APPENDIX B

NCDOT REDBOOK WIZARD USER MANUAL

Introduction

In August 2003, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) produced an updated User Benefit Analysis for Highways manual, commonly
referred to as the AASHTO Redbook. This manual documents the state-of-practice concerning
user benefit methodology for highway construction projects. A Redbook Wizard software tool is
included with the manual as a supplement. The Wizard also includes its own User Manual.
However, the Redbook Wizard User Manual does not explain the various input parameters.
Hence, the research team has developed this NCDOT Redbook Wizard User Manual to provide
guidance on the input parameters and discuss appropriate default values for construction projects
in North Carolina.

The NCDOT Redbook Wizard User Manual uses the framework of the original Redbook Wizard
User Manual. The original User Manual has been modified to fill the needs and provide
examples for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The AASHTO
Redbook is also used throughout this user manual to provide more in-depth discussion.

This NCDOT Redbook Wizard User Manual is designed to assist the NCDOT analyst in
determining the benefits and benefit/cost ratio of various types of highway construction projects.
It is assumed that project costs are available from other NCDOT methods and staff. This manual
will describe guidelines and point out potential pitfalls in the Redbook Wizard. North Carolina
default values will be discussed where applicable. Steps in this manual generally follow the
AASHTO Redbook methodology and help the analyst decide default and input data to use.

This manual goes through each step in the Redbook Wizard that a user would encounter with a
single segment project. A project with multiple segments would be very similar except that
some steps would be repeated for each additional segment. Detailed explanations of default
values for certain input parameters are found in Table 1 and Table 2. Case studies of various
projects are located in the Appendix C to give the user examples of how the AASHTO Redbook
has been applied to several types of projects.

The NCDOT Redbook Wizard is a customized version of the Redbook Wizard distributed with
the AASHTO User Benefit Analysis for Highways Manual. Each user of the NCDOT Redbook
Wizard should purchase a copy of the AASHTO Redbook and companion Wizard prior to using
the NCDOT Redbook Wizard.

B-1
Starting the Wizard

1. Open Redbook Wizard.xls

2. If your macro security level is not set to “high”, you will be asked whether you want to
enable macros. Press “Enable”.

If your security level in Excel is set to “High”, you will be warned that you cannot run
macros in this document. To change your security level, go to the “Tools” menu and choose
“Options”. Click on the “Security” tab, and then on the “Macro Security” button. Change
your macro security level to “medium” (“low” is not a good idea). Close and reopen the
Wizard. You will be asked whether to enable macros. Press “Enable”.

3. You will see:

4. From the “File” menu in Excel, choose “Save As”. In the Save As dialog box, choose an
appropriate location for your saved file, and give it a name that identifies it with the project
you will be evaluating. This name will show at the top of your results when you print them.
Then press “Save”.

5. Press “Go!”. You will see the first dialog box of the Wizard.

B-2
6. Press “Next >” to continue. The next screen provides instructions about how to
use the wizard. After reading it, press “Next >” to continue.

B-3
B-4
How to Use the “Jump” Tool

The “Jump” tool can be very helpful for the analyst if it is used effectively. The tool allows the
user to advance to further steps; this is especially useful when re-evaluating a project or changing
a parameter. The “Jump” tool can be difficult to use for an analyst who is just beginning to use
the Redbook Wizard. Most of the jump categories are labeled exactly as they are labeled in the
Redbook Wizard. The asterisks represent wizard steps that the user has visited.

B-5
Two categories in the jump menu contain multiple steps in the wizard: Construction
Management Data and Operations & Safety.

Construction Management Data contains:

Project Costs
Accident Data (During Construction)
Delay (During Construction)

Operations & Safety contains:

Base Case Traffic Data (volume, capacity, and free-flow speed)
Base Case User Class Data
Base Case Accident Data
Base Case Operating Costs
Improved Case Traffic Data (volume, capacity, and free-flow speed)
Improved Case User Class Data
Improved Case Accident Data
Improved Case Operating Costs
Terminal Value
Traffic Conversion Factors

B-6
Define Your Project

1. How many segments will you be analyzing? The Wizard examines each segment separately
and then combines the results by segment at the end of the analysis. You may want to use a
different definition of “segment” in this analysis than you use in your maintenance program
or in your traffic model. You can combine small segments if they have the same volume and
capacity. You may also want to define a “rest of network” segment to capture changes in
delay on unimproved, parallel links. When entering data into the wizard, no alpha characters
should be used, including commas or dollar signs.

2. Give names to your segments. These should be names that are meaningful to you. The
Wizard only uses these names as title place holders.

B-7
3. Describe your segments. For each segment, you will be asked to choose a functional
classification, the types of improvements on that segment, and the segment’s length before
and after the improvement in miles.

You may choose more than one improvement type for a given segment. Hold down the
control key while clicking on additional improvement types to select more than one.

The name you gave to the segment you are being asked about will show at the very top of the
dialog.

B-8
Description and Examples of Improvement Types
(from the AASHTO Redbook with additions)

Additional Lanes: This is the conventional method of adding capacity, and can take various
forms. Additional lanes could actually be referred to as additional capacity. This improvement
type should be selected when additional lanes are added. For example, turning a two-lane road
into a four-lane road would be considered additional lanes. An example of adding capacity,
while not necessarily adding lanes, is converting a four-lane highway into a four-lane freeway
with full-access control.

Traffic Control: Signals, signs, ramp metering and roundabouts can be added to existing roads,
or incorporated in new roads to enhance effective capacity.

Signal Control Systems: Existing signalization systems can be enhanced to change timing and
coordination of traffic flows.

ITS: These are improvements that allow the road or the user to respond to changing conditions
on the road. ITS improvements include such things as variable or incident signage, incident
management, and on-board navigation aids.

Geometric Improvement: Geometric improvements occur in the curvature and grade of the
roadway. Improvements to road geometry are generally targeted at improving safety by reducing
curve angles. These improvements are categorized into the following groups: horizontal and
vertical curves.

Intersection Improvement: Intersection improvements can sometimes be confused with the other
more specific improvements, such as geometric improvement or traffic control. For analysis in
the Redbook Wizard, intersection improvements include the alteration of a skew angle, exclusive
left-turn and right-turn lanes, and intersection sight distance.

Roadside or Lighting: Roadside or lighting improvements provide safety enhancements to road

users. Roadside or lighting projects improve roadside features to reduce the occurrence and
severity of accidents should the vehicle leave the road. Some roadside improvements include:
roadside topography and drainage features, sign and luminaire supports (and similar structures),
roadside barriers, median barriers, bridge railings and transitions, and barrier end treatments and
crash cushions.

Preservation or Maintenance: Preservation projects are a road improvement activity involving

significant renovation of the existing roadway without adding to the road’s effective capacity.
Maintenance projects involve the activities needed to keep a highway and its appurtenances in
serviceable condition.

Refer to Redbook for more detailed definitions of the project improvement types.

B-9
Data Needs

The next screens tell you what data you will need to answer questions about the functional
classes and improvements you have chosen. Here are some of the screens you might see:

B-10
Analysis Period

You will next be asked questions about the relevant dates for your analysis. NCDOT refers to
the “Last year of analysis period” as the Design Year.

B-11
User Classes

You can have up to six user classes. User classes might be differentiated by vehicle
characteristics or by purpose of trip.

1. First, you will provide names for your user classes. These names should be meaningful to
you. The Wizard only uses them as title place holders. The typical user class names are
“Autos” for the standard passenger vehicle and “Trucks” for trucks such as duals and TTSTs.

2. You will then pick a vehicle-type category for each user class from the drop-down menu.
You may assign a specific type of vehicle, a group of vehicle types (e.g., all cars), or “all
vehicles”.

The options for vehicles types in the drop-down menu include: All cars, All commercial
vehicles, Small car, Large car, SUV, Van, 2-axle single-unit truck, 3-axle single-unit truck,
Tractor/trailer, Transit bus, and All trucks.

B-12
3. You will then specify average vehicle occupancies for each user class. Refer to Tables 1 and
2 for information on choosing the vehicle occupancy rates.

4. You will then indicate a value of time (in base-year dollars per hour) for each user class. The
value you specify should be a weighted average for all occupants. For example, if a class has
an average of 1.5 occupants and the driver’s time is valued at $20 per hour and the
passenger’s time is valued at $10 per hour, the specified value should be $16.67 per hour

B-13
 ($20*1 + $10*0.5) / (1 + 0.5) = $16.67. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information on selecting
values for Value of Time.

5. You will then specify fuel costs for each user class in base-year dollars per gallon. These are
unlikely to vary by much, except in unusual cases. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information
on selecting values for Fuel Cost.

B-14
6. You also will be asked to specify the percentage of vehicle operating costs that are fuel
costs. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information on selecting the fuel cost percent.

B-15
Economic and Other Parameters

1. You will be asked to specify several economic parameters:

The discount rate is “real”, meaning it does not include inflation. Public investments
typically are evaluated using real discount rates in the range of three to four percent. The
inflation rate is the average annual rate of inflation expected over the life of the project. The
financing rate and financing term are used if money is borrowed to construct the project. For
NCDOT projects, these values are zero.

The issuance cost is the cost to the agency of obtaining financing as a percent of the amount
financed. It is typically around two percent. For NCDOT projects, this value is zero.

General traffic growth rate is commonly called “background growth rate.” This is the overall
growth rate of traffic volumes in the project region. The Traffic Engineering Branch can
provide this value for your project. The annual growth in the value of time does not include
inflation. It reflects increases in productivity over time. An annual rate of one to two percent
is reasonable.

Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information on selecting economic and other parameters.

B-16
1. If your user classes include trucks or commercial vehicles, you will be asked about the value
of cargo on those vehicles. The market interest rate represents the cost to a business of
having its inventory delayed. The prime interest rate provides a reasonable value to use here.
Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information on selecting the truck load value and market interest
rate.

3. You will be asked to provide the perceived user costs of different types of accidents in base-
year dollars. These are costs per accident (not per vehicle or per person), net of insurance
reimbursement. The NCDOT Traffic Safety Engineer can provide the most up to date values

B-17
 for the accident costs. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information on selecting the accident
costs.

Construction Management Alternatives

You must have at least one construction management alternative for each segment. This section
is where you will describe the costs of the project and the effects on users of the construction
activity. You may define additional alternatives if you wish to evaluate the benefits and costs of
alternative construction scenarios, such as working at night, lane rental, or incentive contracting.

1. Name your alternatives. You should choose names that are meaningful to you. If you have
only one alternative, you can just call it “Construction”.

2. Specify the project costs in construction-year dollars. If the project requires additional right
of way, which has already been obtained, enter what that right of way could be sold for if the
project were not built. NCDOT includes Planning & Preliminary Engineering and
Management & Construction Engineering with the Construction estimate. Therefore,
Planning & Preliminary Engineering and Management & Construction Engineering can be
set to zero and the reported amounts can be applied to Right of Way and Construction costs.

B-18
3. Specify the number of construction-related accidents expected during the construction
period, by type. You can use a value of 0.01 to represent very small, but nonzero
probabilities of construction-related accidents. In most cases, the predicted accidents during
construction should be zero (0). NCDOT typically reports crash data for a three-year period,
which must be divided for a yearly value (in most cases divide by 3) and then further divided
for a peak direction value (in most cases divide by 2). In most cases, the overall conversion
will require the total three-year crashes to be divided by 6.

B-19
4. Describe the user delay expected from construction. If there will be no detour, answer “0” to
the second and third questions.

B-20
Base Case (Unimproved) Segment User Benefit Data

You will answer questions in a series of dialogs for each segment.

Next, the method for calculating delay must be selected. This is a step that the standard
Redbook does not contain. The first two options require the user to calculate delay externally
while the last two options use the Redbook method to calculate delay. Option four allows the
user to input volumes as ADTs and calculates delay using the Redbook method. For most
NCDOT studies, option four should be selected. The following steps in this user manual will
guide the user through option four. If the user selects options one, two, or three, the steps
will be similar, but require different inputs.

B-21
1. Describe traffic on the segment in the base (no improvement) case.

The capacity must be entered in passenger-car equivalents (PCE). The capacity can be found
in a planning model or the Highway Capacity Manual. For the full description of concepts of
PCE refer to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, page 13-7 – 2000 Edition).

Daily two-directional traffic volume must be entered as an ADT in vehicles per day. Traffic
volumes can be entered either as one or two-directional volumes. For a one-direction
volume, a D factor of 1 should be used in the appropriate slide. A value of less than 1 (Refer
to Tables 1 and 2) should be used for two-direction volume.

2. Specify the percentage of total peak-hour traffic (in PCEs) represented by each user class.

B-22
3. Specify the annual number of accidents expected on the unimproved segment in the peak
direction. Use 0.01 to represent non-zero probabilities of accidents, even if no accidents
occurred on that segment in the base year. Using 0.01 will allow the model to function
properly and apply a growth rate to the accidents. NCDOT typically reports crash data for a
three-year period, which must be divided for a yearly value (in most cases divide by 3) and
then further divided for a peak direction value (in most cases divide by 2). In most cases, the
overall conversion will require the total three-year crashes to be divided by 6.

4. Specify the annualized, average cost to the agency of maintaining and operating the segment
without the improvement, over the life of the project, in base-year dollars.

B-23
Improved Segment User Benefit Data

You will answer the same questions again, this time about the improved segment.

5. Describe traffic on the segment in the improved case.

The capacity must be entered in passenger-car equivalents (PCE). The capacity can be found
in a planning model or the Highway Capacity Manual. For the full description of concepts of
PCE refer to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, page 13-7 – 2000 Edition).

Daily two-directional traffic volume must be entered as an ADT in vehicles per day. Traffic
volumes can be entered either as one or two-directional volumes. For a one-direction
volume, a D factor of 1 should be used in the appropriate slide. A value of less than 1 (Refer
to Tables 1 and 2) should be used for two-direction volume.

The last two questions appear only if you have an improvement that may be expected to
change user delay through mechanisms other than the volume-delay relationship. In those
cases, you enter the additional change in delay, in hours per vehicle, during the peak hour.
You also enter the highest exponent on volume in the equation you used to estimate the
change in delay. This is used in the extrapolation of peak-hour benefits to annual benefits.

B-24
6. Specify the percentage of total peak-hour traffic (in PCEs) represented by each user class.

7. Specify the annual number of accidents expected on the improved segment in the peak
direction. Use 0.01 to represent non-zero probabilities of accidents, even if no accidents
occurred on that segment in the base year. Using 0.01 will allow the model to function
properly and apply a growth rate to the accidents.

B-25
8. Specify the annualized, average cost to the agency of maintaining and operating the segment
with the improvement, over the life of the project, in base-year dollars.

9. Specify the terminal (or salvage) value of the project at the end of the evaluation period you
specified earlier. Use base-year dollars (do not add inflation).

B-26
Traffic Conversion Factors

These are factors that relate the peak-hour, peak-direction volumes you entered earlier to annual
average daily traffic. They are used in the extrapolation of benefits. The K factor, D factor, and
Weekday-to-Week factor must be entered for each user class. In most cases, the same value
should be used for each user class.

Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for information on selecting the traffic conversion factors.

B-27
B-28
Results

After you read the information and press “Finish”, you will be taken to your results. All results
are in present-value terms, reported in base-year dollars.
User benefits for each segment and for all segments together are reported for Value of
Time Benefits, Vehicle Operating Cost Benefits, Accident Reduction Benefits, and
Agency Operating Cost Benefits, which are assumed to be passed along to users.

B-29
The user costs associated with each construction management alternative are shown for each
segment and for all segments together. Since these are separate alternatives, the results may be
compared across alternatives, but not combined.

Total user benefits for each alternative are reported for each segment and for all segments
together. These are the sum of user benefits from operation and user costs from construction.
The present value of construction costs is reported for each segment and all segments together
for each alternative.
The net benefits are the present value of total user benefits minus the present value of
construction costs. Positive net benefits indicate that users are better off by paying for the
construction.
The benefit/cost ratio is the ratio of the present value of user benefits to the present value of
construction costs. A benefit/cost ratio greater than one means the same as positive net benefits.
Benefit/cost ratios may be used to rank competing potential projects when funds are limited.
Projects with higher benefit-cost ratios provide more user benefits per budget dollar.

B-30
References:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2003), “User Benefit
Analysis For Highways.” Washington, DC.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2003), “Redbook Wizard
User Manual.” Washington, DC.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2004), “Table 3-14: Average Cost of Owning and Operating
an Automobile.” Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (December 2004), “Summary of Travel Trends – 2001 National
Household Travel Survey.” Washington, DC.
Transportation Research Board (2000). “Highway Capacity Manual.” Washington, DC.

B-31
 Table 1: NCDOT Redbook Wizard Default Values

Value or
Input Source
Function
User Class / Economic / Vehicle Operating Cost Data
Vehicle Occupancy for Automobiles
1.6 Current National Household Travel Survey
(persons/vehicle)
Vehicle Occupancy for Trucks
1.08 NCDOT O&D Surveys
(persons/vehicle)
Value of Time of Automobiles
* $16.00 WEBSARAS
($/hour)
Value of Time of Trucks ($/hour) * $16.00 Bureau of Labor Statistics
Fuel Cost ($/gallon) * $ 3.00 American Automobile Association for NC
Fuel Cost (% of Operating Cost) 52 % Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Average Truck Load Value $ 14,500 Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Market Interest Rate (%/year) * 6.75 % United States Federal Reserve
Economic Data
Real Discount Rate (%/year) 3% Redbook Wizard User Manual
Inflation Rate (%/year) * 3% Bureau of Labor Statistics
Financing Rate (%/year) 0% Standard Definition
Financing Term (years) 0 Standard Definition (assuming standard payment without bonds)
Issuance Cost (% of amount
0% Standard Definition
financed)
General Traffic Growth Rate
* Varies Reverse Engineered from the traffic forecast data
(%/year)
Annual Growth of Value of Time
2% Redbook Wizard User Manual
(%/year)
Property Damage Only Accident
* $4,300 NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Cost ($/crash)
Injury Accident Cost ($/crash) * $46,000 NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Fatal Accident Cost ($/crash) * $3,700,000 NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Traffic Conversion Factors
K Factor 0.10-0.15 NCLOS
D Factor 0.55-0.70 NCLOS
Weekday-to-Week Expansion Factor 6.0 Redbook Wizard User Manual
Week-to-Month Expansion Factor 4.35 Redbook Wizard User Manual
Seasonality Factor 1.1 Redbook Wizard User Manual
* = Input value requires regular NCDOT updates

B-32
 Table 2: Source Information for Default Data

Input Additional Contact or Source Information

Federal Highway Administration
Summary of Travel Trends - 2001 National Household Travel Survey:
Table 16: Average Vehicle Occupancy for Selected Trip Purposes 1977, 1983,
1990, 1995 NPTS, and 2001 NHTS (person miles per vehicle mile)

Use the average vehicle occupancy, unless a detailed study of vehicle

occupancy has been conducted. The vehicle occupancy depends on the route
and driver classification.
Vehicle
From 2001 National Household Travel Survey:
Occupancy for
Trip Purpose: Vehicle Occupancy Rate
Automobiles
To or from work: 1.14
(persons/vehicle)
Shopping: 1.79
Other Family or Personal Business: 1.83
Social and Recreational: 2.03
Average: 1.63

Default Value:
Average Vehicle Occupancy for All Purposes = 1.63 ≈ 1.6 persons per vehicle

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/index.shtml
NCDOT O&D Survey

Two O&D studies, Creedmoor and Triangle External, form the dataset for
Vehicle Occupancy for Trucks.

Creedmoor O&D - A single station one day O&D to evaluate travel patterns in
the Creedmoor area. Collected in February 2000. There were 3,999 valid
interviews collected of which 199 were trucks. Average truck occupancy was
1.116 persons per vehicle.
Vehicle
Occupancy for
Triangle External O&D - A multi-station study collected over a few months in
Trucks
1995 for use in developing the Triangle regional transportation model. There
(persons/vehicle)
were 81,282 valid interviews of which 5,005 were trucks. Average truck
occupancy was 1.073 persons per vehicle.

The default value is based on a weighted average by truck volume of the two
O&D studies. This value is reasonable with an expected passenger in one of
about every thirteen trucks.

Default Value:
Vehicle Occupancy for Trucks = 1.075 ≈ 1.08 persons pervehicle

B-33
 WEBSARAS
Labor Cost Data

Value of time is a sensitive number and the default value should be used in most
cases. A more localized value could be used in a case that is used by a large
majority of the local population. This is a North Carolina value because most
automobile drivers are from North Carolina or work in North Carolina.
Value of Time of
Automobile ($/hour) Example:
North Carolina 2003 Labor Cost Data

Average Automobile User, use All Industries:

Value of Time ($) = ( $ 641 / week ) / ( 40 hours/week )
Value of Time ($) = $ 16.025 / hour ≈ $ 16.00 / hour

http://eslmi40.esc.state.nc.us/websaras/
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Truck Transportation and Warehousing

Value of Time of A national value is used because truck traffic is based on a more national system
Truck ($/hour) of transportation. The average truck driver value of time is around $ 16.00 /
hour.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs021.htm
American Automobile Association (AAA)
North Carolina Unleaded Average

Current Average Regular Price (10/12/2005) = $ 3.00 /gallon

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/NCavg.asp

For a national value, use:

Fuel Cost ($/gallon) Bureau of Transportation Statistics
National Transportation Statistics 2005 (or most current edition):
Table 3-8: Sales Price of Transportation Fuel to End-Users (Current ¢ / gallon)

Example for 2004:

Fuel Cost ($/gallon) = ( 192.3 ¢ / gallon ) / ( 100 ¢ / $ ) = $ 1.923 ≈ $ 1.92 /
gallon

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/

B-34
 Bureau of Transportation Statistics
National Transportation Statistics 2005:
Table 3-14: Average Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile

Fuel Cost (%) = [ Fuel Cost (cents/mile) / ( Fuel Cost (cents/mile) +

Maintenance (cents/miles) + Tires (cents/mile) ] * 100
Fuel Cost (% of
Example for 2004:
Operating Cost)
Fuel Cost (%) = [ 6.5 (cents/mile) / ( 6.5 (cents/mile) + 5.4 (cents/miles) + 0.7
(cents/mile) ) ] * 100

Fuel Cost (%) = 51.587 % ≈ 52 %

http://www.bts.gov/
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
National Transportation Statistics 2005:
Table 1-32: US Vehicle-Miles
Table 1-35: Average Length of Haul, Domestic Freight and Passenger Modes
Table 1-52: Freight Activity in the United States: 1993, 1997, and 2002

Average Truck Load Value = Truck Freight Value / ( Total Truck Vehicle Miles
Traveled / Average Truck Trip Length )

Example:
Average Truck Trip (Table 1-35) = 485 miles (2001 data)

Vehicle Miles (Table 1-32) for Truck, Single-Unit 2-axle 6-tire or more =
72,448 million vehicle-miles (2001 data)
Average Truck Load
Value ($/load) Vehicle Miles (Table 1-32) for Truck, combination = 136,584 million vehicle-
miles (2001 data)

Total Vehicle Miles for Trucks = 209,032 million vehicle-miles

Truck Freight Value = $ 6,200.5 billion (2002 data)

Average Truck Load Value = $ 6,200,500,000,000 / ( 209,032,000,000 vehicle-mi

485 miles )

Average Truck Load Value = $ 14,386.52 ≈ $ 14,500 / load

http://www.bts.gov/
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/

B-35
 United States Federal Reserve

Use Bank Prime Loan for the Federal Reserve Statistical Release
This value should be updated monthly
Market Interest Rate
(%/year)
Example for October 2005:
Bank Prime Loan = 6.75 % / year

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/Current/
Redbook Wizard User Manual

The discount rate is an important value as described by the AASHTO Redbook:

“the purpose of discounting is to account for the lost time value of money
Real Discount Rate
associated with tying up funds in a project, or failing to deliver valuable
(%/year)
benefits.”

A value of 3 % to 4 % is suggested.
Use Real Discount Rate = 3 % / year unless more detailed data is available
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index ( CPI-U ) for U.S. City Average
Inflation Rate
The average inflation rate is around 3 % / year
(%/year)
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data
Financing Rate NCDOT does not typically finance projects, therefore Financing Rate = 0 %
(%/year) /year. If a bond is issued to pay for the project, a financing rate should be used.
Financing Term For a typical NCDOT project, the financing term should be 0 years. If a bond is
(years) issued to pay for the project, Financing Term = Design Year- Base Year
Issuance Cost (% of NCDOT does not have issuance costs unless a bond is issued, therefore in most
amount financed) cases, Issuance Cost = 0 %
Reverse Engineered from the traffic forecast data

Using the following method:

n = Design Year – Base Year

Volume Design Year = Forecasted Volume for the Design Year
General Traffic
Volume Base Year = Volume for the Base Year
Growth Rate
i = General Traffic Growth Rate
(%/year)
Volume Design Year = Volume Base Year ( 1 + i )n
Volume Design Year / Volume Base Year = ( 1 + i )n
( Volume Design Year / Volume Base Year )1/n = 1 + i

i = [ ( Volume Design Year / Volume Base Year )1/n – 1 ] * 100

B-36
 Redbook Wizard User Manual
Annual Growth of
Value of Time A value of 1 % to 2 % is suggested.
(%/year) Use Annual Growth Rate of Value of Time = 2 % / year unless more detailed
data is available
Property Damage NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Only Accident Cost
($/crash) http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/ses/costs/costs.html
NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Injury Accident Cost
($/crash)
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/ses/costs/costs.html
NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch
Fatal Accident Cost
($/crash)
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/ses/costs/costs.html
North Carolina State University
Institute of Transportation Research and Education
North Carolina Level-of-Service (NCLOS)

For Freeways, 2-Lane, and Multilane:

Urban = 0.10
Suburban = 0.12
Rural = 0.15
K Factor
For Arterials (By Design Category – Functional Category – Street Class):
High Speed – Principal – I = 0.15
Suburban – Principal – II = 0.15
Suburban – Minor – II = 0.12
Intermediate – Principal – II = 0.12
Intermediate – Minor – III/IV = 0.12
Urban – Principal – III/IV = 0.10
Urban – Minor – IV = 0.10

B-37
 North Carolina State University
Institute of Transportation Research and Education
North Carolina Level-of-Service (NCLOS)

For Freeways, 2-Lane, and Multilane:

Urban = 0.55
Suburban = 0.55 (0.60 for Freeways)
Rural = 0.60
D Factor
For Arterials (By Design Category – Functional Category – Street Class):
High Speed – Principal – I = 0.65 (0.70 for Piedmont Region)
Suburban – Principal – II = 0.60 (0.65 for Piedmont Region)
Suburban – Minor – II = 0.60 (0.65 for Piedmont Region)
Intermediate – Principal – II = 0.55
Intermediate – Minor – III/IV = 0.55
Urban – Principal – III/IV = 0.50
Urban – Minor – IV = 0.50
Redbook Wizard User Manual
Weekday-to-Week
A value of 5 to 7 is suggested.
Expansion Factor
Use Weekday-to-Week Expansion Factor = 6, unless more detailed data is
available
Redbook Wizard User Manual
Week-to-Month
A value of 4.35 is suggested.
Expansion Factor
Use Week-to-Month Expansion Factor = 4.35, unless more detailed data is
available
Redbook Wizard User Manual
Seasonality Factor
A value of close to 1 is suggested.
Use Seasonality Factor = 1.1, unless more detailed data is available

B-38
 APPENDIX C
NCDOT REDBOOK WIZARD CASE STUDIES

Introduction

The following pages contain case studies to demonstrate the NCDOT Redbook Wizard. Each
case study listed below contains project descriptions and data to determine the benefit/cost ratios
for the several highway project types.

1) Boone Trail Road Case Study (U-4761), Fayetteville, Compare Four-Lane Divided
Project Versus Five-Lane Undivided Project

2) Morgan’s Corner Case Study (FS-0101C), Pasquotank County, Convert

Intersection to Interchange

3) I-74 Case Study (R-3436), Brunswick and Columbus Counties, Convert 4-Lane
Facility to Interstate Standards

C-1
Case 1
Fayetteville (Cumberland County)
Boone Trail Road: Improve a Two-Lane to Four-Lane Divided or Five-Lane Undivided

The following description of the project is from the NCDOT Feasibility Study of project U-4761.
Refer to the Feasibility Study for any further details or information.

Location
Boone Trail Road (SR 1149) from Cumberland Road (SR 1141) to Owen Drive (SR 1007) in the City of
Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NCDOT Division 6.

General Description
This study involves the widening of Boone Trail Road (SR 1149) from its current state as a two-lane
shoulder facility into either a four or five lane curb and gutter facility. The portion of Boone Trail under
consideration extends from Cumberland Road (SR 1141), the southern boundary, to Owen Drive (SR
1007), the northern boundary; a distance of approximately 1.1 miles. There is one intersection (Roxie
Avenue/Carlos Street) located between the boundary points however the only existing traffic signals
within the project area are located at the intersections with Cumberland Road and Owen Drive.

Boone Trail is designated as a Minor Thoroughfare in the Fayetteville are MPO State Thoroughfare Plan
and as an Urban Local in the State Functional Classification system. It is currently a two-lane facility
with 29 feet of pavement width along most of the project length. The intersection of Boone Trail and
Cumberland currently consists of a shared through/left-lane, a through-lane, and an exclusive right turn
lane. The majority of the development along Boone Trail is residential aside from some commercial
development located at the Owen Drive intersection.

Need for Project

The purpose of this project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity, to promote a safer driving
environment, and to provide improved multi-lane access from Cumberland Road (SR 1141) to the
commercial areas located adjacent to Owen Drive (SR 1007).

Boone Trail is currently operating at Level of Service C or higher for the entire project length. If no
improvements are made, NCDOT projects that the intersections with Cumberland Road and Owen Drive
will operate at LOS F by Design Year 2030 with the remainder of the project length operating at LOS E.
The alternative presented in the feasibility study will enable the facility to accommodate a LOS of C or
better through the year 2030.

Between the years 2000 and 2003 there were 95 accidents within the project limits; with zero fatalities, 38
injury accidents, and 57 property damage accidents. Approximately 78% of these accidents occurred at
the intersection of Boone Trail and Owen Drive. The accident rate for the entire project length is 971.75
accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of travel, which is 43.47% higher than the statewide average for
two-lane undivided secondary roadways.

Studied Alternatives
Two different cross sections were considered in the feasibility study for Boone Trail Road with the first
being to widen the existing two-lane facility to a four-lane facility and the second being to widen it to a
five-lane facility. The cost estimates provided for both alternatives includes the construction of sidewalks
on both sides of the roadway as well as the realignment of the intersection of Roxie Avenue and the

C-1.1
addition of a dedicated left-turn late from Boone Trail onto Cumberland Road. The alternatives are
discussed in further detail below:

Alternative 1: Two-Lane to a Four-Lane

This alternative would result in a four-lane divided curb and gutter section 75 feet wide from face-to-face
of the curbs with a 23 foot raised grass median and 15 foot berms on 110 feet of right-of-way. With
Alternative 1 it is anticipated that there will be zero residential and zero business needing to be relocated.
This alternative is estimated to have a cost of $7,800,000.

Construction $5,700,000
Right of Way (110’) $1,900,000
Sidewalks $ 200,000
TOTAL COST (Alt. 1)…. $7,800,000

Alternative 2: Two-Lane to a Five-Lane

This alternative would result in a five-lane curb and gutter section 64 feet wide from face-to-face of the
curbs with 15 foot berms on 100 feet of right-of-way. Under Alternative 2 it is anticipated that there will
be zero residential and zero business needing to be relocated. This alternative is estimated to have a cost
of $6,300,000.

Construction $4,500,000
Right of Way (100’) $1,600,000
Sidewalks $ 200,000
TOTAL COST (Alt. 2)…. $6,300,000

Accident Data
The following table summarizes the crash analysis that was conducted by the NCDOT for Boone Trail
Rd. from the intersection of Cumberland Rd. to the intersection with Owen Dr. for the period of June 1st,
2000 to May 31st, 2003 and average rates for similar facilities in North Carolina.

Alt 1: NC Urban 4 + Alt 2: NC Urban 4 +

3-Year
3-Year Lanes Divided with No Lanes with Continuous
Crashes per
Crashes Control Access Left Turn Lane
100 MVM
Rate per 100 MVM* Rate per 100 MVM*
Fatal 0 0.00 1.28 0.88
Non-Fatal 38 388.70 173.24 120.85
PDO 57 4547.80 107.91 223.75

Alt 1: 1-Year 4 Lane Alt 2: 1-Year 5 Lane with

1-Year Existing Condition
Divided Crashes in Continuous Left Turn
Crashes Peak Direction
Peak Direction Crashes Peak Direction
Fatal 0 0 0
Non-Fatal 6.33 2.82 1.97
PDO 9.50 0.23 0.47

* North Carolina Crash Rates can be found at:

http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/ses/rates/rates.html

C-1.2
Traffic Volumes
For simplicity of demonstrating the Redbook Wizard this example will consider the largest volume
through the project as the volume, 9,400 vpd. This traffic volume will be used for the base year and the
year operation begins.

Study Area

Figure 1: Project Study Area (2005 MapQuest.com, Inc. ©)

Intersection of Boone Trail and Intersection of Boone Trail and Owen

Cumberland Rd. – southern end of Dr. – northern end of project length
project length

Benefit Cost Case Study

This Redbook benefit-cost case study will examine each of the alternatives for expanding Boone Trail
Road (SR 1149). The objectives of this benefit cost analysis are the following:
1. Determine the benefits and costs of the Boone Trail Road (SR 1149) project.
2. Test the functionality of the Redbook software.

This document serves as a summary of data and information provided by NCDOT for the Redbook
analysis. This document contains: study area maps, traffic volumes, project costs, and accident data. The
following pages detail the Redbook Wizard input and output.

C-1.3
Redbook Input Data Summary Sheet – Fayetteville Case Study: 4 Lane Divided

Input Item Value

Number of segments to analyze 1
Year construction begins 2004
Year operation begins 2007
Last year of analysis period 2030
Base year 2004
Name of User Class 1 Cars
Name of User Class 2 Trucks
Vehicle Type for User Class 1 All Cars
Vehicle Type for User Class 2 All Trucks
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 1 (persons) 1.6
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 2 (persons) 1.08
Value of Time for User Class 1 (base-year dollars) 16
Value of Time for User Class 2 (base-year dollars) 16
Fuel Cost for User Class 1 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Fuel Cost for User Class 2 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Percent of Operating Costs that are fuel (percentage points) 52
Real discount rate (percentage points) 3
Inflation rate (percentage points) 3
Financing rate (percentage points) 0
Financing term (years) 0
Issuance cost (% of amount financed) (percentage points) 0
General traffic growth rate (percentage points) 1
Annual Growth of Value of Time (percentage points) 2
Average Truckload Value (base-year dollars) 14,500
Market Interest Rate for truckload value (percentage points) 6.75
Average Commercial Cargo Value (base-year dollars) N/A
Market Interest Rate for Commercial Cargo Value (percentage points) N/A
Cost per property damage accident (base-year dollars) 4,300
Cost per injury accident (base-year dollars) 46,000
Cost per fatal accident (base-year dollars) 3,700,000
Name of Construction Management Alternative 1 Construction

C-1.4
 Redbook Input Segment Data Summary Sheet – Fayetteville Case Study: 4 Lane Divided

Segment Input Item Value

Names given to segments Boone Trail Road
Functional Class of each segment Urban Minor Arterial
Improvement Type for each segment Additional Lane
Segment Length without improvement (miles) 1.1
Segment Length with improvement (miles) 1.1
Method for Calculating Change in User Delay Redbook – ADT
Base both directions (vehicles per day) 9,400
Base peak-direction capacity (PCEs per hour) 1,400
Base Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 40
Base Property-Damage Only Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 9.5
Base Injury Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 6.33
Base Fatal Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.01
Base Operating Cost (base-year dollars) 0
Improved both directions (vehicles per day) 9,400
Improved Capacity (PCEs per hour) 3,800
Improved Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 40
Improved Property-Damage Only Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.23
Improved Injury Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 2.82
Improved Fatal Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.01
Improved Operating Cost (opening-year dollars) 0
K Factor for User Class 1 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.1
K Factor for User Class 2 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.1
D Factor for User Class 1 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.5
D Factor for User Class 2 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.5
Week Factor for User Class 1 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Week Factor for User Class 2 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Month Factor (monthly volume/weekly volume) 4.35
Seasonal Factor (peak monthly volume/average monthly volume) 1.1
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 97
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 3
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 95
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 5
Terminal Value (base-year dollars) 0
Construction Management Alternative 1
Construction Property-Damage Only Accidents (each) 0
Construction Injury Accidents (each) 0
Construction Fatal Accidents (each) 0
Total delay during construction (vehicle hours) 0
Total extra VMT on detour route (vehicle miles) 0
Speed on detour route (miles per hour) 0
Right-of-way acquisition cost (construction-year dollars) 1,900,000
Planning and design cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction management cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction cost (construction-year dollars) 5,900,000

C-1.5
 Redbook Output Data Summary Sheet – Fayetteville Case Study: 4 Lane Divided

User Benefits from Operation

User Benefits
User Value User Agency Total User
User Accident from
of Time Operating Cost Operating Benefits
Reduction Benefits Construction
Benefits Benefits Benefits
Project $ 78,948 $2 $ 3,609,291 $- $- $ 3,688,241

Capital Costs Net Benefits Benefit-Cost Ratio

Project $ 7,138,105 $ - 3,449,864 0.517

C-1.6
Redbook Input Data Summary Sheet – Fayetteville Case Study: 5 Lane with TWLT

Input Item Value

Number of segments to analyze 1
Year construction begins 2004
Year operation begins 2007
Last year of analysis period 2030
Base year 2004
Name of User Class 1 Cars
Name of User Class 2 Trucks
Vehicle Type for User Class 1 All Cars
Vehicle Type for User Class 2 All Trucks
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 1 (persons) 1.6
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 2 (persons) 1.08
Value of Time for User Class 1 (base-year dollars) 16
Value of Time for User Class 2 (base-year dollars) 16
Fuel Cost for User Class 1 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Fuel Cost for User Class 2 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Percent of Operating Costs that are fuel (percentage points) 52
Real discount rate (percentage points) 3
Inflation rate (percentage points) 3
Financing rate (percentage points) 0
Financing term (years) 0
Issuance cost (% of amount financed) (percentage points) 0
General traffic growth rate (percentage points) 1
Annual Growth of Value of Time (percentage points) 2
Average Truckload Value (base-year dollars) 14,500
Market Interest Rate for truckload value (percentage points) 6.75
Average Commercial Cargo Value (base-year dollars) N/A
Market Interest Rate for Commercial Cargo Value (percentage points) N/A
Cost per property damage accident (base-year dollars) 4,300
Cost per injury accident (base-year dollars) 46,000
Cost per fatal accident (base-year dollars) 3,700,000
Name of Construction Management Alternative 1 Construction

C-1.7
 Redbook Input Segment Data Summary Sheet – Fayetteville Case Study: 5 Lane with TWLT

Segment Input Item Value

Names given to segments Boone Trail Road
Functional Class of each segment Urban Minor Arterial
Improvement Type for each segment Additional Lane
Segment Length without improvement (miles) 1.1
Segment Length with improvement (miles) 1.1
Method for Calculating Change in User Delay Redbook – ADT
Base both directions (vehicles per day) 9,400
Base peak-direction capacity (PCEs per hour) 1,400
Base Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 40
Base Property-Damage Only Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 9.5
Base Injury Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 6.33
Base Fatal Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.01
Base Operating Cost (base-year dollars) 0
Improved both directions (vehicles per day) 9,400
Improved Capacity (PCEs per hour) 3,800
Improved Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 40
Improved Property-Damage Only Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.47
Improved Injury Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 1.97
Improved Fatal Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.01
Improved Operating Cost (opening-year dollars) 0
K Factor for User Class 1 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.1
K Factor for User Class 2 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.1
D Factor for User Class 1 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.5
D Factor for User Class 2 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.5
Week Factor for User Class 1 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Week Factor for User Class 2 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Month Factor (monthly volume/weekly volume) 4.35
Seasonal Factor (peak monthly volume/average monthly volume) 1.1
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 97
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 3
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 95
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 5
Terminal Value (base-year dollars) 0
Construction Management Alternative 1
Construction Property-Damage Only Accidents (each) 0
Construction Injury Accidents (each) 0
Construction Fatal Accidents (each) 0
Total delay during construction (vehicle hours) 0
Total extra VMT on detour route (vehicle miles) 0
Speed on detour route (miles per hour) 0
Right-of-way acquisition cost (construction-year dollars) 1,600,000
Planning and design cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction management cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction cost (construction-year dollars) 4,700,000

C-1.8
 Redbook Output Data Summary Sheet – Fayetteville Case Study: 5 Lane with TWLT

User Benefits from Operation

User Benefits
User Value User Agency Total User
User Accident from
of Time Operating Cost Operating Benefits
Reduction Benefits Construction
Benefits Benefits Benefits
Project $ 78,948 $2 $ 4,291,776 $- $- $ 4,370,725

Capital Costs Net Benefits Benefit-Cost Ratio

Project $ 5,765,392 $ - 1,526,766 0.735

C-1.9
Case 2
Morgan’s Corner (Pasquotank County)
US 17 / US 158: Convert Existing Intersection into a Grade-Separated Interchange

The following description of the project is from the NCDOT Feasibility Study FS – 0101C. Refer
to the Feasibility Study for any further details or information.

Location
Intersection of US 17 and US 158 in Morgan’s Corner, Pasquotank County, NCDOT Division 1.

General Description
This study addresses converting the existing “at-grade” intersection of US 17 / US 158 / SR 1416 in
Pasquotank County into a “grade-separated” interchange. (See Figure 1 for a vicinity map showing the
project’s location)

The “grade separation” for the proposed interchange will be accomplished by raising the grade on US 158
/ SR 1416 (Northside Road) and constructing dual bridges over existing US 17. Access ramps and loops
will be added in three of the four quadrants creating a “full movement” interchange. In order to minimize
traffic congestion and increase safety, driveway access will be controlled along US 17 and 1000’ beyond
the proposed ramp terminals on US 158 / SR 1416. Service roads will also need to be constructed to
provide access to several properties.

This study is the initial step in the planning and design process for this project and is not the product of
exhaustive environmental or design investigations. The purpose of this study is to describe the proposed
project, including costs, and to identify potential problems that may require consideration in the planning
and design phases.

Need for Project

The purpose of this project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity and improve safety at the existing
“at-grade” intersection of US 17/ US 158 / SR 1416 in Morgan’s Corner. In addition, US 17 and US 158
through Pasquotank County is part of the North Carolina Intrastate System, which is designated to
support statewide growth and development objectives and to connect to major highways of adjoining
states. US 17 is also a STRAHNET route developed by the Department of Defense to provide defense
access, continuity, and emergency capabilities. Since the proposed interchange is considered an integral
part of the future widening of the US 158 intrastate corridor, it is recommended that these improvements
be closely coordinated with TIP project R-2579.

Description of the Project

Existing US 17, in the area of Morgan’s Corner, is a four-lane median divided facility with partial control
of access. South of the above-referenced intersection, US 158 coincides with US 17. US 158, east and
west of the intersection, is a two-lane roadway that runs through a residential and agricultural area.
However, TIP projects R-2578 and R-2579 propose to widen US 158 from Morgan’s Corner west to US
13 in Gates County. It is anticipated that the future typical section for R-2578 and R-2579 will be a four-
lane, divided roadway. A four lane divided section with 12-feet travel lanes, a 16-feet raised grass
median, and 10-feet shoulders was used along US 158 / SR 1416 for this study.

This study addresses the raising of the existing grade on US 158 / SR 1416 (Northside Road) and the
construction of dual bridges over US 17 in order to create a grade separated interchange at this location.
The bridges will be approximately 245 feet in length and will each be 34 feet wide from bridge rail to
bridge rail.

C-2.1
The proposed right-of-way width for US 158 / SR 1416 is 200 feet with access being controlled 1000 feet
beyond the proposed ramp terminals. Proposed right-of-way for the proposed interchange will generally
be 100 feet from the survey line of the ramps. No additional right-of-way will be needed along US 17.

Ramps and loops will be constructed in the northwest and the southeast quadrants of the interchange. In
the southwest quadrant, only a ramp will be built. This ramp is needed for the anticipated heavy volume
of traffic from Eastbound US 158 to Southbound US 17. No ramps or loops will be built in the northeast
quadrant of the interchange because an existing pond is located in this area.

Four service roads will be constructed to properties that would otherwise lose their access after the project
is completed.

US 17 through the project limits has partial control of access. It is recommended to close the existing
median opening for the driveway on US 17 south of the project and to close the median opening for the
access to SR 1417 (Morgan’s Corner Road) on US 17 north of the project. Closing these access points
will improve the safety and operation of the proposed ramps.

A temporary, on-site, detour will be constructed on the south side of US 158 / SR 1416. This detour will
be used to maintain traffic on US 158 / SR 1416 while the new bridge and its approaches are being
constructed.

It is anticipated that the above-mentioned improvements will require the relocation of approximately four
(4) residences and one (1) business. The total cost, including construction and right-of-way, is estimated
to be $12,700,000.

Traffic Operations
The estimated base year 2002 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume for US 158 / SR 1416 ranges from
1,800 to 5,200 vehicles per day (vpd) and the volume on US 17 / US 158 ranges from 9,200 to 12,200
vpd. The estimated design year 2025 ADT volume for US 158 / SR 1416 ranges from 2,800 to 9,800 vpd
and the volume for US 17 / US 158 ranges from 20,200 to 26,800 vpd.

The decision to install new traffic signals at any location will be made by the NCDOT Area Traffic
Engineer based on final design plans. This study only makes recommendations based on the projected
traffic volumes. For this report it is assumed tat the proposed ramp terminal intersections will be
signalized.

The level of service (LOS) for the proposed ramp terminal intersections was determined using the
“Signalized Intersections Module” of the HCS2000 software package.

The proposed geometry for the eastern ramp terminal intersection includes two westbound through lanes.
The eastbound approach includes two through lanes and an exclusive right-turn lane. The northbound
approach includes an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Based on the projected
traffic volumes, it is estimated that this intersection will operate at LOS A for both the base year (2002)
and the design year (2025).

The proposed geometry for the western ramp terminal intersection includes two westbound through lanes
and an exclusive right-turn lane. The eastbound approach includes two through lanes and an exclusive

C-2.2
left-turn lane. The southbound approach includes an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through/right-
turn lane. Based on the project traffic volumes, it is estimated that this intersection will operate at LOS B
for both the base year (2002) and the design year (2025).

Warrant Summary
This feasibility study evaluates replacing the existing “at-grade” intersection with an interchange.
However, several issues must be addressed before a recommendation is made.

One issue for the interchange warrant is traffic carrying capacity. A capacity analysis was performed for
the existing signalized intersection to determine how it would operate in the future. Based on the
projected traffic volumes provided by NCDOT and the current lane configuration, it is estimated that the
intersection will operate at LOS C for the base year (2002) and LOS D for the design year (2025).
Therefore, since the existing intersection will operate at an “acceptable” LOS (LOS D) an interchange is
not warranted from strictly a “capacity” standpoint.

Another issue for the interchange warrant is safety. The three-year accident analysis for the intersection
indicates no fatalities and a severity index of 9.27, which is above the statewide average (7.65) for this
type of intersection. Since the accident history for the intersection indicates an above average severity
index it would seem to indicate that an interchange would be needed for safety reasons. Any “at-grade”
intersection on a four-lane divided US Route with partial control of access has the potential for severe
accidents. Therefore, an interchange at this location with full control of access would greatly enhance the
safety for motorists on US 17 and US 158.

Additional Comments
An exhaustive environmental screening was not conducted for this study. However, the following items
were identified as needing more detailed analyses during future planning and/or design phases:

• The historical property on SR 1416 needs further investigation. However, the widening of
US 158 / SR 1416 will be to the south, which would minimize impacts to the property.
• A more thorough study of proposed service roads should be conducted.
• The design of the interchange should be closely coordinated with TIP projects R-2578 and R-
2579.
• Careful study should be done to minimize all wetland impacts.

Benefit Cost Case Study

This Redbook benefit-cost case study will examine part of the proposed improvements to US 17 / US 158
/ SR 1416 in Pasquotank County.

The objectives of this benefit cost analysis are the following:

1. Determine the benefits and costs of the Morgan’s Corner Project.
2. Test the functionality of the Redbook software.
3. Obtain comments from NCDOT regarding the Redbook methodology and parameters as
they pertain to the Morgan’s Corner case study.

This document serves as a summary of data and information provided by NCDOT for the Redbook
analysis. This document contains: study area maps, traffic volumes, accident data, Redbook Wizard input
values, and Redbook Wizard output values.

C-2.3
Study Area

Figure 1: Project Study Area (2005 MapQuest.com, Inc. ©)

C-2.4
Traffic Volumes
For simplicity of demonstrating the Redbook Wizard this example will consider the largest volume
through the intersection as the volume, 12,200 vpd. This traffic volume will be used for the base year and
the year operation begins.

Accident Data
The following table summarizes the crash analysis that was conducted by the NCDOT for US 17 between
April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2002 and average rates for similar facilities in North Carolina.

NC Rural Interstate Full

3-Year Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM
Control Access Rate*
Fatal 1 5.27 0.24
Non-Fatal 11 58.01 11.86
PDO 7 36.93 16.87

1-Year Existing Condition 1-Year Interstate Condition

Crashes Peak Direction Crashes Peak Direction
Fatal 0.17 0.01
Non-Fatal 1.83 0.37
PDO 1.17 0.53

*North Carolina Crash Rates can be found at:

http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/ses/rates/rates.html

Redbook Wizard Analysis

The following pages detail the Redbook Wizard input and output. Since this is an intersection
improvement, the length of the segment is assumed to be 0.1 miles. Other assumptions are previously
discussed or are stated in the NCDOT Redbook Wizard User Manual.

C-2.5
 Redbook Input Data Summary Sheet: Morgan’s Corner

Input Item Value

Number of segments to analyze 1
Year construction begins 2002
Year operation begins 2005
Last year of analysis period 2025
Base year 2002
Name of User Class 1 Cars
Name of User Class 2 Trucks
Vehicle Type for User Class 1 All Cars
Vehicle Type for User Class 2 All Trucks
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 1 (persons) 1.6
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 2 (persons) 1.08
Value of Time for User Class 1 (base-year dollars) 16
Value of Time for User Class 2 (base-year dollars) 16
Fuel Cost for User Class 1 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Fuel Cost for User Class 2 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Percent of Operating Costs that are fuel (percentage points) 52
Real discount rate (percentage points) 3
Inflation rate (percentage points) 3
Financing rate (percentage points) 0
Financing term (years) 0
Issuance cost (% of amount financed) (percentage points) 0
General traffic growth rate (percentage points) 3.5
Annual Growth of Value of Time (percentage points) 2
Average Truckload Value (base-year dollars) 14,500
Market Interest Rate for truckload value (percentage points) 6.75
Average Commercial Cargo Value (base-year dollars) N/A
Market Interest Rate for Commercial Cargo Value (percentage points) N/A
Cost per property damage accident (base-year dollars) 4,300
Cost per injury accident (base-year dollars) 46,000
Cost per fatal accident (base-year dollars) 3,700,000
Name of Construction Management Alternative 1 Construction

C-2.6
 Redbook Input Segment Data Summary Sheet: Morgan’s Corner

Segment Input Item Value

Names given to segments Morgan’s Corner
Functional Class of each segment Rural Interstate
Improvement Type for each segment Intersection Improvement
Segment Length without improvement (miles) 0.01
Segment Length with improvement (miles) 0.01
Method for Calculating Change in User Delay Redbook – ADT
Base both directions (vehicles per day) 12,200
Base peak-direction capacity (PCEs per hour) 4,400
Base Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 55
Base Property-Damage Only Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 2.333
Base Injury Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 3.666
Base Fatal Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.333
Base Operating Cost (base-year dollars) 0
Improved both directions (vehicles per day) 12,200
Improved Capacity (PCEs per hour) 4,600
Improved Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 55
Improved Property-Damage Only Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 1.0657
Improved Injury Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.7496
Improved Fatal Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.1518
Improved Operating Cost (opening-year dollars) 0
K Factor for User Class 1 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.15
K Factor for User Class 2 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.15
D Factor for User Class 1 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.6
D Factor for User Class 2 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.6
Week Factor for User Class 1 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Week Factor for User Class 2 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Month Factor (monthly volume/weekly volume) 4.35
Seasonal Factor (peak monthly volume/average monthly volume) 1.1
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 95
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 5
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 95
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 5
Terminal Value (base-year dollars) 0
Construction Management Alternative 1
Construction Property-Damage Only Accidents (each) 0
Construction Injury Accidents (each) 0
Construction Fatal Accidents (each) 0
Total delay during construction (vehicle hours) 0
Total extra VMT on detour route (vehicle miles) 0
Speed on detour route (miles per hour) 0
Right-of-way acquisition cost (construction-year dollars) 1,900,000
Planning and design cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction management cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction cost (construction-year dollars) 10,800,000

C-2.7
 Redbook Output Data Summary Sheet: Morgan’s Corner

User Benefits from Operation

User Benefits
User Value User Agency Total User
User Accident from
of Time Operating Cost Operating Benefits
Reduction Benefits Construction
Benefits Benefits Benefits
Project $ 19 $0 $ 12,919,955 $- $- $ 12,919,974

Capital Costs Net Benefits Benefit-Cost Ratio

Project $ 11,622,299 $ 1,297,675 1.112

C-2.8
Case 3
Interstate 74 (Brunswick and Columbus Counties)
Convert Existing 4-Lane Facility to Interstate Standards

The following description of the project is from the NCDOT Feasibility Study of project R-3436
Re-evaluation. Refer to the Feasibility Study for any further details or information.

Location
From Union Valley Road (SR 1585) in Whiteville to the South Carolina State Line, Brunswick and
Columbus Counties, Divisions 3 and 6.

General Description
The study corridor begins west of Whiteville and continues along existing US 74-76 to the west of
Bolton. It proceeds southward on a new location to the Columbus/Brunswick county line. The study
corridor travels southward alongside existing NC 211 from the county line to US 17 in Supply. The I-74
corridor then turns southwest and travels along the US 17 corridor, utilizing the Shallotte Bypass, and
finally terminating at the South Carolina state line. (See Figure 1 for a vicinity map showing the project’s
location)

Need for Project

Many transportation needs can be satisfied through this study’s potential alignment of I-74, including the
completion of a vital section of the proposed I-74 interstate from Michigan to South Carolina, as well as
the achievement of an important milestone in the Governor’s and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation’s (NCDOT) goals for southeastern North Carolina. The regional goal of the Governor’s
plan is to provide an economic boost for the area with this new interstate (I-74) in conjunction with other
projects. The addition of the proposed I-74 interstate in southeastern North Carolina will be an excellent
upgrade to North Carolina's transportation infrastructure and should improve safety and efficiency as well
as ignite long-term economic growth in this area of our state.

Benefit Cost Case Study

This Redbook benefit-cost case study will examine part of the proposed improvements to the US 74
corridor. The portion that will be part of this case study is referred to as section 4 by the NCDOT. There
are several alternatives for section 4 proposed by the NCDOT, we will examine the scenario that upgrades
the existing US 17 facility to interstate standards for I-74. NCDOT includes a section of NC 211 that is
approximately two and half miles long in section 4 of the entire I-74 project. The volumes and attributes
of NC 211 are drastically different from I-74, therefore, for our analysis we removed the NC 211
segment. The section we analyzed was US 17 at the intersection of NC 904 to the intersection of NC 211.
This study addresses this 15.3 mile section of the 65 mile proposed I-74 project.

C-3.1
 Study Area

Figure 1: Project Study Area (2005 MapQuest.com, Inc. ©)

Begin Project on US 17 End Project on US 17
at the Intersection of NC 904 at the Intersection of NC 211

C-3.2
Costs and Traffic Volumes
For simplicity of demonstrating the Redbook Wizard this example only considers improving US 17 to
Interstate standards. The other options of new parallel alignments are not considered in this example.
The original 17.7 mile section 4 was reduced to 15.3 miles when the NCSU team removed the NC 211
segment from consideration in the analysis.

I-74 Project – Section 4A Costs

Total Construction Cost $196,000,000

Total Right-of-Way Cost $73,325,000

Adjusted Construction Cost* $170,000,000

Adjusted Right-of-Way Cost* $63,500,000

*Adjusted to reflect the reduction of the section length from 17.7 miles to 15.3 miles.

I-74 Project – Section 4A Traffic Volumes

Base Year ADT (2004) 26,800

Design Year ADT – No-Build (2030) 50,900
Design Year ADT – Build (2030) 57,800

Accident Data
The following table summarizes the crash analysis that was conducted by the NCDOT for US 17 between
September 1, 2000 and August 31, 2003 and average rates for similar facilities in North Carolina.

NC Rural Interstate Full

3-Year Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM
Control Access Rate*
Fatal 4 2.06 0.18
Non-Fatal 90 46.33 3.06
PDO 84 43.25 7.02

1-Year Existing Condition 1-Year Interstate Condition

Crashes Peak Direction Crashes Peak Direction
Fatal 0.66 0.058
Non-Fatal 15 0.99
PDO 14 2.27

*North Carolina Crash Rates can be found at:

http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/traffic/Safety/ses/rates/rates.html

C-3.3
 Redbook Input Data Summary Sheet: I-74 Project

Input Item Value

Number of segments to analyze 1
Year construction begins 2004
Year operation begins 2007
Last year of analysis period 2030
Base year 2004
Name of User Class 1 Cars
Name of User Class 2 Trucks
Vehicle Type for User Class 1 All Cars
Vehicle Type for User Class 2 All Trucks
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 1 (persons) 1.6
Vehicle Occupancy for User Class 2 (persons) 1.08
Value of Time for User Class 1 (base-year dollars) 16
Value of Time for User Class 2 (base-year dollars) 16
Fuel Cost for User Class 1 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Fuel Cost for User Class 2 (base-year dollars per gallon) 3
Percent of Operating Costs that are fuel (percentage points) 52
Real discount rate (percentage points) 3
Inflation rate (percentage points) 3
Financing rate (percentage points) 0
Financing term (years) 0
Issuance cost (% of amount financed) (percentage points) 0
General traffic growth rate (percentage points) 3
Annual Growth of Value of Time (percentage points) 2
Average Truckload Value (base-year dollars) 14,500
Market Interest Rate for truckload value (percentage points) 6.75
Average Commercial Cargo Value (base-year dollars) N/A
Market Interest Rate for Commercial Cargo Value (percentage points) N/A
Cost per property damage accident (base-year dollars) 4,300
Cost per injury accident (base-year dollars) 46,000
Cost per fatal accident (base-year dollars) 3,700,000
Name of Construction Management Alternative 1 Construction

C-3.4
 Redbook Input Segment Data Summary Sheet: I-74 Project

Segment Input Item Value

Names given to segments I-74 Project
Functional Class of each segment Rural Interstate
Improvement Type for each segment Additional Lane
Segment Length without improvement (miles) 15.3
Segment Length with improvement (miles) 15.3
Method for Calculating Change in User Delay Redbook – ADT
Base both direction volume (vehicles per day) 26,800
Base peak-direction capacity (PCEs per hour) 4,400
Base Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 60
Base Property-Damage Only Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 14
Base Injury Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 15
Base Fatal Accidents (with base-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.66
Base Operating Cost (base-year dollars) 0
Improved both direction volume (vehicles per day) 26,800
Improved Capacity (PCEs per hour) 4,600
Improved Free Flow Speed (miles per hour) 65
Improved Property-Damage Only Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 2.27
Improved Injury Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.99
Improved Fatal Accidents (with opening-year volume) (accidents per year) 0.058
Improved Operating Cost (opening-year dollars) 0
K Factor for User Class 1 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.12
K Factor for User Class 2 (peak hour volume/daily volume) 0.12
D Factor for User Class 1 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.55
D Factor for User Class 2 (peak-direction volume/total volume) 0.55
Week Factor for User Class 1 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Week Factor for User Class 2 (weekly volume/weekday volume) 6
Month Factor (monthly volume/weekly volume) 4.35
Seasonal Factor (peak monthly volume/average monthly volume) 1.1
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 95
Percent of base peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 5
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 1 (percentage points) 95
Percent of improved peak-hour, peak-direction volume that is in User Class 2 (percentage points) 5
Terminal Value (base-year dollars) 0
Construction Management Alternative 1
Construction Property-Damage Only Accidents (each) 0
Construction Injury Accidents (each) 0
Construction Fatal Accidents (each) 0
Total delay during construction (vehicle hours) 0
Total extra VMT on detour route (vehicle miles) 0
Speed on detour route (miles per hour) 0
Right-of-way acquisition cost (construction-year dollars) 63,500,000
Planning and design cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction management cost (construction-year dollars) 0
Construction cost (construction-year dollars) 170,000,000

C-3.5
 Redbook Output Data Summary Sheet: I-74 Project

User Benefits from Operation

User Benefits
User Agency from Total User Benefits
User Value of User Accident
Operating Operating Construction
Time Benefits Reduction Benefits
Cost Benefits Benefits
Project $ 965,814,552 $ 4,995,838 $ 51,612,709 $- $- $ 1,022,423,099

Capital Costs Net Benefits Benefit-Cost Ratio

Project $ 213,685,577 $ 808,737,521 4.785

C-3.6