comparison of 2025 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Under the No-Build & Build Alternatives (ADT) A Comparison of 2005 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Under the No-Build & Build Alternatives (ADT)

8

9 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The US Congress has redesignated 1-95 to follow a route via the Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge across the Delaware River thence to proceed northward via the New Jersey Turnpike Extension. This rerouting will bring all of 1-95 up to interstate standards, but requires the completion of a connection between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (1-276) and 1-95 in Bristol Township, Bucks County. This report presents an update of the forecasts reported in Pennsylvania Turnpike /1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study, DVRPC, Year 2005 and 2025 traffic forecasts are presented for a No-Build (do nothing) and a Build Alternative. These forecasts were prepared at the request of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to provide traffic forecasts for its consultants, who are preparing environmental impact and preliminary engineering studies for the proposed interchange. In preparation for projecting future traffic volumes, traffic counts were collected throughout the study area. Municipal and county planners were contacted to identify the significant proposed land use developments within the corridor. DVRPC's focused traffic simulation model was then used to prepare 2005 and 2025 traffic volume estimates for study area roadways under both alternatives. Two alternatives were investigated: A No-Build Alternative; and a Build Alternative which assumes the construction of a new 55 mile-per hour interchange between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Under the No-Build Alternative, traffic growth in the project study area is projected to be heavy. On the segment of the Pennsylvania Turnpike where the interchange would be located, traffic is forecast to increase by about 45 percent over existing volumes, while 1-95 at the same location is projected to grow by about 26 percent. The traffic on PA 413/US 13, Street Rd/US 1 and Woodhaven Rd/US 1 - are also projected to sustain significant traffic increases over current volumes. The construction of a high type full interchange between 1-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike will have a significant impact on corridor traffic volumes as well as travel patterns. Year 2025 traffic volumes of 57,200 vehicles are forecast to use the interchange, with the highest volumes of 11,100 projected for the ramps that carry the redesignated Ramps carrying other movements in the interchange are forecast to handle between 4,400 and 8,400 daily vehicles. Traffic volumes on the turnpike increase by approximately 26 and 33 percent, west and east of the interchange, respectively, over the No-Build volumes. On 1-95, construction of the interchange leads to traffic increases of 26 and 16 percent, south and north of the interchange, respectively.

10 vi Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study Much of the volume in the new interchange is diverted off of parallel highways within the study area, particularly those roadways handling traffic for which the interchange provides a better travel option. For example, traffic on the 1-95 connection to PA 413 declines by six percent, or 2,600 vehicles, from the No-Build Alternative number, while volumes on PA 413 south of the connection decline by 12 percent, or 4,300 vehicles. US 1 south of turnpike Interchange 28 declines by 9,200 vehicles (9.7%), with this translating to small reductions on both Street and Woodhaven roads. North of Interchange 28, US 1 sustains a decline of 5,500 vehicles, or almost seven percent, with this percentage reduction carrying through all the way to the US 1 Expressway/l-95 interchange. Although less dramatic, almost all other study area arterials are afforded relief by construction of the interchange: The exception to this rule is US 130 in New Jersey, where the additional access provided by the new interchange produces growth of approximately 15 percent, or roughly 5,000 vehicles over the No-Build Alternative, both north and south of the turnpike.

11 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Pennsylvania Turnpike Cammissian (PTC) is studying an interchange between 1-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bristal Tawnship, Bucks Caunty. Several develapments have accurred since the impacts af this interchange were studied in 1992, the results af which were published in Pennsylvania Turnpike Propased Interchange Traffic Study, DVRPC, Continued decentralization of the Delaware Valley regian has modified development patterns and the lacatian af populatian and employment, as well as traffic patterns. Advances in technalagy have led to. the implementation of Electranic Toll Collectian (ETC) on Delaware River Bridges and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania turnpikes, providing increased efficiency in the processing of vehicles at tall collectian points. Revisians to. the transportatian element af the lang range plan have added transportation facilities which shauld be included in an analysis af the effects of this interchange on traffic. Given these changes, the PTC determined that an update to. the ariginal forecasting effort was warranted. The PTC contracted with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) and KCI Technalagies to provide estimates af the change in travel patterns and the traffic impacts af canstructing the interchange. These impact estimates were made using the DVRPC Travel Simulation Madel, which utilizes the TRANPLAN micro-computer package. A focused simulatian was canducted, where the travel zones in the study were subdivided to. better reflect the local highway network and land use characteristics in the vicinity of the proposed interchange. This repart focuses on the sectian af the Pennsylvania and New Jersey turnpikes between US 1 (Interchange 28) in Bucks Caunty and US 130 (Interchange 6) in Burlingtan Caunty, New Jersey. Alang 1-95, the study area extends through Bucks County from the Woodhaven Raad interchange to. the US 1 Expressway interchange. Section II of this repart describes the existing physical characteristics of the turnpike interchange study area. Included are a brief descriptian af existing land use and the physical characteristics in the vicinity af the propased interchange and the surrounding roadway netwark. Current traffic valumes an the Pennsylvania Turnpike and ather roadways affected by the interchange propasal are also. presented in this sectian. A discussian af the twa alternatives far the interchange (a na-build and a build canditian) is presented in section III. Section IV describes DVRPC's travel forecasting methadalagy and discusses the facused traffic simulatian madel that was used to develap the traffic projections. The regional demographic and emplayment forecasts and corridar specific future development proposals which farm the basis far the farecast are also presented in this section. Analysis of year 2005 and 2025 simulated travel estimates far the propased interchange and the connecting street and highway netwark under the No-Build and Build Alternatives are discussed in section V. Farecasted daily ramp volumes are given

12 2 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study for the proposed interchange and for existing Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchanges 28, 29, New Jersey Turnpike Interchange 6, and the 1-95 interchanges with PA 413, US 1 Business and US 1 Expressway.

13 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 3 II. THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE STUDY AREA The proposed interchange will be located where 1-95 passes over the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Bristol Township, Bucks County. The east-west area is defined by the turnpike segment between the Philadelpha/US 1 interchange (PA Turnpike Interchange 28) in Bensalem Township and the US 130 interchange (New Jersey Turnpike Interchange 6) in Florence Township, Burlington County. The north-south limits for the study area run from Woodhaven Road in Philadelphia's Far Northeast to the 1-95/US 1 Expressway interchange in Middletown Township, Bucks County. This study area (see Figure 1) traverses all or part of the following municipalities: Bucks County's Bensalem, Middletown, and Bristol townships and Bristol Borough; Florence and Burlington townships and Burlington Borough in Burlington County. 1. Existing Highway Facilities and Land Use On the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River, the study area is intensely developed with a mix of residential, commercial, retail and industrial uses. The New Jersey portion of the study area is more rural in nature with agricultural uses more predominate, but with a significant amount of residential and commercial development. The high degree of freeway accessibility provided by the turnpikes as well as 1-95 and has attracted a large number of trucking terminals and warehousing/transhipment facilities to the study area. This is particularly evident in an area spanning the Burlington/Florence township line bounded by the New Jersey Turnpike extension, US 130, River Rd and Dultys Lane. In the vicinity of the proposed interchange, both the Pennsylvania Turnpike and 1-95 are presently configured as four lane interstate facilities. The Pennsylvania Turnpike has been widened to six lanes west of the US 1 (Interchange 28) interchange and the New Jersey Turnpike Extension is six lanes east of the Turnpike Bridge. Access to the turnpikes is provided from US 1, US 13, and at US interchanges are provided at US 1 Expressway, US 1 Business, PA 413, PA 132 (Street Rd), and PA 63 (Woodhaven Rd). In the existing turnpike configuration Pennsylvania tolls are collected at the US 1 interchange (16 toll booths) and at US 13 interchange (5 toll booths), as well as at a plaza located on the Pennsylvania side of the Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River. New Jersey Turnpike Tolls are collected at the recently relocated barrier toll plaza to the east of US 130. Local non-turnpike traffic using the Turnpike Bridge to cross between US 13 and US 130 pays only the toll charge for the segment between the US 13 interchange and the bridge toll plaza. The segment between the Turnpike Bridge and US 130 is free.

14

15 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 5 To accurately assess the impact of highway improvement alternatives on the study area traffic, a network of roads surrounding the Pennsylvania Turnpike and 1-95 is included in the traffic simulation model. In addition to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike Extension and 1-95, the following roads are included: Pennsylvania US 1 Expressway US 1 Business US 13, Bristol Pike PA 63, Woodhaven Rd PA 132, Street Rd PA 413, New Rodgers Rd PA 513, Hulmeville Rd Bath Rd Bensalem Blvd Mill Creek Rd New Falls Rd Oxford Valley Rd State Rd New Jersey New Jersey Turnpike US 130 CR 543, Burlington Columbus Rd CR 656, Florence Columbus Rd CR 659, Florence Bustleton Rd The majority of these highway facilities are four lanes wide and configured to carry large traffic volumes. US 1 north of Turnpike Interchange 28 and PA 63, Woodhaven Rd, are expressways with grade separated interchanges. Old Lincoln Highway (US 1 Business), a four lane arterial, provides local access to residential and commercial developments located in Penndel, Langhorne Manor, and Oxford Valley. South of Turnpike Interchange 28, US 1 becomes Roosevelt Boulevard, a 12 lane principal, arterial. PA 132, Street Rd, is a major arterial four to five lanes wide serving intense strip development. US 13 is two to three lanes in width except between the Levittown parkway and US 1 where it has been upgraded to an expressway. PA 413 provides an arterial connection between Langhorne and the Burlington Bristol Bridge. This roadway is for the most part two lanes (one lane by direction), although it is planned to be widened to four lanes between Ford Road and US 13 in the Transportation Element of the DVRPC 2020 Plan. Through its existing 1-95 Interchange, PA 413 also provides an existing arterial connection between 1-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike via the turnpike Interchange 29. On the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, the New Jersey Turnpike provides the major north-south traffic movement in this section of the eastern seaboard. This facility traverses the state from the Delaware Memorial Bridge south of Wilmington, Delaware to New York and New England states provides a non-toll and local alternative as far north as Trenton. US 130 is the primary arterial parallel to the Delaware River serving communities between Camden and Trenton.

16 6 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study. 2. Existing Traffic Volumes The Pennsylvania Turnpike regularly provides DVRPC with current traffic counts on the turnpike and at turnpike interchanges. DVRPC assembled recent traffic counts taken on 1-95 and the surrounding highway network from the commission, New Jersey DOT and New Jersey Turnpike Commission files and collected supplemental additional counts where needed during the fall of In total, over 50 locations were counted using pneumatic tube techniques. The resulting average daily volumes are displayed on Figure 1. Detailed traffic counts for all locations, including both daily and hourly traffic volumes, are shown in Appendix A. Table 1 displays the current counts with those taken as part of the previous forecasting effort. Care should be taken when comparing the current counts with those reported in the 1993 report. In an effort to more accurately measure existing traffic, DVRPC now applies different factors provided by PennDOT and New Jersey DOT to the raw count to account for truck traffic (axle correction factor) and when the count was taken (seasonal and daily factors). The appendix displays the raw count, adjustment factors and total adjusted daily traffic which was used for model calibration in the current effort. Traffic growth on the Pennsylvania Turnpike has been among the highest of any facility in the Delaware Valley Region. A major factor in this increase is that population and employment growth on the Pennsylvania side of the DVRPC region has concentrated in suburban Bucks, Montgomery and Chester counties. The Pennsylvania Turnpike is the only limited access facility in an east-west orientation connecting these suburban counties. In 1998, the turnpike west of Interchange 28 carried an average of 83,500 vehicles per day. This was an increase of almost 27 percent in five years; the volume in the 1993 report was 65,800 vehicles per day. East of the Philadelphia Interchange the growth was almost as great at 20 percent, although the absolute numbers for both years were lower than west of Int. 28 (40,200 in 1998 vs. 32,900 in 1993). The turnpike bridge over the Delaware River traffic volume was 35,800 vehicles per day, an increase of approximately 15 percent over the 1991 volume of 31,000 vehicles per day displayed in the 1993 report. Traffic volumes using Interchange 28 were 57,900 vehicles per day in 1998 versus 49,000 vehicles in 1993, a growth of 18 percent in the five year period, while US 13 Interchange 29 totals were 13,300 vehicles in 1998 versus 11,900 vehicles in 1993 for a growth of 12 percent. Traffic levels on the New Jersey Turnpike mirror the growth on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. North of the connection to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the mainline handles 90,500 vehicles per day. This is an increase of over nine percent compared to the 82,900 vehicles reported in the 1993 report. South of the connection to the Pennsylvania Turnpike growth has been slightly less. The current count of 66,400 vehicles represents and increase of 8.7 percent over the 1993 report count of 61,100.

17 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 7 Table 1: COMPARISON OF 1993 REPORT AND CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1993 Report Current Difference Facility Volume Volume Absolute Percent Pennsylvania Turnpike - Int. 27 (PA 611) to Int. 28 (US 1) 65,800 83,500 17, % -Int. 28 (US 1) to Int. 29 (US 13) 32,900 40,200 7, Delaware River Turnpike Bridge 31,000 35,800 4, New Jersey Turnpike - Int. 6 (US 130) to Mainline (Extension) 27,600 29,900 2, Int. 5 (CR 541) to Extension 61,100 66,400 5, Extension to Int. 7 (US 206) 82,900 90,500 7, Interstate 95 - Academy Rd to Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) 124, ,000-4, Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) to Street Rd (PA 132) 82,800 81,500-1, Street Rd (PA 132) to PA ,100 70,900 2, PA 413 to US 1 Business 46,700 48,900 2, US 1 Business to US 1 Expressway 47,200 48,600 1, US 1 Expressway to PA ,500 54,700 4, Connection to PA413 26,800 32,800 6, US 1 - south of Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) 65,700 56,300-9, north of Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) 72,700 72, Street Rd (PA 132) to Turnpike Int. 28 (US 1) 73,600 78,400 4, north of Turnpike Int. 28 (US 1) 72,100 72, south of 1-95 (Expressway) 40,300 49,500 9, north of 1-95 (Expressway) 51,600 62,400 10, south of 1-95 (Business) 21,200 21, Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) - west of ,800 58,000 2, east of Roosevelt Blvd (US 1) 58,200 62,900 4, Street Rd (PA 132) - west of ,200 37,600-4, east of Roosevelt Blvd (US 1) 40,200 36,100-4, New Rodgers Road (PA 413) - north of 1-95 connection 28,300 24,300-4, south of 195 connection 29,500 25,700-3, Burlington Bristol Bridge 24,700 27,600 2, Bristol Pike (US 13) - north of Turnpike Int. 29 (US 13) 38,600 32,000-6, south of Turnpike Int. 29 (US 13) 37,800 34,300-3, US north of Int. 6 (US 130) 18,700 20,600 1, south of Int. 6 (US 130} , %

18

19 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 9 In the immediate vicinity of the proposed interchange location, the current 1-95 count of 48,900 vehicles per day is less than five percent greater than the 1990 count of 46,700. North of the US 1 Expressway, volumes and traffic growth are higher. The 54,700 v.p.d. measured in 1999 is more than eight percent higher than the 50,500 counted in When factoring is taken into account, traffic volumes south of PA 1-32, Street Rd, have remained static. The 81,500 current traffic volume on 1-95 compares with the 1993 report count of 82,800. Volumes are higher south of PA 63, Woodhaven Rd, where currently 120,000 vehicles were recorded. The growth in traffic volume on US 1 increases rapidly as one proceeds north. Volumes have declined slightly south of PA 63, partly due to the redistribution of population and employment in the region; the 56,300 counted vehicles is down 14 percent from the 1993 reported count of 65,700, although factoring the current count is responsible for part of this decline. North of PA 63, volumes have basically remained static. Immediately south of turnpike Interchange 28 traffic volumes have increased 6.5 percent (78,400 vs 73,600 v.p.d. in the 1993 effort) while remaining approximately the same north of Interchange 28 (72,300 vs. 72,100 v.p.d). Traffic on US 1 Business has remained unchanged east of 1-95, where the current count of 21,300 v.p.d. compares to the previous count of 21,200 v.p.d. However, traffic increases have been recorded on the US 1 Expressway both east and west of An almost 23 percent increase in the count east of 1-95 carries through the interchange to an almost 21 percent increase west of 1-95 (49,500 vs 40,300 v.p.d. and 62,400 vs 51,600 v.p.d., respectively). Traffic on other study area major arterials offers a wide range of growth and decline compared to the previous study. Traffic on PA 63, Woodhaven Rd, west of 1-95 has increased less than five percent since the 1993 report counts. PA 132, Street Rd, has recently been reconstructed by PennDOT. Traffic patterns have not stabilized since the completion of the project; current counts are approximately 10 percent less than those previously reported. While US 13 volumes have increased slightly east of PA 413 (4.8 percent), north and south of turnpike Interchange 29 volumes have actually decreased (17.1 and 9.3 percent, respectively). On PA 413, traffic volumes are static south of US 1 Business (approximately 17,500 vehicles in both studies). Although volumes on PA 413 are higher closer to the 1-95 connection, the current counts are lower than those recorded in the 1993 report on both sides of the connection (24,300 vs 28,300 v.p.d. and 25,700 vs 29,500 v.p.d. north and south of the 1-95 connection, respectively). In New Jersey, traffic on US 130 south of the turnpike connection has remained static while the segment north of the connection has experienced growth of about 10 percent. Traffic on other study area roadways varies greatly, although the smaller base counts tend to exaggerate the percentage growth or decline. Volumes range from a low of 3,500 v.p.d. on CR 543 east of CR 661 to 25,000 v.p.d. on New Falls Rd east of PA 413. Any count comparison must consider the factoring of the current machine counts, which tends to lower the current counts relative to those displayed in the 1993 report.

20

21 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 11 III. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE INTERCHANGE The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and KCI Technologies (consultants to the Turnpike Commission) have identified two alternative configurations for the 1-95 I Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange. The only difference is the treatment of the eastbound turnpike to northbound 1-95 movement: The first alternative includes a flyover ramp similar to those constructed for other movements in the interchange; the other alternative includes a cloverleaf style ramp for this movement. For simulation purposes, this variation is minor enough to have only one build alternative; the resulting forecasts are valid for either configuration. There was no Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative proposed for this round of simulation, so together with the No-Build (do nothing) scenario, a total of two alternatives were simulated. Specific assumptions for the highway network under these alternatives are described below. Both the No-Build and Build Alternatives assume all projects listed in the DVRPC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Transportation Element of the DVRPC 2020 Plan. Highway projects within the study area included in the simulation include but are not limited to: TIP 5020 TIP 9208 Plan 12Si1T PA 413, US 13 to north of Ford Rd; Widen to 4 lanes Rising Sun Connector (Burlington County); Construct US 130, Wood St to US 206; Widen to 6 lanes Transit projects within the study area included in the simulation include but are not limited to: TIP T107 Plan 07N04T Plan 26N03T SNJLRT, Camden-Trenton; Construct SEPTA Bus, Doylestown-Newtown-Oxford Valley; Initiate Service SEPTA Bus, Morrisville-Trenton; Initiate Service It should be noted that both networks included Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) slip ramps which are under construction at Fort Washington (Virginia Dr) and under consideration for PA 29 in Chester County and south of Lansdale in Montgomery County. Figure 2 displays the highway network assumptions for the Build Alternative. Along with construction of an interchange between 1-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike allowing all moves between these two interstate facilities, other changes to the highway network are also included. The turnpike, currently a two lane by direction facility between US 1 (Interchange 28) and New Jersey, would be widened to a total of six lanes (three by direction). At the east end of the turnpike, the barrier toll plaza function,

22

23 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 13 currently combined with the bridge toll at the Delaware River Bridge toll facility, would be relocated to the west of 1-95 in a new barrier toll plaza. This would essentially make the section of the turnpike east of this new toll plaza, including the interchanges at 1-95 and US 13 (Interchange 29) free. As part of this project, the 1-95 designation would be rerouted through the turnpike interchange, east across the Delaware River Bridge and the New Jersey Turnpike extension, thence north on the New Jersey Turnpike. The current 1-95 north of the new interchange, which terminates north of Trenton, would be designated

24

25 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 15 IV. TRAVEL FORECASTING PROCEDURE The process used to simulate traffic for the 1-95/Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange and surrounding highway network is a straightforward application of DVRPC's focused travel simulation process (see Figure 3 for flow chart). The travel simulation models in use at DVRPC follow the traditional steps of trip generation, trip distribution, modal split and travel assignment. They utilizecomputer programs included in the TRANPLAN microcomputer based package. A brief description of the DVRPC focused simulation model and its inputs follows. 1. Socio-Economic Estimates Travel forecasting models require that estimates of demographic and employment data be made for small areas or zones. This requires estimates for each of the following variables: population; households, stratified by auto ownership; employed residents; total automobiles; and employment, stratified into twelve Standard Industrial Classification groups. This requirement derives from the need to allocate trip making behavior associated with households and businesses (ie. land use) to the streets and transit facilities serving them. For regional travel simulations, the traffic zone system is based on census tracts within the nine-county region. The census tracts defined for Center City Philadelphia, however, do not provide sufficient detail for the "grain" of the network, so block groups, the next smaller level of detail, are used to define the traffic zones in these areas. This results in 1,395 traffic zones for the entire DVRPC region, which encompasses an area of 3,833 square miles. DVRPC has prepared Year 2020 forecasts of the socioeconomic inputs to the travel simulation process for all traffic zones in the nine-county region. These projections form the basis for the travel projections included in this report. Demographic inputs forthis study utilize DVRPC Board adopted population and employment forecasts. Table 1 presents the 1997 and 2020 population for selected municipalities in the interchange study area. Table 2 presents employment for these same municipalities. In these forecasts, population in the study area is forecast to increase by 7.1 percent between 1997 and 2020, from 402,194 to 430,949 persons. The growth in the New Jersey portion of the study area is 20.8 percent, much higher than the growth in the Pennsylvania portion, 5.8 percent. This is partly due to the larger population base in the Pennsylvania municipalites: The numerical growth in

26 16 Pennsylvania Turnpike / I-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study )LJXUH '953&75$9(/6,08/$7,21352&(66 &(1686 =21$/'(02*5$*+,& $1'(03/2<0(17 '$7$ 75,3 *(1(5$7,21 02'(/ 5(*,21$/ +,*+:$< 1(7:25. 75,3 ',675,%87,21 02'(/ 5(*,21$/ 38%/,&75$16,7 1(7:25. 02'$/63/,7 $8722&&83$1&< 02'(/ +:<75$)),& $66,*10(17 38%/,&75$16,7 $66,*10(17 02'(/ +:<75$9(/63'6 92/6 9(+0,/(6 2)75$9(/ 75$16,75,'(56+,3 %</,1( 67$7,21 '953&75$9(/6,08/$7,2102'(/

27 Pennsylvania Turnpike Praposed Interchange Traffic Study 17 Table 2: CURRENT AND FUTURE POPULATION IN THE STUDY AREA DVRPC 2020 DVRPC Change Municipality US Census Estimate Forecast Difference Percent Pennsylvania: Bensalem Twp 56,788 57,162 61,810 4, % Bristol Bora 10,405 10,361 9, Bristol Twp 57,129 57,702 58,789 1, Hulmeville Bora Langhorne Bora 1,361 1,361 1, Langhorne Manor Bora Lower Makefield Twp 25,083 31,809 38,803 6, Middletown Twp 43,063 45,027 51,973 6, Penndel Bora 2,703 2,711 2, Tullytown Bora 2,339 2,268 2, Far NE Philadelphia , New Jersey: Total PA: 362, , ,402 21, Burlington City 9,835 9,741 9, Burlington Twp 12,454 15,389 19,085 3, Florence Twp 10,266 10, Total NJ: 32,555 36,063 43,547 7, Total Study Area: 395, , ,949 28, % Pennsylvania is approximately three times the growth in New Jersey (21,271 vs.7,484 persons). This is related to the fact that many of the municipalities in the Pennsylvania study area are built out with older development (Middletown and Lower Makefield townships being the exception) and the Pennsylvania portion includes the Far Northeast portion of the City of Philadelphia. At the same time, Florence and Burlington townships in New Jersey are currently suburbanizing. During this period, the population of Bucks County is anticipated to grow by 16.0 percent; Burlington County by 12.4 percent. Total population in the DVRPC region grows 7.9 percent between 1997 and Employment is forecast to grow at a far greater rate than population in the 1-95 I Pennsylvania interchange study area, increasing 17.8 percent, although the absolute numbers are lower, 171,591 and 202,157 employees in 1997 and 2020, respectively.

28 18 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study Table 3: CURRENT AND FUTURE EMPLOYMENT IN THE STUDY AREA DVRPC 2020 DVRPC Change Municipality US Census Estimate Forecast Difference Percent Pennsylvania: Bensalem Twp 33,385 35,722 41,052 5, % Bristol Bora 8,292 7,951 8, Bristol Twp 20,631 20,675 25,565 4, Hulmeville Bora Langhorne Boro Langhorne Manor Boro 1,380 1,401 1, Lower Makefield Twp 3,077 3,389 3, Middletown Twp 19,479 23,633 32,000 8, Penndel Bora 1,039 1,039 1, Tullytown Boro 1,909 2,402 2, Far NE Philadelphia 54, , New Jersey: Total PA: 145, , ,021 24, Burlington City 5,648 5,678 6, Burlington Twp 10,147 10,302 14,869 4, Florence Twp 3,649 3,860 5,178 1, Total NJ: 19,444 19,840 26,136 6, Total Study Area: 164, , ,157 30, % As with population, the growth rate in New Jersey is higher than Pennsylvania (31.7% vs, 16.0%) but the base employment in Pennsylvania is much higher than that in New Jersey and the absolute growth in Pennsylvania is almost four times the New Jersey figure (24,270 vs. 6,296). Growth in employment is concentrated in growing suburban townships in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, while townships and boroughs with older development are stable. The exceptions to this rule are Far NE Philadelphia and Bensalem Township, where the availability of several large tracts of industrial I commercial zoned property are expected to accommodate development with large numbers of employees. At the county level, Bucks County's employment growth rate of 15.2 percent approximates the county's forecast population growth of 16.0 percent, while in Burlington County the 21.5 percent increase forecast for employment is a rate almost twice the 12.4 percent increase in population. The DVRPC region is forecast to add 480,000 jobs, an increase of 17.4 percent ov~r this period.

29 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study Supplemental Development Surcharge KCI Technologies staff contacted each municipality in the study area regarding information on proposed large land use developments in and around the interchange study area. These proposed developments were assigned to the appropriate traffic zone and summarized in terms of square footage, residents, employment, and other factors that affect trip generation. DVRPC staff then reviewed this list with respect to growth already included in the DVRPC Board adopted 2020 forecasts. Most of the proposed developments were already accounted for in the traffic zone level forecasts. However, some larger developments were not included in the DVRPC projections. The socio-economic data associated with these proposed developments were added as a surcharge to the DVRPC socio-economic forecasts. The DVRPC travel simulation models were used to convert the development surcharge to travel patterns. The list of proposed study area developments included in the surcharge is shown in Table 3. These proposals do not represent final approved plans. Market conditions, zoning changes, and redesign may have an effect on the ultimate type and magnitude of development; however, this list represents a reasonable picture of potential future development activity at this time. 3. Regional Travel Simulation Models Regional travel simulation models are used to forecast future travel patterns, as well as quantify the effects of various transportation projects and policies. They utilize a system of traffic zones and rely on demographic and employment data, land use, and transportation network characteristics to simulate trip making patterns throughout the region. Trip generation is the first step in the modeling process. Person, truck, and taxi trips are generated from traffic zone level forecasts of households and employment. This step of the process is carried out by the use of trip rates disaggregated by trip purpose (home base work, home base non-work, non-home based), auto ownership, and area type (CBD, CBD fringe, urban, suburban, rural and open rural). Estimates of externallocal and through highway travel are developed from population and employment estimates in counties surrounding the Delaware Valley Region. In the trip distribution step, travel from traffic zones within the region is allocated to destinations within the region with a gravity model. This model assumes that the propensity to travel to a zone of destination increases with the attractiveness of the destination (as measured by employment) and decreases as the difficulty of traveling to that zone increases. The travel effort (impedance) is measured by travel time and cost. for both the highway and transit modes.

30 20 Pennsylvania Turnpike /1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study Table 4: STUDY AREA DEVELOPMENT SURCHARGE Development Pennsylvania: Bensalem Twp: Kohl's Dept. Store The Marketplace Bensalem Crossing Giant Marketplace Horizon Corporate Ctr Middletown Township: Redner's Market Target Center Location. Street Rd & Shady La bounded by US 1, Rockhill Dr & Neshaminy Blvd Bristol & Hulmeville Rds Street & Mechanicsville Rds bounded by Rockhill Dr, Old Lincoln Hwy, US 1, & the PA Turnpike 1365 E. Lincoln Hwy, Levittown 2331 E. Lincoln Hwy, Langhorne Sq.Ft.1 Type 86,400 retail 346,000 retail 70,000 retail 100,000 retail 2,000,000 office 400 room hotel 275,000 retail Six 200 seat restaurants 56,000 retail 122,921 retail Villages at Flowers Mill bounded by N. Flowers Mill, Woodlane, 675 apartments Woodbourne Rd & US 1 New Jersey: Burlington Township: Park South Development (Golden Estates) Rancocas Estates Nob Burlington Kenosha Dev. Co. Steeplechase Calton Homes Florence Township: Warehouse Columbus Rd Rancocas Rd Columbus Rd Sunset & Rancocas Rds Bustleton, Columbus & Neck Rds Hancock & Bromley N. side of US 130 & Tpk Connection 85 single family residences 31 duplexes 24 senior apartments 87 single family residences 178 single family residences 173 single family residences 395 single family residences 184 apartments 64 condominiums 35 single family residences 110 townhouses 500,000 warehouse

31 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 21 The modal split model divides the travel between traffic zones within the region into transit and highway components. Generally, the tendency to use public transit increases with the relative transit-to-highway service levels. These relative service levels are estimated through highway and transit out-of-vehicle time, highway operating costs and parking charges, and transit fares. In addition, auto ownership, transit submode, household income, trip purpose, and the consumer price index further define the trip maker's choice between highway and transit. The final step in the process is to assign the estimated highway vehicle trips to specific facilities. This is accomplished by determining the best route (or minimum time) through the highway network and allocating trips to roadways. Because congestion levels must be considered in determining the best route, a capacity restrained assignment, based on the "equilibrium" traffic assignment technique, is used for this purpose. 4. Focused Simulation Process The regional assignments do not give the detailed forecasts of local streets not included in the regional highway network. These are very important at the project level. In order to improve the forecasting levels provided and to accommodate these special needs, an enhanced assignment technique focused on a detailed study area is used to produce corridor level highway and transit forecasts. This focused simulation process allows the use of DVRPC regional simulation models and increases the accuracy and detail of the travel forecasts within the detailed study area. At the same time, all existing and proposed highway and transit facilities and their impact on both regional and local travel patterns become an integral part of the simulation process. A focused approach was used to estimate traffic volumes based on the highway service levels provided by the interchange alternatives. Simulation zones inside the study area were subdivided, creating 18 new traffic zones. By this process, traffic from existing and proposed land use developments can be loaded more effectively on the network. 5. Validation of the Highway Assignment The final step in the preparation of the focused simulation process is the validation of the simulated highway assignment output using current traffic counts taken on roadways serving the study area. The focused simulation model was executed with inputs reflective of 1997 conditions and the results compared with recent traffic counts collected by DVRPC. Based on this analysis, the focused model produced reasonable daily traffic volumes. To establish the current travel demand for the area under influence of the proposed roadway access improvements, DVRPC gathered more information on current traffic

32 22 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study counts. Automatic Traffic Recorder equipment was set at 50 locations for a minimum of forty-eight (48) continuous hours. These traffic counts were then tabulated on a peak period and daily basis and factored to represent annual average daily traffic (MDT). These daily traffic counts form the basis for the validation of the travel simulation model. Table 5 summarizes the margin of error in the assigned daily highway link volumes. The current counts for locations on turnpike facilities, which include the Pennsylvania Turnpike, New Jersey Turnpike and the Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River, total 346,274 daily vehicles. The calibration traffic assignment for these same locations total 340,499 vehicles, yielding an error of percent. The same analysis of Interstate 95 included seven locations between Academy Rd and PA 332 as well as the 1-95 Spur to PA413. In aggregate the calibration produced an overassignment of 12.6 percent (515,028 assigned vs. 457,524 counted daily vehicles). There are two expressway facilities in the study area, the US 1 Expressway (US 1) and the Woodhaven Rd Expressway (PA 63). For these facilities, the calibration results show a 7.4 percent underassignment (282,628 assigned vs. 305,171 counted daily vehicles), although the underassignment was less on the US 1 Expressway (0.8%) than on the Woodhaven Rd Expressway (17.4%). A greater variation between the counted volumes and calibration assignments is evident among arterial, collector and local facilities, partly because there is a greater number of facilities in these categories. The arterial facilities in the study area include the Roosevelt Boulevard, US 1 Business (Lincoln Highway), Street Road (PA 132), New Rodgers Road (PA413), US 13, and US 130 in New Jersey. In total, arterial facilities were underassigned by 1.4 percent (664,106 assigned vs. 654,732 counted daily vehicles). Other facilities included in the calibration analysis included Hulmeville Pike (PA 513), Bath Road, Bensalem Boulevard, New Falls Road, Old Lincoln Highway, and State Road. For these facilities, the percentage error varied from 1.9 percent on State Road to 18.0 percent on Bath Road. These other facilities produced an error of 5.6 percent (197,546 assigned vs. 209,229 counted daily vehicles). In general the calibration error decreases in percent terms as the magnitude of the traffic volume being estimated increases. This is clearly shown in Table 6, which presents the root mean square deviation (RMS) and percent root mean square errors by volume group. The percent RMS error is reduced from 42.7 percent (5,000 to 10,000 daily vehicles) to 12.7 percent (>60,000 vehicles) as the traffic volumes being estimated increase. Although the percent RMS error for traffic volumes in the 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day group averages about 43 percent, this error represents only about 2,700 daily vehicles, an acceptable error for most planning and facility improvements. For traffic volumes greater than 10,000 daily vehicles, the calibration errors are smaller, ranging from 22.5 to 12.7 percent.

33 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 23 Table 5: PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE MODEL CALIBRATION ACCURACY Road AADT Current Assignment Percent Count Results Difference I. TURNPIKE FACILITIES: Pennsylvania Turnpike (1-276): -Int. 27 (PA 611) to Int. 28 (US 1) - Int. 28 (US 1) to Int. 29 (US 13) Delaware River Turnpike Bridge New Jersey Turnpike & Turnpike Extension: - Int. 6 (US 130) to Mainline (Extension) - Int. 5 (CR 541) to Extension - Extension to Int. 7 (US 206) Subtotal: Subtotal: TOTAL: 83,459 82, ,238 38, , , ,777 38, ,900 32, ,400 63, ,500 85, , , , , II. INTERSTATE FACILITIES: Interstate 95: 7 locations Academy Rd to PA 332 & 1-95 Spur to PA 413 TOTAL: 457, , III. EXPRESSWAY FACILITIES: US 1 Expressway: 3 locations Tpke Int. 28 (US 1) to Oxford Valley Rd Woodhaven Rd (PA 63): 2 locations US13toUS1 Subtotal: Subtotal: TOTAL: 184, , ,952 99, , , IV. ARTERIAL FACILITIES: Roosevelt Blvd (US 1): 3 locations Red Lion Rd (PA 63) to Tpke Int. 28 (US 1) US 1 Business (Lincoln Hwy): 3 locations Bellevue Ave (PA 413) to Oxford Valley Rd Subtotal: Subtotal: 207, , ,343 76,

34 24 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study Table 5: PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE MODEL CALIBRATION ACCURACY (Continued) Road AADT Current Assignment Percent Count Results Difference IV. ARTERIAL FACILITIES (Continued): Street Rd (PA 132): 5 locations US 13 to Brownsville Rd Subtotal: 170, , New Rodgers Rd (PA 413): 3 locations US 1 Business to US 13 & Burlington Bristol Bridge Subtotal: 95,088 90, US 13: 3 locations Franklin Ave to Green Lane Subtotal: 81,589 65, US 130: 2 locations either side of NJ Tpke Int. 6 (US 130) Subtotal: TOTAL: 41, ,106 35, , V. OTHER FACILITIES: Hulmeville Pike (PA 513): 3 locations US 13 to US 1 Business Subtotal: 34,968 40, Bath Rd: 2 locations US 13 to Ford Rd Subtotal: 31,831 26, Bensalem Blvd: 2 locations US 13 to New Falls Rd Subtotal: 28, , New Falls Rd: 3 locations PA 413 To Woodbourne Rd Subtotal: 55,897 50, Old Lincoln Highway: 2 locations either side of Street Rd (PA 132) Subtotal: 31,690 29, State Rd: 2 locations Street Rd (PA 132) to New Rodgers Rd (PA 413) Subtotal: 26,713 27, TOTAL: 209, ,

35 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 25 Table 6: CALIBRATION ROOT MEAN SQUARE DEVIATION (RMS) BY VOLUME GROUP Volume Group (Veh/day) 5,000-10,000 10,000-15,000 15,000-20,000 20,000-40,000 40,000-60,000 >60,000 Root Mean Squared Average Percent (RMS) Error RMS % % % % % % 6. Future Trip Table Preparation For this study, the focused 2020 trip table was prepared by disaggregating the socioeconomic inputs to the DVRPC trip generation model and surcharging these data to reflect the additional commercial development in the corridor not included in the DVRPC Board adopted 2020 forecast. Following this, the DVRPC model from trip generation through traffic assignment was executed for the No-Build scenario and the Build alternative. The resulting travel matrix includes all travel patterns throughout the Delaware Valley Region. Travel to and from all parts of Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery counties, Philadelphia, and New Jersey via the Delaware River bridges is included as are trips to/from the remainder of Pennsylvania and the state of Delaware.

36

37 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 27 V. TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS Projected average daily traffic volumes for selected highway links within the study area are presented and analyzed in this part of the report. Forecasts for two future years are presented; the anticipated opening year (2005) and the design year (2025), which is twenty years beyond the opening year. Traffic volumes for 2005 were found by applying a formula to the current and 2020 volumes; traffic volumes for 2025 were found by extrapolating from the 2020 volumes. Figure 4 on page 30 displays the current counts and 2025 No-Build alternative traffic forecasts for study area roadways. Individual Pennsylvania Turnpike and 1:-95 interchanges' ramp volumes and forecasts are shown on Figures 5 through 8. A comparison of the Build and No-Build forecasts for 2025 are displayed on Figures 9 through 13. In a similar fashion, the 2005 Build and No-Build forecasts are presented on figures 15 through 18. The proposed interchanges ramp volumes are presented on Figures 14 and 20 for 2025 and 2005 respectively. 1. Analysis of 2025 Traffic Forecasts Current traffic volumes and year 2025 traffic forecasts on study area roadways under the No-Build and Build Alternatives are presented in Table 7. a. No-Build Alternative As shown in Table 7, corridor traffic for the Year 2025 under the No-Build Alternative is forecast to increase significantly. This is due to regional growth trends and planned development within the study area. On the Pennsylvania Turnpike west of interchange 28 (US 1), the traffic volume increases by 21,600 (25.9%) to a total of 105,100 vehicles; on the east side of the interchange site, the increase is almost as great at 17,900 vehicles (44.5%), although the absolute number is lower at 58,100 vehicles; on the turnpike bridge the volume increase is 12,600 vehicles (35.2%) to 48,400 vehicles. The New Jersey Turnpike extension from the bridge to the turnpike mainline is forecast to add 6,600 vehicles for a total of 36,500. Although much lower than the growth on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, this nonetheless translates to an increase of 22.1 percent. The New Jersey Turnpike mainline south and north of the connection to the Pennsylvania Turnpike is forecast to add 11,900 (17.9%) and 16,800 (18.6%) vehicles, respectively. Table 7 shows that the traffic growth on 1-95 is also significant (8,700 to 14,600 daily vehicles). South of Woodhaven Rd the increase is 13,900 (11.6%) for a total of 133,900 vehicles. The increase is largest between Woodhaven Rd and Street Rd, where the increase is 14,600 (17.9%). vehicles per day. A growth of 13,000 vehicles (18.3%) is forecast from Street Rd to the PA 413 connection. The growth on 1-95

38 Current Current Current No- # % # % Roadwav Se~ment Count Build Difference Difference Build Difference Difference Pennsylvania Turnpike (1-276): - Int. 27 (PA 611) to Int. 28 (US 1) 83, ,100 21, ,800 6, Int. 28 (US 1) to 1-95 Intch. 40,200 58,100 17, ,100 15, ~95 Intch. to Int. 29 (US 13) 40,200 58,100 17, ,500 19, Delaware River Turnpike Bridge 35,800 48,400 12, ,300 18, I~ ::J Table 7: A COMPARISON OF 2025 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES UNDER THE NO-BUILD & BUILD AL TERNATIVES (ADT) N (Xl I TURNPIKES New Jersey Turnpike.W -Int. 6 (US 130) to Mainline (Extension) 29,900 36,500 6, ,900 11, Int. 5 (CR 541) to Extension 66,400 78,300.11, ,400 5, Extension to Int. 7 (US 206) 90, ,300 16, ,600 6, INTERSTATES ~ -... Interstate 95 CD - Academy Rd to Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) 120, ,900 13, ,500 3, "U - Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) to Street Rd (PA 132) 81,500 96,100 14, ,400 5, a - Street Rd (PA 132) to PA ,900 83,900 13, ,100 7, PA 413 to Turnpike Interchange 48,900 61,400 12, ,100 15, w CD - Turnpike Interchange to US 1 Business 48,900 61,400 12, ,400 10, a. - US 1 Business to US 1 Expressway 48,600 57,300 8, ,200 5, " - US 1 Expressway to PA ,700 68,200 13, ,300 1, Connection to PA ,800 42,800 10, ,200-2, ~ CD -! OTHER CORRIDOR ROADWAYS,iil 31 0 Roosevelt Boulevard (US 1): - south of Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) 56,300 72,400 16, ,900 1, north of Woodhaven Rd (PA 63) 72,300 82,100 9, , Street Rd (PA 132) to Turnpike Int. 28 (US 1) 78,400 94,400 16, ,200-9, CD 0 :::J I~

39

40

41

42

43

44

45 Pennsylvania Turnpike Proposed Interchange Traffic Study 35 north and south of the interchange site generates growth of only 12,500 vehicles; however, this represents the largest percentage increase in traffic on 1-95 (25.6%). The lowest numerical growth occurs between US 1 Business and the US1 Expressway, where only 8,700 additional vehicles are forecast in the No-Build Alternative. Traffic increases on all of the study arterial and collector roadways, although the variation in growth is greater than that estimated for the turnpike and At the low end is the Burlington Bristol Bridge, which grows by only 2.2 percent between the current situation and the No-Build Alternative. At the other extreme is US 130, where population and employment growth in Burlington and Florence townships produce traffic growth rates of 52.1 and 61.2 percent, respectively, south and north of the turnpike connection. Large percentage growths in traffic are also forecast for PA 413 and US 1 Business (approximately 30 to 50% depending on the location), although the relatively small base traffic volume tends to exaggerate growth on these facilities. Large numerical growth is forecast for Woodhaven Rd and Roosevelt Boulevard (between 16,000 and 18,500 vehicles). b. Build Alternative Construction of the interchange between the Pennsylvania Turnpike and 1-95 produces significant shifts in traffic throughout the study area. The interchange itself is forecast to handle 57,200 vehicles a day in 2025, with the highest volumes being between the south to east quadrants (11,100 vehicles each way). The second highest movement is between the north and west quadrants, where 8,400 vehicles travel each way per day. The-remaining movements, between the west and south and between the north and east, generate less than 5,000 vehicles per day. Traffic effects on the Pennsylvania Turnpike diminish rapidly as distance from the interchange increases. The highest absolute growth in traffic occurs on the segment between the 1-95 interchange and Interchange 29, US 13; here traffic volumes increase by 19,400 (33.4%) over the No-Build Alternative volume of 58,100 vehicles. Almost as high an increase in volume (18,900 vehicles) is experienced on the turnpike bridge. This location has the highest percentage increase in traffic in the study area at 39.0 percent The increase west of the 1-95 interchange to Interchange 28 is not as great at 15,000 vehicles (25.8%) but is still large. West of Interchange 28 the increase between the No-Build and Build Alternatives is only 6,700 vehicles, a 6.4 percent increase over the No-Build volume of 105,100 vehicles. Between Interchange 6 (US 130) and the New Jersey Turnpike mainline volume increases by 11,400 vehicles (31.2%) with more than half of this increase (6,300 vehicles) also utilizing the New Jersey Turnpike north of the connection and 5,100 additional vehicles oriented to and from the south on the New Jersey Turnpike.

46 36 Pennsylvania Turnpike / 1-95 Proposed Interchange Traffic Study The greatest increase, in both absolute and percentage terms, on 1-95 occurs on the link between the new interchange and the 1-95 connection to PA 413. An extra 15,700 vehicles (increase of 25.6%) use this link under the Build Alternative. Upon examination, it is easy to see the reason for this increase: Currently, traffic on 1-95 destined for the New Jersey Turnpike uses the 1-95 connection to PA 413, thence PA 413, US 13 and Interchange 29 of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The new interchange provides a direct connection replacing these movements. Increases in traffic on 1-95 south of the PA 413 connection dissipate rapidly: Between the PA 413 connection and PA 132 the increase is 7,200 vehicles (8.6%); between PA 132 and PA 63 the increase is 5,300 vehicles (5.5%) and south of PA 63 the increase is 3,600 vehicles (2.7%). Part of this is attributable to traffic which currently uses Interchange 28 (US 1) and either PA 132 or PA 63 for movements between 1-95 south of the interchange site and points west of Interchange 28 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The same effect is apparent on 1-95 north of the interchange location. An increase of 10,000 vehicles (16.3%) is forecast between the 1-95 interchange and US 1 Business; between US 1 Business and US 1 Expressway the increase is 5,900 vehicles (10.3%) and north of US 1 Expressway this increase is 1,100 vehicles (1.6%). Traffic between the north and west quadrants of the interchange currently is served by Interchange 28 and either US 1 Expressway or US 1 Business. Most arterials and collectors in the study area experience traffic relief due to the construction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange. The greatest reductions occur on US 1 on either side of Interchange 28: Volumes decline between the No-Build and Build Alternatives by 9,200 (9.7%) and 5,500 (6.5%) vehicles south and north, of Interchange 28, respectively. Almost as great are the reductions on PA 413 south and north of the 1-95 connection to PA 413: Reductions of 4,300 (11.7%) and 2,600 (8.0%) are registered. In both of these situations, traffic using the new interchange is diverted out of these existing interchanges. Reductions are also apparent on US 1 Expressway, US 1 Business, PA 63 and PA 132, routes which are mentioned above as the facilities where traffic reroutes through the interchange. US 130 in New Jersey would experience traffic increases due to the interchange, where volumes increase by approximately 5,000 vehicles (15.0%) due to easier access via the new interchange, turnpike bridge and US 130 free interchange on the turnpike connection. Traffic is dynamic, and congestion or relief of one trip pattern often leads to changes in other trip patterns. Congestion at Interchange 28 in the No-Build Alternative causes some trips to use local arterials to travel to destinations. The relief afforded by the new interchange frees up capacity at Interchange 28, drawing some of this traffic onto the turnpike. For instance, although PA 132, Street Rd experiences a loss of 1-95 bound traffic to the new interchange, trips which previously avoided Interchange 28 in favor of local routing now find it more convenient to utilize the turnpike. Other trips replace those lost to the new interchange and the result is no change on the segment of PA 132 immediately east of Roosevelt Boulevard.