I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital

Beltway

Intermediate Traffic

and Revenue Study

- FINAL REPORT-

Presented to:

Submitted By:

September 2015

Cover Letter

Tollway Towers North, Suite 870 15770 North Dallas Parkway Ali K. Soroush, Ph.D. Dallas, TX 75248 Project Manager Tel: 214-245-5300 [email protected] Fax: 214-889-5049

Date: September 23, 2015

To: Morteza Farajian, Ph.D. Program Manager Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships Virginia Department of Transportation

Subject: I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report

Dear Mr. Farajian, C&M Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the Final Report of the I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study. This report presents an overview of the proposed project, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and socioeconomic data in the project area, and an overview of field data collection and analyses. The report also presents details regarding the modeling approach, methodology, and, most importantly, the traffic and revenue forecast. The C&M project team expresses its sincere gratitude to VDOT for providing the opportunity to participate in this project.

Respectfully,

Carlos M. Contreras, MBA Ali Soroush, Ph.D. President Project Manager

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study

Prepared For:

By:

Final Report

September 2015 Disclaimer

The results of this study constitute the opinion of C&M with respect to the tolled facility’s future traffic and revenue. The traffic and revenue projections provided in this report were developed based on standard professional practices and the information available at the time the study was executed, subject to the time and budget constraints of the study’s scope of work. C&M reasonably relied on the accuracy and completeness of information provided (both written and orally) by the Virginia Department of Transportation and independent parties. C&M is unaware of any material facts that would call into question the information that was received. Publicly available material has not been independently verified, and C&M does not assume responsibility for verifying such material. As with any forecast, differences between projected and actual outcomes may occur due to future events and circumstances outside of C&M’s control. C&M cannot guarantee or ensure future events in connection to this traffic and revenue forecast, though the projections and other forward-looking statements included herein are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date this study was completed. The information and results presented in this report should be considered as a whole. Selecting portions of any individual result without considering the intent of the whole may promote a misleading or incomplete view of this study’s findings and the methodologies used to obtain these findings. C&M does not endorse the value or merit of partial information extracted from this report.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study iii FINAL REPORT Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Disclaimer ...... iii Table of Contents ...... iv List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xi Executive Summary ...... ES-1 1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1. Project Description and Alignment 1-1 1.2. Project Benefits 1-2 1.3. Previous Studies 1-2 1.4. Basic Study Information 1-3 1.5. Study Area 1-3 1.6. Organization of the Report 1-4 2. Existing Information and Field Data ...... 2-1 2.1. Existing Roadway Network 2-1 2.1.1. I-66 ...... 2-1 2.1.2. I-495 ...... 2-2 2.1.3. Route 267 ...... 2-2 2.1.4. US 15...... 2-2 2.1.5. US 50...... 2-2 2.1.6. US 29...... 2-2 2.1.7. Route 28 ...... 2-3 2.1.8. Route 286 ...... 2-3 2.1.9. Route 123 ...... 2-3 2.1.10. Route 243 ...... 2-3 2.2. Historical Traffic Trends 2-3 2.3. Field Data Review 2-6 2.3.1. Traffic Count Data ...... 2-7 2.3.2. Traffic Profiles ...... 2-15 2.3.3. INRIX Speed Data ...... 2-24 2.3.4. Travel Time Data ...... 2-27

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study iv FINAL REPORT Table of Contents

2.3.5. Bluetooth Origin-Destination Data ...... 2-29 2.3.6. AirSage Data ...... 2-31 2.3.7. I-495 Express Lanes ...... 2-32 3. Socioeconomic Review & Projections ...... 3-1 3.1. Introduction 3-1 3.1.1. Population ...... 3-3 3.1.2. Number of Households ...... 3-6 3.1.3. Employment ...... 3-8 3.1.4. Median Household Income ...... 3-11 3.2. Future Year Socioeconomic Projections 3-13 3.2.1. Population Projections ...... 3-13 3.2.2. Households Projections ...... 3-21 3.2.3. Employment Projections ...... 3-27 4. Modeling Methodology ...... 4-1 4.1. Overview of Modeling Methodology 4-1 4.2. Overview of the MWCOG TDM 4-1 4.3. MWCOG TDM Adoption and Modification 4-5 4.4. MWCOG TDM Validation 4-5 4.4.1. Trip Generation ...... 4-5 4.4.2. Trip Distribution ...... 4-6 4.4.3. Mode Choice ...... 4-8 4.4.4. Traffic Assignment ...... 4-9 4.5. Base Year Model Calibration 4-9 4.5.1. Volume Calibration ...... 4-9 4.5.2. Speed and Travel Time Calibration ...... 4-19 4.5.3. Origin-Destination Calibration ...... 4-22 4.6. Future Year Models 4-24 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast ...... 5-1 5.1. Toll Diversion Program and Value of Time (VOT) 5-1 5.2. Validation of the Estimated VOT 5-3 5.3. Toll Diversion Curves 5-4 5.4. Toll Collection System and Schedule 5-5 5.5. Project Configuration and Toll Treatment 5-5

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study v FINAL REPORT Table of Contents

5.6. Revenue Maximization 5-7 5.7. Traffic and Revenue Assumptions 5-8 5.8. Traffic and Revenue Results 5-10 5.8.1. CRA High Scenario ...... 5-10 5.8.2. MWCOG Baseline Scenario ...... 5-13 5.8.3. CRA Mid Scenario ...... 5-15 5.8.1. CRA Low Scenario ...... 5-17 5.8.2. Scenario Comparisons ...... 5-19 Appendix A: Socio-Economic Data Review and Forecast

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study vi FINAL REPORT

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – MWCOG Baseline Scenario ...... ES-5 Table ES-2. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA High Scenario ...... ES-6 Table ES-3. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Mid Scenario ...... ES-7 Table ES-4. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Low Scenario ...... ES-8 Table 2-1. Historical AADT along I-66 ...... 2-5 Table 2-2. Travel Demand Model Time Periods ...... 2-8 Table 2-3. Weekday Traffic Count Summary by Direction – 2013 ...... 2-9 Table 2-4. Weekday Traffic Count Summary by Direction – 2014 ...... 2-10 Table 2-5. Bluetooth OD Survey Station Locations ...... 2-30 Table 2-6. Percentage Bluetooth ODs Matched ...... 2-31 Table 2-7. Bluetooth Capture Rates ...... 2-31 Table 2-8. Quarterly Daily Trips, Dynamic Toll, and Total Toll Revenue ...... 2-32 Table 3-1. Historical Population Trends within MWCOG Model Area ...... 3-4 Table 3-2. Historical Household Trends ...... 3-6 Table 3-3. Historical Employment Trends ...... 3-8 Table 3-4. Historical Median Household Income Trends (Nominal Dollars) ...... 3-11 Table 3-5. Study Area Population Forecasts by Source ...... 3-14 Table 3-6. Regional Population Projections by Source ...... 3-15 Table 3-7. Study Area Household Forecasts by Source ...... 3-21 Table 3-8. Regional Household Projections by Source ...... 3-22 Table 3-9. Study Area Employment Forecasts by Source ...... 3-27 Table 3-10. Regional Employment Projections by Source ...... 3-28 Table 4-1 Time-of-Day Periods in MWCOG TDM ...... 4-4 Table 4-2. MWCOG TDM Trip Share by Purpose ...... 4-6 Table 4-3. MWCOG TDM Average Trip Length (in minutes) ...... 4-7 Table 4-4. Trip Percentages by Automobile ...... 4-8 Table 4-5. Person Trip Percentages by Public Transit...... 4-8 Table 4-6. Comparison of Model Daily Screenline Volumes and Counts along I-66 Corridor. 4-12 Table 4-7. Comparison of Model Daily Volumes and Counts for I-66 along the Corridor ...... 4-13 Table 4-8. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (AM) ...... 4-14 Table 4-9. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (MD)...... 4-15 Table 4-10. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (PM) ...... 4-16 Table 4-11. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (NT) ...... 4-17

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study vii FINAL REPORT List of Tables

Table 4-12. Comparison of Model Volumes and Counts along I-66 by Vehicle Class ...... 4-18 Table 4-13. Peak Hour Capacity Conversion Factors ...... 4-19 Table 4-14. Bluetooth OD Survey Sample Size and Capture Rate ...... 4-22 Table 4-15. Comparison of Modeled and Observed OD Percentages ...... 4-23 Table 4-16. Network Improvements in the Study Area from 2014 to 2040 ...... 4-26 Table 4-17. Traffic Growth Rates along Screenlines for All Facilities and I-66 Alone ...... 4-30 Table 5-1. Household Income Growth ...... 5-3 Table 5-2. VOTs for the MWCOG Baseline and CRA High Scenarios (in 2013 Dollars) ...... 5-4 Table 5-3. Toll Diversion Model Coefficients and VOTs for CRA High Scenario – 2022 ...... 5-4 Table 5-4. Assumptions for the CRA High Scenario ...... 5-11 Table 5-5. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA High Scenario ...... 5-12 Table 5-6. Assumptions for the MWCOG Baseline Scenario ...... 5-13 Table 5-7. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – MWCOG Baseline Scenario ...... 5-14 Table 5-8. Assumptions for the CRA Mid Scenario ...... 5-15 Table 5-9. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Mid Scenario ...... 5-16 Table 5-10. Assumptions for the CRA Low Scenario ...... 5-17 Table 5-11. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Low Scenario ...... 5-18

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study viii FINAL REPORT

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Project Location and Study Area ...... 1-4 Figure 2-1. Historical AADT along I-66 ...... 2-4 Figure 2-2. 2013 AADT along I-66...... 2-6 Figure 2-3. Locations of Collected Traffic Counts ...... 2-7 Figure 2-4. Daily Traffic Counts by Direction along I-66 – 2013 ...... 2-11 Figure 2-5. Daily Traffic Counts by Direction along I-66 – 2014 ...... 2-12 Figure 2-6. Traffic Counts along I-66 by Time Period and Direction – 2013 ...... 2-13 Figure 2-7. Traffic Counts along I-66 by Time Period and Direction – 2014 ...... 2-14 Figure 2-8. Daily Traffic Counts along I-495 by Direction – 2014 ...... 2-15 Figure 2-9. Average Weekday Daily Auto Traffic Profiles along I-66 ...... 2-16 Figure 2-10. Average Weekday Daily Auto Traffic Profiles along I-495 ...... 2-19 Figure 2-11. Average Weekday Daily Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-66 ...... 2-20 Figure 2-12. Average Weekday Daily Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-495 ...... 2-23 Figure 2-13. Speed Heat Map – Eastbound ...... 2-25 Figure 2-14. Speed Heat Map – Westbound ...... 2-26 Figure 2-15. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – AM Eastbound...... 2-28 Figure 2-16. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – PM Eastbound...... 2-28 Figure 2-17. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – AM Westbound...... 2-29 Figure 2-18. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – PM Westbound...... 2-29 Figure 2-19. Bluetooth OD Survey Station Locations ...... 2-30 Figure 2-20. I-495 Alignment ...... 2-33 Figure 2-21. Northbound and Southbound I-495 Express Lane Capture Rate: Gallows Rd and Lee Hwy ...... 2-34 Figure 2-22. Northbound and Southbound I-495 Express Lane Capture Rate: I-66 and Leesburg Pike ...... 2-35 Figure 3-1. MWCOG Model Area and I-66 Project Study Area ...... 3-2 Figure 3-2. Population CAGR: 2000–2013 ...... 3-5 Figure 3-3. Household CAGR: 2000–2013 ...... 3-7 Figure 3-4. Employment from 2000 to 2013 (MWCOG Model) ...... 3-9 Figure 3-5. Employment CAGR: 2000–2013 ...... 3-10 Figure 3-6. Median Household Income (Nominal Dollars) CAGR: 2000–2013 ...... 3-12 Figure 3-7. Fairfax County Population Projections ...... 3-16 Figure 3-8. MWCOG Population Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2010-2015 ...... 3-18 Figure 3-9. MWCOG Population Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2015-2020 ...... 3-19

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ix FINAL REPORT List of Figures

Figure 3-10. MWCOG Population Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2020-2040 ...... 3-20 Figure 3-11. Fairfax County Household Forecast by Source ...... 3-23 Figure 3-12. MWCOG Household Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2010-2015 ...... 3-24 Figure 3-13. MWCOG Household Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2015-2020 ...... 3-25 Figure 3-14. MWCOG Household Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2020-2040 ...... 3-26 Figure 3-15. Fairfax Employment Projections ...... 3-29 Figure 3-16. MWCOG Employment Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2010-2015 ...... 3-30 Figure 3-17. MWCOG Employment Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2015-2020 ...... 3-31 Figure 3-18. MWCOG Employment Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2020-2040 ...... 3-32 Figure 4-1. C&M Modeling Methodology Flowchart ...... 4-1 Figure 4-2. MWCOG TDM Zone Structure ...... 4-3 Figure 4-3. MWCOG TDM Trip Length Distribution ...... 4-7 Figure 4-4. MWCOG TDM Nested Logit Model ...... 4-8 Figure 4-5. Screenline Location Map ...... 4-11 Figure 4-6. Cumulative Travel Times on I-66 General Purpose Lanes, by Direction and Peak Period ...... 4-20 Figure 4-7. I-66 Cumulative Travel Times on I-66 HOV Lanes, by Direction and Peak Period ...... 4-21 Figure 4-8. Network Improvements within the Study Area from 2012 to 2040 ...... 4-25 Figure 5-1. Toll Diversion Curves – 2022 Work Trip ...... 5-5 Figure 5-2. Lane Configuration and Gantry Locations in Travel Demand Model – Stick Diagram Version ...... 5-6 Figure 5-3. 2022 CRA High Scenario Revenue Sensitivity to Toll Rate – Gantry 4 AM EB ...... 5-7 Figure 5-4. 2040 CRA High Scenario Revenue Sensitivity to Toll Rate – Gantry 4 AM EB ...... 5-8 Figure 5-5. Projected Annual Toll-Paying Trips by Scenario...... 5-19 Figure 5-6. Projected Annual Revenue by Scenario ...... 5-19

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study x FINAL REPORT List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym/Abbreviation Description AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AAWDT Annual Average Weekday Traffic ACS American Community Survey ADT Average Daily Traffic APV Airport Trips BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BUS Business C&M C&M Associates, Inc. CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate CLRP Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan COM Commercial CPI Consumer Price Index CRA George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis D.C. District of Columbia DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DOT Department of Transportation DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation E-E External-to-External E-I External-to-Internal EIS Environmental Impact Statement ETC Electronic Toll Collection FHWA Federal Highway Administration GDP Gross Domestic Product GP General Purpose GPL General Purpose Lane HBO Home-Based Other HBS Home-Based Shopping HBW Home-Based Work HOT High Occupancy Toll HOV High Occupancy Vehicle HOV2 High Occupancy Vehicle, Two Occupants HOV3+ High Occupancy Vehicle, Three or More Occupants HTK Heavy Trucks

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study xi FINAL REPORT List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

I Interstate IJR Interchange Justification Report KNR Kiss & Ride MAC Migration Access Code MD Midday Moody’s Moody’s Analytics MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTK Medium Trucks MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments NHB Non-Home-Based NHO Non-Home-Based Other NHTS National Household Travel Survey NHW Non-Home-Based Work NT Nighttime OD Origin-Destination PNR Park & Ride RITIS Regional Integrated Transportation Information System SOV Single Occupant Vehicle T&R Traffic and Revenue TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDM Travel Demand Model TPB Transportation Planning Board US U.S. Route VDF Volume-Delay Function VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation VOT Value of Time VPD Vehicles per Day VPH Vehicles per Hour VTM Virginia Transportation Modeling W&P Woods & Poole Economics

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study xii FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are proposing to convert a 25-mile segment of Interstate 66 (I- 66) into an express lane facility. This report documents the Intermediate Level Traffic and Revenue (T&R) Study conducted by C&M Associates, Inc. for the proposed I-66 Express Lanes Project (the Project). The study seeks to aid Mercator Advisors by providing an independent toll revenue forecast of the Project over a 40-year concession period.

ES.1. Project Description I-66 is part of the national Interstate Highway System and runs in an east-west direction from Middletown, VA to Washington, DC. The Project is an approximately 25-mile segment of I-66 between U.S. Route 15 (US 15; James Madison Highway) in Prince William County, VA to the west and I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County, VA to the east. The western section of the Project corridor is located in a more rural area compared to the eastern section, which is primarily an urban setting. The objective of the Project is to transform this 25-mile segment of I-66 into a multimodal facility that permits users to move more efficiently by providing several travel choices, including express lanes. The Project is also aimed at enhancing transportation safety and travel reliability. The I-66 express lanes will allow free use by carpoolers in high occupancy vehicles with three or more occupants (HOV3+) as well as buses, motorcycles, and emergency vehicles. Vehicles with less than three passengers will be required to pay a toll that varies based on demand and congestion (i.e., congestion pricing). The toll rate changes throughout the day in response to real-time traffic conditions; this varying toll rate is intended to manage the traffic and keep the facility operating at free-flow speed. The price increases during peak periods, when demand is greater, and decreases during less congested times. This study assumes a revenue-maximizing tolling strategy; in other words, the Project’s tolls will be set to maximize the revenue generated by the facility. According to the proposed express lanes configuration, there will be ten preliminary access points along the I-66 corridor, including the two termini. The proposed Project includes one intermediate interchange with direct connectors at crossing road Sully Road (Route 28) in Fairfax County and six intermediate interchanges with on-off ramps. In addition to express lanes, the Project scope includes rapid bus service and additional park-and-ride (PNR) lots. Under the proposed plan, I-66 would be improved to provide the following:  Three regular lanes in each direction  Two express lanes in each direction that would support: − Toll-paying customers − HOV3+ users, exempt from tolls − High-frequency and high-quality bus service

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-1 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

 Enhanced commuter PNR lots  Direct access between the express lanes and new or expanded commuter lots The current Project schedule proposed by VDOT is as follows:  Late 2015: Final environmental document  2016: Design public hearing  Late 2016: Final contract and funding  2017: Construction start  2021: Open to traffic

ES.2. Basic Study Information The study area encompasses the District of Columbia and Arlington, Clark, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties, as well as the independent cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park. The portion of I-66 being studied for the express lane facility is located in Fairfax County and Prince William County. The T&R study results are expressed in annual toll transactions and toll revenue over a 40-year period beginning in 2021. The following sections summarize the components of this T&R study.

ES.3. Review of Existing Information and Field Data Collection As detailed in Chapter 2, C&M analyzed existing information and field data in an effort to calibrate and validate the traffic conditions simulated in the travel demand model (TDM). In order to evaluate and model current traffic conditions within the study area, C&M reviewed annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts provided by VDOT. C&M also reviewed a variety of traffic data collected for the purposes of this study. The data collection process was a collaborative effort by C&M and the Tier II Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Study team to aid this Traffic and Revenue Study, the Tier II EIS Study, and the Interchange Justification Report (IJR) Study. In November 2013, C&M collected traffic count data on I-66 and selected arterials. These data were complemented by the EIS Study team’s data collection in 2014. Other traffic data collected by the Tier II EIS Study team include the following:  Travel time study data  Bluetooth Origin-Destination (OD) data  AirSage OD data Additionally, data that were available to C&M from other sources include the following:  Permanent counts and AADTs from VDOT’s Traffic Counts Program  INRIX speed data from the Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS)

 I-495 Express Lanes reports from https://www.495expresslanes.com

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-2 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

ES.4. Socioeconomic Review As detailed in Chapter 3, C&M reviewed socioeconomic data from the following public and private sources:  Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s (MWCOG) Round 8.3 Cooperative Forecasts  U.S. Census Bureau (Census)  Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  Woods & Poole Economics (W&P)  Moody’s Analytics (Moody’s)  George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis (CRA) In addition to historical socioeconomic data, MWCOG, W&P, Moody’s, and CRA also provided socioeconomic projections that can be used as inputs to the TDM for future years. For the purposes of this study, CRA was retained by VDOT to conduct a socioeconomic review and develop projections for counties associated with the study corridor. C&M utilized MWCOG’s Round 8.3 socioeconomic projections to develop the MWCOG Baseline scenario T&R forecasts, while CRA’s three socioeconomic projections were used in the CRA Low, CRA Mid, and CRA High scenario T&R forecasts. In their efforts, CRA examined the current situation and the projected future socioeconomic trends that will affect population, households, and employment in jurisdictions associated with the I- 66 study corridor up to 2040. CRA’s forecasts were adapted from the MWCOG’s Round 8.3 projections and adjusted according to various data sources. In addition to the varying projections of socioeconomic data used as inputs to the model for T&R forecasts, several other key inputs (e.g., VOT, transaction and revenue factors) vary between the four scenarios mentioned above. As part of this socioeconomic review, C&M analyzed the historical county-level socioeconomic patterns that were obtained from the above-listed sources. Through this process, C&M validated the socioeconomic projections by MWCOG and CRA and compared them to projections by W&P and Moody’s. The collected data at the county level was also compared to other data sets and used to develop socioeconomic data at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level for future year models.

ES.5. Travel Demand Model Calibration and Validation As detailed in Chapter 4, C&M adopted the MWCOG Transportation Planning Board Travel Forecasting Model (i.e., the MWCOG TDM) as the basis for its analysis. The latest version of the MWCOG TDM was adopted, modified, calibrated, and validated to predict the likelihood that a traveler would utilize the proposed Project, thus enabling it to determine future traffic demand and, ultimately, final T&R forecasts. The MWCOG TDM, Version 2.3, Build 57 is a four-step TDM that incorporates a travel time feedback loop. It contains 3,722 TAZs, including 47 external stations. In adopting the

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-3 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

MWCOG TDM for the purposes of this study, C&M selected 2013 as the base year considering the latest AADT data and socioeconomic data available at the time the study was initiated. Additionally, the years 2022 and 2040 were chosen as intermediate and horizon model years, respectively. Prior to the four-step modeling validation process, C&M developed the base year 2013 network. This network was developed using the MWCOG TDM’s original 2015 base year network while accounting for and removing any network improvements beyond the year 2013. The updated attributes and characteristics of the 2013 network were verified and revised, when deemed necessary, in order to ensure its consistency with the study area’s existing roadway system in 2013. Based on the validated and calibrated base year 2013 model, as well as the projected socioeconomic data at the TAZ level, C&M estimated the Project’s tolled demand using its toll diversion program, which is embedded within the assignment procedure of the sub- area (i.e., study area) models.

ES.6. Traffic and Revenue Forecast As detailed in Chapter 5, C&M produced T&R forecasts for the proposed Project representing the 40-year concession period of operation. C&M used a macroscopic TDM to produce the T&R forecasts. A logit function (i.e., toll diversion model) within the TDM predicts the behavior of travelers in selecting general purpose (GP) lanes versus express lanes, taking into account travel times on each segment, the toll rate, and the value of time (VOT), or willingness to pay, of drivers in different trip purpose segments. For this analysis, nine tolling segments were assumed on the mainlanes of I-66. Different charges were applied at each toll gantry due to the different time savings that each express lane segment might offer. In this effort, C&M incorporated the results of its traffic data analysis and utilized a series of assumptions regarding toll system implementation and enforcement. Additionally, C&M’s T&R analysis was conducted with the assumption that exit ramps and entrance ramps will be built with proper geometric configurations to ensure that traffic is not negatively affected. In order to develop a final T&R forecast, the traffic volumes from the TDM were entered into a post-processing model. In the post-processing model, toll rate and transactions were adjusted to maintain express lane operation levels; other adjustment factors such as traffic ramp-up, electronic toll collection (ETC) penetration, and ETC leakage were incorporated in order to produce final annual T&R numbers. The post-processing model also interpolates or extrapolates T&R values for the years that are not modeled. Projected annual T&R forecasts were produced for four scenarios—the MWCOG Baseline, CRA Low, CRA Mid, and CRA High. The MWCOG Baseline scenario was developed based on MWCOG’s socioeconomic projections, while the other three scenarios were based on the three levels of CRA’s socioeconomic projections (see Chapter 3) as well as different assumptions in some key factors (VOT, transaction and revenue factors, etc.). A toll transaction occurs at each toll gantry; therefore, a toll-paying trip may travel through several gantries and include several toll transactions. All revenue is expressed in 2013 dollars.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-4 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

The annual T&R forecast for the MWCOG Baseline scenario is presented in Table ES- 1. In 2021, the Project is expected to generate over $48 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 13 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 22 million, and to more than 24 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $109 million by 2040 and $155 million by 2060.

Table ES- 1. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – MWCOG Baseline Scenario

Year Annual Trips (Thousands) Annual Revenue (Thousands 2013 $'s)

2021 12,947 $48,532 2022 16,847 $65,129 2023 18,939 $74,566 2024 19,155 $76,415 2025 19,368 $78,283 2026 19,577 $80,171 2027 19,782 $82,078 2028 19,983 $84,005 2029 20,181 $85,952 2030 20,375 $87,917 2031 20,565 $89,901 2032 20,752 $91,904 2033 20,934 $93,925 2034 21,114 $95,964 2035 21,289 $98,021 2036 21,461 $100,096 2037 21,629 $102,189 2038 21,793 $104,298 2039 21,954 $106,425 2040 22,110 $108,568 2041 22,264 $110,728 2042 22,413 $112,904 2043 22,559 $115,096 2044 22,701 $117,304 2045 22,839 $119,527 2046 22,974 $121,766 2047 23,105 $124,019 2048 23,232 $126,287 2049 23,355 $128,569 2050 23,475 $130,865 2051 23,591 $133,175 2052 23,704 $135,498 2053 23,812 $137,835 2054 23,917 $140,184 2055 24,018 $142,545 2056 24,116 $144,919 2057 24,210 $147,305 2058 24,300 $149,702 2059 24,386 $152,110 2060 24,469 $154,529

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-5 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

The annual T&R forecast for the CRA High scenario is presented in Table ES-1. In the opening year 2021, C&M forecasts that the Project is expected to generate more than $55 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 14 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 26 million, and to more than 30 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $142 million by 2040 and $249 million by 2060.

Table ES-1. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA High Scenario

Year Annual Trips (Thousands) Annual Revenue (Thousands 2013$) 2021 13,955 $55,284 2022 18,287 $74,387 2023 20,696 $85,453 2024 21,067 $87,925 2025 21,432 $90,494 2026 21,791 $93,163 2027 22,144 $95,934 2028 22,492 $98,807 2029 22,834 $101,785 2030 23,170 $104,868 2031 23,500 $108,057 2032 23,824 $111,355 2033 24,142 $114,761 2034 24,455 $118,276 2035 24,761 $121,903 2036 25,062 $125,641 2037 25,357 $129,491 2038 25,646 $133,453 2039 25,929 $137,529 2040 26,206 $141,719 2041 26,478 $146,024 2042 26,743 $150,442 2043 27,003 $154,976 2044 27,257 $159,624 2045 27,505 $164,387 2046 27,747 $169,265 2047 27,984 $174,258 2048 28,214 $179,366 2049 28,439 $184,588 2050 28,658 $189,923 2051 28,871 $195,373 2052 29,078 $200,936 2053 29,279 $206,611 2054 29,474 $212,398 2055 29,664 $218,296 2056 29,848 $224,304 2057 30,025 $230,422 2058 30,197 $236,648 2059 30,364 $242,981 2060 30,524 $249,420

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-6 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

The annual T&R forecast for the CRA Mid scenario is presented in Table ES-2. In 2021, the Project is expected to generate more than $46 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 13 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 24 million, and to more than 27 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $117 million by 2040 and $192 million by 2060.

Table ES-2. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Mid Scenario

Year Annual Trips (Thousands) Annual Revenue (Thousands 2013 $'s)

2021 13,209 $46,075 2022 17,270 $62,178 2023 19,503 $71,601 2024 19,812 $73,816 2025 20,117 $76,088 2026 20,416 $78,418 2027 20,710 $80,805 2028 21,000 $83,251 2029 21,284 $85,756 2030 21,563 $88,319 2031 21,837 $90,942 2032 22,106 $93,624 2033 22,370 $96,365 2034 22,629 $99,166 2035 22,884 $102,026 2036 23,133 $104,947 2037 23,377 $107,927 2038 23,616 $110,966 2039 23,850 $114,065 2040 24,079 $117,224 2041 24,303 $120,441 2042 24,522 $123,717 2043 24,736 $127,053 2044 24,945 $130,446 2045 25,149 $133,897 2046 25,348 $137,406 2047 25,542 $140,972 2048 25,730 $144,595 2049 25,914 $148,274 2050 26,093 $152,008 2051 26,267 $155,797 2052 26,436 $159,641 2053 26,600 $163,538 2054 26,758 $167,488 2055 26,912 $171,490 2056 27,061 $175,543 2057 27,205 $179,647 2058 27,343 $183,800 2059 27,477 $188,001 2060 27,606 $192,250

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-7 FINAL REPORT Executive Summary

The annual T&R forecast for the CRA Low scenario is presented in Table ES-3. In 2021, the Project is expected to generate more than $43 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 13 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 21 million, and to more than 22 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $89 million by 2040 and $134 million by 2060.

Table ES-3. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Low Scenario

Year Annual Trips (Thousands) Annual Revenue (Thousands 2013 $'s)

2021 12,681 $43,030 2022 15,530 $53,534 2023 18,424 $64,544 2024 18,574 $65,651 2025 18,721 $66,797 2026 18,866 $67,982 2027 19,008 $69,208 2028 19,147 $70,473 2029 19,284 $71,780 2030 19,417 $73,129 2031 19,549 $74,519 2032 19,677 $75,951 2033 19,803 $77,426 2034 19,927 $78,944 2035 20,047 $80,505 2036 20,165 $82,109 2037 20,280 $83,757 2038 20,393 $85,449 2039 20,503 $87,185 2040 20,610 $88,966 2041 20,714 $90,791 2042 20,816 $92,660 2043 20,916 $94,575 2044 21,012 $96,534 2045 21,106 $98,538 2046 21,197 $100,588 2047 21,286 $102,682 2048 21,371 $104,822 2049 21,455 $107,006 2050 21,535 $109,235 2051 21,613 $111,510 2052 21,688 $113,829 2053 21,761 $116,193 2054 21,830 $118,602 2055 21,898 $121,055 2056 21,962 $123,552 2057 22,024 $126,093 2058 22,083 $128,678 2059 22,139 $131,307 2060 22,193 $133,979

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study ES-8 FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction

1.1. Project Description and Alignment I-66 is part of the national Interstate Highway System and runs in an east-west direction from Middletown, VA to Washington, DC. The Project is an approximately 25-mile segment of I-66 between U.S. Route 15 (US 15; James Madison Highway) in Prince William County, VA to the west and I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County, VA to the east. The western section of the Project corridor is located in a more rural area compared to the eastern section, which is primarily an urban setting. The objective of the Project is to transform this 25-mile segment of I-66 into a multimodal facility that permits users to move more efficiently by providing several travel choices, including express lanes. The Project is also aimed at enhancing transportation safety and travel reliability. The I-66 express lanes will allow free use by carpoolers in high occupancy vehicles with three or more occupants (HOV3+) as well as buses, motorcycles, and emergency vehicles. Vehicles with less than three passengers will be required to pay a toll that varies based on demand and congestion (i.e., congestion pricing). The toll rate changes throughout the day in response to real-time traffic conditions; this varying toll rate is intended to manage the traffic and keep the facility operating at free-flow speed. The price increases during peak periods, when demand is greater, and decreases during less congested times. This study assumes a revenue-maximizing tolling strategy; in other words, the Project’s tolls will be set to maximize the revenue generated by the facility. According to the proposed express lanes configuration, there will be ten preliminary access points along the I-66 corridor, including the two termini. The proposed Project includes one intermediate interchange with direct connectors at crossing road Sully Road (Route 28) in Fairfax County and six intermediate interchanges with on-off ramps. In addition to express lanes, the Project scope includes rapid bus service and additional park-and-ride (PNR) lots.1 Under the proposed plan, I-66 would be improved to provide the following:  Three regular lanes in each direction  Two express lanes in each direction that would support: − Toll-paying customers − HOV3+ users, exempt from tolls − High-frequency and high-quality bus service

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 1-1 FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction

 Enhanced commuter PNR lots  Direct access between the express lanes and new or expanded commuter lots

The current Project schedule proposed by VDOT is as follows:  Late 2015: Final environmental document  2016: Design public hearing  Late 2016: Final contract and funding  2017: Construction start  2021: Open to traffic

1.2. Project Benefits Within the Project corridor, I-66 serves as a main route for commuters traveling from Northern Virginia to Washington, DC via single-occupant vehicles (SOV), carpools, and transit. Currently, heavy traffic occurs along the Project corridor during peak periods, resulting in frequent congestion and delays. The purpose of the Project is to provide travel time reliability along this critical portion of I-66 from US 15 to I-495. The Project would offer a variety of benefits to motorists and public transit users, including the following:2  Improved safety  Enhanced connectivity to the regional transit/HOV/express lane network  Expanded mode choices and transit options  Reduced hours of congestion per day  Reduced cut-through traffic on local roads  Increased capacity for future travel demand

1.3. Previous Studies In November 2013, a Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a Record of Decision was developed by VDOT, DRPT, and the FHWA.3 This Tier 1 study was designed to aid in the development of a long-term vision for the I-66 corridor from US 15 to I-495. A Tier 1 EIS differs from a traditional EIS in that it focuses on broad issues such as purpose and need, travel modes (bus, carpool, rail transit, car, etc.), technology choices, and the general location of proposed improvements. The Tier 1 study aimed to develop corridor-wide multimodal concepts and inform decisions about the best program of near-term and long-term transportation improvements. The EIS studied potential multimodal improvements that could address existing and future transportation needs along the I-66 corridor. This Tier 1 Final EIS defined existing and future transportation conditions and needs within the study corridor, identified a range of transportation improvement concepts that would serve those needs, evaluated the potential effects of the concepts on the natural and human environment, and presented recommendations for improvement concepts to be advanced. During the Tier 1 process, ten concepts were identified by VDOT and DRPT

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 1-2 FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction that would increase capacity, provide multimodal options, improve individual interchanges, and address safety and operations. Whereas this Tier 1 analysis examined potential impacts at a conceptual level, subsequent Tier 2 documents will include site-specific quantitative analyses of effects and provide avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. In July 2014, a Tier 2 Environmental Assessment was initiated to consolidate a combination of improvement concepts from the Tier 1 EIS, including two express lanes, three regular lanes, and rapid bus service, in addition to other safety and operational improvements. This second phase of environmental assessment will evaluate site-specific conditions and the potential effects the proposed improvements would have on air quality, noise, neighborhoods, parks, recreation areas, historic properties, wetlands, and streams. C&M’s Intermediate Level T&R Study serves as parallel effort to the Tier 2 Environmental Assessment.

1.4. Basic Study Information The T&R study results are expressed in annual toll transactions and toll revenue over a 40-year period beginning in 2021. In developing the T&R projections, C&M took into account existing information and field data regarding traffic trends, as well as historical and projected socioeconomic data. C&M used the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Transportation Planning Board (TPB) Travel Forecasting Model as the basis for its analysis. The latest version of the MWCOG model was adopted, modified, calibrated, and validated to predict the likelihood that a traveler would utilize the proposed Project, thus enabling it to determine future traffic demand and, ultimately, final T&R forecasts.

1.5. Study Area The study area encompasses the District of Columbia and Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties, as well as the independent cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park. The portion of I-66 being studied for the express lane facility is located in Fairfax County and Prince William County. Figure 1-1 presents the study area and the Project’s location.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 1-3 FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction

Figure 1-1. Project Location and Study Area

The facilities examined during this study include I-66, its parallel arterial routes US 50 and US 29, and several key routes serving north-south travel, including US 15, Route 234, Route 28, Route 286, Route 123, and I-495.

1.6. Organization of the Report The remainder of this report is organized as follows:  Chapter 2 details the area’s historical traffic trends, the existing traffic conditions, and field data collection.  Chapter 3 reviews and evaluates the existing and projected socioeconomic data used in this study.  Chapter 4 describes the travel demand modeling approach undertaken by C&M.  Chapter 5 presents C&M’s toll diversion methodology, recommended toll rates for the Project’s duration, and a summary of toll transactions and revenue forecasts.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 1-4 FINAL REPORT 1. Introduction

1 VDOT (n.d.). Transform 66: Outside the beltway – Frequently asked questions. Retrieved July 9, 2015 from http://outside.transform66.org/faqs/default.asp 2 Hamilton, R., & Shaw, S. (2015). Transform 66 OUTSIDE the Beltway: Multimodal Solutions – 495 to Haymarket. Public hearing for Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment. Retrieved from http://outside.transform66.org/meetings/asset_upload_file604_77658.pdf 3 VDOT, DRPT, & FHWA (2013, November). Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Tier 1 Record of Decision: Interstate 66 from US Route 15 in Prince William County to Interstate 495 in Fairfax County. Retrieved from http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NorthernVirginia/I- 66_TIER_1_FEIS_and_ROD.pdf

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 1-5 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

The following chapter presents an overview and analysis of existing traffic information and field data regarding the I-66 Project corridor and the surrounding study area. The existing information consists of details regarding the roadway network and historical traffic trends in the form of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts, which were provided by VDOT. The field data consists of newly collected traffic counts, toll rate data, travel time data, speed data, and an origin-destination survey. C&M analyzed the most recent data available at the time this study was initiated.

2.1. Existing Roadway Network The Project corridor comprises the portion of I-66 between U.S. Route 15 (US 15; James Madison Highway) in Prince William County, VA to I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County, VA. In addition to these termini, the corridor intersects several major roadways, including Route 28, Route 286, US 50, and Route 123. The east-west traffic flow within the study area is mostly served by I-66, US 29, and US 50 (Lee Jackson Memorial Highway), and these are competing routes to some extent, along with Route 267 (Dulles Toll Road). The following sections describe I-66 and the other major roadways within the study area in more detail.

2.1.1. I-66 I-66 serves as a primary route for commuters traveling from Northern Virginia into Washington, DC. It also serves many intermediate locations along the corridor, such as traffic to and from Route 28 and Route 286, as well as trips to Arlington, Vienna, and Tysons Corner. As a result, the corridor experiences heavy traffic during morning and evening peak periods, leading to frequent congestion and delays. Traffic along the corridor mainly consists of commuters using single-occupant vehicles (SOV), high- occupancy vehicles (HOV), and transit. The western section of the Project corridor is located in a rural area with suburban communities. Due to its function and location, the corridor has some unique traffic characteristics such as directionality in peak periods and high traffic demand in the eastern section, which is a predominantly urban area. The Project corridor is approximately 25 miles long and has the following characteristics along its span:  The western section, from US 15 to US 29 in Gainesville, is a four-lane road with no HOV lanes.  The central section, between US 29 and US 50, is an eight-lane road with one HOV lane in each direction. HOV restriction is only effective on weekdays during peak hours and in peak directions, which is 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. for eastbound travel and 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for westbound travel.  The eastern section, from US 50 to I-495, is a six-lane road with one HOV lane in each direction. HOV restriction is only effective on weekdays during peak hours and in peak directions. In addition, the shoulders in this section are open for general traffic on weekdays during peak hours and in peak directions.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-1 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Representative AADTs for I-66 are presented in Section 2.2.

2.1.2. I-495 I-495, also known as the Capital Beltway, is a loop around Washington, DC. Traffic from I-66 approaching the I-495 interchange can either choose to remain on I-66, travel north on I-495 to Tysons Center and the Maryland Border, or travel south on I-495 to Springfield. I-495 is an important highway that attracts/contributes significant traffic from/to I-66. In 2012, the Virginia Department of Transportation, in association with a private concessionaire, opened express lanes on the section of I-495 north of Route 267 to the I-95/I-395 Springfield interchange. Traffic on these express lanes will be further discussed in section 2.3.

2.1.3. Route 267 Route 267 is an East-West freeway that connects the Falls Church area with Washington Dulles International Airport and the Leesburg area. It travels parallel with I-66. It consists of Dulles Toll Road/Dulles Greenway and Dulles Access Road. The Dulles Toll Road/ Dulles Greenway is a toll road with an HOV2 restriction applied on the left lane for peak period, peak direction traffic. Dulles Access Road lies in the median of Dulles Toll Road and provides free access to/from Washington Dulles International Airport. In 2013, Route 267 exhibited an AADT of approximately 83,000 to 138,000 vehicles per day (vpd) between Route 28 and I-495, increasing from west to east.

2.1.4. US 15 US 15 is a part of the U.S. Highway System and runs from Walterboro, SC to Painted Post, NY. In Virginia, US 15 covers approximately 230 miles from the North Carolina state line near Clarksville to the Maryland state line at the Potomac River. US 15 is a major north-south highway through the Piedmont of Virginia, connecting Clarksville and Farmville in Southside Virginia with Culpeper, Warrenton, and Leesburg in Northern Virginia. Within the study area, US 15 (James Madison Highway) is a two- to four-lane highway and exhibited a 2013 AADT of approximately 30,000 vpd.

2.1.5. US 50 US 50 is a major east-west U.S. highway, spanning roughly 3,000 miles from California to Maryland. Within the study area, US 50 is a six-lane highway that approaches I-66 from the north and intersects I-66 just west of the city of Fairfax. East of Fairfax, US 50 is located south of and parallel to I-66 until briefly joining I-66 on the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge upon entering Washington, DC. In 2013, US 50 exhibited an AADT of approximately 98,000 vpd between West Ox Road and I-66.

2.1.6. US 29 US 29, also known as Lee Highway, is a north-south highway covering 1,036 miles from Pensacola, FL to Baltimore, MD. It serves as a major north-south route in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Within the study area, US 29 is a four-lane east-west corridor.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-2 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

It joins US 50 just south of I-66 at the US 50 interchange. These two corridors split up as they approach Route 237. In 2013, US 29 exhibited an AADT of approximately 42,000 vpd between I-66 (west of Centreville) and Route 28.

2.1.7. Route 28 Route 28 is a major artery through Northern Virginia. This six-lane, north-south road covers the counties of Loudoun, Fairfax, Prince William, and Fauquier, with major interchanges at I-66, US 50, and Route 267, providing access to the Washington Dulles International Airport. It is an expressway/freeway standard road in the study area and exhibited a 2013 AADT of approximately 100,000 vpd between I-66 (north of Centreville) and Westfields Boulevard.

2.1.8. Route 286 Route 286, also known as Fairfax County Parkway, is a major six-lane route with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. It provides a north-south arterial route in Fairfax County with a mix of interchanges and signalized and unsignalized intersections. It has interchanges at major roads such as Route 267, US 50, US 29, and I-95. In 2013, Route 286 exhibited an AADT of approximately 71,000 vpd between US 29 and I-66.

2.1.9. Route 123 Route 123 (Chain Bridge Road) is a four-lane state highway that covers 29.27 miles from US 1 in Woodbridge to the Chain Bridge into Washington, DC. Within the study area, Route 123 connects I-66 to Tysons Corner and serves as an alternative route to I-495 for travelers to/from Tysons Corner. In 2013, Route 123 exhibited an AADT of approximately 38,000 vpd between US 29/US 50 and I-66.

2.1.10. Route 243 Route 243 (Nutley Street) is a state highway that covers 1.70 miles from US 29 near Merrifield to Route 123 in Vienna. It plays an important role at the interchange with I-66 as it accommodates six lanes of traffic. Route 243 is a main route that connects to the Vienna Metro station, and it exhibited a 2013 AADT of approximately 39,000 vpd between US 29 and I-66.

2.2. Historical Traffic Trends To better represent the study area’s traffic patterns, historical AADT figures from 2000 to 2013 at selected locations along the I-66 corridor (from west to east) are shown in Table 2-1 and illustrated in Figure 2-1. In 2013, AADT on the I-66 corridor was as low as 60,000 vpd between US 15 and US 29 near Gainesville and as high as 173,000 vpd between US 50 and Route 123. The 2013 AADT counts are shown geographically in Figure 2-2. The traffic growth trends along the Project corridor varied from section to section between 2000 and 2013. The portion of the corridor west of US 29 in Centreville experienced positive growth, while the portion east of US 29 had little or negative growth. The highest traffic growth on I-66 occurred between US 29 and Route 234 Business (Bus). The rapid

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-3 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data growth in the western part of the corridor can be largely attributed to new development in suburban areas, while there is less room for growth in the well-developed eastern section of the corridor. It should be noted that beginning in 2004, segments closer to Downtown D.C. (US 50 to Route 123, Route 243 to I-495) continuously experienced negative growth in AADT while segments in the western part grew rapidly, particularly in 2013.

Source: VDOT Figure 2-1. Historical AADT along I-66

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-4 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Table 2-1. Historical AADT along I-66

2000-2013 Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 CAGR US 15 to US 29 38,000 42,000 44,000 43,000 56,000 57,000 57,000 50,000 48,000 53,000 59,000 60,000 59,000 60,000 3.6% (Gainesville) Rte 234 Bus. to US 29 73,000 120,000 123,000 116,000 119,000 121,000 123,000 122,000 120,000 120,000 128,000 127,000 120,000 137,000 5.0% (Centreville)

Rte 28 to Rte 286 167,000 127,000 127,000 142,000 142,000 143,000 150,000 148,000 148,000 146,000 147,000 143,000 143,000 161,000 -0.3%

US 50 to Rte 123 168,000 168,000 180,000 174,000 186,000 186,000 186,000 184,000 184,000 181,000 180,000 176,000 175,000 173,000 0.2%

Rte 243 to I-495 169,000 169,000 181,000 175,000 181,000 173,000 174,000 172,000 172,000 164,000 164,000 162,000 160,000 159,000 -0.5%

Source: VDOT

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-5 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Source: VDOT Figure 2-2. 2013 AADT along I-66

2.3. Field Data Review C&M reviewed a variety of traffic data collected for this study in order to evaluate and model current traffic conditions on I-66 and its competing routes. The data collection process was a collaborative effort by C&M and the Tier II Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Study team for the purposes of this Traffic and Revenue Study, the Tier II EIS Study, and the Interchange Justification Report (IJR) Study. In November 2013, C&M collected traffic count data on I-66 and selected arterials. These data were complemented by the EIS Study team’s data collection in 2014. Other traffic data collected by the Tier II EIS Study team include the following:  Travel time study data  Bluetooth Origin-Destination (OD) data  AirSage OD data Additionally, data that were available to C&M from other sources include the following:  Permanent counts and AADTs from VDOT’s Traffic Counts Program  INRIX speed data from the Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS)

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-6 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

 I-495 Express Lanes reports from https://www.495expresslanes.com The following sections present C&M’s review of the collected field data.

2.3.1. Traffic Count Data C&M developed a detailed traffic counts database for the study area. Collected traffic data include the following:  Traffic counts on I-66 and roads parallel to I-66 (2013)  Mainline traffic counts on I-66 and I-495 over a one-week period (June 2014)  Ramp counts for each on-ramp and off-ramp along I-66 and I-495 over a one-week period (June 2014)  Turning movement counts for intersections along I-66 over a one-week period (June 2014)  Traffic counts for selected locations on roads parallel to I-66 over a one-week period (November 2014) Figure 2-3 presents the locations of the counts described above.

Figure 2-3. Locations of Collected Traffic Counts

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-7 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

The newly collected traffic counts were used in conjunction with the 2013 AADT figures provided by VDOT to calibrate and validate the MWCOG travel demand model (TDM) used in this study. C&M categorized the traffic count data into four different time periods based on the MWCOG TDM’s modeling periods, which are presented in Table 2-2. It should be noted that traffic count data were further adjusted with seasonality factors to account for seasonal influences on travel demand.

Table 2-2. Travel Demand Model Time Periods Period Extent Hours AM 6:00 am - 9:00 am 3 Midday (MD) 9:00 am - 3:00 pm 6 PM 3:00 pm - 7:00 pm 4 Nighttime (NT) 7:00 pm - 6:00 am 11 Source: MWCOG TDM

Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 present the collected traffic count data by time-of-day and by direction in 2013 and 2014, respectively. These tables also show the percentage of medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. As shown in Table 2-4, the truck percentage on I-66 general purpose (GP) lanes ranges from 1 to 8 percent, with an average of 7 percent; on the HOV lanes, it ranges from 1 to 4 percent. Daily traffic counts by direction in mainline locations along I-66 are illustrated in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 for 2013 and 2014, respectively. Traffic counts by time period and direction are presented in Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 for 2013 and 2014, respectively. These figures show that, in general, there is more eastbound traffic in the AM period than in the PM period, while the opposite pattern is observed for westbound traffic. This is as expected, since the majority of the traffic consists of commuters heading eastbound to Downtown D.C. in the AM period and heading westbound in the PM period. Finally, Figure 2-8 presents daily traffic counts by direction in 2014 for a few locations along I-495 near I-66. As an interstate highway, I-495 carries even more traffic than I-66. Also, although the GP lanes on I-495 exhibit more traffic traveling southbound than northbound, the express lanes exhibit the reverse pattern.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-8 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Table 2-3. Weekday Traffic Count Summary by Direction – 2013 Average Weekday Counts Description AM MD PM NT Daily I-66 EB East of Exit 40 8,664 9,214 5,701 6,934 30,513 I-66 WB East of Exit 40 3,085 8,843 11,072 6,848 29,848 I-66 EB between Prince William County 18,054 23,045 13,455 18,303 72,857 Line and US 29 near Centerview I-66 WB between Prince William 8,606 23,048 32,275 21,546 85,475 County Line and US 29 near Centerview I-66 EB East of Exit 52 19,064 25,599 14,858 19,156 78,677 I-66 WB East of Exit 52 7,732 21,578 23,293 19,089 71,692 I-66 EB between Fairfax 18,006 28,435 16,722 21,383 84,546 County Parkway and Rte 28 I-66 WB between Fairfax 14,394 30,718 31,835 25,763 102,710 County Parkway and Rte 28 I-66 EB East of Exit 57 16,804 28,816 16,252 19,906 81,778 I-66 WB East of Exit 57 12,306 26,965 23,786 22,523 85,580 I-66 EB East of Exit 62 19,541 31,067 20,358 21,062 92,028 I-66 WB East of Exit 62 14,469 30,251 21,475 24,223 90,418 I-66 EB East of Exit 64 6,104 13,857 9,751 9,860 39,572 I-66 WB East of Exit 64 6,847 14,304 9,078 12,349 42,578 Fairfax County PKwy NB between I-66 and Fair Lakes Pkwy 7,726 9,832 11,244 7,602 36,404 Fairfax County PKwy SB between I-66 and Fair Lakes Pkwy 5,657 9,667 11,598 7,793 34,715 Fairfax County PKwy NB between I-66 and US 29 11,435 13,328 13,825 10,061 48,649 Fairfax County PKwy SB between I-66 and US 29 9,266 11,792 9,358 7,629 38,045 Walney Road NB between Rte 28-Sully Road and Cabells Mill Dr 855 1,165 860 777 3,657 Walney Road SB between Rte 28-Sully Road and Cabells Mill Dr 228 429 590 233 1,480 US 29-Lee Highway EB between Machen Rd and Rte 28 5,429 5,566 4,071 3,723 18,789

US 29-Lee Highway WB between Machen Rd and Rte 28 5,920 8,825 8,459 7,300 30,504

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-9 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Table 2-4. Weekday Traffic Count Summary by Direction – 2014

Average Weekday Counts Total Medium Heavy Description AM MD PM NT Daily Truck % Truck % Truck % I-66 EB between US 15 & US 29 Gainesville 7,640 9,274 5,723 8,536 31,173 8% 3% 5% I-66 WB between US 15 & US 29 Gainesville 3,623 9,819 10,928 6,704 31,074 8% 3% 5% I-66 EB East of Manassas Safety Rest Area 13,621 19,185 11,722 15,991 60,519 8% 4% 4% I-66 WB East of Manassas Safety Rest Area 7,133 18,348 19,625 15,577 60,683 8% 4% 4% I-66 HOV EB East of Manassas Safety Rest Area 4,312 4,260 2,136 2,984 13,692 1% 1% 0% I-66 HOV WB East of Manassas Safety Rest Area 1,384 4,743 5,749 3,146 15,022 1% 1% 0% I-66 WB West US 29 Centerville 6,982 20,935 18,273 17,051 63,241 8% 4% 4% I-66 HOV WB West US 29 Centerville 1,381 5,508 4,908 3,055 14,852 1% 1% 0% I-66 EB West of Rte 28 Sully Rd 14,114 20,922 11,952 15,728 62,716 8% 4% 4% I-66 HOV EB West of Rte 28 Sully Rd 3,626 3,854 1,827 2,435 11,742 2% 2% 0% I-66 EB West of Stringfellow Rd 15,266 24,727 14,716 19,203 73,912 7% 4% 3% I-66 WB West of Stringfellow Rd 11,216 24,058 21,263 20,143 76,680 7% 4% 3% I-66 HOV EB West of Stringfellow Rd 3,445 4,837 2,363 3,071 13,716 2% 2% 0% I-66 HOV WB West of Stringfellow Rd 1,761 5,123 5,734 3,481 16,099 2% 2% 0% I-66 EB between Monument Dr & US 50 12,233 19,629 10,618 14,937 57,417 8% 4% 4% I-66 WB between Monument Dr & US 50 7,118 18,063 18,611 15,648 59,440 8% 4% 4% I-66 HOV EB between Monument Dr & US 50 3,491 5,556 3,198 3,571 15,816 1% 1% 0% I-66 HOV WB between Monument Dr & US 50 2,598 7,327 5,344 5,794 21,063 1% 1% 0% I-66 EB East of US 50 16,519 25,057 15,454 19,649 76,679 7% 4% 3% I-66 WB East of US 50 11,907 26,382 19,788 24,492 82,569 7% 4% 3% I-66 HOV EB East of US 50 4,672 9,310 6,986 5,108 26,076 2% 2% 0% I-66 HOV WB East of US 50 4,263 9,172 5,136 7,713 26,284 1% 1% 0% I-66 EB between Rte 123 & Rte 243 16,458 23,694 14,075 18,143 72,370 7% 4% 3% I-66 WB between Rte123 & Rte 243 10,232 21,529 17,349 18,608 67,718 7% 4% 3% I-66 HOV EB between Rte 123 & Rte 243 6,044 13,300 10,887 7,429 37,660 30% 30% 0% I-66 HOV WB between Rte 123 & Rte 243 5,545 10,045 5,475 7,102 28,167 1% 1% 0% I-66 EB between Rte 243 & I-495 14,375 22,894 14,476 18,795 70,540 6% 3% 3% I-66 WB between Rte 243 & I-495 10,056 21,613 17,763 18,452 67,884 7% 4% 3% I-66 HOV EB between Rte 243 & I-495 4,082 8,595 5,985 4,396 23,058 1% 1% 0% I-66 HOV WB between Rte 243 & I-495 5,071 8,542 4,937 6,093 24,643 1% 1% 0% I-495 NB between I-66 & US 29 21,584 35,669 22,304 26,180 105,737 5% 3% 2% I-495 SB between I-66 & US 29 19,868 37,761 30,185 28,790 116,604 5% 3% 2% I-495 NB Express Lanes Between I-66 & US 29 7,226 4,623 4,399 1,028 17,276 3% 3% 0% I-495 SB Express Lanes Between I-66 & US 29 1,358 2,919 8,602 1,417 14,296 3% 3% 0% I-495 NB between Rte 7 & I-66 21,503 33,946 19,186 23,227 97,862 7% 3% 4% I-495 SB between Rte 7 & I-66 16,607 34,928 29,715 26,888 108,138 6% 3% 3% I-495 NB Express Lanes Between Rte 7 & I-66 5,963 4,875 4,263 1,107 16,208 3% 3% 0% I-495 SB Express Lanes Between Rte 7 & I-66 1,157 2,909 8,158 1,509 13,733 3% 3% 0% I-495 NB South of US 50 17,809 28,597 16,849 21,193 84,448 7% 4% 3% I-495 SB North of Rte 650 Gallows Rd 16,241 35,987 30,874 29,000 112,102 6% 3% 3% I-495 NB Express Lanes South of US 50 4,863 4,050 6,009 1,226 16,148 4% 4% 0%

I-495 SB Express Lanes North of Rte 650 Gallows Rd 3,724 3,575 6,985 1,250 15,534 3% 3% 0%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-10 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-4. Daily Traffic Counts by Direction along I-66 – 2013

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-11 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-5. Daily Traffic Counts by Direction along I-66 – 2014

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-12 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-6. Traffic Counts along I-66 by Time Period and Direction – 2013

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-13 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-7. Traffic Counts along I-66 by Time Period and Direction – 2014

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-14 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-8. Daily Traffic Counts along I-495 by Direction – 2014

2.3.2. Traffic Profiles

Passenger Car Traffic Volume Profiles along I-66 & I-495 Figure 2-9 presents the average weekday auto traffic volume profiles (number of vehicles) for several locations along I-66 in 2014 for GP lanes and HOV lanes. Shaded areas in the figures represent the HOV periods during the AM (5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and PM (3 p.m. to 7 p.m.), respectively. It is evident that the traffic peaks on I-66 in the eastbound direction (towards Downtown D.C.) during the AM period, while the westbound direction experiences high traffic during the PM period. The peak traffic during the AM period varied for each location, with 2,800 vehicles per hour (vph) between US 29 and US 15, 4,700 vph west of US 29 in Centreville, 4,800– 5,500 vph in segments in the middle of the corridor, and 5,400 vph west of the I-495 interchange. During the PM period in the westbound direction, the maximum volume ranged from 2,800 vph near US 15, to 4,500–5,000 vph in segments in the middle of the corridor, and 4,500 vph west of the I-495 interchange.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-15 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-9. Average Weekday Daily Auto Traffic Profiles along I-66

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-16 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2.9. Average Weekday Daily Auto Traffic Profiles along I-66 (Cont’d.)

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-17 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2.9. Average Weekday Daily Auto Traffic Profiles along I-66 (Cont’d.)

Figure 2-10 presents the average weekday auto traffic volume profiles along I-495 in 2014 for GP lanes and express lanes. As shown, traffic peaks in the northbound direction during the AM period and in the southbound direction during the PM period. In the AM period, the peak northbound traffic volumes consisted of 7,200 vph between Route 7 and I-66, 7,500 vph between I-66 and US 29, and 6,000 vph between US 50 and Route 650. During the PM period in the southbound direction, the maximum volume reached more than 7,400 vph between Route 7 and I-66, 7,300 vph between I-66 and US 29, and 7,500 vph between US 50 and Route 650.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-18 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-10. Average Weekday Daily Auto Traffic Profiles along I-495

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-19 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-66 & I-495 Figure 2-11 presents the average weekday daily truck traffic profiles along I-66 GP lanes and HOV lanes in 2014. As can be seen, the truck traffic profiles differ from the passenger car profiles. Automobile traffic typically peaked during AM and PM periods due to commuters; truck traffic, on the other hand, peaked more during the MD period. The MD peaking phenomenon may be attributed to the need to meet the expectations of the business day, and possibly due to truckers attempting to avoid the commute peak periods.

Figure 2-11. Average Weekday Daily Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-66

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-20 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2.11. Average Weekday Daily Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-66 (Cont’d.)

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-21 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2.11. Average Weekday Daily Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-66 (Cont’d.)

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-22 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

As shown in Figure 2-12, the truck traffic profiles along I-495’s GP lanes in 2014 peak during the MD period, which is consistent with the truck profiles of most locations on I-66.

Figure 2-12. Average Weekday Daily Truck Traffic Volume Profiles along I-495

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-23 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

2.3.3. INRIX Speed Data C&M reviewed vehicular speed data for the I-66 corridor collected by INRIX from June 2 to June 6, 2014. The speed data were summarized and used to check speed variations along the corridor and to evaluate the existing operating characteristics of the facility for comparison against the modeled transportation network. Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14 present the speed variations for 11 segments along I-66 during 15-minute intervals on a typical weekday, for eastbound and westbound travel, respectively. The speed values are color-coded, with red representing congestion and green representing free-flow speed. Speed variations along the corridor are shown in terms of the following exits:  Exit 40 - US 15  Exit 43 - US 29 in Gainesville  Exit 44 - Route 234 (Prince Williams Parkway)  Exit 47 - Route 234  Exit 52 - US 29 in Centreville  Exit 53 - Route 28  Exit 55 - Route 286  Exit 57 - US 50  Exit 60 - Route 123  Exit 62 - Route 243  Exit 64 - I-495

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-24 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Time 40 43 44 47 52 53 55 57 60 62 64 12:00:00 AM 63 66 67 66 68 66 66 64 62 60 61 62 63 64 65 62 61 61 62 63 64 62 60 12:15:00 AM 62 66 66 66 66 66 64 62 61 62 62 62 63 64 65 62 60 62 61 61 64 63 58 12:30:00 AM 68 65 66 66 66 66 65 61 59 60 62 62 62 63 63 61 60 61 61 61 63 62 59 12:45:00 AM 68 65 65 67 67 64 63 63 59 60 61 62 63 65 65 62 60 60 60 60 64 62 58 1:00:00 AM 66 66 67 66 68 66 65 61 61 60 62 62 62 64 64 61 60 61 60 61 64 62 58 1:15:00 AM 66 67 67 67 67 67 65 63 58 59 61 61 61 63 63 61 59 63 60 60 65 63 59 1:30:00 AM 67 67 67 67 66 66 64 63 58 59 61 62 61 62 63 60 58 61 60 60 63 61 58 1:45:00 AM 67 66 67 66 65 66 65 62 58 60 61 62 62 64 64 62 61 65 61 61 65 61 57 2:00:00 AM 67 65 66 67 66 66 66 65 60 60 60 62 62 63 63 62 58 61 60 60 65 63 58 2:15:00 AM 66 62 66 65 66 65 65 64 60 59 61 61 61 63 64 61 59 63 62 61 65 63 59 2:30:00 AM 67 65 66 66 67 65 65 58 60 58 61 61 62 64 64 61 58 63 61 61 64 62 59 2:45:00 AM 67 66 67 65 67 65 64 57 59 61 61 62 61 61 62 61 59 63 60 61 63 63 58 3:00:00 AM 68 66 64 66 67 66 65 65 59 61 61 62 63 65 64 63 61 64 60 61 64 63 59 3:15:00 AM 67 67 67 67 65 66 66 65 60 62 63 63 63 65 65 64 62 66 62 61 64 62 60 3:30:00 AM 67 66 67 67 67 67 65 64 61 62 62 63 62 63 64 62 61 66 62 62 64 63 60 3:45:00 AM 70 68 68 67 66 66 64 61 60 61 62 63 63 63 63 63 60 65 62 63 65 64 60 4:00:00 AM 69 69 68 68 65 68 67 65 61 63 64 64 64 65 64 63 61 65 62 63 66 63 59 4:15:00 AM 70 68 67 68 68 68 67 66 65 65 66 65 65 67 66 65 65 67 65 65 66 63 60 4:30:00 AM 71 69 69 68 68 69 68 67 66 65 66 65 65 67 65 64 63 67 65 65 66 64 64 4:45:00 AM 72 71 70 70 70 68 67 67 63 65 65 65 65 67 65 64 63 66 64 64 65 62 65 5:00:00 AM 73 72 71 70 70 68 67 66 63 64 65 65 65 67 66 64 64 67 65 66 67 64 64 5:15:00 AM 72 71 72 71 70 67 66 64 62 63 64 63 65 66 64 62 61 65 63 64 65 63 65 5:30:00 AM 70 69 70 69 69 59 49 57 55 56 58 60 63 63 59 50 54 61 61 61 62 60 62 5:45:00 AM 71 69 68 66 53 34 34 50 52 55 56 58 62 63 60 47 52 59 59 58 60 59 61 6:00:00 AM 74 71 70 60 34 23 22 48 53 54 59 57 62 62 55 38 49 54 50 62 62 58 60 6:15:00 AM 73 70 68 47 22 17 17 42 47 44 52 54 58 43 32 21 39 37 41 62 62 53 57 6:30:00 AM 71 69 64 45 27 19 18 42 39 41 51 52 40 25 19 16 34 37 42 63 63 49 59 6:45:00 AM 71 69 60 43 22 18 21 43 38 42 50 46 28 19 18 16 37 44 46 62 60 43 56 7:00:00 AM 71 67 59 41 18 16 17 37 39 39 44 40 23 18 17 17 36 38 42 62 61 43 58 7:15:00 AM 72 68 63 46 20 17 18 35 32 34 42 40 22 17 17 17 33 34 42 61 59 46 57 7:30:00 AM 70 68 65 48 23 17 17 30 30 30 39 37 23 16 17 15 31 33 40 59 53 39 56 7:45:00 AM 69 68 67 54 26 15 14 29 29 34 43 41 30 18 17 15 34 32 36 51 47 33 55 8:00:00 AM 71 69 68 60 37 18 13 25 22 27 46 45 35 24 20 17 32 29 33 49 47 35 55 8:15:00 AM 71 69 69 65 47 24 14 24 24 29 49 52 42 27 20 17 30 29 33 50 49 37 54 8:30:00 AM 69 69 71 67 53 28 16 24 24 28 50 56 51 28 26 22 33 31 37 54 52 38 53 8:45:00 AM 70 69 70 68 57 35 24 26 25 30 51 56 56 35 29 22 34 35 39 56 53 30 48 9:00:00 AM 70 70 70 69 60 41 33 32 32 34 45 52 58 42 33 27 41 42 41 51 46 29 50 9:15:00 AM 71 70 69 69 64 46 38 42 43 46 48 47 60 55 41 25 39 45 42 47 41 38 57 9:30:00 AM 70 69 68 68 68 54 45 48 53 51 52 51 60 57 44 25 36 47 45 51 48 41 58 9:45:00 AM 71 68 69 68 70 65 53 49 55 56 60 57 62 62 54 32 41 53 50 52 51 42 58 10:00:00 AM 68 67 69 68 69 66 62 54 60 60 62 59 63 64 60 47 50 58 55 56 54 45 58 10:15:00 AM 69 67 68 68 69 67 62 58 63 62 63 62 64 65 64 57 57 62 60 60 58 51 60 10:30:00 AM 68 67 68 68 71 68 66 60 63 61 63 62 64 66 65 61 59 64 61 62 62 53 59 10:45:00 AM 68 67 68 68 71 68 66 64 63 62 64 62 65 65 65 61 59 63 61 63 63 57 61 11:00:00 AM 69 67 67 68 70 67 65 66 64 62 63 62 65 65 65 61 58 62 60 63 63 59 63 11:15:00 AM 68 67 68 68 70 67 64 66 63 61 63 63 64 65 64 58 53 56 54 61 61 55 63 11:30:00 AM 70 70 70 68 70 67 64 66 64 62 64 62 64 65 64 52 48 52 51 58 55 50 62 11:45:00 AM 68 68 68 68 70 69 67 66 65 63 63 63 65 66 63 50 48 53 49 58 56 46 64 12:00:00 PM 68 67 67 67 69 67 65 65 65 63 64 64 66 66 64 55 52 52 48 60 60 51 62 12:15:00 PM 69 67 67 68 69 68 66 66 63 63 64 63 66 67 65 61 57 60 52 61 60 51 61 12:30:00 PM 68 68 69 68 70 68 66 66 64 62 64 62 65 66 64 59 55 60 55 59 57 50 65 12:45:00 PM 70 68 69 68 70 67 63 65 64 63 63 63 64 66 65 59 54 57 51 62 60 53 62 1:00:00 PM 69 68 68 68 69 67 63 65 63 62 63 62 65 66 63 48 49 57 52 61 60 54 61 1:15:00 PM 69 68 69 68 67 68 65 65 62 60 63 62 64 65 64 51 49 60 58 62 60 54 61 1:30:00 PM 69 68 69 68 70 67 65 66 64 62 64 62 64 65 63 47 48 60 58 62 62 57 63 1:45:00 PM 69 68 70 69 69 67 65 65 64 62 63 62 64 64 59 43 48 60 57 57 55 51 61 2:00:00 PM 70 68 68 68 70 68 65 66 64 62 64 63 65 66 63 48 49 58 55 56 55 51 61 2:15:00 PM 71 67 68 68 69 68 67 67 65 63 64 63 65 67 66 60 53 57 54 59 57 52 62 2:30:00 PM 70 69 68 68 70 68 66 67 65 63 63 63 66 67 66 59 52 51 45 60 60 53 64 2:45:00 PM 70 69 69 69 69 66 64 66 65 63 64 63 65 66 66 56 48 45 42 59 64 56 63 3:00:00 PM 70 69 70 69 70 68 67 66 64 63 64 63 65 65 65 51 45 42 45 61 62 56 61 3:15:00 PM 70 69 70 69 69 68 67 67 65 65 66 65 66 67 66 55 46 43 45 61 62 57 59 3:30:00 PM 68 68 68 69 69 68 66 66 63 64 65 65 66 67 66 57 46 36 40 61 63 60 63 3:45:00 PM 69 68 70 70 70 69 67 67 64 64 63 64 66 68 67 51 42 36 40 60 61 58 63 4:00:00 PM 69 69 70 71 71 68 67 67 65 63 64 64 66 67 67 49 41 41 42 60 62 58 61 4:15:00 PM 70 70 71 70 70 68 69 67 65 64 64 64 66 68 66 49 41 42 42 61 62 58 59 4:30:00 PM 68 68 69 68 69 69 67 67 63 62 63 64 65 67 66 46 39 39 40 61 62 58 58 4:45:00 PM 70 69 68 69 69 69 67 67 62 62 62 63 65 66 65 46 40 40 42 60 62 58 57 5:00:00 PM 69 67 69 69 69 68 67 66 63 63 63 63 64 65 64 42 39 46 42 60 61 57 58 5:15:00 PM 69 68 69 69 69 68 67 67 63 62 63 63 65 65 63 41 38 49 45 61 62 55 56 5:30:00 PM 68 67 67 68 68 67 67 66 64 63 64 65 66 66 57 36 31 42 42 60 62 57 55 5:45:00 PM 69 67 67 68 68 67 66 66 64 64 63 65 65 63 55 36 32 40 42 60 61 57 50 6:00:00 PM 69 67 68 68 69 68 68 66 64 62 63 63 65 66 63 45 39 43 44 61 61 57 53 6:15:00 PM 70 68 69 70 71 69 67 67 63 63 63 64 65 67 66 61 53 48 42 60 61 58 55 6:30:00 PM 70 68 68 69 69 68 66 67 64 62 63 64 66 66 66 64 57 57 49 60 62 56 59 6:45:00 PM 69 67 66 68 68 67 67 66 62 62 63 64 65 65 66 63 55 59 54 61 62 57 59 7:00:00 PM 67 67 68 67 68 68 67 66 62 62 63 64 64 65 64 63 60 61 58 60 62 58 60 7:15:00 PM 69 68 69 67 67 67 66 67 61 63 63 64 64 65 65 63 61 64 63 63 64 62 61 7:30:00 PM 69 67 67 66 67 67 65 66 62 62 62 63 64 66 66 64 61 64 62 62 64 63 59 7:45:00 PM 68 66 62 68 67 66 66 67 64 62 63 64 66 67 65 63 60 62 61 61 64 62 61 8:00:00 PM 67 67 67 68 67 66 66 65 64 63 63 63 64 66 65 63 62 64 63 63 64 63 61 8:15:00 PM 64 66 67 66 67 67 64 66 60 62 63 64 65 66 65 62 60 62 62 61 64 61 62 8:30:00 PM 67 68 67 66 68 68 65 65 60 62 62 64 65 66 66 64 61 64 62 63 64 61 61 8:45:00 PM 66 66 64 66 64 66 64 63 61 60 62 61 63 64 63 62 60 63 61 61 62 60 60 9:00:00 PM 67 67 66 66 66 66 64 62 59 60 60 60 62 63 62 59 58 60 60 60 61 59 60 9:15:00 PM 67 66 67 66 67 65 64 63 60 60 60 61 61 63 64 60 59 60 59 58 60 58 57 9:30:00 PM 67 66 65 66 68 64 61 59 61 59 59 61 63 64 64 60 60 63 61 59 61 59 59 9:45:00 PM 68 68 67 66 69 66 65 65 61 60 61 61 62 62 62 59 60 62 60 58 61 59 58 10:00:00 PM 67 65 67 66 67 66 65 64 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 59 59 62 61 60 62 59 58 10:15:00 PM 69 67 66 66 68 66 66 64 62 61 62 62 63 65 64 61 60 59 61 60 63 53 56 10:30:00 PM 68 66 65 67 67 66 66 64 62 60 61 61 62 64 65 62 62 62 61 60 64 53 57 10:45:00 PM 67 66 66 64 67 62 61 62 60 61 62 62 63 64 65 62 61 60 61 60 62 52 59 11:00:00 PM 66 66 66 65 66 66 65 62 58 59 61 61 62 62 63 59 60 60 60 57 61 54 56 11:15:00 PM 68 67 67 66 67 66 65 64 59 60 60 60 61 62 64 60 61 60 60 59 63 60 57 11:30:00 PM 69 67 66 67 68 66 66 64 62 61 63 62 63 64 65 62 61 61 61 61 65 63 57 11:45:00 PM 67 67 66 65 67 66 65 64 61 61 62 62 62 63 65 61 59 61 62 62 64 62 57 Source: INRIX Figure 2-13. Speed Heat Map – Eastbound

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-25 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Time 64 62 60 57 55 53 52 47 44 43 40 12:00:00 AM 57 61 62 67 59 63 59 62 61 60 62 64 63 64 65 61 61 62 64 65 65 65 65 66 12:15:00 AM 54 61 62 66 57 63 55 60 62 62 63 61 61 63 66 62 62 61 63 62 63 65 66 66 12:30:00 AM 54 60 61 66 59 63 58 62 59 59 61 62 61 63 65 62 61 64 64 63 63 65 65 65 12:45:00 AM 58 60 61 64 56 64 58 61 58 56 61 61 62 64 66 63 62 63 62 65 63 65 65 66 1:00:00 AM 57 61 62 64 59 64 61 65 63 61 63 63 63 64 66 62 62 62 64 64 64 65 65 66 1:15:00 AM 53 60 62 64 60 64 59 64 61 60 62 63 63 64 66 64 64 62 65 65 65 65 66 66 1:30:00 AM 52 60 61 63 60 63 60 64 62 61 62 62 62 64 64 61 64 62 64 65 65 65 65 65 1:45:00 AM 52 59 60 63 57 62 59 62 61 60 62 62 62 64 65 63 64 64 65 65 65 63 64 66 2:00:00 AM 55 59 60 63 56 63 59 63 61 60 61 62 62 64 65 64 62 64 64 65 64 65 65 66 2:15:00 AM 56 61 62 63 56 64 60 62 61 61 62 61 61 63 66 63 59 63 65 63 62 64 65 66 2:30:00 AM 55 60 62 63 57 63 57 64 62 61 63 62 62 63 66 64 63 63 65 64 65 65 66 66 2:45:00 AM 53 59 61 64 56 62 56 62 63 62 62 62 61 63 65 63 61 61 65 65 66 66 66 66 3:00:00 AM 53 59 61 64 59 63 58 63 61 61 62 61 60 63 63 58 62 63 64 65 65 66 65 66 3:15:00 AM 53 60 61 67 58 62 56 63 61 61 62 62 62 64 66 62 63 63 65 64 64 64 65 66 3:30:00 AM 57 61 63 66 57 64 59 64 62 61 63 63 63 64 66 62 64 63 65 64 64 62 65 65 3:45:00 AM 54 62 63 65 61 63 61 64 62 62 62 62 62 64 66 62 64 62 65 63 64 64 65 65 4:00:00 AM 53 62 63 66 62 62 60 64 60 61 63 64 61 62 65 61 61 62 66 65 64 65 65 65 4:15:00 AM 56 62 63 63 61 62 60 63 62 61 64 64 62 63 65 63 65 63 65 64 64 66 67 67 4:30:00 AM 54 60 62 63 60 62 59 62 61 60 62 63 63 63 65 64 64 62 64 64 66 66 66 67 4:45:00 AM 52 62 63 63 60 62 61 64 62 61 63 64 63 63 65 63 63 63 65 64 62 65 66 66 5:00:00 AM 57 63 64 64 63 63 62 65 64 63 65 65 65 64 66 65 64 63 64 64 63 65 65 66 5:15:00 AM 60 64 64 64 63 63 62 65 62 61 63 65 64 64 65 62 65 63 65 63 63 65 64 65 5:30:00 AM 60 65 65 65 64 64 63 66 64 63 65 66 66 65 66 64 66 63 66 66 65 64 67 67 5:45:00 AM 64 66 66 66 65 66 65 67 66 65 67 68 66 66 67 67 67 65 65 68 67 66 66 67 6:00:00 AM 62 66 67 66 65 65 65 66 65 61 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 65 66 66 65 67 66 66 6:15:00 AM 62 65 67 67 64 64 64 66 66 63 66 67 66 66 66 66 67 64 66 67 65 66 66 67 6:30:00 AM 62 65 67 65 63 63 62 66 65 60 65 66 64 65 66 65 66 64 66 69 66 68 67 69 6:45:00 AM 60 64 65 63 61 62 61 66 66 63 66 67 64 65 65 65 66 63 65 66 62 66 66 68 7:00:00 AM 60 63 65 63 61 62 61 66 65 61 65 66 63 64 65 64 65 62 65 67 62 65 65 68 7:15:00 AM 62 63 65 63 60 61 61 66 65 61 65 65 64 66 67 64 66 63 65 67 63 66 66 69 7:30:00 AM 60 61 62 60 57 59 58 64 64 60 64 65 61 64 65 64 65 61 65 67 64 66 66 68 7:45:00 AM 57 57 54 46 49 57 55 63 64 60 65 65 62 64 66 64 66 62 65 66 64 67 66 68 8:00:00 AM 57 52 47 37 44 55 57 64 65 61 66 65 62 64 65 64 65 63 65 67 65 67 66 68 8:15:00 AM 55 47 43 32 41 58 59 64 64 60 64 65 62 64 65 63 66 64 66 67 64 66 64 66 8:30:00 AM 55 44 39 29 40 57 59 65 64 61 65 66 61 65 66 65 66 63 65 67 64 64 65 67 8:45:00 AM 57 46 45 33 41 57 58 65 64 60 65 66 60 65 66 64 65 63 66 66 65 65 66 68 9:00:00 AM 60 55 45 34 42 57 58 65 63 63 64 65 61 64 65 65 66 63 66 67 66 68 68 68 9:15:00 AM 61 61 51 43 47 59 58 66 65 65 66 66 63 64 64 63 65 63 66 69 66 68 68 69 9:30:00 AM 59 61 60 57 54 59 58 65 63 64 65 66 63 65 65 63 65 64 66 67 65 68 68 68 9:45:00 AM 61 62 62 61 58 60 59 65 63 64 64 65 64 65 66 66 66 63 65 67 66 67 66 68 10:00:00 AM 62 62 62 61 59 60 59 65 63 65 65 66 64 64 65 65 66 65 66 68 65 67 66 68 10:15:00 AM 61 62 63 63 61 61 60 66 64 64 65 66 64 65 65 65 65 63 66 67 65 68 65 68 10:30:00 AM 61 63 62 62 60 61 61 66 64 65 65 66 65 66 66 66 67 64 67 69 65 68 66 68 10:45:00 AM 61 63 63 63 60 61 60 66 64 64 64 66 65 66 66 67 66 63 67 67 66 67 66 69 11:00:00 AM 62 63 63 62 59 60 60 66 64 64 65 66 65 66 66 66 66 63 65 67 66 67 67 68 11:15:00 AM 61 62 63 61 60 61 60 65 63 64 64 66 64 66 66 67 66 65 68 69 67 70 67 68 11:30:00 AM 62 62 61 59 58 61 60 66 64 64 65 65 64 65 65 65 65 63 66 67 66 67 68 68 11:45:00 AM 62 61 57 56 56 60 59 65 63 63 64 65 64 65 65 65 66 63 66 67 66 67 67 68 12:00:00 PM 59 57 57 55 56 61 59 66 64 65 64 66 64 65 65 64 65 63 65 67 65 67 66 68 12:15:00 PM 57 56 57 55 56 59 59 65 63 64 64 66 64 66 66 66 66 62 65 67 66 68 67 68 12:30:00 PM 54 54 55 54 55 57 58 66 64 65 65 66 65 66 66 66 66 64 66 68 67 68 67 68 12:45:00 PM 52 53 55 53 54 56 58 66 65 65 65 66 64 65 65 66 66 64 66 67 67 68 67 69 1:00:00 PM 51 53 55 53 51 51 55 65 63 64 65 67 64 65 65 64 66 64 66 67 66 68 67 69 1:15:00 PM 50 52 52 49 47 47 53 64 62 63 64 65 61 64 65 63 65 64 66 67 66 68 67 67 1:30:00 PM 50 44 37 31 38 43 50 64 62 63 64 64 62 64 65 65 66 63 65 67 65 68 66 68 1:45:00 PM 41 34 36 33 40 44 51 65 63 64 64 65 64 65 65 66 66 63 66 67 65 67 67 69 2:00:00 PM 32 34 41 37 41 45 52 64 63 63 64 65 64 65 65 65 66 64 67 69 67 69 67 68 2:15:00 PM 37 45 48 42 45 49 55 64 63 63 63 65 62 65 65 65 66 62 65 67 64 67 67 68 2:30:00 PM 49 46 43 36 40 44 52 63 62 63 63 63 61 65 65 65 66 63 66 67 66 68 67 69 2:45:00 PM 48 41 38 31 38 48 53 63 62 63 63 62 60 65 65 66 65 63 66 69 67 69 66 68 3:00:00 PM 43 38 40 36 40 47 54 64 62 59 63 58 59 65 63 65 64 63 66 69 68 69 63 68 3:15:00 PM 36 36 37 34 39 36 48 63 60 58 62 56 57 64 63 64 62 62 65 69 67 69 64 68 3:30:00 PM 29 28 26 25 31 29 46 63 60 54 64 52 51 61 59 59 58 61 64 68 67 68 61 68 3:45:00 PM 28 23 21 21 28 26 46 63 60 55 62 48 52 61 56 56 55 62 65 68 66 62 59 67 4:00:00 PM 28 23 20 20 26 24 45 62 60 53 63 50 49 56 49 48 53 60 65 66 59 58 58 66 4:15:00 PM 32 23 20 18 24 23 44 62 59 54 57 40 46 51 45 46 51 61 64 65 58 60 55 66 4:30:00 PM 34 23 17 17 22 22 45 61 54 49 49 33 44 46 35 36 50 59 64 62 58 57 55 66 4:45:00 PM 31 23 17 16 21 21 43 56 47 42 42 31 44 44 33 31 45 59 64 61 57 54 53 65 5:00:00 PM 32 26 18 18 22 22 42 52 45 41 42 30 39 32 25 27 47 59 65 63 60 54 55 67 5:15:00 PM 34 27 17 17 19 20 38 52 44 37 36 28 39 37 29 30 47 58 64 67 60 56 56 67 5:30:00 PM 39 26 14 13 16 18 38 44 38 37 37 33 39 35 30 30 48 60 65 65 59 55 56 66 5:45:00 PM 41 27 15 16 20 20 43 47 39 39 37 33 41 40 34 32 48 57 64 62 60 59 60 68 6:00:00 PM 43 35 19 15 20 21 42 54 48 45 45 38 46 42 38 35 46 59 65 68 62 59 61 67 6:15:00 PM 52 43 30 23 24 23 45 58 54 50 52 44 44 43 35 35 50 60 65 68 65 63 63 68 6:30:00 PM 59 48 39 33 27 24 45 61 56 51 53 47 53 55 49 46 53 59 64 67 66 68 67 68 6:45:00 PM 59 50 37 31 29 24 44 61 59 55 62 55 56 60 56 51 52 58 64 67 66 68 66 67 7:00:00 PM 60 51 32 26 30 31 47 62 62 60 63 64 61 64 57 56 59 59 65 67 67 67 67 67 7:15:00 PM 60 58 50 38 38 40 52 63 61 59 62 64 63 58 56 58 65 64 66 67 66 66 68 69 7:30:00 PM 56 61 52 46 51 54 57 63 63 63 64 65 63 63 61 60 65 63 66 67 67 67 68 68 7:45:00 PM 61 63 58 53 57 61 61 65 63 63 64 65 64 65 67 66 66 64 66 66 66 67 68 69 8:00:00 PM 60 63 62 61 60 62 61 65 62 63 65 65 63 64 66 66 65 64 66 66 66 67 67 68 8:15:00 PM 60 62 62 63 60 62 60 65 63 62 65 65 66 66 68 68 67 64 66 67 67 66 67 67 8:30:00 PM 63 62 62 63 60 62 60 64 62 61 63 64 63 64 66 67 66 63 66 67 66 67 67 67 8:45:00 PM 60 61 61 60 58 60 60 63 61 60 62 63 62 64 66 65 64 62 64 66 65 66 67 67 9:00:00 PM 57 60 59 59 57 57 58 61 59 59 61 63 62 63 64 64 64 59 63 65 66 66 67 67 9:15:00 PM 57 58 58 59 56 57 56 60 59 57 59 61 60 62 62 61 62 59 65 66 67 67 66 66 9:30:00 PM 56 59 58 58 56 57 56 62 60 58 61 62 61 63 65 60 63 61 64 64 64 65 65 66 9:45:00 PM 58 60 60 61 58 59 59 62 60 60 62 63 61 63 64 60 63 63 65 65 64 64 66 66 10:00:00 PM 53 60 60 63 58 60 58 63 60 60 62 63 62 63 65 62 65 61 63 61 63 66 68 66 10:15:00 PM 54 61 62 62 60 61 61 63 61 60 63 64 62 64 66 61 66 63 64 66 66 66 67 63 10:30:00 PM 55 60 60 62 60 60 59 63 61 59 61 63 63 64 64 60 65 59 65 65 64 65 67 64 10:45:00 PM 55 61 62 64 60 61 60 63 62 60 63 64 63 63 66 63 65 61 65 66 65 66 67 67 11:00:00 PM 54 62 62 64 60 61 60 61 60 61 62 63 64 64 66 67 65 63 66 67 66 68 67 67 11:15:00 PM 55 61 62 65 59 60 59 62 60 60 62 63 62 64 65 61 64 62 64 60 58 65 65 66 11:30:00 PM 57 61 62 65 60 63 59 62 61 62 62 63 62 64 66 62 64 61 65 67 66 66 66 66 11:45:00 PM 56 54 62 66 59 63 61 63 62 61 63 64 63 64 65 63 64 62 65 66 64 66 66 67 Source: INRIX Figure 2-14. Speed Heat Map – Westbound

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-26 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

According to the speed data, the greatest congestion during the AM peak period occurred in the eastbound direction between the Route 234 Bypass (Exit 44) and US 29 in Centreville (Exit 52), with observed speeds as low as 13 mph, and also between Fairfax County Parkway (Exit 55) and US 50 (Exit 57), with speeds as low as 15 mph. During the PM peak period, in the westbound direction, observed speeds were as low as 13 mph between I-495 (Exit 64) and Route 123 (Exit 60), while in the eastbound direction there was some congestion before and after US 50 (Exit 57). It should be noted that speed drops in the eastbound direction during the PM period close to the US 50 and Route 123 interchanges could be due to high traffic merging and weaving between the same interchanges. The Route 123 and US 50 interchanges are spaced very closely together, and they each carry significant on-ramp/off-ramp traffic to and from I-66. The shorter span of weaving lanes between these interchanges does not relieve the congestion. In addition, traffic from the Fair Oaks Mall accessing I-66 could cause congestion, leading to spillbacks and lower speeds at the US 50 interchange.

2.3.4. Travel Time Data C&M received travel time survey data from VDOT that was collected in September 2014 along I-66 and I-495 corridors during both AM and PM peak periods. The data were collected using GPS receivers that provide both vehicle positions and corresponding time data. For the purposes of this study, only the travel time survey data along the study corridor during both AM and PM peak periods were used. Along the I-66 corridor, between the ramps at Route 29 and the interchange at I-495 Southbound, ten travel time runs were conducted on different days during peak periods. The collected GPS data logs were then exported into Thru-Traffic software. The output for each segment includes travel time, distance, delay, mean journey speeds, platoon- progression diagrams, etc. For each segment, travel time values beyond two standard deviations of the mean were treated as outliers and excluded from the data set, as they are due to accidents or unlikely events that may have occurred at that time. In the eastbound direction, during the AM period, the travel time was 55 minutes along the GP lanes between the off-ramp at Route 29 and the off-ramp at I-495 Southbound, whereas travel time on the HOV lanes was 35 minutes. The cumulative travel time in the eastbound direction during the AM period is shown in Figure 2-15. During the PM period, along the GP lanes on the eastbound corridor, travel time between the off-ramp at Route 29 and the off-ramp at I-495 Southbound was 25 minutes. During the PM period, travel time on the HOV lanes was about 22 minutes. The observed cumulative travel time in the eastbound direction during the PM period is shown in Figure 2-16. In the westbound direction, during the AM period, travel time was 22 minutes along the GP lanes between the off-ramp at I-495 Southbound and the off-ramp at Route 29, whereas travel time on HOV lanes was 21 minutes. The cumulative travel time for this direction during the AM period is shown in Figure 2-17. As expected, during the PM period the travel time increased to 43 minutes on the GP lanes between the off-ramp at I-495 Southbound and the off-ramp at Route 29. The corresponding travel time on the HOV lanes was 28 minutes. These time trends are shown in Figure 2-18.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-27 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-15. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – AM Eastbound

Figure 2-16. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – PM Eastbound

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-28 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-17. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – AM Westbound

Figure 2-18. Cumulative Travel Time along I-66 – PM Westbound

2.3.5. Bluetooth Origin-Destination Data The Origin-Destination (OD) survey based on Bluetooth signal data was collected at five locations along I-66 from January 20 to January 31, 2014. The Bluetooth protocol is a widely used, open standard, wireless technology for exchanging data over short

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-29 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data distances. Bluetooth technology provides the ability to track devices through a network by working on the principle of matching the Migration Access Code (MAC) addresses from each Bluetooth device. The MAC address is an identification code unique to each phone, hands-free kit, satellite navigation system, or any other Bluetooth device. Bluetooth scanners were calibrated after their initial setup along the roadside. These scanners were left at their respective stations to collect MAC addresses from passing vehicles. Table 2-5 lists the location of the scanner stations, and Figure 2-19 shows the locations geographically.

Table 2-5. Bluetooth OD Survey Station Locations ID Description 1 Between US 15 and US 29 Gainesville 2 Between Sudley Rd and US 29 Centreville 3 Between Route 28 and Stringfellow Rd 4 Between US 50 and Rte 123 5 At I-66/I-495 Interchange

Figure 2-19. Bluetooth OD Survey Station Locations

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-30 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

OD matches are based on each vehicle’s first and last recorded location on I-66. Table 2-6 shows the summary of daily percentages from Bluetooth-matched origins and destinations. The percentage shown is the number of trips of one OD movement compared to the total number of trips captured in all OD movements. Further discussion of the OD data is provided in Chapter 4.

Table 2-6. Percentage Bluetooth ODs Matched From/To 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.0% 2.0% 1.9% 2.3% 2.4% 2 2.1% 0.0% 5.8% 7.3% 5.3% 3 1.5% 6.3% 0.0% 8.2% 4.3% 4 1.0% 4.9% 4.3% 0.0% 9.0% 5 2.8% 8.7% 6.1% 13.8% 0.0%

The Bluetooth capture rates relative to the 2013 AADTs in the corresponding locations are presented in Table 2-7. The capture rates range from 9 to 14 percent, which are typical and consistent with expectations.

Table 2-7. Bluetooth Capture Rates Bluetooth 2013 Capture Location Captured AADT Rate Location 1 5,751 60,000 10% Location 2 16,993 137,000 12% Location 3 13,866 161,000 9% Location 4 24,338 173,000 14% Location 5 16,202 159,000 10%

2.3.6. AirSage Data AirSage, an Atlanta-based wireless information and data provider, has developed an approach to gathering data regarding population mobility throughout a region. AirSage analyzes the anonymous location and movement of mobile devices, which are derived from wireless signaling data, to provide new insights into where populations are, were, or will be, and how they move about over time and in response to special events or disruptions to the roadway network. The AirSage data received by C&M comprises an OD matrix and several Shape files. The OD matrix includes data from 342 OD zones, which provide data regarding origin and destination, start day and end day (Value: date), time of day (Peak hours or 24 hours), purpose of trip (Value: Home-Based Work, Home-Based Other, Non-Home-Based), and counts.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-31 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

AirSage classifies analyzed trips based on several factors, including resident class of subscriber, trip purpose, time of day, and day of the week. All of the trip ends within those zones are also assigned a purpose and time of day during which they took place. The number of trip ends are totaled to determine the total number of trips that took place within each zone. All of these data are then packaged in the form of an OD Matrix.

2.3.7. I-495 Express Lanes Evaluating the existing I-495 express lanes is an important part of the present study due to their proximity to the study area and potential connection to the proposed I-66 express lanes. The I-495 express lanes span approximately 13.2 miles between I-395 and north of Dulles Toll Road. According to the quarterly reports from the I-495 express lanes website, the 2014 annual revenue per mile per lane is $590,000. The quarterly average daily trips, average dynamic toll, and toll revenue for each quarter from December 2012 to December 2014 are presented in Table 2-8. Currently, I-495 has two express lanes in each direction with a speed limit of 65 mph. Figure 2-20 shows access points along the express lanes between Gallows Road and the north end.

Table 2-8. Quarterly Daily Trips, Dynamic Toll, and Total Toll Revenue Average Daily Average Dynamic Total Toll Revenue Quarter Trips Toll in Thousand Dollars December 2012 18,594 $1.07 $828 March 2013 21,008 $1.43 $2,475 June 2013 28,905 $1.71 $4,029 September 2013 30,518 $1.86 $4,760 December 2013 30,417 $2.32 $5,913 March 2014 28,637 $2.38 $5,612 June 2014 35,309 $2.83 $8,250 September 2014 34,888 $2.89 $8,327 December 2014 35,405 $3.06 $8,938 Source: https://www.495expresslanes.com

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-32 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VA 193 VA 267 VA 123 VA 7 IH-66 US 29 US 50 VA 650 Georgetown Pike Dulles Toll Rd Chain Bridge Rd Leesburg Pike Curtis Memorial Parkway Lee Highway Arlington Blvd Gallows Rd

4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes NB 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes

2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes SB

4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes 4 lanes

Jones Branch Rd Westpark Drive

Legend

General Purpose Lane 3 General Purpose Lanes

Cross Roads / Ramps 2 Number of HOTExpress Lanes Lanes

Distance Toll Gantry N Express/Toll Lanes Express Lane *The Alignment Diagram is not to scale Express Lane Slip Ramps

Figure 2-20. I-495 Alignment

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-33 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

Figure 2-21 and Figure 2-22 show the capture rate of the express lane traffic with respect to the total corridor traffic in both directions at various locations along the corridor. Except between Route 267 and the Northern Termini, the express lanes reached the highest capture rates during the AM peak period in the northbound direction. In the southbound direction, express lanes had high capture rates during the PM peak period. Generally, the express lanes experienced high capture rates during AM peak periods compared to PM peak periods. The highest capture rates during the AM peak period ranged from 10 to 25 percent. During the PM peak period, these rates ranged from 10 to 20 percent. It is important to observe that the express lanes attracted approximately 5 percent of the total traffic during the MD period in both directions and around 2 percent during the NT period, which suggests that the travelers using the express lanes pay for travel reliability on top of the travel time savings compared with traveling on the GP Lanes.

1.20 30%

1.00 25%

0.80 20%

0.60 15%

0.40 10%

0.20 5%

0.00 0%

2:00 PM

4:00 PM

6:00 PM

8:00 PM

2:00 AM

4:00 AM

6:00 AM

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

10:00 PM

12:00 AM 12:00 10:00 AM

Total Traffic/GP Capacity Capture Rate

1.20 30%

1.00 25%

0.80 20%

0.60 15%

0.40 10%

0.20 5%

0.00 0%

2:00 PM

4:00 PM

6:00 PM

8:00 PM

2:00AM

4:00AM

6:00 AM 6:00

8:00AM

12:00PM

10:00PM

12:00AM 10:00AM

Total Traffic/GP Capacity Capture Rate

Figure 2-21. Northbound and Southbound I-495 Express Lane Capture Rate: Gallows Rd and Lee Hwy

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-34 FINAL REPORT 2. Existing Information and Field Data

1.20 30%

1.00 25%

0.80 20%

0.60 15%

0.40 10%

0.20 5%

0.00 0%

2:00 PM

4:00 PM

6:00 PM

8:00 PM

2:00 AM

4:00 AM

6:00 AM

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

10:00 PM

12:00 AM 12:00 10:00 AM

Total Traffic/GP Capacity Capture Rate

1.20 30%

1.00 25%

0.80 20%

0.60 15%

0.40 10%

0.20 5%

0.00 0%

2:00 PM

4:00 PM

6:00 PM

8:00 PM

2:00 AM

4:00 AM

6:00 AM

8:00 AM

12:00 PM

10:00 PM

12:00 AM 12:00 10:00 AM

Total Traffic/GP Capacity Capture Rate

Figure 2-22. Northbound and Southbound I-495 Express Lane Capture Rate: I-66 and Leesburg Pike

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 2-35 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review & Projections

3.1. Introduction The demographic and economic status of a region has a significant impact on the usage of highways and toll facilities. Typically, the most important variables in socioeconomic forecasts for travel demand modeling are population, number of households, household income, and employment. This chapter presents a review and comparison of historical, current, and future socioeconomic data regarding the I-66 Project study area. For this study, C&M reviewed socioeconomic data from the following public and private sources:  Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s (MWCOG) Round 8.3 Cooperative Forecasts1  U.S. Census Bureau (Census)  Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)  Woods & Poole Economics (W&P)  Moody’s Analytics (Moody’s)  George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis (CRA) In addition to historical socioeconomic data, MWCOG, W&P, Moody’s, and CRA also provided socioeconomic projections that can be used as inputs to the travel demand model (TDM) for future years. For the purposes of this study, CRA was retained by VDOT to conduct a socioeconomic review and projection for counties associated with the study corridor. C&M utilized MWCOG’s Round 8.3 socioeconomic projections to develop the MWCOG Baseline T&R forecasts, while CRA’s three socioeconomic projections were used in the CRA Low, CRA Mid, and CRA High Case T&R forecasts. In their efforts, CRA examined the current situation and the projected future socioeconomic trends that will affect population, households, and employment in jurisdictions associated with the I-66 study corridor up to 2040. CRA’s forecasts are adapted from the MWCOG’s Round 8.3 projections and adjusted according to various data sources. For details regarding CRA’s forecasting methodology, please refer to their report in Appendix A. As part of this socioeconomic review, C&M analyzed the historical county-level socioeconomic patterns that were obtained from the above-listed sources. Through this process, C&M validated the socioeconomic projections by MWCOG and CRA and compared them to projections by W&P and Moody’s. The collected data at the county level was also compared to other data sets and used to develop socioeconomic data at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level for future year models. This chapter first introduces historical socioeconomic data (including population, number of households, and employment), followed by the socioeconomic projections from each source. The MWCOG model area, Project study area, and Project location are presented in Figure 3-1. C&M reviewed socioeconomic data for the MWCOG model coverage area, with focus on the I-66 Project study area.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-1 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-1. MWCOG Model Area and I-66 Project Study Area

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-2 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.1.1. Population The geographical location of the District of Columbia and its concentration of activity centers significantly affect population mobility and settlement in the MWCOG region. Historical population trends from 2000 to 2013 were obtained from the Census for all counties within the MWCOG model area. Population data for 2000 and 2010 are based on Census Decennial data, while data for 2013 are based on one-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS). For King George County and Fredericksburg County, 2013 data are based on ACS three-year estimates. Also, for counties with a population less than 20,000, such as Clarke County, five-year estimates were obtained from the Census. Table 3-1 summarizes historical population trends from 2000 to 2013 for each county and the corresponding compound annual growth rates (CAGR). While some counties in the region have expanded rapidly, such as Loudon County, a few counties have had a very low annual growth rate over the thirteen-year period. For example, Clarke County has had one of the lowest growth rates in the MWCOG modeling area. The District of Columbia, Arlington County, and Alexandria are the “mature” areas in the region, with a low population growth rate from 2000 to 2010. However, compared to the ten-year period from 2000 to 2010, these three areas have exhibited higher growth between 2010 and 2013. Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudoun Counties make up the core area of the Project corridor. Loudoun County’s population more than doubled between 2000 and 2013, growing by 106.2 percent from 169,599 in 2000 to 349,679 in 2013. Loudon County has the highest annual population growth since 2000, exhibiting 6.3 percent growth from 2000 to 2010 and 3.8 percent growth from 2010 to 2013. In Prince William County, the population has increased annually at about 3.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. This growth, however, declined to 2.9 percent in 2013. The population in Fairfax County, which is closer to the District of Columbia, has increased at about 1.5 percent from 2010 to 2013.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-3 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Table 3-1. Historical Population Trends within MWCOG Model Area Population CAGR Location 2000 2010 2013 2000-2010 2010-2013 2000-2013 District of Columbia, DC* 572,059 601,723 646,449 0.5% 2.4% 0.9% Montgomery, MD* 873,341 971,777 1,016,677 1.1% 1.5% 1.2% Prince George's, MD* 801,515 863,420 890,081 0.7% 1.0% 0.8% Arlington, VA* 189,453 207,627 224,906 0.9% 2.7% 1.3% Alexandria, VA* 128,283 139,966 148,892 0.9% 2.1% 1.2% Fairfax, VA* 969,749 1,081,726 1,130,924 1.1% 1.5% 1.2% Loudoun, VA* 169,599 312,311 349,679 6.3% 3.8% 5.7% Prince William, VA* 280,813 402,002 438,580 3.7% 2.9% 3.5% Frederick, MD* 195,277 233,385 241,409 1.8% 1.1% 1.6% Howard, MD* 247,842 287,085 304,580 1.5% 2.0% 1.6% Anne Arundel, MD* 489,656 537,656 555,743 0.9% 1.1% 1.0% Charles, MD* 120,546 146,551 152,864 2.0% 1.4% 1.8% Carroll, MD* 150,897 167,134 167,564 1.0% 0.1% 0.8% Calvert, MD* 74,563 88,737 90,484 1.8% 0.7% 1.5% St. Mary's, MD* 86,211 105,151 109,633 2.0% 1.4% 1.9% King George, VA** 16,803 23,584 24,582 3.4% 1.4% 3.0% Fredericksburg, VA** 19,279 24,286 27,142 2.3% 3.8% 2.7% Stafford, VA* 92,446 128,961 136,788 3.4% 2.0% 3.1% Fauquier, VA* 55,139 65,203 67,207 1.7% 1.0% 1.5% Clarke, VA*** 12,652 14,034 14,348 1.0% 0.7% 1.0% Jefferson, WV* 42,190 53,498 54,653 2.4% 0.7% 2.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Extracted on:12/7/2014 * 2013: ACS 1-Year Estimates ** 2013: ACS 3-Year Estimates *** 2013: ACS 5-Year Estimates

Historical population growth rates in the MWCOG model area are presented in Figure 3-2. From this figure, it can be seen that the region west of the District of Columbia had a high rate of population growth from 2000 to 2013, especially near the I-66 corridor and within Loudoun County and Prince William County.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-4 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Source: U.S. Census Figure 3-2. Population CAGR: 2000–2013

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-5 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.1.2. Number of Households Similar to population, number of households is an important predictor of trips. Table 3-2 shows household growth trends for all counties within the MWCOG model area from 2000 to 2013. As can be seen, Loudoun County and Prince William County had a high rate of household growth.

Table 3-2. Historical Household Trends Number of Households CAGR Location 2000 2010 2013 2000-2010 2010-2013 2000-2013 District of Columbia, DC* 248,338 266,707 271,651 0.7% 0.6% 0.7% Montgomery, MD* 324,565 357,086 364,743 1.0% 0.7% 0.9% Prince George's, MD* 286,610 304,042 306,730 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% Arlington, VA* 86,352 98,050 98,973 1.3% 0.3% 1.1% Alexandria, VA*† 61,889 68,082 67,567 1.0% -0.3% 0.7% Fairfax, VA* 350,714 391,627 391,784 1.1% 0.0% 0.9% Loudoun, VA* 59,900 104,583 112,749 5.7% 2.5% 5.0% Prince William, VA* 94,570 130,785 137,636 3.3% 1.7% 2.9% Frederick, MD* 70,060 84,800 88,531 1.9% 1.4% 1.8% Howard, MD* 90,043 104,749 108,188 1.5% 1.1% 1.4% Anne Arundel, MD* 178,670 199,378 201,695 1.1% 0.4% 0.9% Charles, MD* 41,668 51,214 52,683 2.1% 0.9% 1.8% Carroll, MD* 52,503 59,786 60,362 1.3% 0.3% 1.1% Calvert, MD*† 25,447 30,873 32,001 2.0% 1.2% 1.8% St. Mary's, MD*† 30,642 37,604 37,638 2.1% 0.0% 1.6% King George, VA**† 6,091 8,376 8,547 3.2% 0.7% 2.6% Fredericksburg, VA** 8,102 9,505 9,987 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% Stafford, VA* 30,187 41,769 43,629 3.3% 1.5% 2.9% Fauquier, VA*† 19,842 23,658 24,096 1.8% 0.6% 1.5% Clarke, VA*** 4,942 5,509 5,580 1.1% 0.4% 0.9% Jefferson, WV* 16,165 19,931 20,053 2.1% 0.2% 1.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Extracted on: 1/15/2014 * 2013: ACS 1-Year Estimates ** 2013: ACS 3-Year Estimates *** 2013: ACS 5-Year Estimates † Margin of Error included in Houhold 2013 ACS Estimates

As shown in Figure 3-3, Loudoun County and Prince William County exhibited the highest growth in number of households from 2000 to 2013.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-6 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Figure 3-3. Household CAGR: 2000–2013

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-7 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.1.3. Employment This section presents historical employment trends within the MWCOG model area. C&M studied and evaluated the region's current job market and its employment history. Historical employment trends from 2000 to 2013 are presented in Table 3-3. It can be seen that Loudoun County and Prince William County had the highest employment growth rates from 2000 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2013, respectively. However, several counties experienced slow growth from 2000 to 2010. The recent recession is partially attributable for the loss of jobs that occurred in the region over the last few years. Though the economy is recovering, a few counties experienced negative employment growth between 2010 and 2013.

Table 3-3. Historical Employment Trends Employment CAGR Location 2000 2010 2013 2000-2010 2010-2013 2000-2013 District of Columbia, 637,292 693,274 724,270 0.8% 1.5% 1.0% Montgomery, MD 447,314 441,887 451,869 -0.1% 0.7% 0.1% Prince George's, MD 303,262 299,093 299,713 -0.1% 0.1% -0.1% Arlington, VA 157,906 162,679 165,044 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% Alexandria, VA 91,818 95,948 95,203 0.4% -0.3% 0.3% Fairfax, VA 537,746 573,551 586,818 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% Loudoun, VA 87,265 132,340 146,358 4.3% 3.4% 4.1% Prince William, VA 78,209 103,877 116,645 2.9% 3.9% 3.1% Frederick, MD 77,323 91,669 94,789 1.7% 1.1% 1.6% Howard, MD 128,678 146,125 159,348 1.3% 2.9% 1.7% Anne Arundel, MD 194,018 226,509 251,976 1.6% 3.6% 2.0% Charles, MD 36,282 40,344 40,743 1.1% 0.3% 0.9% Carroll, MD 46,782 54,044 56,114 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% Calvert, MD 17,112 21,066 21,545 2.1% 0.8% 1.8% St. Mary's, MD 33,402 41,233 42,419 2.1% 0.9% 1.9% King George, VA 9,277 9,818 10,539 0.6% 2.4% 1.0% Fredericksburg, VA 23,119 25,137 24,398 0.8% -1.0% 0.4% Stafford, VA 24,274 35,603 39,452 3.9% 3.5% 3.8% Fauquier, VA 17,154 20,145 21,213 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% Clarke, VA 4,558 3,806 3,744 -1.8% -0.5% -1.5% Jefferson, WV 12,793 14,216 15,029 1.1% 1.9% 1.2% Sources: BLS, State and County Employment and Wages Data extracted on: January 12, 2015 (Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages - QCEW)

In 2013, the District of Columbia and Fairfax County were the two major employment centers in the region, accounting for more than 1.3 million jobs. Figure 3-4 shows the employment trends for the D.C. area, the six counties of the study area, and the city of

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-8 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Alexandria. On average, the District of Columbia added approximately 6,700 jobs per year between 2000 and 2013, whereas Fairfax County and Loudoun County added approximately 3,800 and 4,500 jobs, respectively, during the same period.

Figure 3-4. Employment from 2000 to 2013 (MWCOG Model)

The annual employment growth rate from 2000 to 2013 within the MWCOG model area is presented in Figure 3-5 .

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-9 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Source: BLS Figure 3-5. Employment CAGR: 2000–2013

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-10 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.1.4. Median Household Income Travel demand for a toll facility is highly dependent on household income. Income plays an important role in travelers’ decisions regarding toll facilities, as it determines the willingness to pay a toll for using such a facility. This section summarizes historical median household income data obtained from the Census Bureau. The historical household income trend for each county is shown in Table 3-4. As can be seen from the growth in median household income (in nominal dollars) in counties in the study area, the fastest growing areas for household income were the District of Columbia, Arlington County, and the City of Alexandria, averaging 3.9, 3.9, and 3.3 percent per year between 2000 and 2013, respectively.

Table 3-4. Historical Median Household Income Trends (Nominal Dollars) Median Household Income CAGR Location 2000 2010 2013 2000-2010 2010-2013 2000-2013 District of Columbia, DC* 39,827 58,526 65,830 3.9% 4.0% 3.9% Montgomery, MD* 71,594 93,373 98,221 2.7% 1.7% 2.5% Prince George's, MD* 54,879 71,260 73,623 2.6% 1.1% 2.3% Arlington, VA* 62,830 94,880 103,208 4.2% 2.8% 3.9% Alexandria, VA* 56,161 80,847 85,706 3.7% 2.0% 3.3% Fairfax, VA** 80,978 105,416 110,292 2.7% 1.5% 2.4% Loudoun, VA** 80,903 115,574 122,238 3.6% 1.9% 3.2% Prince William, VA* 65,754 91,098 98,071 3.3% 2.5% 3.1% Frederick, MD* 60,305 81,686 84,570 3.1% 1.2% 2.6% Howard, MD* 74,006 103,273 109,865 3.4% 2.1% 3.1% Anne Arundel, MD* 61,648 83,456 87,430 3.1% 1.6% 2.7% Charles, MD* 62,309 88,825 93,160 3.6% 1.6% 3.1% Carroll, MD* 60,103 81,621 84,790 3.1% 1.3% 2.7% Calvert, MD* 65,724 90,838 95,477 3.3% 1.7% 2.9% St. Mary's, MD** 54,721 80,053 85,672 3.9% 2.3% 3.5% King George, VA** 49,981 76,241 81,753 4.3% 2.4% 3.9% Fredericksburg, VA** 34,158 43,558 47,040 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% Stafford, VA* 67,229 93,065 97,110 3.3% 1.4% 2.9% Fauquier, VA** 61,643 83,877 88,409 3.1% 1.8% 2.8% Clarke, VA*** 51,723 73,244 77,597 3.5% 1.9% 3.2% Jefferson, WV* 44,325 65,603 65,304 4.0% -0.2% 3.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Extracted on: 1/13/2015 * 2013: ACS 1-Year Estimates ** 2013: ACS 3-Year Estimates *** 2013: ACS 5-Year Estimates

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-11 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Historical growth in median household income from 2000 to 2013 is presented in Figure 3-6, in nominal dollars.

Source: U.S. Census Figure 3-6. Median Household Income (Nominal Dollars) CAGR: 2000–2013

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-12 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.2. Future Year Socioeconomic Projections Socioeconomic projections provide the basic inputs for the TDM future runs. For the I-66 Project, four socioeconomic resources were considered:  W&P  Moody’s  MWCOG’s Round 8.3 Cooperative Forecasts2  CRA As mentioned earlier, CRA provided socioeconomic forecasts in three scenarios, which were used in the CRA Low, CRA Mid, and CRA High T&R forecasts. CRA’s population and household forecasts were generated together using six data sources: the U.S. Census Bureau and forecasts from MWCOG, IHS Economics, W&P, the CRA, and the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Policy, as available. According to the CRA, the forecasts were aligned with 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census data to compare the long-term historic and projected growth for each forecast. In addition to growth, historic and forecasted average household sizes were assessed. The low, most likely, and high growth scenarios were then developed. Each jurisdiction (or group of jurisdictions) was assessed separately such that each scenario includes multiple underlying data sources. The employment forecasts were generated using four data sources: the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and forecasts from MWCOG, IHS Economics, and W&P. After addressing the discrepancies in job definition by different sources, the base year (2013) for each data source was re-weighted to match the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis wage and salary employment. Then, the forecasts were used for either the low, most likely, or high growth scenario. Details regarding CRA’s forecasting methodology can be found in CRA’s full report in Appendix A.

3.2.1. Population Projections Increases in long-term population for a region can be attributed primarily to the growth of the region’s economy and high rates of immigration. Table 3-5 presents a summary of W&P, Moody’s, MWCOG’s Round 8.3, as well as CRA’s Low, Mid, and High cases for study area population forecasts from 2010 to 2040. From this table, it can be seen that the study area’s population is expected to increase by at least 32 percent. According to the MWCOG model, the region’s population within the study area is expected to grow by roughly one million by 2040.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-13 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Table 3-5. Study Area Population Forecasts by Source 2010 to 2040 Source 2010 2013 2015 2017 2020 2022 2040 Absolute % Increase Changed Moody's 2,930,885 3,222,976 3,449,445 4,250,961 1,320,076 45% W&P 2,929,992 3,252,163 3,580,713 4,897,887 1,967,895 67% MWCOG 2,824,622 3,052,819 3,264,786 3,930,230 1,105,608 39% CRA Low 2,824,622 3,193,035 3,293,494 3,322,087 3,720,606 895,984 32% CRA Mid 2,824,622 3,199,217 3,302,839 3,361,963 4,090,948 1,266,326 45% CRA High 2,824,622 3,320,526 3,525,079 3,595,688 4,466,694 4,466,694 58%

Table 3-6 shows a comparison of regional population projections from 2010 to 2040 by MWCOG, W&P, Moody’s, and CRA. All projections show that Loudoun County and Prince William County are projected to have relatively high population growth rates from 2010 to 2020. In the case of Loudoun County, MWCOG projected population will increase annually by 3.0 percent from 2010 to 2020, falling between W&P’s 4.2 percent and Moody’s 2.8 percent. In general, between 2010 and 2020, CRA’s forecasts indicate that for the High case, the total population will increase from 1.2 to 3.7 percent, compared to 0.7 to 3.1 percent for the Medium case and 0.5 to 3.2 percent for the Low case. Statistics suggest that population growth rates decline in some counties after 2015. For example, the population of Prince William is believed to have a 2.4 percent population growth rate from 2010 to 2015 based on MWCOG’s forecasts, while its growth rate is estimated to decrease to 1.8 percent from 2015 to 2020. On the other hand, in some counties, the population growth rate is projected to increase after 2020. For example, Fairfax County is projected to grow at 0.6 percent from 2010 to 2015 and increase to 0.9 percent from 2020 to 2040. Figure 3-7 presents population projections for Fairfax County as an example based on MWCOG, W&P, Moody’s, and CRA. It can be seen that, after 2020, MWCOG’s projection is between the projected line of CRA’s forecasts for its Low and Medium cases. In addition, Moody’s projection is in between CRA’s High and Medium projections. Similar information for other counties is shown in Table 3-6.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-14 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Table 3-6. Regional Population Projections by Source

CAGR County Source 2010 2013 2015 2017 2020 2022 2040 2010- 2010- 2015- 2017- 2010- 2020- 2010- 2015 2017 2020 2020 2020 2040 2040 MWCOG 601,764 660,528 715,494 883,568 1.9% 1.6% 1.7% 1.1% 1.3% W&P 604,912 618,100 619,653 628,277 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Moody's 604,989 664,630 697,165 793,790 1.9% 1.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% District of Columbia CRA Low 601,764 671,021 694,434 696,766 735,724 1.6% 1.1% 1.4% 0.3% 0.7% CRA Mid 601,764 646,446 669,660 691,972 702,749 826,989 1.5% 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% 1.1% CRA High 601,764 682,580 715,494 729,031 883,568 1.8% 1.6% 1.7% 1.1% 1.3% MWCOG 207,627 222,885 236,083 276,072 1.4% 1.2% 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% W&P 209,291 219,530 224,415 244,679 1.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5% Moody's 209,281 235,160 257,010 336,173 2.4% 1.8% 2.1% 1.4% 1.6% Arlington CRA Low 207,627 228,413 233,564 234,982 254,654 1.4% 0.7% 1.2% 0.4% 0.7% CRA Mid 207,627 222,885 226,612 230,357 233,086 265,959 1.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% CRA High 207,627 229,820 236,083 239,186 276,072 1.5% 0.9% 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% MWCOG 139,958 148,513 158,102 194,890 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% W&P 140,894 148,487 154,028 176,614 1.1% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% Moody's 140,810 153,988 164,949 205,147 1.8% 1.4% 1.6% 1.1% 1.3% Alexandria CRA Low 139,958 149,280 150,309 151,135 165,668 0.9% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% CRA Mid 139,958 148,513 151,388 154,028 155,488 176,614 1.1% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% CRA High 139,958 153,672 158,102 160,760 194,890 1.3% 1.0% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% MWCOG 1,081,731 1,116,381 1,153,456 1,369,001 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.8% W&P 1,121,054 1,241,108 1,374,522 1,909,074 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 1.7% 1.8% Moody's 1,121,709 1,196,171 1,253,375 1,463,096 1.3% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% Fairfax CRA Low 1,081,731 1,152,833 1,159,031 1,167,635 1,307,935 0.9% 0.2% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% CRA Mid 1,081,731 1,154,133 1,172,451 1,193,606 1,208,335 1,414,154 1.2% 0.6% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% CRA High 1,081,731 1,233,330 1,303,625 1,318,617 1,531,729 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.8% 1.2% MWCOG 312,310 367,957 417,986 484,498 3.3% 2.6% 3.0% 0.7% 1.5% W&P 315,305 391,534 474,569 805,749 4.4% 3.9% 4.2% 2.7% 3.2% Moody's 315,450 368,941 415,535 585,366 3.2% 2.4% 2.8% 1.7% 2.1% Loudoun CRA Low 312,310 384,113 417,986 423,091 484,498 3.0% 2.9% 3.0% 0.7% 1.5% CRA Mid 312,310 349,678 373,099 397,272 410,698 567,195 2.6% 2.1% 2.4% 1.8% 2.0% CRA High 312,310 393,462 435,920 455,155 686,472 3.4% 3.5% 3.4% 2.3% 2.7% MWCOG 402,000 452,367 494,525 612,547 2.4% 1.8% 2.1% 1.1% 1.4% W&P 459,080 545,563 636,153 997,934 3.5% 3.1% 3.3% 2.3% 2.6% Moody's 459,213 522,098 578,410 780,477 2.6% 2.1% 2.3% 1.5% 1.8% Prince William CRA Low 402,000 523,362 551,967 561,443 675,953 3.8% 1.8% 3.2% 1.0% 1.7% CRA Mid 402,000 490,930 520,371 546,464 560,729 730,382 3.8% 1.6% 3.1% 1.5% 2.0% CRA High 402,000 537,599 578,481 592,438 758,403 4.2% 2.5% 3.7% 1.4% 2.1% MWCOG 65,201 69,658 74,114 93,022 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% W&P 65,384 72,908 81,568 116,234 2.2% 2.3% 2.2% 1.8% 1.9% Moody's 65,381 67,548 68,496 72,134 0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% Fauquier CRA Low 65,201 69,553 71,492 72,254 80,684 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% CRA Mid 65,201 67,205 70,999 74,114 75,704 93,022 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% CRA High 65,201 74,996 81,568 84,383 116,234 2.0% 2.8% 2.3% 1.8% 1.9% MWCOG 14,031 14,530 15,026 16,632 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% W&P 14,072 14,933 15,805 19,326 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% Moody's 14,052 14,441 14,503 14,778 0.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% Clarke CRA Low 14,031 14,461 14,711 14,781 15,490 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% CRA Mid 14,031 14,140 14,637 15,026 15,173 16,632 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% CRA High 14,031 15,066 15,805 16,119 19,326 1.0% 1.6% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-15 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-7. Fairfax County Population Projections

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-16 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Population Projection at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Level Although county-level evaluation is the major step within the socioeconomic data validation process, TAZ-level distribution of the data also needs careful assessment. The following text discusses the validation process at the TAZ level in more detail. To better present TAZ level information, MWCOG Round 8.3 GIS data were summarized to show TAZ level data from 2010 to 2040, as shown in Figure 3-8 through Figure 3-10. Similar to the county level patterns presented in Table 3-6, higher growth rates are associated with the period between 2010 and 2015, while a slower population growth pattern is projected for the period between 2015 and 2020 and the period after. As shown in these figures, while many TAZs near the eastern end of the Project corridor are expected to have small or non-positive growth, TAZs in the middle and western end of the Project corridor are associated with relatively high growth. TAZs near the western end of the corridor around US 15 and Sudley Road (SR 234) are projected to experience a high growth of population from 2010 to 2040. TAZs around Gum Spring Road, Loudoun County Parkway, and US 50 are also predicted to have high population growth.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-17 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-8. MWCOG Population Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2010-2015

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-18 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-9. MWCOG Population Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2015-2020

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-19 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-10. MWCOG Population Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2020-2040

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-20 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.2.2. Households Projections Household projections show that regional economic growth will continue to attract new residents within the study area between 2010 and 2040. Based on the MWCOG Round 8.3 projections, approximately 428,500 more households will be developed within the study area, while W&P projected that 675,500 new households will be added in the same period. Table 3-7 presents the summary of household projections. It should be noted that Moody’s projection for households is not available.

Table 3-7. Study Area Household Forecasts by Source

2010 to 2040 Study Area 2010 2013 2015 2017 2020 2022 2040 Absolute % Increase Changed MWCOG 1,083,524 1,164,840 1,244,937 1,512,065 428,541 40% W&P 1,126,527 1,271,101 1,402,033 1,801,996 675,469 60% CRA Low 1,083,524 1,233,447 1,282,468 1,510,856 427,332 39% CRA Mid 1,083,524 1,183,534 1,247,242 1,307,196 1,333,122 1,665,837 582,313 54% CRA High 1,083,524 1,288,685 1,384,685 1,415,945 1,813,635 730,111 67%

Table 3-8 presents a comparison of regional household projections by MWCOG, W&P, and CRA. Based on MWCOG forecasts, Fairfax County, Prince William County, and the District of Columbia are major regions expected to have more families compared to other regions in the area. Similar to population projections, the MWCOG’s forecasted rate for household growth for most of the counties in the study area is lower than W&P’s projections. Figure 3-11 shows the differences in MWCOG, W&P, and CRA’s three cases in household projections for Fairfax County. In 2040, Fairfax County is predicted to have approximately 505,000 and 693,000 based on MWCOG’s and W&P’s projections, respectively. It can be seen that CRA’s projections for the High and Medium cases are in between those of MWCOG and W&P, while the MWCOG and CRA Low case’s projections are the lowest among all projections.

Household Projections at TAZ Level Figure 3-12 through Figure 3-14 present household growth rates at the TAZ Level. Similar to population growth, areas close to US 15 and US 50 are expected to exhibit high growth rates from 2015 to 2040.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-21 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Table 3-8. Regional Household Projections by Source

CAGR County Source 2010 2013 2015 2017 2020 2022 2040 2010-2015 2010-2017 2015-2020 2017-2020 2010-2020 2020-2040 2010-2040 MWCOG 266,707 287,112 305,550 370,758 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% W&P 268,140 280,106 283,447 274,747 0.9% 0.2% 0.6% -0.2% 0.1% District of CRA Low 266,707 299,789 312,756 314,975 349,207 1.7% 1.4% 1.6% 0.6% 0.9% Columbia CRA Mid 266,707 286,531 295,813 305,550 310,329 370,758 1.5% 1.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% CRA High 266,707 303,819 320,134 325,921 397,728 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.1% 1.3% MWCOG 98,050 105,692 112,211 128,605 1.5% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% W&P 98,843 106,878 111,195 120,428 1.6% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.7% Arlington CRA Low 98,050 108,493 111,195 111,866 120,428 1.5% 0.8% 1.3% 0.4% 0.7% CRA Mid 98,050 105,692 106,943 108,434 109,763 124,892 1.2% 0.5% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% CRA High 98,050 109,059 112,211 113,530 128,605 1.5% 1.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% MWCOG 68,131 72,306 76,978 94,890 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% W&P 68,538 74,089 77,753 86,489 1.6% 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% 0.8% Alexandria CRA Low 68,131 72,768 73,324 73,995 83,927 0.9% 0.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% CRA Mid 68,131 72,306 75,257 77,753 78,240 86,489 1.4% 1.1% 1.3% 0.5% 0.8% CRA High 68,131 74,826 76,978 78,260 94,890 1.3% 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% MWCOG 386,103 397,455 413,725 505,273 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.9% W&P 406,712 461,722 516,907 693,630 2.6% 2.3% 2.4% 1.5% 1.8% Fairfax CRA Low 386,103 420,320 429,673 435,724 523,521 1.2% 0.7% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% CRA Mid 386,103 412,163 438,991 463,423 469,911 564,188 1.9% 1.8% 1.8% 1.0% 1.3% CRA High 386,103 451,960 487,498 494,785 599,063 2.3% 2.6% 2.4% 1.0% 1.5% MWCOG 104,583 122,644 139,505 164,297 3.2% 2.6% 2.9% 0.8% 1.5% W&P 105,593 134,228 164,131 267,071 4.9% 4.1% 4.5% 2.5% 3.1% Loudoun CRA Low 104,583 128,380 139,505 141,376 164,297 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 0.8% 1.5% CRA Mid 104,583 117,096 125,279 133,675 139,121 204,396 2.6% 2.2% 2.5% 2.1% 2.3% CRA High 104,583 136,052 154,385 162,164 258,374 3.8% 4.3% 4.0% 2.6% 3.1% MWCOG 130,785 148,515 164,035 207,810 2.6% 2.0% 2.3% 1.2% 1.6% W&P 149,452 180,928 211,469 309,725 3.9% 3.2% 3.5% 1.9% 2.5% Prince William CRA Low 130,785 172,245 183,321 186,867 229,944 4.0% 2.1% 3.4% 1.1% 1.9% CRA Mid 130,785 159,810 173,403 185,482 192,225 274,537 4.1% 2.3% 3.6% 2.0% 2.5% CRA High 130,785 179,147 196,349 203,095 285,070 4.6% 3.1% 4.1% 1.9% 2.6% MWCOG 23,658 25,337 26,954 33,801 1.4% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% W&P 23,725 27,147 30,717 42,367 2.7% 2.5% 2.6% 1.6% 2.0% Fauquier CRA Low 23,658 25,663 26,715 27,237 32,901 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% CRA Mid 23,658 24,385 25,794 26,954 27,530 33,801 1.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% CRA High 23,658 27,794 30,717 31,674 42,367 2.3% 3.4% 2.6% 1.6% 2.0% MWCOG 5,507 5,779 5,979 6,631 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% W&P 5,524 6,003 6,414 7,539 1.7% 1.3% 1.5% 0.8% 1.0% Clarke CRA Low 5,507 5,790 5,979 6,039 6,631 0.7% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.6% CRA Mid 5,507 5,550 5,761 5,926 6,003 6,776 0.6% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% CRA High 5,507 6,027 6,414 6,516 7,539 1.3% 2.1% 1.5% 0.8% 1.1%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-22 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-11. Fairfax County Household Forecast by Source

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-23 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-12. MWCOG Household Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2010-2015

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-24 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-13. MWCOG Household Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2015-2020

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-25 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-14. MWCOG Household Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2020-2040

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-26 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

3.2.3. Employment Projections In general, the employment forecasts indicate that economic growth will continue in the study area from 2010 to 2040. According to the MWCOG Round 8.3 employment forecasts, as shown in Table 3-9, an average of approximately 30,000 new jobs are anticipated per year from 2010 to 2040. In comparison, W&P projected a higher employment growth rate for the study area. Based on W&P forecasts, an average of approximately 54,000 new jobs are likely to be added per year from 2010 to 2040. The large difference between the MWCOG and W&P forecasts are related to the different definitions of “employment” by each source. W&P forecasts include both part-time and full-time jobs, whereas MWCOG’s data includes only full-time jobs.

Table 3-9. Study Area Employment Forecasts by Source 2010 to 2040 Study Area 2010 2013 2015 2017 2020 2022 2040 Absolute % Increase Changed Moody's 1,885,729 2,025,093 2,137,710 2,458,830 573,100 30% MWCOG 2,022,485 2,160,622 2,359,497 2,920,963 898,478 44% W&P 2,406,834 2,627,374 2,860,409 4,020,309 1,613,475 67% CRA Low 2,022,485 2,201,865 2,256,288 2,281,408 2,623,362 600,877 30% CRA Mid 2,022,485 2,222,778 2,295,300 2,342,457 2,943,910 631,602 46% 2,312,309 CRA High 2,022,485 2,277,558 2,395,362 2,468,564 3,404,534 1,092,225 68%

According to Table 3-10, which presents employment projections at the county level, Loudoun, Prince George’s, and Alexandria Counties are expected to have the largest addition of new jobs to the region during the 2010–2040 period, followed by Fairfax and Fauquier Counties. Similar to population and household forecasts, MWCOG produced lower growth rates than W&P. For the period of 2017–2020, CRA projected relatively high growth for Loudoun, Prince William, Fairfax, and Alexandria Counties. Figure 3-15 illustrates employment projections for Fairfax County from 2010 through 2040 by source. Again, the large differences between employment projections are related to the different definitions of employment by MWCOG and W&P.

Employment Projection at TAZ Level Figure 3-16 through Figure 3-18 present employment projections at the TAZ level. Similar to population and households, TAZ level employment projections are based on the MWCOG GIS database from 2010 to 2040. Similar to the trends observed regarding population and households, employment growth is forecasted to be high between 2010 and 2015 and lower for later periods. According to Figure 3-16 through Figure 3-18, TAZs near the eastern end of the Project corridor exhibit low employment growth, while TAZs in the middle and near the western end of the Project corridor are associated with higher growth from 2010 to 2040.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-27 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Table 3-10. Regional Employment Projections by Source

CAGR County Source 2010 2013 2015 2017 2020 2022 2040 2010- 2010- 2015- 2017- 2020- 2010- 2020- 2010- 2015 2017 2020 2020 2022 2020 2040 2040 MWCOG 783,457 814,957 861,814 1,001,814 0.8% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% W&P 825,469 877,957 920,762 1,112,068 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% District of Moody's 712,225 748,965 768,387 835,732 1.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% Columbia CRA Low 783,457 805,797 805,407 814,263 936,244 0.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% CRA Mid 783,457 815,715 804,282 802,760 812,310 941,521 0.4% -0.1% 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% 0.6% CRA High 783,457 808,530 810,194 822,241 978,527 0.5% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.9% 0.7% MWCOG 223,264 247,460 276,281 308,830 2.1% 2.2% 2.2% 0.6% 1.1% W&P 210,534 223,328 232,319 272,486 1.2% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% Moody's 176,951 191,591 209,040 258,719 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.1% 1.3% Arlington CRA Low 223,264 208,907 198,348 199,475 212,817 -0.9% -1.7% 0.3% -1.2% 0.4% -0.2% CRA Mid 223,264 229,745 206,034 193,600 196,442 227,073 -1.1% -2.1% 0.7% -1.4% 0.8% 0.1% CRA High 223,264 225,251 226,291 228,512 252,951 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6% 0.4% MWCOG 102,895 110,248 116,812 167,598 1.4% 1.2% 1.3% 1.8% 1.6% W&P 118,196 127,854 136,183 171,590 1.6% 1.3% 1.4% 1.2% 1.3% Moody's 104,266 109,487 117,083 137,783 1.0% 1.4% 1.2% 0.8% 0.9% Alexandria CRA Low 102,895 105,985 108,835 108,379 118,005 0.4% 0.9% -0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% CRA Mid 102,895 110,728 106,986 110,639 111,843 139,405 0.6% 1.1% 0.5% 0.7% 1.2% 1.0% CRA High 102,895 111,067 118,131 120,978 169,491 1.1% 2.1% 1.2% 1.4% 1.8% 1.7% MWCOG 625,764 661,038 722,083 886,765 1.1% 1.8% 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% W&P 841,918 932,787 1,037,713 1,543,437 2.1% 2.2% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% Moody's 605,382 643,462 675,999 755,106 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% 0.6% 0.7% Fairfax CRA Low 625,764 700,547 733,133 737,944 803,965 1.6% 1.5% 0.3% 1.6% 0.5% 0.8% CRA Mid 625,764 684,103 719,457 768,093 781,891 942,734 2.0% 2.2% 0.9% 2.1% 1.0% 1.4% CRA High 625,764 735,852 798,962 829,091 1,188,332 2.3% 2.8% 1.9% 2.5% 2.0% 2.2% MWCOG 145,083 163,850 197,265 278,216 2.5% 3.8% 3.1% 1.7% 2.2% W&P 179,731 205,677 239,698 449,094 2.7% 3.1% 2.9% 3.2% 3.1% Moody's 143,715 168,272 189,203 252,195 3.2% 2.4% 2.8% 1.4% 1.9% Loudoun CRA Low 145,083 176,390 194,058 199,557 273,692 2.8% 3.2% 1.4% 3.0% 1.7% 2.1% CRA Mid 145,083 194,742 176,838 194,919 206,340 365,197 2.9% 3.3% 2.9% 3.0% 3.2% 3.1% CRA High 145,083 188,484 217,872 233,232 455,277 3.8% 4.9% 3.5% 4.1% 3.8% 3.9% MWCOG 115,410 134,776 155,277 240,797 3.2% 2.9% 3.0% 2.2% 2.5% W&P 187,503 211,749 240,894 395,354 2.5% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Moody's 117,138 135,669 150,048 191,577 3.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.2% 1.7% Prince William CRA Low 115,410 172,865 187,123 192,006 244,844 5.9% 2.7% 1.3% 5.0% 1.4% 2.5% CRA Mid 115,410 239,831 174,271 189,791 197,338 283,492 6.1% 2.9% 2.0% 5.1% 2.0% 3.0% CRA High 115,410 175,046 191,268 200,756 313,908 6.1% 3.0% 2.5% 5.2% 2.5% 3.4% MWCOG 22,371 23,902 25,426 31,917 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% W&P 37,019 41,075 45,517 67,209 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% Moody's 21,913 23,572 23,863 23,778 1.5% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.3% Fauquier CRA Low 22,371 26,518 25,073 25,422 28,938 2.5% -1.9% 0.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.9% CRA Mid 22,371 30,126 29,962 31,046 31,744 38,974 4.3% 1.2% 1.1% 3.3% 1.1% 1.9% CRA High 22,371 27,557 26,818 27,869 39,599 3.0% -0.9% 1.9% 1.8% 2.0% 1.9% MWCOG 4,241 4,391 4,539 5,026 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% W&P 6,464 6,947 7,323 9,071 1.5% 1.1% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% Moody's 4,139 4,076 4,087 3,940 -0.3% 0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% Clarke CRA Low 4,241 4,857 4,310 4,361 4,855 2.0% -3.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% CRA Mid 4,241 7,320 4,948 4,452 4,548 5,515 2.2% -3.5% 1.1% 0.5% 1.1% 0.9% CRA High 4,241 5,770 5,826 5,886 6,449 4.5% 0.3% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5% 1.4%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-28 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-15. Fairfax Employment Projections

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-29 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-16. MWCOG Employment Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2010-2015

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-30 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-17. MWCOG Employment Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2015-2020

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-31 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

Figure 3-18. MWCOG Employment Growth (CAGR) Estimates by TAZ: 2020-2040

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-32 FINAL REPORT 3. Socioeconomic Review

1 MWCOG (2014). Round 8.3 Cooperative Forecasts: Process and Review. Retrieved from http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/Z11ZWFdf20140328152156.pdf 2 Ibid.

I-66 Managed Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 3-33 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Methodology

This chapter describes C&M’s travel demand modeling methodology for the I-66 Express Lanes T&R Study. The chapter begins with an overview of C&M’s modeling methodology and then describes how C&M adopted, updated, validated, and calibrated the MWCOG Travel Demand Model (TDM) for this study.

4.1. Overview of Modeling Methodology The first step in C&M’s modeling methodology was adopting the MWCOG TDM, which included updating the model inputs, estimating the required trip tables, and verifying roadway network improvements. C&M then produced a 2013 base year model and a 2022 future year model, and updated the MWCOG TDM’s existing 2040 future year model. The future year models were validated and adjusted according to the base year model after the 2013 model year calibration procedure. Figure 4-1 presents a flowchart summarizing the modeling methodology.

Regional Model

MWCOG Model

Sub-area Model Post-Processing

Base Year Base Year Model Post-Processing Model Calibration T&R Assumptions

Future Year Future Year Models Toll T&R projections Models Diversion

Figure 4-1. C&M Modeling Methodology Flowchart

4.2. Overview of the MWCOG TDM The MWCOG TDM, Version 2.3, Build 57 is a four-step TDM that incorporates a travel time feedback loop. It was adopted as the TDM for the Washington, DC metropolitan area on October 15, 2014. C&M used the MWCOG TDM as the regional model for this study. This section provides details regarding the MWCOG TDM prior to its adoption and modification by C&M.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-1 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Model Area The MWCOG TDM contains 3,722 traffic analysis zones (TAZs), including 47 external stations. The modeling area covers the District of Columbia and 21 counties in the neighboring portions of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Counties in Maryland include Anne Arundel, Calvert, Carroll, Charles, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, and St. Mary’s. Counties in Virginia include Arlington, Alexandria City, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Fredericksburg City, King George, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford. The northern portion of Spotsylvania County and Jefferson County in West Virginia are also covered. The zoning coverage of the MWCOG TDM and the external stations are presented in Figure 4-2.

Model Years The MWCOG TDM includes 2015 as the base year and 2040 as a horizon model year. The intermediate model years 2017, 2020, 2025, and 2030 are also included in this model.

Vehicle Classes The following vehicle classes are considered in this TDM:  Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV)  High Occupancy Vehicle, two occupants (HOV2)  High Occupancy Vehicle, three or more occupants (HOV3+)  Commercial Vehicle (COM)  Medium trucks (MTK)  Heavy trucks (HTK) A medium truck is a single-unit truck with two axles and six tires (i.e., dual rear wheels). Typical examples include RVs and small medium-duty delivery trucks. This matches the description of “class 5” (F5) trucks, using the FHWA 13-bin vehicle classification system. A heavy truck is a single-unit truck with three or more axles, or a truck power unit pulling one or more trailers. This includes all vehicles in FHWA classes 6 through 13 (F6 – F13).1 Commercial vehicles can have only two axles and four tires. The majority of such vehicles are part of a fleet, and they almost always display the vehicle owner’s name or logo. If a vehicle bears no text or logo, but is carrying (or towing) equipment of an obviously commercial nature (e.g., painter’s ladders, commercial lawnmowers, cement mixers), it is also considered a COM vehicle.2

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-2 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Figure 4-2. MWCOG TDM Zone Structure

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-3 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Trip Purpose The MWCOG TDM includes the following person trip purposes for auto trips:  Home-Based Work (HBW)  Home-Based Shopping (HBS)  Home-Based Other (HBO)  Non-Home-Based Work (NHW)  Non-Home-Based Other (NHO)

Residual Vehicle Trips The MWCOG TDM includes the following so-called “residual vehicle” trips:  Through trips (auto and truck)  Taxi trips  School trips  Visitor/tourist trips  Airport passenger trips (i.e., trips by air passengers destined to the three commercial airports in the region) These trips are either external-to-external (E-E) trips or trips from special trip generators. Special trip generators comprise certain land-use activities such as airports, recreational areas, and colleges. For those land uses, the trip generation module usually cannot produce the number of trips properly. Therefore, trip attractions and productions for TAZs containing special generators need to be added manually.

Time-of-Day The MWCOG TDM is a time-of-day model, estimating traffic volumes for four separate time periods. These time periods are described in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Time-of-Day Periods in MWCOG TDM Time Period Extent Hours Morning Peak Period (AM) 6:00 am to 9:00 am 3 Midday Period (MD) 9:00 am to 3:00 pm 6 Afternoon Peak Period (PM) 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm 4 Nighttime Period (NT) 7:00 pm to 6:00 am 11

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-4 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

4.3. MWCOG TDM Adoption and Modification In adopting the MWCOG TDM for the purposes of this study, C&M selected 2013 as the base year considering the latest AADT data and socioeconomic data available at the time the study was initiated. Additionally, the years 2022 and 2040 were chosen as intermediate and horizon model years, respectively. Prior to the four-step modeling validation process, C&M developed the base year 2013 network. The 2013 base year network was developed using the MWCOG TDM’s original 2015 base year network while accounting for and removing any network improvements beyond the year 2013. The updated attributes and characteristics of the 2013 network were verified and revised, when deemed necessary, in order to ensure their consistency with the Project study area’s existing roadway system in 2013. Network connectivity and link characteristics—including distance, area type, facility type, and number of lanes—were verified against commercially-available satellite images. The free-flow speeds and capacities were also checked to ensure accuracy and compliance with existing conditions. During network development, C&M made several corrections to network links regarding facility type, such as Route 28 and Route 286, which are two major crossroads in the study area. They were both coded as arterials in the original MWCOG network; as a result, the traffic volumes were underestimated compared to observed traffic data. Therefore, C&M revised the facility type of Route 28 to a freeway for most of its sections and Route 286 to an expressway. Furthermore, the link area type attribute (i.e., ATYPE) was reviewed to replicate existing conditions. In the MWCOG TDM, area type is determined by the land use density of the link’s corresponding TAZ. Area type, along with facility type, determines the link’s free- flow speed and capacity. C&M had to manually correct problematic area types for links along the I-66 corridor by using posted speed limits as free-flow speeds. The Tier II EIS Study team further refined the original 3,722 TAZs in the MWCOG TDM into 3,800 TAZs. C&M adopted this new TAZ system for the present study.

4.4. MWCOG TDM Validation As mentioned above, the MWCOG TDM is a conventional four-step model including trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip assignment. Although the MWCOG model already underwent a comprehensive validation and calibration process as part of the model’s development, C&M further validated and updated each step where necessary prior to calibration. The following sections provide details regarding the four- step model and the validation process. VDOT’s Virginia Transportation Modeling (VTM) Policies and Procedures Manual3 was used as a guideline for model validation and calibration.

4.4.1. Trip Generation Trip generation is the first step in a four-step TDM and is used to predict the number of trips originating from or destined to each zone. As mentioned earlier, the MWCOG TDM includes five person-trip purposes: Home-Based Work, Home-Based Shop, Home-Based Other, Non-Home-Based Work, and Non-Home-Based Other. However, it should be

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-5 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach noted that before the trip assignment step, these trip purposes were aggregated into three categories:  Home-Based Work (HBW)  Home-Based Other (HBO)  Non-Home Based (NHB) As mentioned in chapter 3, C&M developed the base year 2013 socioeconomic inputs to be used within the MWCOG TDM trip generation module. To validate the trip generation, C&M compared trip generation results with the following available guidelines: the NCHRP 365 report, NCHRP Report 716, and the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). Table 4-2 shows the base year trip shares by trip purpose produced by the MWCOG TDM, along with NCHRP trip shares for comparison. An overall rate of 7.97 motorized person-trips per household is used in the MWCOG TDM. C&M found this trip generation output acceptable since it complies with the values suggested by NCHRP 365.

Table 4-2. MWCOG TDM Trip Share by Purpose NCHRP Trip Purpose Trip Share Report 365 HBW 21% 22% HBS 16% 56% HBO 38% NHW 9% 22% NHO 17%

4.4.2. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the second step in a four-step TDM. After estimating the trip productions and attractions, the trip distribution step is performed to estimate the number of trips exchanged between each pair of TAZs. The trip distribution was validated by comparing the calculated average trip lengths (by trip purpose) versus the values suggested in the above-mentioned guidelines. Table 4-3 shows the average trip lengths by trip purpose, and Figure 4-3 presents the trip length distribution for each trip purpose. HBW’s distribution matches with NHTS, while the trip lengths for HBO and NHB trips are lower in the model compared to values suggested by NHTS.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-6 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-3. MWCOG TDM Average Trip Length (in minutes) MWCOG 2009 Trip Purpose TDM NHTS HBW 27.3 29.0 HBO 13.8 18.0 NHB 11.9 20.0

45% HBW HBO NHB 40%

35%

30%

25%

20% Percent Trips Percent

15%

10%

0% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Trip Length (min)

Figure 4-3. MWCOG TDM Trip Length Distribution

C&M also improved the MWCOG TDM’s external-to-internal (E-I) trip end distribution. In the original MWCOG TDM, the share of E-I trips for all TAZs is assumed to be the same, regardless of location. As a result, in the original MWCOG TDM, traffic volumes were overestimated in the western section of the I-66 corridor. To appropriately model the differences in the eastern and western sections of the corridor, the share of E-I trips at each TAZ was set to be smaller if the TAZ is far away from the model boundary. The change in E-I trip shares was applied to both autos and trucks individually. Furthermore, as part of the external station adjustments for the base year calibration, C&M updated the volumes at these locations in the MWCOG TDM using annual average weekday traffic (AAWDT) information collected from VDOT.4 Also, the traffic classification among different vehicle classes was adjusted to address some irregularities observed at the external stations.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-7 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

4.4.3. Mode Choice Mode choice is the third component in the development of a four-step TDM. Mode choice analysis determines which mode of transportation will be used by each origin-destination (OD) pair. The MWCOG TDM uses a nested logit model for the mode choice step. This nested structure is presented in Figure 4-4. The trips are split into auto, transit and non-motorized modes at the top level. The auto trips are further split among drive alone, two occupant trips, and three or more occupant trips. Transit and non-motorized trips combined are about 2 percent of total trips.

Figure 4-4. MWCOG TDM Nested Logit Model

The trip percentages by automobile and public transit are summarized in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5, respectively. Transit trips represent 5.77 percent of total trips. These data translate into an automobile occupancy rate of about 1.4.

Table 4-4. Trip Percentages by Automobile Vehicle Occupancy Person Trips Vehicle Trips SOV 52% 73% HOV2 26% 19% HOV3+ 22% 9% Total 100% 100%

Table 4-5. Person Trip Percentages by Public Transit Access Mode All Access Transit Mode Walk Park & Ride Kiss & Ride Modes Commuter Rail 0% 10% 0% 2% Bus Only 46% 9% 13% 36% Bus & Metrorail 20% 11% 14% 18% Metrorail Only 34% 70% 73% 44% Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-8 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

4.4.4. Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment is the last step of the four-step TDM. Traffic assignment determines which route will be used by travelers within a transportation network given a variety of alternative paths. The MWCOG TDM performs a multiclass assignment for all vehicle classes. The output of this step are the link volumes, which are determined within the traffic assignment’s iterative process using link travel times and volume-delay functions (VDFs). The MWCOG TDM uses conical VDFs, which were examined against collected volume and speed data on I-66. During trip assignment, toll facilities are evaluated via a generalized cost approach. C&M accepted the MWCOG TDM’s toll assignment approach at the regional model level; however, the projection of tolled demand within the sub-area (i.e., Project study area) was addressed through C&M’s own toll diversion methodology.

Truck Trips In the MWCOG TDM, truck trip tables are estimated through the trip generation and trip distribution steps. Truck model parameters are calibrated by matching link volumes with field count data. A set of trip tables was developed by MWCOG for E-E truck trips.

Transit trips As an improvement to the original MWCOG TDM, bus trips and the auto portion of Park & Ride/Kiss & Ride (PNR/KNR) trips were included in the highway assignment by the Tier II EIS Study team and further enhanced by C&M. Bus trips are preloaded onto the network prior to traffic assignment based on the route and schedule of each bus line in the model. The auto portion of PNR/KNR trips is assigned along with other trip purposes. Additionally, the PNR trips were adjusted so that the number of trips is subjected to the parking capacity of the PNR facilities.

4.5. Base Year Model Calibration Calibrating the base year model involved an iterative process in which the 2013 network attributes and assignment parameters in the MWCOG TDM were adjusted until the model output reasonably matched the field observations within the study area. The following sections discuss the calibration of volume, speed, and the OD matrix in the base year model.

4.5.1. Volume Calibration The base year model’s volumes were calibrated by an iterative adjustment of the 2013 network attributes and assignment parameters in order to reasonably match observed volumes. Observed volumes comprise the traffic count data summarized in Chapter 2. To minimize the difference between modeled volumes and observed volumes, the first step in the volume calibration stage is to choose calibration criteria and acceptance targets. The VTM Policy Manual suggests to use the traditional measures that are scalable and easily explained: percent root mean square error (%RMSE), which is a

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-9 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach measure of the traffic assignment’s accuracy, measuring the average error between the observed and modeled traffic volumes. %RMSE for a set of links can be calculated using the following equations:

∑푁 [(퐶표푢푛푡 −푀표푑푒푙 )2] RMSE = √ 푖=1 푖 푖 푁

%RMSE = 푅푀푆퐸 ∑푁 퐶표푢푛푡 ( 푖=1 푖) 푁

According to the VTM Policy Manual, for volumes between 30,000 and 49,999, the target %RMSE is 25 percent, while for volumes greater than 60,000 the target is 19 percent. The target is 40 percent for area-wide daily volumes. The %RMSE for screenline volumes is 10.9 percent for freeways and 11.3 percent for the arterials. %RMSE statistics for I-66 (daily and the four time periods) are summarized in Table 4-7 through Table 4-12. In contrast to using simple percentages to compare a set of estimated and observed volumes, the GEH statistic offers the added advantage of self-scaling and can be used over the wide range of traffic count stations in real-world transportation systems. The GEH has the attractive property of having similar ranges of “good” values (< 5) across a wide range of volumes. According to the FHWA-HEP-14-019 Report, the GEH statistic, unlike RMSE, is generally used for individual observations rather than groups of observations. Using the GEH statistic avoids some pitfalls that may introduced by using simple percentages to compare two sets of volumes; therefore, C&M used GEH as the main indicator of suitable volume calibration. GEH is defined as follows:

(푂 − 퐸 )2 퐺퐸퐻 = √ 푖 푖 0.5 ∗ (푂푖 + 퐸푖) Where:

Oi = observed hourly volumes at location i

Ei = modeled hourly volumes at location i

According to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), 85 percent of the volumes in a traffic model should have a GEH less than 5.0. A GEH of less than 5.0 is considered the acceptable range and indicates a good match, whereas a value greater than 10.0 requires closer attention. However, the acceptable ranges of GEH can differ depending on roadway type. Based on C&M’s evaluation of traffic patterns within the Project corridor, seven screenlines were chosen, as illustrated in Figure 4-5. For the list of available traffic counts, please refer to Chapter 2.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-10 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Figure 4-5. Screenline Location Map

After defining the criteria and acceptance targets for volume calibration, the number of trips crossing these screenlines were counted in the model and then compared with observed traffic station data at the same location. If the GEH values fell beyond the acceptable target (GEH > 5.0), then model network inputs and parameters were adjusted until the model output met this criterion. Table 4-6 shows the comparison of modeled daily volumes with observed traffic counts after base year model calibration at each screenline, which includes I-66 and nearby facilities. Table 4-7 shows the comparison of modeled daily volumes with observed traffic counts at each screenline for I-66 alone. From the two tables, GEH statistics show that the model outputs match well with the corresponding observed traffic at all screenlines. Therefore, the model is considered to be properly calibrated against base year daily volumes along the screenlines.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-11 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-6. Comparison of Model Daily Screenline Volumes and Counts along I-66 Corridor Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 47,300 49,000 4% 2.0 1 Westbound 47,300 48,400 2% 1.3 Total 94,500 97,400 3% 2.4 Eastbound 55,300 58,100 5% 3.0 2 Westbound 55,200 57,600 4% 2.6 Total 110,500 115,700 5% 3.9 Eastbound 79,200 78,600 -1% 0.5 3 Westbound 80,600 79,700 -1% 0.8 Total 159,700 158,400 -1% 0.8 Eastbound 206,000 207,700 1% 0.9 4 Westbound 211,000 218,000 3% 3.8 Total 417,000 425,700 2% 3.4 Eastbound 100,300 101,800 1% 1.2 5 Westbound 106,700 108,400 2% 1.3 Total 207,000 210,100 2% 1.7 Eastbound 219,900 215,600 -2% 2.3 6 Westbound 224,000 218,000 -3% 3.2 Total 443,900 433,600 -2% 3.9 Eastbound 255,000 257,900 1% 1.4 7 Westbound 256,000 254,400 -1% 0.8 Total 511,000 512,200 0% 0.4 %RMSE 2%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-12 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-7. Comparison of Model Daily Volumes and Counts for I-66 along the Corridor Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 19,000 18,993 0% 0.0 1 Westbound 19,000 18,813 -1% 0.3 Total 38,000 37,806 -1% 0.3 Eastbound 29,888 30,113 1% 0.3 2 Westbound 29,794 30,294 2% 0.7 Total 59,682 60,408 1% 0.7 Eastbound 71,153 70,725 -1% 0.4 3 Westbound 72,586 73,235 1% 0.6 Total 143,739 143,961 0% 0.1 Eastbound 84,017 81,972 -2% 1.8 4 Westbound 88,956 86,750 -2% 1.9 Total 172,973 168,722 -2% 2.6 Eastbound 63,832 65,068 2% 1.2 5 Westbound 70,168 67,756 -3% 2.3 Total 134,000 132,824 -1% 0.8 Eastbound 88,863 87,671 -1% 1.0 6 Westbound 89,049 90,996 2% 1.6 Total 177,913 178,667 0% 0.5 Eastbound 82,975 85,475 3% 2.2 7 Westbound 82,025 82,607 1% 0.5 Total 165,000 168,082 2% 1.9 %RMSE 2%

Volume Calibration by Time of Day In addition to estimated daily volumes along the I-66 corridor, C&M further calibrated the model volumes by adjusting the trip tables in the model’s four time periods. Table 4-8 through Table 4-11 present the results of the calibration procedure by comparing the estimated and observed volumes in each time period at locations on I-66 associated with the seven screenlines. %RMSE statistics for the four periods are well below the threshold in VDOT’s Policy Manual. It also can be seen that in most screenlines, the GEHs are low and meet the acceptance criteria. A few exceptions include Screenline 4 and 6 in the AM period, Screenline 4 and 7 in the PM period, and Screenline 7 in the NT period. In these exceptions, GEH is slightly higher than 5.0. However, the slight underestimation was accepted since the percent error did not exceed 10 percent at these locations.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-13 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-8. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (AM) Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 4,657 4,643 0% 0.1 1 Westbound 2,215 2,294 4% 1.0 Total 6,872 6,937 1% 0.5 Eastbound 7,325 7,242 -1% 0.6 2 Westbound 3,474 3,416 -2% 0.6 Total 10,799 10,658 -1% 0.8 Eastbound 17,194 16,444 -4% 3.5 3 Westbound 8,166 8,345 2% 1.2 Total 25,360 24,789 -2% 2.2 Eastbound 17,940 16,550 -8% 6.4 4 Westbound 12,442 11,894 -4% 3.0 Total 30,382 28,444 -6% 6.9 Eastbound 13,705 13,027 -5% 3.6 5 Westbound 8,469 8,356 -1% 0.7 Total 22,174 21,384 -4% 3.3 Eastbound 19,106 19,192 0% 0.4 6 Westbound 10,740 12,282 14% 8.7 Total 29,846 31,474 5% 5.7 Eastbound 16,362 17,325 6% 4.5 7 Westbound 13,410 13,111 -2% 1.6 Total 29,772 30,436 2% 2.3 %RMSE 6%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-14 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-9. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (MD) Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 5,653 5,609 -1% 0.3 1 Westbound 6,004 6,008 0% 0.0 Total 11,656 11,617 0% 0.2 Eastbound 8,892 9,165 3% 1.3 2 Westbound 9,414 9,436 0% 0.1 Total 18,306 18,601 2% 1.0 Eastbound 22,479 22,706 1% 0.7 3 Westbound 22,140 22,025 -1% 0.3 Total 44,618 44,732 0% 0.2 Eastbound 28,346 28,519 1% 0.5 4 Westbound 27,979 28,522 2% 1.4 Total 56,324 57,041 1% 1.3 Eastbound 21,952 23,351 6% 4.2 5 Westbound 22,131 21,362 -3% 2.3 Total 44,082 44,712 1% 1.3 Eastbound 30,592 28,748 -6% 4.8 6 Westbound 27,993 28,338 1% 0.9 Total 58,585 57,086 -3% 2.8 Eastbound 27,915 28,878 3% 2.6 7 Westbound 26,732 27,648 3% 2.5 Total 54,647 56,526 3% 3.6 %RMSE 4%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-15 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-10. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (PM) Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 3,488 3,485 0% 0.0 1 Westbound 6,682 6,468 -3% 1.4 Total 10,170 9,953 -2% 1.1 Eastbound 5,487 5,558 1% 0.5 2 Westbound 10,478 10,631 1% 0.8 Total 15,965 16,189 1% 0.9 Eastbound 13,287 13,486 1% 0.9 3 Westbound 24,328 24,636 1% 1.0 Total 37,615 38,122 1% 1.4 Eastbound 16,375 15,651 -4% 3.0 4 Westbound 25,885 23,198 -10% 8.9 Total 42,260 38,849 -8% 8.8 Eastbound 12,042 12,378 3% 1.6 5 Westbound 20,880 20,105 -4% 2.8 Total 32,922 32,483 -1% 1.3 Eastbound 16,823 17,721 5% 3.6 6 Westbound 26,623 26,110 -2% 1.6 Total 43,446 43,832 1% 1.0 Eastbound 18,139 17,908 -1% 0.9 7 Westbound 20,124 18,365 -9% 6.6 Total 38,262 36,273 -5% 5.4 %RMSE 6%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-16 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-11. Model Volumes versus Traffic Counts along I-66 (NT) Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 5,203 5,257 1% 0.4 1 Westbound 4,099 4,042 -1% 0.4 Total 9,302 9,299 0% 0.0 Eastbound 8,184 8,149 0% 0.2 2 Westbound 6,428 6,811 6% 2.3 Total 14,612 14,959 2% 1.4 Eastbound 18,193 18,089 -1% 0.4 3 Westbound 17,952 18,229 2% 1.0 Total 36,145 36,317 0% 0.4 Eastbound 21,356 21,252 0% 0.3 4 Westbound 22,651 23,135 2% 1.5 Total 44,007 44,387 1% 0.9 Eastbound 16,132 16,311 1% 0.7 5 Westbound 18,689 17,934 -4% 2.7 Total 34,821 34,245 -2% 1.5 Eastbound 22,343 22,009 -1% 1.1 6 Westbound 23,693 24,265 2% 1.8 Total 46,036 46,275 1% 0.5 Eastbound 20,559 21,364 4% 2.7 7 Westbound 21,759 23,483 8% 5.5 Total 42,318 44,847 6% 5.8 %RMSE 4%

Volume Calibration by Vehicle Class Auto and truck trips were calibrated separately using traffic count data by vehicle class. Modeled trips were separated into three groups: auto, medium truck, and heavy truck. All auto trips and commercial vehicles trips were aggregated as auto trips. Adjustment factors were applied to auto and truck trip tables in order to obtain a reasonable match between the estimated volumes and observed traffic by vehicle classification. Table 4-12 shows the I-66 corridor calibration results by vehicle classification.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-17 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-12. Comparison of Model Volumes and Counts along I-66 by Vehicle Class Auto Medium Truck Heavy Truck Screenline Counts Volume % Error GEH Counts Volume % Error GEH Counts Volume % Error GEH Eastbound 17,471 17,122 -2% 0.7 585 596 2% 0.1 944 1,276 35% 2.5 1 Westbound 17,433 16,986 -3% 0.9 586 580 -1% 0.1 981 1,247 27% 2.0 Total 34,904 34,107 -2% 1.1 1,171 1,175 0% 0.0 1,925 2,523 31% 3.2 Eastbound 27,483 27,767 1% 0.4 920 931 1% 0.1 1,485 1,415 -5% 0.5 2 Westbound 27,337 27,934 2% 0.9 919 921 0% 0.0 1,538 1,439 -6% 0.6 Total 54,820 55,701 2% 0.9 1,839 1,852 1% 0.1 3,023 2,854 -6% 0.8 Eastbound 66,378 65,724 -1% 0.6 2,457 2,612 6% 0.8 2,317 2,390 3% 0.4 3 Westbound 67,736 68,228 1% 0.5 2,501 2,592 4% 0.5 2,349 2,415 3% 0.3 Total 134,114 133,952 0% 0.1 4,958 5,204 5% 0.9 4,666 4,805 3% 0.5 Eastbound 78,922 76,482 -3% 2.2 2,838 2,934 3% 0.5 2,257 2,555 13% 1.5 4 Westbound 83,504 81,189 -3% 2.0 3,086 3,063 -1% 0.1 2,365 2,498 6% 0.7 Total 162,426 157,671 -3% 3.0 5,924 5,997 1% 0.2 4,622 5,054 9% 1.6 Eastbound 59,795 60,921 2% 1.2 2,168 2,179 1% 0.1 1,869 1,967 5% 0.6 5 Westbound 66,048 63,654 -4% 2.4 2,201 2,257 3% 0.3 1,919 1,845 -4% 0.4 Total 125,843 124,575 -1% 0.9 4,369 4,437 2% 0.3 3,788 3,812 1% 0.1 Eastbound 83,681 82,662 -1% 0.9 3,032 2,974 -2% 0.3 2,151 2,035 -5% 0.6 6 Westbound 84,176 86,194 2% 1.7 2,890 2,792 -3% 0.5 1,982 2,010 1% 0.2 Total 167,857 168,856 1% 0.6 5,922 5,766 -3% 0.5 4,133 4,045 -2% 0.3 Eastbound 78,696 80,884 3% 2.0 2,347 2,575 10% 1.2 1,932 2,017 4% 0.5 7 Westbound 77,772 78,299 1% 0.5 2,321 2,343 1% 0.1 1,933 1,965 2% 0.2 Total 156,468 159,183 2% 1.7 4,667 4,918 5% 0.9 3,864 3,982 3% 0.5 %RMSE 2.4 4.3 8.5

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-18 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

4.5.2. Speed and Travel Time Calibration In order to estimate link capacities corresponding to each time period, appropriate capacity conversion factors were used to adjust the hourly link capacities. These factors take into consideration that demand is not uniformly distributed throughout each time period, since the peak hour within a time period is likely to experience the greatest travel demand. This was true for the present study and, therefore, capacity conversion factors were used as shown in Table 4-13. These adjustments produced better estimates of congested speeds in each time period.

Table 4-13. Peak Hour Capacity Conversion Factors Time # of Capacity Period Hours Conversion Factor AM 3 2.7 MD 6 5.0 PM 4 3.7 NT 11 4.3

In the speed calibration process, the 2013 base year travel speeds on various segments along I-66 were calibrated against observed travel time data from the travel time study and speed data from INRIX (see Chapter 2). Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 illustrate the comparison between estimated cumulative travel times and observed data along I-66, by direction of traffic, by travel on GP lanes and HOV lanes, for all segments during the peak periods. Overall, a good match for travel times was found and, as depicted in the graphs, locations with spikes in observed travel time were well-replicated by the model. The cross streets associated with each exit number are as follows:  Exit 40 - US 15  Exit 43 - US 29 in Gainesville  Exit 44 - Route 234 Prince William Parkway  Exit 47 - Route 234  Exit 52 - US 29 in Centreville  Exit 53 - Route 28  Exit 55 - Route 286  Exit 57 - US 50  Exit 60 - Route 123  Exit 62 - Route 243  Exit 64 - I-495

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-19 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Figure 4-6. Cumulative Travel Times on I-66 General Purpose Lanes, by Direction and Peak Period

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-20 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Figure 4-7. I-66 Cumulative Travel Times on I-66 HOV Lanes, by Direction and Peak Period

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-21 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

4.5.3. Origin-Destination Calibration The next step of the calibration and validation procedure was to review the trips’ origins and destinations pattern. C&M used the results of a Bluetooth origin-destination (OD) observation survey in order to validate the trip patterns within the study area. The Bluetooth OD survey included five Bluetooth sensor stations installed along the Project corridor. Table 4-14 lists the locations of the stations, along with 2013 AADT counts and the corresponding capture rates. The capture rates were calculated by dividing the Bluetooth-captured daily records by the corresponding AADTs. The capture rates ranged from 9 to 14 percent; thus the Bluetooth OD survey was considered to be a reliable data source for this step of the calibration process.

Table 4-14. Bluetooth OD Survey Sample Size and Capture Rate Bluetooth Captured 2013 Capture ID Location Daily Records AADT Rate 1 US 15 to US 29 (Gainesville) 5,751 60,000 10% Route 234 Bus to US 29 2 16,993 137,000 12% (Centreville) 3 Rte 28 to Rte 7100 13,866 161,000 9% 4 US 50 to Rte 123 24,338 173,000 14% 5 Rte 243 to I-495 16,202 159,000 10%

OD trip percentages from the Bluetooth survey were summarized by time-of-day periods in the MWCOG TDM. In order to obtain comparable trip patterns from the model, a series of select link analyses was performed. All vehicle classes were combined together to comply with the observed data. The results were then compared to the observed data, and some sector-to-sector movements were adjusted to better match the observed trip patterns. As another check to validate trip patterns within the model, average trip lengths from the model were calculated and compared to the observed Bluetooth OD survey. Table 4-15 summarizes the observed OD patterns along the I-66 corridor as well as the corresponding model results, after proper adjustments, for all time periods. The modeled OD trip patterns in general demonstrated an acceptable match with observed trip patterns, indicating that the observed OD patterns are reasonably replicated by the model.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-22 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-15. Comparison of Modeled and Observed OD Percentages

Observed Modeled From\To 1 2 3 4 5 From\To 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.0% 2.0% 1.9% 2.3% 2.4% 1 0.0% 2.9% 1.7% 1.7% 2.8% 2 2.1% 0.0% 5.8% 7.3% 5.3% 2 2.4% 0.0% 5.9% 5.3% 6.5% DY 3 1.5% 6.3% 0.0% 8.2% 4.3% 3 2.0% 7.2% 0.0% 4.8% 5.0% 4 1.0% 4.9% 4.3% 0.0% 9.0% 4 1.2% 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% 10.4% 5 2.8% 8.7% 6.1% 13.8% 0.0% 5 3.5% 8.6% 7.5% 12.9% 0.0%

From\To 1 2 3 4 5 From\To 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.0% 2.7% 3.1% 1.5% 1.2% 1 0.0% 6.6% 1.0% 4.5% 2.5% 2 1.0% 0.0% 10.6% 11.3% 6.7% 2 1.2% 0.0% 4.1% 13.1% 6.3% AM 3 0.7% 3.3% 0.0% 10.4% 4.7% 3 1.2% 6.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 4 0.5% 2.9% 3.3% 0.0% 11.7% 4 0.3% 1.6% 2.8% 0.0% 10.1% 5 1.4% 5.9% 6.1% 11.1% 0.0% 5 2.5% 7.2% 7.4% 13.7% 0.0%

From\To 1 2 3 4 5 From\To 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.0% 2.0% 1.7% 2.3% 2.4% 1 0.0% 2.1% 2.7% 1.1% 3.3% 2 1.8% 0.0% 5.4% 6.7% 5.3% 2 1.9% 0.0% 8.0% 3.8% 7.6% MD 3 1.5% 5.7% 0.0% 8.7% 4.8% 3 1.8% 7.1% 0.0% 4.8% 6.1% 4 1.1% 4.5% 3.9% 0.0% 9.8% 4 0.5% 2.2% 3.6% 0.0% 9.1% 5 3.5% 9.4% 6.3% 13.2% 0.0% 5 4.0% 9.0% 8.3% 13.1% 0.0%

From\To 1 2 3 4 5 From\To 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.0% 1.4% 1.1% 1.9% 1.6% 1 0.0% 2.3% 0.7% 1.1% 1.8% 2 3.6% 0.0% 3.7% 4.9% 3.1% 2 5.2% 0.0% 4.1% 3.9% 5.1% PM 3 2.7% 10.9% 0.0% 6.4% 3.1% 3 2.7% 8.7% 0.0% 4.7% 4.4% 4 1.1% 7.2% 5.6% 0.0% 8.0% 4 3.2% 9.5% 6.3% 0.0% 11.1% 5 2.5% 9.6% 5.4% 16.3% 0.0% 5 3.1% 8.2% 4.9% 9.1% 0.0%

From\To 1 2 3 4 5 From\To 1 2 3 4 5 1 0.0% 2.3% 2.0% 3.2% 4.4% 1 0.0% 2.1% 1.8% 1.4% 3.1% 2 1.8% 0.0% 4.8% 7.5% 6.7% 2 1.5% 0.0% 6.1% 3.7% 6.4% NT 3 1.0% 4.8% 0.0% 7.5% 4.4% 3 2.0% 6.9% 0.0% 4.1% 5.8% 4 1.0% 4.6% 4.1% 0.0% 6.7% 4 0.7% 2.7% 3.0% 0.0% 11.5% 5 3.4% 9.1% 6.4% 14.4% 0.0% 5 4.0% 9.3% 8.7% 15.1% 0.0%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-23 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

4.6. Future Year Models As mentioned earlier, the MWCOG TDM includes traffic projections for the year 2040 as its horizon model year. C&M used this 2040 horizon year as the basis for its own updated horizon model. Additionally, C&M created the 2022 model year using the MWCOG TDM’s horizon and intermediate model years. This section summarizes C&M's efforts to develop the horizon and intermediate model years. C&M verified and validated MWCOG’s regional networks for horizon and intermediate years based on the short- and long-term transportation improvement plans obtained from the associated Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). C&M created and verified the 2022 intermediate year regional network based on the 2014–2022 Transportation Improvement Program from the Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) for the National Capital Region. Similarly, the 2040 regional network was validated against the 2040 CLRP. C&M also validated the Project alignment and configuration with documents obtained from VDOT. Details regarding the Project's description and alignment are provided in Chapter 1. Figure 4-8 illustrates the network improvements within the study area from 2014 to 2040. The full details regarding these network improvements are presented in Table 4-16.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-24 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Figure 4-8. Network Improvements within the Study Area from 2012 to 2040

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-25 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-16. Network Improvements in the Study Area from 2014 to 2040 Available in Project From To Type of Improvements 2014 2022 2040

Balls Ford Rd Relocated Doane Dr Devlin Rd New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Battlefield Pkwy US 15 south of Leesburg Dulles Greenway New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Boone Blvd Extn Rte 123 (Chain Bridge Rd) Ashgrove Ln New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Clairborne Pkwy Croson Ln Ryan Rd New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Crosstrail Blvd Sycolin Rd Kincaid Blvd New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Dulles Airport Access Rd Dulles Airport Rte 123 Widening (3 Lanes) X East Elden St Monroe St Fairfax Co Pkwy Widening (3 Lanes) X Farmwell Rd Smith Switch Ashburn Rd Widening (3 Lanes) X South of Telegraph Rd (North of I 95 HOV / Bus / HOT Lanes: Ramp SB GP Lanes to SB HOT Lanes New Road Construct (1 Lane) X Aquia Creek) I-495 HOT Lanes South of George Washington Pkwy South of Old Dominion Dr New Road Construct (4+2 Lanes) X I-495 Intchg Ramp (Phase III DTR) Widen EB DTR Ramp to 2 NB lanes NB GP lanes Widening (2 Lanes) X I-66 HOV during peak and SOV 1.2 miles west of US 15 0.8 miles east of US 29 (Gainesville) Widening (3+1 Lanes) X I-66 Vienna Metro Station Bus Ramp EB I-66 and Saintsbury Dr Saintsbury Dr and WB I-66 New Road Construct (1 Lane) X I-66 WB Operational/ Spot Improvements Lee Hwy / Spout Run Glebe Rd Reconstruct (3 Lanes) X I-66 WB Operational/ Spot Improvements- Washington Blvd Dulles Airport Access Rd connector Reconstruct (3 Lanes) X extend acceleration/deceleration lanes Magarity Rd Rte 7 (Leesburg Pike) Rte 694 (Great Falls St) Widening (2 Lanes) X Riverside Pkwy River Creek Pkwy Upper Meadow Dr / Kingsport Dr New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Rte 29 (Parallel) US 29 (Lee Hwy) (near US 15) Sommerset Crossing Dr New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Rte 267 (Dulles Toll Road) Ramp New Boone Blvd Ext at Ashgrove New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Rte 267 (Dulles Toll Road) Ramp Greensboro Dr at Tyco Rd New Road Construct (1 Lane) X Russell Branch Pkwy Loudoun co Pkwy Ashburn Village Rd New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Russell Branch Pkwy Ashburn Village Rd Ashburn Rd New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Russell Branch Pkwy (Western Segment) Belmont Ridge Rd Tournament Pkwy New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Scotts Crossing Drive Rte 123 (Dolley Madison Blvd) Rte 5062 - Jones Branch Dr New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Scotts Crossing Dr Rte 123 (Dolley Madison Blvd) Rte 5062 - Jones Branch Dr New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-26 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-16. Network Improvements in the Study Area from 2014 to 2040 (Cont’d.) Available in Project From To Type of Improvements 2014 2022 2040

Spring St Herndon Pkwy / Spring St Int Fairfax Co Pkwy / Spring St Intchg Widening (3 Lanes) X Sycolin Rd Rte 7/US 15 Bypass SCL of Leesburg Widening (2 Lanes) X Tall Cedars Pkwy Pinebrook Rd Gum Springs Rd New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X University Blvd/Progress Ct Sudley Manor Dr Wellington Rd /Progress Ct New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X US 15 (James Madison Hwy) US 29 I-66 Widening (2 Lanes) X US 15 (South King St) Evergreen Mills Rd SCL of Leesburg Widening (2 Lanes) X US 29 ECL City of Fairfax (vic Nutley St) Espana Court Widening (3 Lanes) X US 29 Espana Court I-495 Complete X US 29 (add NB lane) Legato Rd Shirley Gate/Waples Mill Rd Widening (3 Lanes) X US 29 (add NB lane) I-66 Entrance to Conway Robinson MSF Widening (3 Lanes) X US 50 Rte 742 (Poland Rd) Rte 609 (Pleasant Valley) Widening (3 Lanes) X US 50 Rte 609 (Pleasant Valley) Rte 28 Widening (3 Lanes) X US 50 Rte 659 Relocated Rte 742 (Poland Rd) Widening (3 Lanes) X US 50 ECL City of Fairfax Arlington co Line Widening (3 Lanes) X Rte 123 Rte 7 (Leesburg Pike) I-495 Widening (4 Lanes) X Rte 123 Burke Center Pkwy Braddock Rd Widening (3 Lanes) X Rte 123 (Ox Rd) Fairfax Co Pkwy Burke Center Pkwy Widening (3 Lanes) X Rte 215 (Vint Hill Rd Relocated) Rte 28 Schaefer Lane New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Rte 215 (Vint Hill Rd) Rte 655 Schaefer Lane Sudley Manor Dr Widening (2 Lanes) X Rte 2150 (Gloucester Pkwy Extn) Rte 607 (Loudoun Co Pkwy) Rte 1036 (Pacific Blvd) Widening (2 Lanes) X Braddock Rd (note: segment from Rte 234 Bypass Ext (aka Trico and Bi-Co Rte 234 Bypass at I-66 Braddock Rd to US 50 is included as New Road Construct (2 Lanes) X Pkwy) North Star Blvd in secondary projects) Rte 267 (Dulles Greenway) Egress Ramp At Hawling Farm Blvd (Future) New Road Construct (1 Lane) X Rte 28 Rte 652 (Fitzwater Dr) Rte 215 (Vint Hill Rd) Relocated Widening (2 Lanes) X Rte 28 Rte 215 (Vint Hill Rd) Relocated Rte 619 (Linton Hall Rd) Widening (3 Lanes) X Rte 28 Fauquier co Line Rte 652 (Fitzwater Dr) Widening (2 Lanes) X Rte 28 (Nokesville Rd) Godwin Dr Manassas City limits - West Widening (3 Lanes) X

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-27 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-16. Network Improvements in the Study Area from 2014 to 2040 (Cont’d.) Available in Project From To Type of Improvements 2014 2022 2040

Prince William Pkwy Manassas City Rte 28 (Nokesville Rd) Rte 619 Linton Hall Rd Widening (3 Lanes) X Limits Rte 28 PPTA (Phase II) I-66 Rte 7 Widening (4 Lanes) X Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy HOV) Rte 267 (Dulles Toll Rd) Sunrise Valley Dr Convert X Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy HOV) Sunrise Valley West Ox Rd Widening X Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy HOV) West Ox Rd US 50 Convert X Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy HOV) US 50 Rte 7735 (Fair Lakes Pkwy) Convert/ Upgrade X Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy HOV) Rte 7735 (Fair Lakes Pkwy) I-66 Upgrade /Widen X Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy) US 29 Rte 123 (Ox Rd) Widening (3 Lanes) X Rte 289 HOV (Franconia Springfield Pkwy) Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy) Rte 2677 (Frontier Dr) Construct X Rte 602 (Reston Pkwy) Rte 5320 (Sunrise Valley Dr) Rte 606 (Baron Cameron Ave) Construct X Rte 606 (Old Ox Rd) Rte 634 (Moran Rd) Rte 621 (Evergreen Mills Rd) Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 606 (Old Ox Rd) / Rte 842 Rte 607 (Loudoun Co Pkwy) Rte 772 (Ryan Rd) Construct X (Arcola Rd) Rte 606 (Old Ox Rd) / Rte 842 Rte 607 (Loudoun co Pkwy) Rte 772 (Ryan Rd) Construct X (Arcola Rd) Rte 607 (Loudoun co Pkwy) US 50 Rte 606 at new Arcola Blvd Widening X Rte 607 (Loudoun co Pkwy) W&OD Trail Redskin Park Dr Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 607 (Loudoun co Pkwy) Redskin Park Dr Gloucester Pkwy Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 607 (Loudoun co Pkwy) Redskin Park Dr Gloucester Pkwy Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 620 (Braddock Rd) Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy) Rte 123 (Ox Rd) Widening X Rte 620 (New Braddock Rd) Rte 28 US 29 at Rte 662 (Stone Rd) Construct/ Widening X Rte621 (Balls Ford Rd) Rte 234 (Sudley Rd) Ashton Ave Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 621 (Balls Ford Rd) Ashton Ave Groveton Rd Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 638 (Rolling Rd) NB offramp at Fairfax NB Rolling Rd NB Fairfax Co Pkwy Widening X Co Pkwy Rte 643 (Purcell Rd) Rte 234 (Dumfries Rd) Rte 642 (Hoadly Rd) Reconstruct Widen X Rte 643 (Sycolin Rd) Phase II Leesburg Town Limits Crosstrails Blvd Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 645 (Stringfellow Rd) US 50 Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy) Widening X

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-28 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

Table 4-16. Network Improvements in the Study Area from 2014 to 2040 (Cont’d.) Available in Project From To Type of Improvements 2014 2022 2040

Rte 645 (Stringfellow Rd) Rte 7735 (Fair Lakes Blvd) US 50 Widening X Rte 650 (Gallows Rd) Rte 7 (Leesburg Pike) Rte 699 (Prosperity Ave) Widening X Rte 651 (Guinea Rd) Rte 6197 (Roberts Pkwy) Rte 4807 (Pommeroy Dr) Widening X Rte 651 (New Guinea Rd) Rte 123 (Ox Rd) Roberts Rd Construct X Rte 655 (Shirley Gate Rd) Rte 286 (Fairfax Co Pkwy) Rte 620 (Braddock Rd) Construct X Rte 657 (Centreville Rd) Rte 8390 (Metrotech Dr) Rte 668 (McLearen Rd) Widening X Rte 659 (Belmont Ridge Rd) Rte 7 Croson Ln Widening X Rte 659 (Gum Spring Rd) Rte 620 (Braddock Rd) US 50 Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 659 (Gum Spring Rd) Prince William co Line Rte 620 (Braddock Rd) Widening/ Upgrade X Rte 674 (Wellington Rd) Rte 234 Bypass Prince William Pkwy Rte 668 (Rixlew Ln) Widening X Rte 676 (Catharpin Rd) Rte 55 (John Marshall Hwy) Heathcote Blvd Widening X Rte 7 Rolling Holly Dr Reston Ave Widening X Rte 7 Dulles Toll Rd Rte 123 Widening X Rte 7 Rte 123 I-495 Widening X Rte 7 I-495 I-66 Widening X Rte 7 Reston Ave West Approach to Bridge over DTR Widening X Rte 7 Bridge over Dulles Toll Rd Construct X Rte 7 Bypass Rte 7 West US 15 South (South King St) Widening X Rte 7 Bypass US 15 South (South King St) Rte 7/US 15 East Widening X Rte 868 (Davis Dr) Rte 606 (Old Ox Rd) Rte 846 (Sterling Blvd) Construct X Washington Blvd Wilson Kirkwood Widening X

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-29 FINAL REPORT 4. Modeling Approach

C&M created the 2022 model year demand by developing the 2022 model inputs using existing MWCOG TDM scenarios. The 2022 and 2040 trip tables were estimated using the MWCOG TDM. Table 4-17 presents the traffic growth rates along the Project corridor at each screenline location from base year 2013 to opening year 2022 and horizon year 2040. From 2013 to 2040, the traffic in the western section (Screenlines 1 to 3) of the I-66 corridor grows faster than the total traffic of all facilities at those screenlines, while traffic in the eastern section of I-66 (Screenlines 4 to 7) grows slower than the total traffic of all facilities at those screenlines. Regarding I-66 alone, traffic grows faster in the western section than in the eastern section. This growth pattern is expected because the areas closer to Downtown D.C. are already well developed, whereas the western section of the project is in a suburban area and therefore has greater potential for development and growth. In the year 2022, the HOV restriction for all HOV lanes in the MWCOG region is tightened from HOV2+ to HOV3+. Therefore, I-66 traffic growth is lower from 2013 to 2022 than from 2022 to 2040. Screenline 6 and 7, which are closer to I-495, experience zero to negative growth from 2013 to 2022.

Table 4-17. Traffic Growth Rates along Screenlines for All Facilities and I-66 Alone Screenline Total I-66 Total Screenline 2013-2022 2022-2040 2013-2040 2013-2022 2022-2040 2013-2040 1 0.2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 1.6% 1.3% 2 0.1% 1.2% 0.8% 0.7% 2.1% 1.6% 3 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% 1.3% 1.1% 4 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 5 1.0% 1.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 6 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 7 0.9% 1.3% 1.2% -0.2% 0.5% 0.2%

Based on the validated and calibrated base year model, as well as the projected socioeconomic data at the TAZ level, C&M estimated the Project’s tolled demand using its toll diversion program, which is embedded within the assignment procedure of the sub- area models. Details regarding C&M’s toll diversion program are provided in Chapter 5.

1 Allen, W. G. (2008). Development of a Model for Truck Trips. Windsor, SC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. Retrieved from http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/a15eWVtY20080718141027.pdf 2 Allen, W. G. (2007). Development of a Model for Commercial Vehicle Trips. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. 3 VDOT (2014, June). Virginia Transportation Modeling Policies and Procedures Manual, Version 2.00. Retrieved from http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/vtm/vtm_policy_manual.pdf 4 VDOT (2015, April). Traffic data. Retrieved from http://www.virginiadot.org/info/ct-trafficcounts.asp

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 4-30 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

This chapter presents traffic and revenue (T&R) forecasts for the proposed Project over the 40-year concession period of operation. C&M used a macroscopic travel demand model (TDM) to produce the T&R forecasts. A logit function (i.e., toll diversion model) within the TDM predicts the behavior of travelers in selecting general purpose lanes (GPLs) versus express lanes, taking into account travel times on each segment, the toll rate, and the value of time (VOT), or willingness to pay, of drivers in different trip purpose segments.

For this analysis, nine tolling segments were assumed on the mainlanes of I-66. Different charges were applied at each toll gantry due to the different time savings that each express lane segment might offer. In this effort, C&M included the results of its traffic data analysis and utilized a series of assumptions regarding toll system implementation and enforcement. Additionally, C&M’s T&R analysis was conducted with the assumption that exit ramps and entrance ramps will be built with proper geometric configurations to ensure that traffic is not negatively affected. In order to develop a final T&R forecast, the traffic volumes from the TDM were entered into a post-processing model. In the post-processing model, toll rate and transactions were adjusted to maintain express lane operation levels, and other adjustment factors such as traffic ramp-up, electronic toll collection (ETC) penetration, and ETC leakage (which occurs when violators drive through a toll plaza without paying) were incorporated in order to produce final annual T&R numbers. The post-processing model also interpolates or extrapolates T&R values for the years that are not modeled.

This chapter first introduces the toll diversion model and the validation and growth of VOT in the model, followed by a description of the revenue-maximization methodology and associated toll treatment. This chapter also discusses the primary assumptions used in the development of the post-processing model and the assumptions pertaining to the toll collection system. The projected annual T&R forecasts for four scenarios—the MWCOG Baseline, CRA Low, CRA Mid, and CRA High scenarios—conclude this chapter. The MWCOG Baseline scenario was developed based on MWCOG’s socioeconomic projections, while the other three scenarios were based on the three levels of CRA’s socioeconomic projections (see Chapter 3).

5.1. Toll Diversion Program and Value of Time (VOT) Toll diversion models are used to estimate traffic demand on facilities such as toll roads and express lanes. In C&M’s methodology, toll diversion models are structured as logit functions, dividing toll and non-toll trips on the basis of travel time savings and toll costs with respect to the socioeconomic characteristics of individual travelers. In order to predict travelers’ route choice behaviors—specifically, the choice between using GPLs and express lanes on I-66—C&M developed and implemented a discrete choice (Logit) model. Logit models result in a probability that reflects the share of trips between a given origin-destination (OD) pair that may utilize a toll facility. In this approach, a utility function is allocated to each link/route of the network. The probability of choosing

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-1 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast a path over another is a function of the difference between the utilities of the two paths. Equation 5-1 and Equation 5-2 illustrate the utility functions defined in this study, and Equation 5-3 illustrates the probability function.

UNon-toll = βtime*(TTGPL) Equation 5-1

Equation 5-2 UToll = ASC + βtime*(TTML) + βcost*Toll

1 푃 = Equation 5-3 1+푒∆푢 Where: P = Probability of selecting a tolled facility e = Base of Natural Logarithm

Δu = ASC+ βcost*Toll+ βtime* (TTML-TTGPL)

TTML = Travel time on toll route in minutes

TTGPL = Travel time on free route in minutes Toll = Toll rate in dollars

βtime = Travel time coefficient

βcost = Cost coefficient ASC = Alternative Specific Constant for the toll option

Based on Δu (the difference between GPL and express lane utility functions), the trip tables for each market segment are divided into two parts: toll and non-toll trips. Toll trips are eligible to use either tolled or free routes, whereas non-toll trips are prohibited from using any tolled facility. Once this partitioning is set, the rest of the route choice behavior is determined by user equilibrium assignment, in which users select the route that minimizes their travel time. It is important to distinguish between express lane usage eligibility based on a traveler’s willingness to pay and based on a traveler’s OD. The probability function in Equation 5-3 identifies the percentage of travelers that are willing to pay a toll to use express lanes. However, only a portion of this percentage will actually benefit from express lanes use due to their OD and the existing access and egress points between GPLs and express lanes. The toll diversion model discussed above was incorporated into the traffic assignment procedure. A number of iterations were performed, distributing total trips into toll trips and non-toll trips and then assigning them accordingly to corresponding network configurations. VOT is a side-product of the Logit model, calculated as the ratio of the partial derivative of the utility function regarding travel time to the partial derivative regarding travel cost. VOT can be calculated as follows:

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-2 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

60∗βtime 푉푂푇 = Equation 5-4 βcost

C&M developed and tested several Logit models for different market segments. Among all of the developed models, the selected function worked best in the TDM and also produced reasonable VOTs. It should be noted that this function varies depending on market segment and year.

5.2. Validation of the Estimated VOT VOT is a measure of users’ willingness to pay for the benefit of time savings (and other hidden values such as improved safety and comfort). In this study, hourly average wage rates were used to validate travelers’ VOT (willingness to pay). Based on the U.S. Census, the Project corridor’s average median household income is about $105,792 in 2013 dollars. Assuming 2,087 working hours per year, the hourly wage rate would be $50.70. The FHWA recommended range for VOT is 50 to 70 percent of the hourly wage rate for personal travel and up to 100 percent of the wage for business travels. Because heavy trucks (3+ axles) are prohibited from using the express lanes, only the VOT of the light and medium truck vehicle classes were considered in this analysis. Therefore, the truck VOT used is the same as that used for the Non-Home-Based Work trips. The annual VOT escalation rate was validated by examining the projected real median household income growth. Using projected nominal median household income as calculated for the Project corridor, along with consumer price index (CPI) data, a series of median household incomes in 2013 dollars was calculated. The analysis showed that median household income will grow faster than CPI, which can serve as a basis for considering VOT growth. Table 5-1 presents the growth rate of median household income in 2013 dollars, as well as CPI and nominal hourly median household income. Therefore, the VOT escalation rate in this study is assumed to be 0.3 percent, in line with the growth rate of median household income (in 2013 dollars) between the years 2022 and 2040.

Table 5-1. Household Income Growth Nominal Median Median Household CPI Period Household Income Income (2013$) Growth Growth Growth 2013-2020 2.7% 1.8% -0.9% 2020-2030 2.3% 2.2% 0.0% 2030-2040 2.3% 2.9% 0.5% 2022-2040 2.3% 2.6% 0.3%

Table 5-2 presents the estimated VOTs for model years 2013, 2022, and 2040 from the adopted toll diversion curves of the CRA High scenario. MWCOG Baseline scenario VOTs are the same as those for the CRA High scenario. VOTs for other scenarios can be found in Section 5.8.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-3 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Table 5-2. VOTs for the MWCOG Baseline and CRA High Scenarios (in 2013 Dollars) Trip Purpose / 2013 2022 2040 Vehicle Class HBW $24.73 $22.97 $24.12 HBO $21.21 $19.70 $20.68 NHW $26.17 $24.31 $25.53 Truck $26.17 $24.31 $25.53

5.3. Toll Diversion Curves Considering the results of the VOT analysis, and to accommodate VOT growth in future years, C&M adjusted the parameters of the Logit model to reflect the desired VOTs and created toll diversion curves by vehicle class and trip purpose for the years 2022 and 2040. Table 5-3 presents the toll diversion model coefficients used in the travel demand modeling procedure for the CRA High scenario to estimate tolled transactions for the Project in the model year 2022. The implied VOT for each trip purpose and vehicle class is also shown in this table.

Table 5-3. Toll Diversion Model Coefficients and VOTs for CRA High Scenario – 2022

Trip Purpose / Coefficients VOT Vehicle Class Time (a) Toll (b) Constant (2013$) Work 0.105 0.275 0.219 $22.97 Other 0.091 0.278 0.167 $19.70 NHB 0.113 0.280 0.246 $24.31 Truck 0.115 0.284 0.338 $24.31

Figure 5-1 presents the 2022 work trip purpose toll diversion curve, with estimated toll diversion rates versus time savings corresponding to different toll rates (in 2013 dollars).

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-4 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Figure 5-1. Toll Diversion Curves – 2022 Work Trip

5.4. Toll Collection System and Schedule For the purposes of this study, C&M assumed that tolls will be collected on I-66 beginning January 1, 2021. When it opens to traffic, eligible vehicles using this facility will be charged a toll. HOV 3+, buses, motorcycles, and emergency vehicles can travel for free, but heavy trucks (3+ axles) are prohibited from using the express lanes. The toll will be collected using an ETC system. This system relies on a transponder mounted inside vehicles using the toll road, which—when detected by overhead gantries—electronically debits the accounts of registered car owners without requiring them to stop. If the vehicle is not equipped with a transponder, it is detected by a video monitoring system and the toll is charged accordingly, with a bill sent by mail.

5.5. Project Configuration and Toll Treatment Figure 5-2 shows a stick diagram of the Project’s lane configuration, tolling segments, and gantries. C&M received this lane configuration on June 11, 2015 and adopted it as the final Proejct configration for this study. According to the toll gantry deployment, the entire length of the toll road comprises nine toll segments, with one mainlane gantry located on each segment and for each direction.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-5 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

VDOT I-66 Managed Lanes Configuration Build Scenario Access Points - June 11, 2015 Preferred Alternative PHASE 1 - DRAFT No direct access Alt 2B - no direct access cnnctn DIVERGING DIAMOND at Cushing P&R Lot - GP ramp only Alt 2A - with WB CD road Alt 2A No direct access INTERCHANGE US29 Alt 2A VA234 VA234 (Bus 234) US29 Antioch Rd US15 Gainesville University Prince William Pkwy Sudley Rd Near Centreville 1 mi James Madison Hwy 2.6 mi Blvd 1.4 mi 2.8 mi 4.8 mi 1 mi

P P P 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3+1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3+1 I-66 W 1.6 mi 1.25 mi 1 HOV (concurrent) Transi- 2 2 2 2 2 tion Zone 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 HOV (concurrent) I-66 E 2 3 2 3 3 3+1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3+1 1 P P Balls Ford Rd 0.75 mi ALT 2B Shifted 2000' West Haymarket Max Parking - 2235 spaces Gainesville 234 Bypass Bull Run / Balls Ford Rd Centreville / Lee Hwy Max Parking - 2150 spaces Max Parking - 850 spaces Max Parking - 1450 spaces Alt 2A Max Parking - 1450 spaces DIVERGING DIAMOND ALT 2C - Revised ALT 2A ALT 2B (Center Rmps) Alt 2A INTERCHANGE ALT 2C/D VA28 ALT 2A - 2-way VA286 ALT 2B US50 VA123 HOT+Bus VA243 I-495 Sully Rd Stringfellow Rd Fairfax County Pkwy Monument Dr Lee Jackson Memorial Hwy Chain Bridge Rd Vaden Dr Nutley St Gallows Rd Capital Beltway 1 mi 1.6 mi 0.8 mi 1.4 mi 1 mi 2 mi 1.9 mi 0.4 mi 2.5 mi Mall 3+2 P 1 access P 1 I-66 W 3+1 3 3+2 3 3+1 3+1 3 3 3+1 3 3+1 3 3+1 4+2

2 2 2 2 2 M 2 2 M 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 2

3+1 3+1 3+1 3+2 3 3+1 3 3 3 3+1 3 3+1 3 3+1 3+2 P 2 P 2 P ALT 2B P I-66 E ALT 2B P ALT 2B - EB CD Rd E. of Nutley **See GP/Exp Flyover - GP->Exp Inset Ramps Below Stringfellow Rd Fairfax Corner / Monument Vienna METRO Dunn Loring METRO Max Parking - 1200 spaces Max Parking - 170 spaces Max Parking - 5430 spaces Max Parking - 1356 spaces

I-66 / I-495 I-495 HOT Lanes I-66 / I-495 Interchange LEGEND Interchange General Purpose (GP) M METRO Orange Line Stations Inset & HOT Ramp Connections General Purpose (GP) Lanes 3+1 General Purpose Lanes + Aux Lane I-66 WB Cross Roads / Ramps 2 Number of CD Lanes I-66 WB GP

I-66EBGP I-66EBHOT I-66WB GP I-66WB HOT I-495GP NB I-495HOT NB I-495GP SB I-495HOT SB Existing METRO Rail WB I-66 EB GP E - E - 2 Number of HOT Lanes 2 I-66 EB HOT - E P E Existing HOT Lanes / Ramps I-66 WB GP - - E E P Existing Park/Ride Lot 2 I-66 WB HOT - - - - Proposed HOT Lanes I-495 NB GP E - E P EB I-495 NB HOT E - P E

P Proposed Park/Ride Lot Lanes I-66HOT Proposed HOT Lane System Connection Ramps I-66 EB GP I-495 SB GP - - E - I-495 SB HOT - - E P Proposed HOT Lane Arterial Connection Ramps Toll Gantry Location I-66 EB Diagram not 1 E = Existing connection to scale Proposed Collector Distributor (CD) lanes Median reservation for potential future P = Proposed connection Distance Between Arterials METRO rail extension I-495 SB GP I-495 NB GP

Figure 5-2. Lane Configuration and Gantry Locations in Travel Demand Model – Stick Diagram Version

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-6 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

5.6. Revenue Maximization In the TDM, each scenario’s toll rate for each toll gantry is optimized through testing different levels and selecting those that maximize revenue subject to the constraints of maintaining express lane speeds above 45 mph. Revenue maximization is essentially achieved via a sensitivity analysis of revenue to increases in toll rate, given that all other variables—including the toll gantry system—remained unchanged. This analysis was performed for each model year and each time-of-day period, and at all gantries separately, with toll rates varying from $0.05 per mile to $1.50 per mile, in order to identify the toll rate that maximizes revenue. C&M recorded the revenue generated by each gantry in each time period and direction of travel. On this basis, C&M identified the toll rate that maximizes revenue at each of the toll gantries. The toll rate that maximizes revenue at one gantry is not the same as that which maximizes revenue at another; this is because each express lane segment offers different time savings (at different times of the day and future years). Applying this blend of toll rates provides the estimate of optimal (revenue maximizing) tolls. As an example, Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 present the CRA High scenario’s revenue and demand sensitivity to toll rates in 2022 and 2040, respectively, for Gantry 4 during the AM period in the eastbound direction. The vertical line in the graph represents the optimal toll rate that was selected for this gantry. To account for possible fluctuations in the revenue curve, C&M selected the toll rates that corresponds to 98 percent of the maximum revenue, rather than the actual maximum revenue.

Figure 5-3. 2022 CRA High Scenario Revenue Sensitivity to Toll Rate – Gantry 4 AM EB

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-7 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Figure 5-4. 2040 CRA High Scenario Revenue Sensitivity to Toll Rate – Gantry 4 AM EB

5.7. Traffic and Revenue Assumptions Any T&R forecast requires adopting some assumptions about present and future travel behavior. In some cases, these assumptions are selected from a range of possible values that may well materialize in practice. C&M produced T&R projections for four scenarios (MWCOG Baseline, CRA Low, CRA Mid, and CRA High). The CRA Mid scenario represents, in C&M’s view, the most likely values for the assumptions and the future economic activity in the region. In order to prepare robust T&R forecasts, C&M also considered assumptions that are slightly conservative or optimistic (e.g., varying travelers’ VOT). The CRA Low scenario reflects a possible future where local conditions are not as positive as in the other two cases, and the choice of assumptions reflects a more pessimistic outlook. The CRA High scenario reflects a probable and reasonable future, but it is based on a more optimistic view of the region and its economy. The T&R forecasts presented in this chapter are based on the following main assumptions:  The proposed I-66 Express lanes Project is assumed to open to traffic by January 1, 2021.  Traffic and revenue are forecasted for 40 years starting with 2021.  All toll rates and revenues are expressed in 2013 dollars.  Gasoline availability and prices are assumed to remain within levels that will not significantly affect traffic.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-8 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

 Federal and state fuel taxes will not change to a degree that would affect travel behavior.  No competitive routes will be improved other than those contained in the transportation improvement plan for the study area, which have been noted in Chapter 4.  The truck classification allowed in express lanes is in line with FHWA Class 5, which is trucks with two axles and six tires, including delivery single-unit trucks, large vans, and commercial pickups. Trucks with three or more axles are prohibited from using the express lanes.  Traffic ramp-up is taken into consideration to represent the time it takes for traffic volumes to reach their full potential after the opening of a new toll facility. This is usually a result of drivers’ unfamiliarity with using a new roadway. Ramp-up assumptions are affected by many factors, such as project location, project type, payment method, marketing plans, user familiarity, history of toll projects within the project area, etc. For this Project, a ramp-up rate ranging from 60% to 90% has been used within different scenarios due to the familiarity of the potential users with express lane facilities and due to the different characteristics of each scenario. C&M chose this ramp-up assumption based on a literature review of similar toll project studies. These studies indicate a wide range of ramp-up percentages for the first year after a project’s opening date, from 30–50 percent on the lower end to 70–80 percent on the higher end for each range provided. In the case of express lane projects, ramp-up periods are usually shorter, with most studies indicating a ramp-up period of 2–3 years. C&M believes that the assumed rates for the Project are reasonable due to potential users’ familiarity with the express lane facility, since the express lanes are positioned immediately next to the GPLs.  No extra revenue due to video surcharges is reflected.  Leakage is a result of system deficiencies or imaged-based violators. There will be no revenue collected from these trips.  The transaction and revenue factors are derived from the following assumptions/observations: o 115 weekends/holidays and 250 weekdays are in each year. o Based on observed data, traffic on a typical weekend/holiday is 30 percent of that on a typical weekday. o For the MWCOG Baseline scenario, the transaction factor is calculated as 250 + (115 * 0.30) = 285. o The lower traffic level and consequent lower congestion level during weekends/holidays is associated with lower toll rates; therefore, C&M estimated an overall toll rate reduction factor for weekends/holidays by: . evaluating express lane performance during less congested time periods, considering different vehicle classifications and trip purposes associated with weekends; and . reviewing weekend vs. weekday toll rate/revenue data on currently operating express lanes.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-9 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

o By considering the additional reduction factor (approximately 70 percent) due to lower toll rates for weekends/holidays, the revenue factor for the MWCOG Baseline scenario is calculated as 250 + (115 * 0.30* 0.70) = 274. o The transaction and revenue factors in other scenarios were varied against the MWCOG Baseline to account for the varying characteristics of each scenario. Additionally, it is assumed in all scenarios that the proposed express lanes are efficiently operated and maintained for the length of the forecast period. Another implicit assumption is that the operating agency will adopt a sensible communications policy with potential users and the community in order to present the advantages of the express lanes and justify the fairness of the tolls charged. It is also assumed that the operating agency will adopt a sound commercial policy in dealing with non-ETC users to quickly convert them into ETC users. Detailed assumptions for each scenario are provided below in the T&R result sections.

5.8. Traffic and Revenue Results This section presents C&M’s T&R results in terms of annual toll-paying trips and revenue for each of the four scenarios considered, as well as their corresponding assumptions. Primary variations in assumptions betwen these scenarios include changes in VOT, ramp-up in the first few years after opening, and ETC penetration. All revenue is expressed in 2013 dollars. The results obtained from the TDM have been adjusted using a post-processing model, from which C&M obtained annual figures for the forecast period. Each gantry passage was treated as a separate transaction. The toll-paying trips, which may include multiple toll gantry reads, and revenue figures after the 2040 modeling year are the result of extrapolation. Daily transaction forecasts corresponding to each year and over the entire Project period were checked over 15-minute intervals to ensure the desired speed is maintained. This process was performed using the current 15-minute interval daily traffic profile. Wherever necessary, toll rates and toll-paying trips beyond modeling years and at certain time periods were adjusted in order to maintain desired speed.

5.8.1. CRA High Scenario The assumptions used for the CRA High scenario are summarized in Table 5-4, and the annual T&R forecast is presented in Table 5-5. In the opening year 2021, C&M forecasts that the Project is expected to generate more than $55 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 14 million transactions. By 2040, the number of transactions is projected to increase to approximately 26 million, and to more than 30 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $142 million by 2040 and $249 million by 2060.

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-10 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Table 5-4. Assumptions for the CRA High Scenario Item Description Project Type Express Lanes Project Location Northern Virginia District of Columbia, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Study Area Prince William County, the independent cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park, and the Towns of Vienna and Haymarket. Project Extents US 15 in Prince William County to I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County Length 21 Miles Project Configuration 2 Express lanes+ 3 GP lanes+ 0 to 2 Auxiliary Lanes per direction Separation Type Barrier Project Opening Year January 2021 Free flow speed 65 mph Operation Policy Maintain minimum speed of 45 mph Max Traffic Allowed 1800 veh/hr/ln for 2 express lanes segments Shoulder Lane Operation Policy None Number of Express Lanes Two lanes per direction Egress/Ingress Points Access will be provided to the major roads (see Figure 5-2 stick diagram) Toll Collection System Open Road Tolling Facility Usage Requirement All vehicles must have transponders Vehicle Prohibitions Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles) Toll-Free Vehicles HOV 3+, Motorcycles, Buses, and Emergency Vehicles Tolled Vehicles SOV, HOV 2, and light/medium trucks (single-unit 2 axles and 6 tires) Tolling Strategy Congestion Pricing (Dynamic Pricing) Tolling Policy Revenue Maximization Toll Gantry System Nine mainlane gantries Express Lane Operation Inside Express lanes inside Beltway from 5:30-9:30 a.m. and 3:00-7:00 p.m. Beltway Source of Traffic Projections MWCOG Travel Demand Model Version 2.3.57 Source of Socioeconomic Input CRA High Case Base Year Calibration 2013 Forecast Period 40 years 2022 2040 Home-Based $22.97 $24.12 Value of Time by Trip Purpose Home-Based $19.70 $20.68 (2013 Dollars) Non-Home Based $24.31 $25.53 Medium Trucks $24.31 $25.53 Transaction factor 290 Revenue Days Revenue factor 278 First year 70% Ramp-Up Second year 90% Following years 100% First year 85% ETC Penetration Second year 90% Following years 90% ETC Leakage 1% First year 25% Image-Based Transactions Second year 20% Leakage Following years 15%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-11 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Table 5-5. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA High Scenario Annual Trips Annual Revenue Year (Thousands) (Thousands 2013$) 2021 13,955 $55,284 2022 18,287 $74,387 2023 20,696 $85,453 2024 21,067 $87,925 2025 21,432 $90,494 2026 21,791 $93,163 2027 22,144 $95,934 2028 22,492 $98,807 2029 22,834 $101,785 2030 23,170 $104,868 2031 23,500 $108,057 2032 23,824 $111,355 2033 24,142 $114,761 2034 24,455 $118,276 2035 24,761 $121,903 2036 25,062 $125,641 2037 25,357 $129,491 2038 25,646 $133,453 2039 25,929 $137,529 2040 26,206 $141,719 2041 26,478 $146,024 2042 26,743 $150,442 2043 27,003 $154,976 2044 27,257 $159,624 2045 27,505 $164,387 2046 27,747 $169,265 2047 27,984 $174,258 2048 28,214 $179,366 2049 28,439 $184,588 2050 28,658 $189,923 2051 28,871 $195,373 2052 29,078 $200,936 2053 29,279 $206,611 2054 29,474 $212,398 2055 29,664 $218,296 2056 29,848 $224,304 2057 30,025 $230,422 2058 30,197 $236,648 2059 30,364 $242,981 2060 30,524 $249,420

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-12 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

5.8.2. MWCOG Baseline Scenario The assumptions used for the MWCOG Baseline scenario are summarized in Table 5-6, and the annual T&R forecast is presented in Table 5-7. In the opening year 2021, the Project is expected to generate more than $48 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 13 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 22 million, and to more than 24 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $109 million by 2040 and $155 million by 2060.

Table 5-6. Assumptions for the MWCOG Baseline Scenario

Item Description Project Type Express Lanes Project Location Northern Virginia District of Columbia, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Study Area Prince William County, the independent cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park, and the Towns of Vienna and Haymarket. Project Extents US 15 in Prince William County to I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County Length 21 miles Project Configuration 2 Express lanes+ 3 GP lanes+ 0 to 2 Auxiliary Lanes per direction Separation Type Barrier Project Opening Year January 2021 Free flow speed 65 mph Operation Policy Maintain minimum speed of 45 mph Max Traffic Allowed 1800 veh/hr/ln for 2 HOT lanes Segment Shoulder Lane Operation Policy None Number of Express Lanes Two lanes per direction Egress/Ingress Points Access will be provided to the major roads (see Figure 5-2 stick diagram) Toll Collection System Open Road Tolling Facility Usage Requirement All vehicles must have transponders Vehicle Prohibitions Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles) Toll-Free Vehicles HOV 3+, Motorcycles, Buses, and Emergency Vehicles Tolled Vehicles SOV, HOV 2, and light/medium trucks (single-unit 2 axles and 6 tires) Tolling Strategy Congestion Pricing (Dynamic Pricing) Tolling Policy Revenue Maximization Toll Gantry System Nine mainlane gantries Express Lane Operation Inside Express lanes inside Beltway from 5:30-9:30 a.m. and 3:00-7:00 p.m. Beltway Source of Traffic Projections MWCOG Travel Demand Model Version 2.3.57 Source of Socioeconomic Input MWCOG Round 8.3 Forecast Base Year Calibration 2013 Forecast Period 40 years 2022 2040 Home-Based Work $22.97 $24.12 Value of Time by Trip Purpose Home-Based Other $19.70 $20.68 (2013 Dollars) Non-Home Based $24.31 $25.53 Medium Trucks $24.31 $25.53 Transaction factor 285 Revenue Days Revenue factor 274 First year 70% Ramp-Up Second year 90% Following years 100% First year 85% ETC Penetration Second year 90% Following years 90% ETC Leakage 1% First year 25% Image-Based Transactions Second year 20% Leakage Following years 15%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-13 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Table 5-7. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – MWCOG Baseline Scenario Annual Trips Annual Revenue Year (Thousands) (Thousands 2013$) 2021 12,947 $48,532 2022 16,847 $65,129 2023 18,939 $74,566 2024 19,155 $76,415 2025 19,368 $78,283 2026 19,577 $80,171 2027 19,782 $82,078 2028 19,983 $84,005 2029 20,181 $85,952 2030 20,375 $87,917 2031 20,565 $89,901 2032 20,752 $91,904 2033 20,934 $93,925 2034 21,114 $95,964 2035 21,289 $98,021 2036 21,461 $100,096 2037 21,629 $102,189 2038 21,793 $104,298 2039 21,954 $106,425 2040 22,110 $108,568 2041 22,264 $110,728 2042 22,413 $112,904 2043 22,559 $115,096 2044 22,701 $117,304 2045 22,839 $119,527 2046 22,974 $121,766 2047 23,105 $124,019 2048 23,232 $126,287 2049 23,355 $128,569 2050 23,475 $130,865 2051 23,591 $133,175 2052 23,704 $135,498 2053 23,812 $137,835 2054 23,917 $140,184 2055 24,018 $142,545 2056 24,116 $144,919 2057 24,210 $147,305 2058 24,300 $149,702 2059 24,386 $152,110 2060 24,469 $154,529

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-14 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

5.8.3. CRA Mid Scenario The assumptions used for the CRA Mid scenario are summarized in Table 5-8, and the annual T&R are presented in Table 5-9. In the opening year 2021, the Project is expected to generate more than $46 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 13 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 24 million, and to more than 27 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $117 million by 2040 and $192 million by 2060.

Table 5-8. Assumptions for the CRA Mid Scenario

Item Description Project Type Express Lanes Project Location Northern Virginia District of Columbia, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Study Area Prince William County, the independent cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park, and the Towns of Vienna and Haymarket. Project Extents US 15 in Prince William County to I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County Length 21 miles Project Configuration 2 express lanes+ 3 GP lanes+ 0 to 2 Auxiliary Lanes per direction Separation Type Barrier Project Opening Year January 2021 Free flow speed 65 mph Operation Policy Maintain minimum speed of 45 mph Max Traffic Allowed 1,800 veh/hr/ln for 2 express lanes segments Shoulder Lane Operation Policy None Number of Express Lanes Two lanes per direction Egress/Ingress Points Access will be provided to the major roads (see Figure 5-2 stick diagram) Toll Collection System Open Road Tolling Facility Usage Requirement All vehicles must have transponders Vehicle Prohibitions Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles) Toll-Free Vehicles HOV 3+, Motorcycles, Buses, and Emergency Vehicles Tolled Vehicles SOV, HOV 2, and light/medium trucks (single-unit 2 axles and 6 tires) Tolling Strategy Congestion Pricing (Dynamic Pricing) Tolling Policy Revenue Maximization Toll Gantry System Nine mainlane gantries Express Lane Operation Inside Express lanes inside Beltway from 5:30-9:30 a.m. and 3:00-7:00 p.m. Beltway Source of Traffic Projections MWCOG Travel Demand Model Version 2.3.57 Source of Socioeconomic Input CRA Mid Case Base Year Calibration 2013 Forecast Period 40 years 2022 2040 Home-Based Work $21.88 $22.97 Value of Time by Trip Purpose Home-Based Other $18.76 $19.70 (2013 Dollars) Non-Home Based $23.16 $24.31 Medium Trucks $23.16 $24.31 Transaction factor 285 Revenue Days Revenue factor 274 First year 70% Ramp-Up Second year 90% Following years 100% First year 85% ETC Penetration Second year 90% Following years 90% ETC Leakage 1% First year 25% Image-Based Transactions Second year 20% Leakage Following years 15%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-15 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Table 5-9. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Mid Scenario Annual Trips Annual Revenue Year (Thousands) (Thousands 2013$) 2021 13,209 $46,075 2022 17,270 $62,178 2023 19,503 $71,601 2024 19,812 $73,816 2025 20,117 $76,088 2026 20,416 $78,418 2027 20,710 $80,805 2028 21,000 $83,251 2029 21,284 $85,756 2030 21,563 $88,319 2031 21,837 $90,942 2032 22,106 $93,624 2033 22,370 $96,365 2034 22,629 $99,166 2035 22,884 $102,026 2036 23,133 $104,947 2037 23,377 $107,927 2038 23,616 $110,966 2039 23,850 $114,065 2040 24,079 $117,224 2041 24,303 $120,441 2042 24,522 $123,717 2043 24,736 $127,053 2044 24,945 $130,446 2045 25,149 $133,897 2046 25,348 $137,406 2047 25,542 $140,972 2048 25,730 $144,595 2049 25,914 $148,274 2050 26,093 $152,008 2051 26,267 $155,797 2052 26,436 $159,641 2053 26,600 $163,538 2054 26,758 $167,488 2055 26,912 $171,490 2056 27,061 $175,543 2057 27,205 $179,647 2058 27,343 $183,800 2059 27,477 $188,001 2060 27,606 $192,250

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-16 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

5.8.1. CRA Low Scenario The assumptions for the CRA Low scenario used in this study are summarized in Table 5-10, and the annual T&R are presented in Table 5-11. In the opening year 2021, the Project is expected to generate more than $43 million in toll revenue as a result of approximately 13 million toll-paying trips. By 2040, the number of toll-paying trips is projected to increase to approximately 21 million, and to more than 22 million by the final forecast year 2060. Annual revenue is projected to reach approximately $89 million by 2040 and $134 million by 2060.

Table 5-10. Assumptions for the CRA Low Scenario

Item Description Project Type Express Lanes Project Location Northern Virginia District of Columbia, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Study Area Prince William County, the independent cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park, and the Towns of Vienna and Haymarket. Project Extents US 15 in Prince William County to I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County Length 21 miles Project Configuration 2 Express lanes+ 3 GP lanes+ 0 to 2 Auxiliary Lanes per direction Separation Type Barrier Project Opening Year January 2021 Free flow speed 65 mph Operation Policy Maintain minimum speed of 45 mph Max Traffic Allowed 1,800 veh/hr/ln for 2 express lanes segments Shoulder Lane Operation Policy None Number of Express Lanes Two lanes per direction Egress/Ingress Points Access will be provided to the major roads (see Figure 5-2 stick diagram) Toll Collection System Open Road Tolling Facility Usage Requirement All vehicles must have transponders Vehicle Prohibitions Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles) Toll-Free Vehicles HOV 3+, Motorcycles, Buses, and Emergency Vehicles Tolled Vehicles SOV, HOV 2, and light/medium trucks (single-unit 2 axles and 6 tires) Tolling Strategy Congestion Pricing (Dynamic Pricing) Tolling Policy Revenue Maximization Toll Gantry System Nine mainlane gantries Express Lane Operation Inside Express lanes inside Beltway from 5:30-9:30 a.m. and 3:00-7:00 p.m. Beltway Source of Traffic Projections MWCOG Travel Demand Model Version 2.3.57 Source of Socioeconomic Input CRA Low Case Base Year Calibration 2013 Forecast Period 40 years 2022 2040 Home-Based Work $20.79 $21.82 Value of Time by Trip Purpose Home-Based Other $17.82 $18.71 (2013 Dollars) Non-Home Based $22.00 $23.10 Medium Trucks $22.00 $23.10 Transaction factor 279 Revenue Days Revenue factor 270 First year 70% Ramp-Up Second year 85% Following years 100% First year 85% ETC Penetration Second year 85% Following years 85% ETC Leakage 1% First year 30% Image-Based Transactions Second year 25% Leakage Following years 20%

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-17 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

Table 5-11. Annual Toll-Paying Trips and Revenue – CRA Low Scenario Annual Trips Annual Revenue Year (Thousands) (Thousands 2013$) 2021 12,681 $43,030 2022 15,530 $53,534 2023 18,424 $64,544 2024 18,574 $65,651 2025 18,721 $66,797 2026 18,866 $67,982 2027 19,008 $69,208 2028 19,147 $70,473 2029 19,284 $71,780 2030 19,417 $73,129 2031 19,549 $74,519 2032 19,677 $75,951 2033 19,803 $77,426 2034 19,927 $78,944 2035 20,047 $80,505 2036 20,165 $82,109 2037 20,280 $83,757 2038 20,393 $85,449 2039 20,503 $87,185 2040 20,610 $88,966 2041 20,714 $90,791 2042 20,816 $92,660 2043 20,916 $94,575 2044 21,012 $96,534 2045 21,106 $98,538 2046 21,197 $100,588 2047 21,286 $102,682 2048 21,371 $104,822 2049 21,455 $107,006 2050 21,535 $109,235 2051 21,613 $111,510 2052 21,688 $113,829 2053 21,761 $116,193 2054 21,830 $118,602 2055 21,898 $121,055 2056 21,962 $123,552 2057 22,024 $126,093 2058 22,083 $128,678 2059 22,139 $131,307 2060 22,193 $133,979

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-18 FINAL REPORT 5. Traffic and Revenue Forecast

5.8.2. Scenario Comparisons As described previously, the CRA Low, CRA Mid, and MWCOG Baseline scenarios include a variation of assumptions relative to those assumed in the CRA High scenario. Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 present plots of the projected annual toll-paying trips and revenue, respectively, for the four scenarios. In 2021, the CRA High scenario generates approximate 20 percent higher revenue than the CRA Mid scenario, while the CRA Low scenario generates 7 percent lower revenue relative to the CRA Mid scenario. These differences grow gradually in future years. In 2040, the CRA High scenario generates 21 percent higher revenue than the CRA Mid scenario, while the CRA Low scenario is 24 percent lower. The MWCOG Baseline generates 7 percent higher revenue than the CRA Mid scenario in 2021 and 7 percent lower revenue than the CRA Mid scenario in 2040. In 2060, the MWCOG Baseline is about 19 percent lower than the CRA Mid scenario in terms of revenue.

Figure 5-5. Projected Annual Toll-Paying Trips by Scenario

Figure 5-6. Projected Annual Revenue by Scenario

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study 5-19 FINAL REPORT

Appendix A

Socio-Economic Data Review and Forecast Transform 66 P3 Project

George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis

May 2015

I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study A-1 FINAL REPORT

Socio-Economic Data Review and Forecast Transform 66 P3 Project

Overview

Interstate 66 is the primary east-west highway corridor linking several Northern Virginia communities with Washington, DC and one another. As a major route for both commuting and commerce, any potential improvements to I-66 will affect multiple jurisdictions. The Transform 66 P3 Project will impact the following locations:  District of Columbia;  The Virginia counties of Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, and Prince William; and  The Virginia independent cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park.

Figure 1

This report examines the current situation and the projected future socio-economic trends that will affect population, households, and employment change in these jurisdictions to 2040.

Long Term Economic Trends in the Washington Metropolitan Area

The jurisdictions in the I-66 corridor study area represent a significant portion of the Washington- Arlington-Alexandria Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). As of 2010 these 11 jurisdictions accounted for 49 percent of both the total jobs and the total population in the Washington MSA. The study area includes two of the MSA’s central jurisdictions (District of Columbia and Arlington) and many of its employment centers.

The Washington MSA’s economy has historically been driven by the presence of the U.S. federal government. In 1950 the region had a base of 592,000 jobs, of which 227,000 (38 percent) were federal government jobs. Jobs were heavily concentrated in the region’s core at that time—84 percent of the region’s jobs were located within the District of Columbia—and 45 percent of those employed in the District were federal workers.

After 1950 the Washington area underwent a dramatic transformation: between 1950 and 2013 the region’s job base quadrupled and its population tripled. During this period the region’s job base became far more dispersed and far less dependent on federal jobs. By 2013, 24 percent of jobs in the WMA were in the District, and just 12 percent of the region’s workers were employed by the federal government.

In spite of this shift away from federal employment, the U.S. government has continued to exert a strong influence on the regional economy due to rapid growth in federal procurement activity in the region. Between 1980 and 2010 the value of federal contracts performed in the Washington metro area increased from $4.2 billion to $82.4 billion. This trend fundamentally reshaped the region’s economy. In 1950, just 19 percent of all jobs in the region were in the private Services sectors; by 2013, these jobs accounted for 59 percent of the region’s employment base (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Employment by Sector Group in Washington Metro Area, 1950, 1980, and 2013 Federal Gov Services* Retail Trade Industrial** Construction State/Local Gov

1950 38% 19% 16% 15% 7% 6%

1980 23% 32% 16% 12% 5% 12%

2013 12% 59% 9% 6% 5% 10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% * Includes all Professional, Business, Education, Health, and Other Services industries ** Includes Manufacturing, Transportation and Public Utilities, and Wholesale Trade Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, State and Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings (SIC Base 1950 & 1980; NAICS Base 2013)

The Washington MSA’s reliance on the federal government has long been a source of strength for the region. However, the U.S. government has begun to reduce its presence in the region in two key ways.

First, it has trimmed the federal workforce from a peak of 387,500 in July 2010 to 361,600 by February 2015, a 6.7 percent reduction. Second, the value of federal contracts completed in the region declined by 16 percent between 2010 and 2013.

These federal cutbacks have led to reductions in the pace of employment growth in the Washington MSA. Between 1969 and 2008, the region’s compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for total employment was 2.3 percent. Between 2011 and 2013, the region’ CAGR for employment was just 1.0 percent.

Figure 3

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

The Washington MSA is one of the most prosperous regions in the U.S. As of 2013 the Washington MSA’s per capita personal income level of $61,507 ranked well above the U.S. total of $39,468, eighth among all 381 MSAs, and third among major metros, trailing only San Francisco and Boston. The Washington area’s recent slowdown in employment growth has tracked with weaker growth in per capita personal income. Between 1969 and 2008 the region’s per capita personal income had a CAGR of 6.4 percent (not adjusted for inflation). Between 2011 and 2013 the CAGR was just 0.8 percent, and per capita personal income actually declined from 2012 to 2013 (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Though the economy of the Washington MSA has struggled in recent years the region’s population has continued to grow. Between 2008 and 2013 the region’s total population increased by more than 500,000 people. There are many reasons for the continued population increase in spite of the economic slowdown including: natural growth (more births than deaths), retiring workers remaining in the region, international in-migration, and in-migration by students and young job seekers (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

The Washington MSA has had a long history of nearly continuous population and employment growth. This growth was slowed by a series of disruptive events in recent years, beginning with the national economic recession from 2008, and continuing through a series of federal government crises such as sequestration, the fiscal cliff, multiple shutdowns, and a general trend towards smaller government.

In spite of this upheaval the region’s population and employment have each continued to increase. Looking to the future the Washington MSA maintains many competitive advantages: a highly-skilled workforce; road, rail, and air connections to national and international markets; abundant cultural and recreational opportunities; a world-class educational system; and access to global power and markets. Assuming that the U.S. government stabilizes its operations in the region and does not continue to downsize, the regional seems poised for a resumption of stronger economic growth.

Baseline Forecasts for 2020 and 2040

Forecasts for future growth in the I-66 Corridor are adapted from the Round 8.3 projections as prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). These population, household, and employment forecasts, which begin from the base year of 2010 for each jurisdiction in the study area population, household, and employment for the years 2020 and 2040. These forecasts anticipate that the region will add 1.14 million residents, 528,000 households and 908,000 jobs during the 30-year period between 2010 and 2040 (Tables 1-3).

Table 1: Baseline Population Forecasts for I-66 Corridor, 2010, 2020, and 2040 Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2040 Change % Change Baseline Forecast Forecast District of Columbia 601,723 691,972 826,989 225,266 37.4% Arlington County 207,627 230,357 265,959 58,332 28.1% Fairfax Co./Fairfax City/Falls Church 1,116,623 1,193,606 1,414,154 297,531 26.6% Loudoun County 312,311 397,272 567,195 254,884 81.6% Prince William Co./Manassas/Man. Pk. 454,096 546,464 730,382 276,286 60.8% Fauquier County 65,201 74,114 93,022 27,821 42.7% Clarke County 14,031 15,026 16,632 2,601 18.5% Corridor Totals 2,771,612 3,148,811 3,914,334 1,142,722 41.2%

Table 2: Baseline Household Forecasts for I-66 Corridor, 2010, 2020, and 2040 Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2040 Change % Change Baseline Forecast Forecast District of Columbia 266,707 305,550 370,758 104,051 39.0% Arlington County 98,050 108,434 124,892 26,842 27.4% Fairfax Co./Fairfax City/Falls Church 405,075 463,423 564,188 159,113 39.3% Loudoun County 104,583 133,675 204,396 99,813 95.4% Prince William Co./Manassas/Man. Pk. 147,819 185,482 274,537 126,718 85.7% Fauquier County 23,658 26,954 33,801 10,143 42.9% Clarke County 5,507 5,926 6,776 1,269 23.0% Corridor Totals 1,051,399 1,229,443 1,579,348 527,949 50.2%

Table 3: Baseline Employment Forecasts for I-66 Corridor, 2010, 2020, and 2040 Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2040 Change % Change Baseline Forecast Forecast District of Columbia 732,179 802,760 941,521 209,342 28.6% Arlington County 182,867 193,600 227,073 44,206 24.2% Fairfax Co./Fairfax City/Falls Church 666,073 768,093 942,734 276,661 41.5% Loudoun County 142,724 194,919 365,197 222,473 155.9% Prince William Co./Manassas/Man. Pk. 146,336 189,791 283,492 137,156 93.7% Fauquier County 22,371 31,046 38,974 16,603 74.2% Clarke County 4,241 4,452 5,515 1,274 30.0% Corridor Totals 1,896,791 2,184,661 2,804,505 907,714 47.9% Source: U.S. Census, IHS Economics, Woods and Poole, MWCOG, GMU Center for Regional Analysis

Forecast Methodology

Low growth, most likely growth and high growth scenarios were forecasted in 2020 and 2040 for employment, population and households for  the District of Columbia,  Arlington County,  Fairfax County, the City of Fairfax, and the City of Falls Church, combined,  Loudoun County,  Prince William County, the City of Manassas, and the City of Manassas Park, combined,  Fauquier County, and  Clarke County.

The employment forecasts were generated using four data sources: the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, forecasts from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), forecasts from IHS Economics and forecasts from Woods and Poole. The definition of a job varies by data source. Woods and Poole and some MWCOG jurisdictions include both payroll jobs and self-employment, while IHS Economics and other MWCOG jurisdictions include only payroll jobs. To address this discrepancy, the base year (2013) for each data source was re-weighted to match the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis wage and salary employment. Then, the forecasts were used as either the low, most likely, or high growth scenario. Each jurisdiction (or group of jurisdictions) was assessed separately so each scenario includes multiple underlying data sources.

The population and household forecasts were generated together using six data sources: the U.S. Census Bureau, forecasts from MWCOG, forecasts from IHS Economics, forecasts from Woods and Poole, forecasts from GMU Center for Regional Analysis, and forecasts from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Policy, as available. The forecasts were aligned with 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census data to compare the long-term historic and projected growth for each forecast. In addition to growth, historic and forecasted average household sizes were assessed. In general, each jurisdiction (or group of jurisdictions) had a clear outlier for both the population and household forecasts. After excluding the outliers, the low, most likely, and high growth scenarios were developed from the remaining forecasts. For each jurisdiction, the same three underlying sources were used for the population and household forecasts. Because of variations in average household size, the same source was not necessarily used for each scenario. Each jurisdiction (or group of jurisdictions) was assessed separately so each scenario includes multiple underlying data sources.

After the totals were distributed based on the MWCOG 2020 and 2040 model specifications, the most likely growth scenario was examined for 56 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). These TAZs were identified by C&M Associates and GMU Center for Regional Analysis as TAZs that reflected either high growth, or possibly artificially high growth resulting from the model specification. These TAZs were adjusted, as needed, based on planned development, economic cycles and other potential growth/limiting factors. The totals were then reallocated using MWCOG model specifications so that the jurisdiction-level forecast was unchanged.

Anticipated Trip Generators in the I-66 Corridor

Much of the usable land in the Interstate 66 corridor is already built out with residential, commercial, or industrial uses. For this reason most future growth and development in the corridor will result from either the redevelopment of underutilized sites or greenfield development on a small number of vacant sites. These areas where development is expected to occur will, in turn, generate most of the future new automobile, truck, and transit trips in the corridor.

Figure 6 shows the locations of 21 different nodes where most of the corridor’s future development is expected to occur. These areas include a total of 56 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) as defined by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Figure 6

Table 5: Profile of Key Development Nodes No. Name of Node TAZ(s) Description of Future Growth 1. Tysons Corner 1832-33,1841-48, Transit oriented office, retail, residential, 1853,1867-69 hotel, and entertainment 2. Dunn Loring Metro 1817,1973 Transit oriented density residential and retail 3. ExxonMobil 1971 Medical research and office 4. Vienna-Fairfax Metro 1804,1806, 1810 Transit oriented density residential, office, and retail 5. Fairfax City 1796,1798,1800 Infill and redevelopment, both residential and commercial 6. Fair Oaks 1638,1642,1645 Infill and redevelopment, mainly commercial, with some residential 7. Fair Lakes 1649-50 Infill and redevelopment, mainly commercial, with some residential 8. Centreville 1655,1695-97 Primarily residential with some commercial 9. Westfields 1662,1690,1692 Primarily residential with some commercial 10. Stonecroft 1688 Office and commercial campus uses 11. McLearen 1675 Mix of residential and commercial 12. Dulles Airport 2388 Airport related industrial, office, and commercial uses 13. Balls Ford 2527-28 Office and commercial, with small amount of residential 14. Bull Run 2531-32,2541-42 Mix of residential and commercial 15. West Gate 2537 Mix of residential and commercial 16. Manassas City 2628,2630-31,2367 Infill and redevelopment, both residential and commercial 17. GMU-PW Campus 2588 Educational and research activities, student housing 18. Piney Branch 2554 Mix of residential and commercial 19. Haymarket 2504,2508 Primarily residential with some commercial 20. New Baltimore 3631 Primarily residential with some commercial 21. Warrenton 3633-34 Mix of residential and commercial Source: GMU Center for Regional Analysis

These 21 nodes are expected to experience rapid growth over the next 30 years. Between 2010 and 2040 these nodes are forecasted to add 52,000 households, 101,000 residents and 127,000 jobs. These nodes are expected to account for 10.0 percent of the study area’s total household growth, 8.9 percent of its household growth, and 14.3 percent of its employment growth to 2040 (Table 6).

Table 6: Forecasted Growth: Study Area and Key Development Nodes 2010 2040 Change % Change Population Study Area Total 2,771,612 3,914,333 1,142,721 41% Key Development Nodes 138,321 239,573 101,252 73% Development Node Share of Study Area 5.0% 6.1% 8.9% Households Study Area Total 1,022,234 1,538,771 516,537 51% Key Development Nodes 52,454 104,235 51,782 99% Development Node Share of Study Area 5.1% 6.8% 10.0% Employment Study Area Total 1,870,179 2,760,016 889,837 48% Key Development Nodes 192,444 319,686 127,242 66% Development Node Share of Study Area 10.3% 11.6% 14.3% Source: U.S. Census, IHS Economics, Woods and Poole, MWCOG, GMU Center for Regional Analysis

Social, Economic, and Policy Factors Affecting Forecasted Growth

The above forecasts of future population, housing, and job growth in the study area and its key development nodes are mid-range figures that are intended to illustrate the most likely outcome. However, both the pace and the nature of growth of the region will be influenced by a variety of local, regional, national, and international trends.

These variables could affect the I-66 corridor in several key ways:  The region’s ability to grow its economy will impact how many jobs will be created which, in turn, will play a major role in how much demand there is for new housing;  Given the outsized influence of the U.S. government on the area’s economy future changes to the government workforce and federal procurement will exert a strong influence on the region as well;  The changing makeup of the region’s employment base necessitates the development of new job skills in order to attract and retain companies, making workforce development a vital piece of the region’s future growth prospects;  I-66 is one component of an increasingly congested and aging regional transportation network— future decisions regarding maintenance and expansion of the region’s highways, roads, and transit systems will therefore have a strong influence on this particular corridor;  The transportation choices made by individual commuters during peak periods will determine the relative attractiveness of different modes in the future;  The policies and regulations enacted by local governments in regard to land uses, densities, economic development, recreation, and public facilities will, perhaps more than anything else, determine how and where new residential and commercial development can occur; and  The ability (or inability) of workers in the region to afford suitable housing units will shape land use and commuting patterns.

The potential impacts of each of these factors are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7: Factors Potentially Influencing Future Growth in the Study Area Factor Conservative Most Likely Optimistic Global/Regional Washington area does Regional economy Washington region Competitiveness of not diversify its diversifies somewhat emerges as leading hub Washington Region economy and private and Washington area for international sector job growth lags economy grows at a rate commerce and becomes behind U.S. growth rate similar to U.S. economy leading growth area Federal Employment Federal government Federal government Federal workforce and Procurement continues to cut its workforce remains expands, procurement Trends workforce and reduce its stable and procurement increases, and additional procurement activity in grows at a modest rate. military personnel are the Washington region. No major changes to the stationed in the area. Future BRAC rounds number of military reduce military presence personnel in the region. as well. Workforce Training Secondary and post- Individual institutions A strong, regional and Development secondary institutions improve their workforce workforce development do not provide adequate training programs, but system emerges and training programs to there is no regional meets the needs of meet needs of system for workforce employers prospective employers development Regional Existing highway and Existing facilities are Existing facilities are Transportation transit systems kept in a state of good kept in a state of good Network deteriorate and there repair, some capacity repair, major expansions are no additional expansions are added of highways, surface expansions of capacity roads, and rail are undertaken Changes in Mode Split Mode split shifts slightly Slight increase in transit Significant increase in of Commuters away from transit usage share, little change in transit share, decrease towards automobiles, road congestion in road congestion leading to increased road congestion Local Land Use and Transit oriented/ Balance between Strong shift towards Development Policies walkable development is transit-oriented and transit-oriented limited to core of region auto-dependent development, little new and areas around development growth in auto- existing transit facilities, dependent areas most new development still occurs in auto- oriented environments Availability and Adequate housing is Limited supply of market Limited supply of market Affordability of unattainable in core rate housing in core rate housing in core Housing areas for low to areas, some intervention areas is addressed by a moderate income by local governments coordinated regional households, little increases the supply of response to providing intervention by local housing for working housing for working governments households households