Deficiency Analysis Background What is a Deficiency Analysis? The Deficiency Analysis is an analysis that compares today’s travel conditions with that of a future year. Thus, the Deficiency Analysis shows staff, the MPO and the public where transportation investments in highways, transit and other modes are needed to address the future mobility demands. It helps to set a baseline that is used in the development and evaluation of the various transportation alternatives that will be considered in a subsequent step of the 2045 MTP development. What Years are analyzed? The measures and maps are based on a travel demand model that estimates conditions in two different years: 2016- This is 2016 population and employment using the existing transportation system of streets, transit, etc., and reflects the current travel conditions. In some cases, the year 2015 has been used for the base year. 2050 Existing + Committed (E+C)- This is the estimated growth in population and employment through the year 2050 but using the existing transportation system plus any projects that are committed to construction or implementation. While somewhat unrealistic, it does help set a baseline for evaluating future mobility investments. This “no build” scenario allows us to see where future mobility deficiencies are to be expected. Analysis Results Analysis Visualization The results of the deficiency analysis reviewed across several metrics. Congestions, Travel Time are two ways our region looks at mobility for a scenario. A variety of visualization techniques are used to illustrate these mobility metrics: “Tomato Maps” Congestion maps, commonly referred to as “Tomato Maps” are visualizations that depict levels of congestion on the roadway network. These maps show the forecasted congestion on specific road segments and can show all day or specific times of day, typically CAMPO will show both peak period and off peak times for comparison. These types of maps show a comparison of the anticipated volume to the designed capacity of the facility, also known
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Deficiency Analysis Background
What is a Deficiency Analysis? The Deficiency Analysis is an analysis that compares today’s travel conditions with that of a future year. Thus, the Deficiency Analysis shows staff, the MPO and the public where transportation investments in highways, transit and other modes are needed to address the future mobility demands. It helps to set a baseline that is used in the development and evaluation of the various transportation alternatives that will be considered in a subsequent step of the 2045 MTP development.
What Years are analyzed? The measures and maps are based on a travel demand model that estimates conditions in two different years:
2016- This is 2016 population and employment using the existing transportation system of streets, transit, etc., and reflects the current travel conditions. In some cases, the year 2015 has been used for the base year.
2050 Existing + Committed (E+C)- This is the estimated growth in population and employment through the year 2050 but using the existing transportation system plus any projects that are committed to construction or implementation. While somewhat unrealistic, it does help set a baseline for evaluating future mobility investments. This “no build” scenario allows us to see where future mobility deficiencies are to be expected.
Analysis Results
Analysis Visualization The results of the deficiency analysis reviewed across several metrics. Congestions, Travel Time are two ways our region looks at mobility for a scenario. A variety of visualization techniques are used to illustrate these mobility metrics:
“Tomato Maps” Congestion maps, commonly referred to as “Tomato Maps” are visualizations that depict levels of congestion on the roadway network. These maps show the forecasted congestion on specific road segments and can show all day or specific times of day, typically CAMPO will show both peak period and off peak times for comparison. These types of maps show a comparison of the anticipated volume to the designed capacity of the facility, also known
as a “V/C ratio”. This ratio is traffic volume divided by the traffic capacity of the road segment. (For example, a volume of 9,000 vehicles on a road that is capable of carrying 10,000 vehicles will produce a V/C of 0.9).
Travel Time Maps Travel time maps use isochrones, or “contours” to estimate the distance that can be traveled via travel “bands” of 20 minutes (0-20, 20-40, etc.). This analysis uses downtown Raleigh and Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) to show travel time during peak periods in the 2016 and 2050 scenarios and illustrate corridor and small area mobility. Typically,
What is the Next Step?
With the MPO’s Goals and Objectives in mind, staff will use the deficiency data to create several alternatives to meet the future travel demand. This Alternatives Analysis is the next step after Deficiency Analysis in the development of the 2050 MTP and will be released in the coming months.
Robbins
Ossipee
Elon
Graham
Chapel Hill
GibsonvilleHaw River
Archer Lodge
Middlesex
Benson
Four Oaks
Carrboro
Alamance
Princeton
Liberty
Green Level
Micro
Wilson'sMills
Whitsett
Swepsonville
Kenly
Butner
Louisburg
Bunn
Youngsville
Franklinton
Creedmoor
Sedalia
Stem
Sanford
Pittsboro
Staley
Lillington
Clayton
Burlington
Durham
Rolesville
Wake Forest
Raleigh
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Fuquay-Varina
ZebulonKnightdale
Wendell
Garner
Selma
Smithfield
Coats
Angier
Goldston
Siler CityRamseur
Pine Level
HillsboroughMebane
Kittrell
Broadway
Cary
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wak
eCOUNTY
Durham COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UNTY
Wake COUNTYHarnett COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Granville COUNTY
Fran
klin
COUN
TYNa
sh C
OUNT
Y
Fran
klin
CO
UN
TY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Fran
klin
COU
NTY
Vanc
e CO
UNTY
Frankl in COUNTY
Warren COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Durham COUNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Durham COUNTY
Person COUNTY
Orange COUNTYChatham COUNTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Orange COUNTY
Person COUNTYOrange COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Chatham COUNTYAlamance COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
Harne
tt CO
UNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Moore COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
LeeCOUNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UN
TY
Rand
olph
CO
UN
TY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Gui
lford
CO
UN
TY
Alamance COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Harnett COUNTY
JohnstonCOUNTY
Harne
tt COUNTY
Lee C
OUNTY
Moore
COUNTY
Lee COUNTY
Moore COUNTYRandolph COUNTY
Wi lson
COUNTY
JohnstonCO
UNTY
Wilson COUNTYNash COUNTY
Way
neCO
UN
TY
John
ston
C OUN
TY
JohnstonCOUNTY
NashCO
UNTY
Randolph COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Rockingham COUNTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Vanc
e CO
UN
TY
"86
"55
"96
"54
"42
"157
"55
"100
"147
"87
"540
"902
"210
"49
"96
"242
"98
"96
"87
"98
"24
"62
"50
"231
"22
"61
"210
"87
"62
"42
"42
"50
"78
"49
"705
"42
"56
"86
"119
"97
"150
"42
"50
"751
"54
"39
"56
"581
"39
"561
"27
"57
"222
£¤421
£¤70
£¤401
£¤501
£¤401
£¤1
£¤1
£¤421
£¤1
£¤70
£¤1
£¤1
£¤264
£¤401
£¤64
£¤70
£¤301
£¤64
£¤301
£¤15
£¤70
£¤15
£¤64
£¤421
£¤70
£¤64
£¤401
£¤15
£¤64
£¤701
§̈¦85
§̈¦440
§̈¦95§̈¦40
§̈¦40
§̈¦540
§̈¦40
§̈¦87
§̈¦85§̈¦40
Author: CAMPO GIS Staff Date: 2/4/2021 Data: CAMPO, NCDOT, Wake, Harnett, Franklin, Johnston, Granville Counties
Peak Hour CongestionVolume / Capacity
0.00 to 0.800.80 to 1.001.00+
Total Daily Volume# of Vehicles
18,75037,50075,000+
Joint MPO Border
Vehicle Congestion Forecast - 2050 MTP
Current (2016)Conditions
Note: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other mapping organizations, iscommitted to offering its users accurate, useful, and current information about the Region. Although every effort hasbeen made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources used todevelop the database may be reflected in the map and/or data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditionsand bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale,collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
0 5.5 11Miles ±
Robbins
Ossipee
Elon
Graham
Chapel Hill
GibsonvilleHaw River
Archer Lodge
Middlesex
Benson
Four Oaks
Carrboro
Alamance
Princeton
Liberty
Green Level
Micro
Wilson'sMills
Whitsett
Swepsonville
Kenly
Butner
Louisburg
Bunn
Youngsville
Franklinton
Creedmoor
Sedalia
Stem
Sanford
Pittsboro
Staley
Lillington
Clayton
Greensboro
Burlington
Durham
Rolesville
Wake Forest
Raleigh
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Fuquay-Varina
ZebulonKnightdale
Wendell
Garner
Selma
Smithfield
Coats
Angier
Goldston
Siler CityRamseur
Pine Level
HillsboroughMebane
Kittrell
Broadway
Cary
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wak
eCOUNTY
Durham COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UNTY
Wake COUNTYHarnett COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Granville COUNTY
Fran
klin
COUN
TYNa
sh C
OUNT
Y
Fran
klin
CO
UN
TY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Fran
klin
COU
NTY
Vanc
e CO
UNTY
Frankl in COUNTY
Warren COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Durham COUNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Durham COUNTY
Person COUNTY
Orange COUNTYChatham COUNTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Orange COUNTY
Person COUNTYOrange COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Chatham COUNTYAlamance COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
Harne
tt CO
UNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Moore COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
LeeCOUNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UN
TY
Rand
olph
CO
UN
TY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Gui
lford
CO
UN
TY
Alamance COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Harnett COUNTY
JohnstonCOUNTY
Harne
tt COUNTY
Lee C
OUNTY
Moore
COUNTY
Lee COUNTY
Moore COUNTYRandolph COUNTY
Wi lson
COUNTY
JohnstonCO
UNTY
Wilson COUNTYNash COUNTY
Way
neCO
UN
TY
John
ston
C OUN
TY
JohnstonCOUNTY
NashCO
UNTY
Randolph COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Rockingham COUNTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Vanc
e CO
UN
TY
"86
"55
"96
"54
"42
"157
"55
"100
"147
"87
"540
"902
"210
"49
"96
"242
"98
"96
"87
"98
"24
"62
"50
"231
"22
"61
"210
"87
"62
"42
"42
"50
"78
"49
"705
"42
"56
"86
"119
"97
"150
"42
"50
"751
"54
"39
"56
"581
"39
"561
"27
"57
"222
£¤421
£¤70
£¤401
£¤501
£¤401
£¤1
£¤1
£¤421
£¤1
£¤70
£¤1
£¤1
£¤264
£¤401
£¤64
£¤70
£¤301
£¤64
£¤301
£¤15
£¤70
£¤15
£¤64
£¤421
£¤70
£¤64
£¤15
£¤64
£¤701
§̈¦85
§̈¦440
§̈¦95
§̈¦40
§̈¦540
§̈¦40
§̈¦87
§̈¦85
Author: CAMPO GIS Staff Date: 2/4/2021 Data: CAMPO, NCDOT, Wake, Harnett, Franklin, Johnston, Granville Counties
Peak Hour CongestionVolume / Capacity
0.00 to 0.800.80 to 1.001.00+
Total Daily Volume# of Vehicles
18,75037,50075,000+
Joint MPO Border
Vehicle Congestion Forecast - 2050 MTP
Existing + CommittedScenario
2050 Horizon
Note: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other mapping organizations, iscommitted to offering its users accurate, useful, and current information about the Region. Although every effort hasbeen made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources used todevelop the database may be reflected in the map and/or data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditionsand bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale,collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
0 5.5 11Miles ±
Robbins
Ossipee
Elon
Graham
Chapel Hill
GibsonvilleHaw River
Archer Lodge
Middlesex
Benson
Four Oaks
Carrboro
Alamance
Princeton
Liberty
Green Level
Micro
Wilson'sMills
Whitsett
Swepsonville
Kenly
Butner
Louisburg
Bunn
Youngsville
FranklintonCreedmoor
Sedalia
Stem
Sanford
Pittsboro
Staley
Lillington
Clayton
Greensboro
Burlington
Durham
Rolesville
Wake Forest
Raleigh
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Fuquay-Varina
ZebulonKnightdale
Wendell
Garner
Selma
Smithfield
Coats
Angier
Goldston
Siler CityRamseur
Pine Level
HillsboroughMebane
Kittrell
Broadway
Cary
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wak
eCOUNTY
Durham COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UNTY
Wake COUNTYHarnett COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Granville COUNTY
Fran
klin
COUN
TYNa
sh C
OUNT
Y
Fran
klin
CO
UN
TY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Fran
klin
COU
NTY
Vanc
e CO
UNTY
Frankl in COUNTY
Warren COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Durham COUNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Durham COUNTY
Person COUNTY
Orange COUNTYChatham COUNTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Orange COUNTY
Person COUNTYOrange COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Chatham COUNTYAlamance COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
Harne
tt CO
UNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Moore COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
LeeCOUNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UN
TY
Rand
olph
CO
UN
TY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Gui
lford
CO
UN
TY
Alamance COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Harnett COUNTY
JohnstonCOUNTY
Harne
tt COUNTY
Lee C
OUNTY
Moore
COUNTY
Lee COUNTY
Moore COUNTYRandolph COUNTY
Wi lson
COUNTY
JohnstonCO
UNTY
Wilson COUNTYNash COUNTY
Way
neCO
UN
TY
John
ston
C OUN
TY
JohnstonCOUNTY
NashCO
UNTY
Randolph COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Rockingham COUNTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Vanc
e CO
UN
TY
"86
"55
"96
"54
"42
"157
"55
"100
"147
"87
"540
"902
"210
"49
"96
"55
"242
"98
"96
"87
"98
"24
"62
"50
"231
"22
"61
"210
"87
"62
"42
"42
"50
"78
"49
"705
"42
"56
"86
"119
"97
"150
"42
"50
"751
"54
"39
"56
"581
"39
"561
"27
"57
"222
£¤421
£¤64
£¤401
£¤501
£¤401
£¤1
£¤15
£¤1
£¤1 £¤421
£¤1
£¤70
£¤1
£¤264
£¤401
£¤64
£¤70
£¤301
£¤301
£¤15
£¤70
£¤64
£¤421
£¤70
£¤64
£¤401
£¤15
£¤64
£¤701
§̈¦85
§̈¦440
§̈¦95§̈¦40
§̈¦40
§̈¦540
§̈¦40
§̈¦87
§̈¦85
Author: CAMPO GIS Staff Date: 2/5/2021 Data: CAMPO, NCDOT, Wake, Harnett, Franklin, Johnston, Granville Counties
Off-Peak Hour CongestionVolume / Capacity
0.00 to 0.800.80 to 1.001.00+
Total Daily Volume# of Vehicles
18,75037,50075,000+
Joint MPO Border
Vehicle Congestion Forecast - 2050 MTP
Current (2016)Conditions
Note: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other mapping organizations, iscommitted to offering its users accurate, useful, and current information about the Region. Although every effort hasbeen made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources used todevelop the database may be reflected in the map and/or data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditionsand bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale,collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
0 5.5 11Miles ±
Robbins
Ossipee
Elon
Graham
Chapel Hill
GibsonvilleHaw River
Archer Lodge
Middlesex
Benson
Four Oaks
Carrboro
Alamance
Princeton
Liberty
Green Level
Micro
Wilson'sMills
Whitsett
Swepsonville
Kenly
Butner
Louisburg
Bunn
Youngsville
Franklinton
Creedmoor
Sedalia
Stem
Sanford
Pittsboro
Staley
Lillington
Clayton
Burlington
Durham
Rolesville
Wake Forest
Raleigh
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Fuquay-Varina
ZebulonKnightdale
Wendell
Garner
Selma
Smithfield
Coats
Angier
Goldston
Siler CityRamseur
Pine Level
HillsboroughMebane
Kittrell
Broadway
Cary
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wak
eCOUNTY
Durham COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UNTY
Wake COUNTYHarnett COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Granville COUNTY
Fran
klin
COUN
TYNa
sh C
OUNT
Y
Fran
klin
CO
UN
TY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Fran
klin
COU
NTY
Vanc
e CO
UNTY
Frankl in COUNTY
Warren COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Durham COUNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Durham COUNTY
Person COUNTY
Orange COUNTYChatham COUNTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Orange COUNTY
Person COUNTYOrange COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Chatham COUNTYAlamance COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
Harne
tt CO
UNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Moore COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
LeeCOUNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UN
TY
Rand
olph
CO
UN
TY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Gui
lford
CO
UN
TY
Alamance COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Harnett COUNTY
JohnstonCOUNTY
Harne
tt COUNTY
Lee C
OUNTY
Moore
COUNTY
Lee COUNTY
Moore COUNTYRandolph COUNTY
Wi lson
COUNTY
JohnstonCO
UNTY
Wilson COUNTYNash COUNTY
Way
neCO
UN
TY
John
ston
C OUN
TY
JohnstonCOUNTY
NashCO
UNTY
Randolph COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Rockingham COUNTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Vanc
e CO
UN
TY
"86
"55
"96
"54
"42
"157
"55
"100
"147
"87
"540
"902
"210
"49
"96
"242
"98
"96
"87
"98
"24
"62
"50
"231
"22
"61
"210
"87
"62
"42
"42
"50
"78
"49
"705
"42
"56
"86
"119
"97
"150
"42
"50
"751
"54
"39
"56
"581
"39
"561
"27
"57
"222
£¤421
£¤70
£¤401
£¤501
£¤401
£¤1
£¤1
£¤421
£¤401
£¤1
£¤70
£¤1
£¤1
£¤264
£¤64
£¤70
£¤301
£¤64
£¤301
£¤15
£¤70
£¤15
£¤64
£¤421
£¤70
£¤64
£¤15
£¤64
£¤701
§̈¦85
§̈¦440
§̈¦95
§̈¦40
§̈¦40
§̈¦540
§̈¦40
§̈¦87
§̈¦85
§̈¦40
Author: CAMPO GIS Staff Date: 2/5/2021 Data: CAMPO, NCDOT, Wake, Harnett, Franklin, Johnston, Granville Counties
Off-Peak Hour CongestionVolume / Capacity
0.00 to 0.800.80 to 1.001.00+
Total Daily Volume# of Vehicles
18,75037,50075,000+
Joint MPO Border
Vehicle Congestion Forecast - 2050 MTP
Existing + CommittedScenario
2050 Horizon
Note: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other mapping organizations, iscommitted to offering its users accurate, useful, and current information about the Region. Although every effort hasbeen made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physical sources used todevelop the database may be reflected in the map and/or data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditionsand bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale,collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific to certain data.
0 5.5 11Miles ±
Robbins
Elon
Graham
Chapel Hill
Gibsonville Haw River
Archer Lodge
Four Oaks
Carrboro
Liberty
GreenLevel
Micro
Wilson'sMills
Whitsett
Butner
Louisburg
Bunn
Franklinton
Creedmoor
Sedalia
Stem
Sanford
Pittsboro
Staley
Lillington
Clayton
Burlington
Durham
Rolesville
Wake Forest
Raleigh
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Fuquay-Varina
Zebulon
KnightdaleWendell
Garner
Selma
Smithfield
Coats
Angier
Siler City
PineLevel
Hillsborough
Mebane
Cary
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Frankl in COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Durh
am C
OUNT
Y
Wake COUNTYDurham COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UNTY
Wake COUNTYHarnett COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Granville COUNTY
Fran
klin
COUN
TYNa
sh C
OUNT
Y
Fran
klin
CO
UN
TY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Fran
klin
COU
NTY
Vanc
e CO
UNTY
Durham COUNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Durham COUNTY
Person COUNTY
Orange COUNTYChatham COUNTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Orange COUNTY
Person COUNTYOrange COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Chatham COUNTYAlamance COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
Harne
tt CO
UNTY
Chatham COUNTYMoore COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
LeeCOUNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UN
TY
Rand
olph
CO
UN
TY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Gui
lford
CO
UN
TY
Alamance COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Harnett COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Harne
tt COUNTY
Lee C
OUNTY
Moo
reCO
UNTYLe
e COUN
TY
Moore COUNTYRandolph COUNTY
Wilson
COUNTY
JohnstonCO
UNTY
Wilson COUNTYNash COUNTY
JohnstonCOUNTY
NashCO
UNTY
Randolph COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Rockingham COUNTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Vanc
e CO
UN
TY
"86
"96
"87
"55
"96
"54
"42
"150
"87
"157
"100
"147
"87
"540
"902
"49
"96
"242
"98
"98
"24
"62
"96
"210
"50
"231
"61
"210
"62
"119
"42
"55
"42
"55
"78
"49
"705
"42
"56
"86
"97
"42
"50
"751
"54
"561
"39
"27
"39
"56
"57
"581
"22
"222
£¤401
£¤501
£¤401
£¤1
£¤1
£¤1
£¤421
£¤1
£¤70
£¤1
£¤264
£¤401
£¤64
£¤70
£¤64
£¤70
£¤301
£¤15
£¤15
£¤64
£¤421
£¤421
£¤70
£¤64
£¤401
£¤15
£¤64
£¤701
§̈¦440
§̈¦40
§̈¦40
§̈¦540
§̈¦95
§̈¦40
§̈¦87
§̈¦85
§̈¦85
Author: CAMPO GIS Staff Date: 2/4/2021 Data: CAMPO, NCDOT, Wake, Harnett, Franklin, Johnston, Granville Counties
Peak Travel TimeMinutes
0 - 2020 - 4040 - 6060 - 80
Note: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other mapping organizations, iscommitted to offering its users accurate, useful, and current information about the Region. Although everyeffort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physicalsources used to develop the database may be reflected in the map and/or data supplied. The user must beaware of data conditions and bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect topossible errors, original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific tocertain data.
0 3.5 7Miles
±
Travel Time Forecast Raleigh - 2050 MTP
Current (2016)Conditions
Robbins
Elon
Graham
Chapel Hill
Gibsonville Haw River
Archer Lodge
Four Oaks
Carrboro
Liberty
GreenLevel
Micro
Wilson'sMills
Whitsett
Butner
Louisburg
Bunn
Franklinton
Creedmoor
Sedalia
Stem
Sanford
Pittsboro
Staley
Lillington
Clayton
Burlington
Durham
Rolesville
Wake Forest
Raleigh
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Fuquay-Varina
Zebulon
KnightdaleWendell
Garner
Selma
Smithfield
Coats
Angier
Siler City
PineLevel
Hillsborough
Mebane
Cary
Wake COUNTY
Franklin COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Frankl in COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Durh
am C
OUNT
Y
Wake COUNTYDurham COUNTY
Wak
e CO
UNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UNTY
Wake COUNTYHarnett COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Wake COUNTY
Granville COUNTY
Fran
klin
COUN
TYNa
sh C
OUNT
Y
Fran
klin
CO
UN
TY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Fran
klin
COU
NTY
Vanc
e CO
UNTY
Durham COUNTY
Chatham COUNTY
Durh
am C
OU
NTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Durham COUNTY
Person COUNTY
Orange COUNTYChatham COUNTY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Ora
nge
COU
NTY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Orange COUNTY
Person COUNTYOrange COUNTY
Caswell COUNTY
Chatham COUNTYAlamance COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
Harne
tt CO
UNTY
Chatham COUNTYMoore COUNTY
Chat
ham
COUNTY
LeeCOUNTY
Chat
ham
CO
UN
TY
Rand
olph
CO
UN
TY
Alam
ance
CO
UN
TY
Gui
lford
CO
UN
TY
Alamance COUNTY
Harnett COUNTY
Johnston COUNTY
Harne
tt COUNTY
Lee C
OUNTY
Moo
reCO
UNTYLe
e COUN
TY
Moore COUNTYRandolph COUNTY
Wilson
COUNTY
JohnstonCO
UNTY
Wilson COUNTYNash COUNTY
JohnstonCOUNTY
NashCO
UNTY
Randolph COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Guilford COUNTY
Rockingham COUNTY
Gra
nvill
e CO
UN
TY
Vanc
e CO
UN
TY
"86
"55
"96
"54
"150
"87
"157
"55
"100
"147
"87
"540
"902
"49
"96
"55
"242
"98"98
"24
"62
"96
"210
"50
"231
"61
"210
"87"62
"119
"42
"42
"78
"49
"705
"42
"50
"56
"86
"97
"42
"50
"751
"54
"561
"39
"27
"39
"56
"57
"581
"22
"222
£¤64
£¤70
£¤401
£¤501
£¤401
£¤1
£¤1
£¤1
£¤70
£¤421
£¤1
£¤70
£¤1
£¤264
£¤64
£¤64
£¤401
£¤70
£¤70
£¤301
£¤15
£¤15
£¤64
£¤421
£¤421
£¤70
£¤401£¤15
£¤64
£¤701
§̈¦440
§̈¦40
§̈¦540
§̈¦95
§̈¦40
§̈¦87
§̈¦85
§̈¦85
Author: CAMPO GIS Staff Date: 2/4/2021 Data: CAMPO, NCDOT, Wake, Harnett, Franklin, Johnston, Granville Counties
Peak Travel TimeMinutes
0 - 2020 - 4040 - 6060 - 80
Note: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with other mapping organizations, iscommitted to offering its users accurate, useful, and current information about the Region. Although everyeffort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from physicalsources used to develop the database may be reflected in the map and/or data supplied. The user must beaware of data conditions and bear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect topossible errors, original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions specific tocertain data.
0 3.5 7Miles
±
Travel Time Forecast RDU - 2050 MTPCurrent (2016)
Conditions
Related Documents
