Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Complete ... - OKI

Dearborn CountyTransportationAssessmentPrepared for:Dearborn CountyandThe OKI RegionalCouncil of GovernmentsPrepared by:PARSONSBRINCKERHOFFOHIO, INC.March 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTERONEExisting Conditions1.1 STUDY PURPOSE.............................................................................................1-11.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION...........................................................................1-21.3 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE............................................................................1-51.3.1 Population...............................................................................................1-61.3.2 Employment............................................................................................1-71.3.3 Economics ..............................................................................................1-91.3.4 Commuting Patterns...............................................................................1-91.3.5 Agricultural Activity ...............................................................................1-101.4 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK.....................................................................1-101.4.1 Study Area Roadways ..........................................................................1-101.4.2 Intermodal Transportation Options .......................................................1-151.5 TOURISM ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................1-151.6 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES ...................................................................1-171.7 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ....................................................1-181.7.1 INDOT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) ...................................1-181.7.2 INDOT Long Range Plan......................................................................1-181.8 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................1-19CHAPTERTWORoadway Functional Classifications2.1 URBAN VS. RURAL CLASSIFICATION ............................................................2-12.2 RURAL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS...........................................................2-22.3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLE TYPICAL SECTIONS ..............2-26CHAPTERTHREE Roadway Assessment3.1 DATA GATHERING & EXTRACTION................................................................3-13.2 ASSESSMENT DATA SUMMARY.....................................................................3-13.3 PAVEMENT CHARACTERISTICS.....................................................................3-13.4 SIGN INVENTORY.............................................................................................3-43.5 GUARDRAIL INVENTORY ................................................................................3-83.6 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CURVE SUMMARY .............................................3-9CHAPTERFOUR Selected Roadway Capacity Analysis4.1 SELECTED ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...............................................4-1CHAPTERFIVERecommendations5.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ............................................................................5-15.2 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................5-1Dearborn County Transportation Assessmenti

5.3 TRAFFIC COUNT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................5-65.4 TYPICAL COSTS ...............................................................................................5-7APPENDICESAppendix AAppendix BAppendix CROADWAY ASSESSMENT DATAHIGHWAY CAPACITY ANALYSIS DATA SHEETSHORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CURVE DATALIST OF FIGURESCHAPTERONEExisting Conditions1-1 Study Area Map..................................................................................................1-31-2 Census Tracts Map ............................................................................................1-41-3 2000 Population Density per square mile Map...................................................1-61-4 2000 Employment Density per square mile Map................................................1-81-5 2001 Annual Average Daily Traffic...................................................................1-131-6 2002-2003 Annual Average Daily Traffic Comparison .....................................1-14CHAPTERTWORoadway Functional Classifications2-1 Roadway Functional Classification Map.............................................................2-52-2 Geometric Design Criteria – Category I Rural Arterial .....................................2-272-3 Geometric Design Criteria – Category II Rural Arterial ....................................2-282-4 Geometric Design Criteria – Category III Rural Arterial ...................................2-292-5 Geometric Design Criteria – Category IV Rural Arterial ...................................2-302-6 Geometric Design Criteria – Category I Local Rural Collector .........................2-312-7 Geometric Design Criteria – Category II Local Rural Collector ........................2-322-8 Geometric Design Criteria – Category III Local Rural Collector .......................2-332-9 Geometric Design Criteria – Category IV Local Rural Collector.......................2-342-10 Geometric Design Criteria – Category V Local Rural Collector........................2-352-11 Geometric Design Criteria – Category I Local Rural Road...............................2-362-12 Geometric Design Criteria – Category II Local Rural Road..............................2-372-13 Geometric Design Criteria – Category III Local Rural Road.............................2-382-14 Geometric Design Criteria – Category IV Local Rural Road ............................2-392-15 Geometric Design Criteria – Category V Local Rural Road .............................2-402-16 Geometric Design Criteria – 2-Lane Curb & Gutter Local Roadway ................2-41CHAPTERTHREE Roadway Assessment3-1 Pavement Type Map ..........................................................................................3-23-2 Land Width Deficiencies Map.............................................................................3-53-3 Shoulder Width Deficiencies Map ......................................................................3-63-4 Sign Inventory Map ............................................................................................3-73-5 Guardrail Inventory Map.....................................................................................3-8CHAPTERFOUR Selected Roadway Capacity Analysis4-1 Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Diagram .......................................4-2Dearborn County Transportation Assessmentii

4-2 Selected Roadway Highway Capacity Analysis Results ....................................4-44-3 Interchange Functional Area Diagram................................................................4-6CHAPTERFIVE Recommendations5-1 Arterial Roadways Recommended Projects Map...............................................5-35-2 Collector Roadways Recommended Projects Map ............................................5-45-3 Local Roadways Recommended Projects Map..................................................5-55-4 Traffic Count Phasing Plan Diagram ..................................................................5-6LIST OF TABLESCHAPTERONE Existing Conditions1A Study Area Population........................................................................................1-61B Study Area Employment.....................................................................................1-71C Study Area Household Data...............................................................................1-91D Study Area Auto Ownership ...............................................................................1-91E Study Area Commuting Patterns........................................................................1-91F 2003 County Roadway 24-hr Traffic Information (ADT) ...................................1-121G 2003 County Roadway 24-hr Traffic Information (ADT) ...................................1-121H INDOT TIP Projects..........................................................................................1-18CHAPTERTWO Roadway Functional Classifications2A Rural Arterial Sub-Categories ............................................................................2-32B Rural Collector Sub-Categories..........................................................................2-32C Local Roadway Sub-Categories.........................................................................2-42D Roadway Functional Classifications....................................................2-6 thru 2-25CHAPTERTHREE Roadway Assessment3A Pavement Type ..................................................................................................3-33B Pavement Condition (Paved Roadways)............................................................3-33C Lane Width .........................................................................................................3-43D Shoulder Width...................................................................................................3-43E Sign Inventory ....................................................................................................3-43F Horizontal and Vertical Curve Deficiencies ........................................................3-9CHAPTERFOUR Selected Roadway Capacity Analysis4A Level of Service and Volume to Capacity Ratios – Class I Roadways...............4-24B Level of Service and Volume to Capacity Ratios – Class II Roadways..............4-34C Highway Capacity Analysis Results ...................................................................4-34D Minimum Separation of Access Points...............................................................4-5CHAPTERFIVE Recommendations5A Typical Reconstruction Costs per Mile ...............................................................5-7Dearborn County Transportation Assessmentiii

ChapterONEEXISTING CONDITIONS1.1 STUDY PURPOSEThe Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) and DearbornCounty undertook the Dearborn County Transportation Assessment in April of 2003.Dearborn County is one of the fastest growing counties within the OKI region. With apopulation of nearly 46,000 in 2000, Dearborn County is expected to grow by 60% by2030, according to the 2030 OKI Regional Transportation Plan. In fact, also accordingto OKI, over 90% of the region’s growth in the next 30 years will occur in the outer belt ofCincinnati that includes the counties of Butler, Clermont, Warren, Dearborn and Boone.The Dearborn County Transportation Assessment project comes at an opportune time inthe county’s history. The county is benefiting from its proximity to the Cincinnati urbancore and from the success of tourism attractions such as Argosy Casino and PerfectNorth Slopes. The triangle between I-74, I-275 and SR 1 is being rapidly developed andincludes the communities of St. Leon, Bright, Hidden Valley Lake, Greendale,Lawrenceburg and Aurora. While residential and commercial development is on the risewithin Dearborn County, the infrastructure still remains mostly rural. Many of thecounty’s rural roads were not designed to operate under increased volumes. Severalroadways now serve thriving communities but are too narrow and do not meet currentstandards. The infrastructure of the area needs to be improved to accommodate theexisting and future needs of Dearborn County.The Transportation Assessment will provide Dearborn County with a framework forfuture projects and will include a complete evaluation of the county roadwayinfrastructure. This chapter will provide background data regarding the socioeconomic,transportation, and land use description of the study area. This information will be usedto identify and understand the existing problems and issues in the area. It also helpedshape the development of a wide array of initial alternatives.Study GoalsAfter discussions with the Project Management Team, consisting of Dearborn County,OKI and Parsons Brinckerhoff, and an examination of the needs of Dearborn County, thefollowing goals have been developed for the Transportation Assessment.1. The Dearborn County Transportation Assessment will identify a responsible planfor roadway maintenance and spending within the county. This goal willencompass identifying an accurate roadway mileage count to be filed with thestate of Indiana to receive appropriate funding as well as set a prioritizationprocedure for roadway maintenance.2. The Dearborn County Transportation Study will provide an accurate blueprint ofthe county roadway system to assist in understanding the growth trends of thecounty and its future transportation needs.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-1

3. The Dearborn County Transportation Assessment will develop standardizedroadway typical sections and guidelines to assist in the maintenance of existingroadways and the design of new roadways.1.2 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTIONDearborn County is located in southeastern Indiana and is approximately 305 squaremiles. Franklin, Ripley and Ohio counties border Dearborn County to the north, westand south, respectively. Hamilton County, Ohio, creates the eastern border. The OhioRiver also borders Dearborn County to the southeast. Established in 1803 by GovernorWilliam Henry Harrison, Dearborn County is one of the oldest counties in Indiana. In thelate 19 th and early 20 th centuries Dearborn County was primarily agricultural based.After the Civil War, industries in Dearborn County began to grow with some still inexistence today.The city of Lawrenceburg is the county seat. Other communities include Aurora, Bright,Greendale, Hidden Valley Lake, Dillsboro, Moores Hill, St. Leon and West Harrison.While there are several incorporated areas within the county, much of the study area stillremains mostly rural. The concentration of the population is within the I-74, I-275 andSR 1 triangle. Dearborn County is located only 25 miles west of the Cincinnati, Ohio,therefore the county is an attractive location for those wanting to live in a rural area butstill have the advantages of an urban center. A study area map is presented in Figure1-1, on the following page.AuroraAurora is the second largest city in Dearborn County. It is located less than five milesdown river from Lawrenceburg, Indiana. It is associated with census tract 805. Manyhistoric sites are located throughout Aurora with a bridge and eight buildings on theNational Register of Historic Places.BrightThe community of Bright was first settled in the early 1800s. It was originally namedSaltillo but had its named changed to Bunkem and then to the present day Bright. Brightis a large unincorporated community located in the northeast of the county.GreendaleThe City of Greendale is located just north of Lawrenceburg and is representedapproximately by census tract 804. The city was plotted in 1852.Hidden Valley LakeHidden Valley Lake is located north of Greendale in the central portion of the countynear the Indiana and Ohio state border. The community has a large number of plotsavailable for future development. Census tract 801.02 is associated with this area.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-2

Figure 1-1 – Study Area MapDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-3

Figure 1-2 – Dearborn County 2000 Census TractsDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-4

DillsboroThe town of Dillsboro was founded in 1830 and is represented approximately by censustract 806, in the southeastern portion of the county. It has increased in size by nearlyone third in the last ten years. Dillsboro is a rural area with access to services of ametropolitan area.LawrenceburgLawrenceburg is the county seat of Dearborn County. The city represents census tract803. Lawrenceburg was founded in 1801 by a soldier who served under GeorgeWashington. With its location along the Ohio River, Lawrenceburg has had a history offlooding. As a result an earth-embankment levee was constructed in the 1930s.Lawrenceburg received the nickname Whiskey City for its many distilleries including theJoseph E. Seagram & Sons distillery.Moores HillThe incorporated town of Moores Hill was platted in 1839 near the center of the borderbetween Dearborn and Ripley counties. It is home to Carnegie Hall which is on theNational Register of Historic Places. Moores Hill is located in census tract 807, whichcontains the majority of central Dearborn County.St. LeonSt. Leon is found in the north central portion of Dearborn County near its border withFranklin County in census tract 802.01. St. Leon was settled in the early 1800’s andoriginally named St. Joe for the towns church St. Joseph. Its name was later changed toSt. Leon and was incorporated in 1873.West HarrisonThe incorporated town of West Harrison was founded in 1813 on the Whitewater Riverand next to the former Whitewater Canal in northeastern Dearborn County. WestHarrison is located next to Harrison, Ohio on the Indiana and Ohio state borders.Census tract 802.02 contains the town of West Harrison.1.3 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILEInformation for the socioeconomic profile was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau,Census 2000. This information was developed for Dearborn County, Indiana only. Thissection includes data and discussions for population, employment, economic andcommuting patterns and trends from Dearborn County.Much of the data illustrated in this section is delineated by census tract. Figure 1-2,shown previously, displays a map of the 2000 census tracks for Dearborn County.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-5

1.3.1 PopulationTable 1A - Study Area PopulationDensity perTract 2000 sq. mile801.01 2,403 56801.02 8,605 329802.01 1,919 75802.02 5,614 162803 4,874 653804 5,560 343805 4,186 776806 7,202 101807 5,746 77Total 46,109 151Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000In 1990 the US Census recorded a population of 38,835, in just ten years the populationhas increased more than 18% to more than 46,000 residents. This is well above theaverage national population increase of 13.2%. Table 1A illustrates that the highestconcentration of population per square mile is located in the Aurora and Lawrenceburgareas. Figure 1-3 illustrates the population density per square mile within the county.Figure 1-3 – 2000 Population Densityper square mileDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-6

1.3.2 EmploymentTable 1B - Study Area EmploymentEmploymentDearborn County TractsCounty801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807 TotalTotalEmployed1,275 4,548 961 2,991 2,060 2,785 2,049 3,606 2,808 23,083Agriculture 1.8% 0.2% 2.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.3% 1.1% 0.7%Construction 11.7% 9.2% 6.7% 11.0% 5.2% 7.5% 8.2% 9.7% 9.5% 8.9%Manufacturing 34.5% 18.6% 21.6% 18.3% 18.3% 17.2% 14.3% 20.2% 31.2% 20.8%Wholesale/Retail12.0% 13.8% 19.6% 17.1% 13.7% 15.7% 12.7% 15.5% 11.3% 14.5%Transportationand5.9% 8.7% 4.1% 7.3% 7.6% 10.0% 11.4% 9.5% 9.0% 8.6%WarehousingInformation 0.0% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 4.0% 2.2% 2.7% 1.8% 0.8% 1.8%Finance 2.4% 7.5% 4.3% 6.2% 4.0% 6.6% 3.7% 4.4% 4.6% 5.3%Professional 5.4% 8.7% 8.6% 11.0% 6.7% 5.3% 4.3% 3.8% 3.1% 6.4%Educational,Health13.3% 16.8% 20.3% 15.5% 12.3% 17.5% 14.3% 16.7% 16.3% 16.0%Arts,Entertainment,Recreation,7.8% 9.1% 7.4% 6.5% 22.2% 9.3% 21.9% 9.0% 8.0% 10.8%Food ServicePublicAdministration2.5% 2.7% 1.9% 0.6% 3.3% 3.6% 2.1% 2.4% 1.8% 2.3%Other 2.7% 3.3% 2.0% 4.4% 2.6% 5.0% 3.8% 5.7% 3.2% 3.9%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000Table 1B above lists the employment characteristics of the nine census tracts of theDearborn County study area. The national and state unemployment rates for the year2000 were approximately 4.0% and 3.7%, respectively, according to the US Departmentof Labor. Dearborn County’s unemployment rate is below both the national and statethresholds at 3.3%. The employment density per square mile within Dearborn County isillustrated in Figure 1-4, on the following page.Major EmployersArgosy Casino located in Lawrenceburg is Dearborn County’s largest employer havingan employment over 2000. Dearborn County’s second largest employer is Joseph E.Seagram and Sons, Inc. with over 600 employees. Other large employers are theAurora Casket Company, Anchor Glass Container, A.D. Cook Pump Company andAmerican Electric Power.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-7

Figure 1-4 – 2000 Employment Density per square mileDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-8

1.3.3 EconomicsTotalHouseholdsMedianHouseholdIncomePer CapitaIncome% Householdsbelow PovertyTable 1C - Study Area Household DataDearborn County Tracts801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807CountyTotals865 2,878 679 1,920 1,968 2,235 1,670 2,618 1,989 16,822$50,647 $65,512 $56,917 $57,331 $29,016 $50,083 $32,955 $48,214 $46,946 $48,625$19,562 $23,560 $20,979 $22,917 $15,906 $23,135 $16,723 $19,857 $18,137 $20,4312.7% 2.1% 3.4% 4.8% 15.1% 6.3% 11.1% 5.7% 8.0% 6.7%U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000Table 1C lists the income of the nine tracts in the county study area. The U.S. medianhousehold income according to the 2000 Census is reported at $42,148 annually.Census tracts 803 and 805, the areas of Lawrenceburg and Aurora, are below thisnational average value. According to the 2000 Census, the national poverty rate was11.3%. Tract 803 was above this average. Dearborn County as a whole had a povertyrate of 6.7%, which is below the national poverty rate.1.3.4 Commuting PatternsAutoTable 1D - Study Area Auto OwnershipDearborn County TractsCountyOwnership 801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807 TotalsZero CarHouseholds0.0% 1.1% 0.3% 3.3% 18.0% 5.9% 11.8% 3.9% 3.0% 5.6%1 Vehicle 9.4% 16.4% 16.1% 15.2% 37.3% 32.4% 33.5% 22.3% 16.5% 23.1%2 Vehicles 42.8% 48.3% 36.7% 42.7% 31.1% 40.1% 33.8% 37.1% 43.7% 40.1%3+ Vehicles 46.0% 34.3% 42.4% 41.0% 13.9% 21.3% 21.0% 37.1% 36.8% 31.2%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000Dearborn County has a low instance of zero-car households, with the highestpercentages being in Tracts 803 and 805, the Lawrenceburg and Aurora areas. This isnot unexpected due to the lower income rates of these two areas. The remaining tractshave zero auto ownership percentages well below 10%. Given the low availability oftransit in the region, the auto ownership percentages listed above are not surprising.Table 1E - Study Area Commuting PatternsCommutingDearborn County TractsMode 801.01 801.02 802.01 802.02 803 804 805 806 807Drive Alone 83.4% 85.6% 85.8% 82.1% 72.4% 90.2% 81.3% 82.1% 81.8%Carpool 10.7% 9.3% 6.7% 12.1% 18.5% 6.0% 13.0% 13.7% 14.6%Transit 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%Work at Home 4.5% 3.2% 2.4% 3.8% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9% 1.7% 2.9%Mean Travel Timeto Work (minutes)38.1 33.7 33.4 30.9 22.4 25.4 25.3 30.8 34.9Vehicle travel alone to work is the dominant mode of travel in the study area, as shownby Table 1E. This follows the trend of many communities in the U.S. and is indicative ofDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-9

the dominant mode of auto travel. Catch-A-Ride is the study area’s fixed route pointdeviation and demand responsive service with a limited accessibility outside the studyarea. This lack of transit coverage shows the study area’s dependence on vehicletravel.1.3.5 Agricultural ActivityData from the 1997 Census of Agriculture demonstrates the magnitude of agriculturalactivities in the study area. In 1997 the number of farms in the study area was 679 witha total acreage of 81,383 acres. The average size is 120 acres with most farms falling inthe range of 50 – 179 acres. Dearborn County produced a variety of crops including:corn, soybeans, wheat, and oats. Cows, hogs, and pigs were the majority of livestock.1.4 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK1.4.1 Study Area RoadwaysThe following section outlines the major roadways within the county.Interstate HighwaysThere are two interstates within the study area. Interstate I-74 begins in the Cincinnatiurban core and traverses Dearborn County connecting West Harrison andLawrenceville. According to the 2000 traffic counts by the Indiana Department ofTransportation (INDOT), the average daily traffic on the mainline is approximately30,000 vehicles per day near the Indiana/Ohio state line and drops to approximately20,000 near the Dearborn/Ripley County line. Interstate I-275 is a loop aroundCincinnati serving Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. I-275 is located in the southeast of thecounty with an exit at Lawrenceburg. INDOT 2000 traffic counts report approximately30,000 vehicles per day travel on I-275 within Indiana.US RoutesTwo US routes are within Dearborn County. US 50 travels along the southern portion ofthe county and connects the areas of Greendale, Lawrenceburg, Aurora and Dillsboro.This roadway is heavily traveled, seeing over 40,000 vehicles per day withinLawrenceburg according to INDOT 2001 traffic counts. US 50 is a major thoroughfarewithin the county, carrying traffic through the incorporated areas to I-275. The roadwaysees heavy congestion through the heart of Lawrenceburg during the peak hours. Theroadway is over capacity in this area and is also plagued with a number of traffic signals.In addition to the incorporated areas along US 50, Argosy Casino is also located alongthe roadway, which adds additional traffic. US 52 is located in the northern portion ofDearborn County and has a connection to I-74. US 52 enters Franklin County just northof the interstate. According to 2001 INDOT traffic counts, US 52 sees approximately7,000 vehicles per day.State RoutesState Routes 1, 46, 48, 56, 262 and 350 pass through the county. Below is a descriptionof each of the roadways.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-10

State Route 1SR 1 travels north-south across the county starting in Lawrenceburg and travelingthrough St. Leon. SR 1 has daily traffic volumes from 3,700 vehicles per day near theFranklin County Line to 14, 000 vehicles per day near US 50 and I-275. Unfortunately,SR 1 is a heavily traveled trucking route. While signs are posted discouraging trucktraffic, the industry continues to utilize the roadway as a short-cut between I-275 and I-74. The capacity along with the roadway geometry is not designed to handle this type oftraffic.State Route 46SR 46 begins at the I-74 and US 52 interchange and traverses the county toLawrenceville almost parallel to I-74. Traffic volumes on SR 46 are between 1,000 and4,600 vehicles per day.State Route 48SR 48 crosses the state connecting Lawrenceburg and Manchester. While roadwayvolumes are heavy near Lawrenceburg, volumes are approximately 12,000 vehicles perday and then decreases to 4,000 vehicles per day near the Ripley County Line.State Route 56SR 56 begins in Aurora and exits the county south at the Ohio County Line. Trafficvolumes are fairly significant in Aurora, just over 13,000 vehicles per day.State Route 262SR 262 travels north/south from US 50 through Milton and exits the county at theDearborn/Ohio County Line. There are approximately 3,000 vehicles per day utilizingthe roadway.State Route 350SR 350 also travels east/west across the county. It connects Aurora and Moores Hill.As expected traffic volumes are higher near Aurora, nearly 14,000 vehicles per day thenthe numbers decrease to approximately 6,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day through therural portion of the county.County RoadwaysThe roadway network in Dearborn is still mostly rural, with approximately 650 miles ofcounty roadways in the study area (not including incorporated areas). Many of theseroadways do not meet current design criteria as specified by INDOT and the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). They are toonarrow and the horizontal and vertical geometry is inadequate. While many of thesefacilities do not serve a significant number of vehicles, some are serving thrivingsuburban communities with capacity deficiencies. There is also an issue ofmaintenance. When roadways are not built to current standards, maintenance issuesbecome problematic. Emergency paving, slippage and drainage repairs are common inthe county.As part of the Transportation Assessment, 24-hour traffic counts were conducted on sixselected county roadways, identified by county staff. In addition to the new trafficcounts, some recent traffic count data was also collected from the Southern IndianaRegional Planning Commission. The traffic count data from both sources is shown inTables 1F &1G. A map of the site locations is shown in Figures 1-5 and 1-6.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-11

Table 1F – 2003 County Roadway 24-hour Traffic InformationAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)Site Code Street NameSouth North East West TotalADT ADT ADT ADT ADT1 Stateline Road 2,293 1,319 3,6122 Stateline Road 4,982 1,731 6,7133 Georgetown Road 666 1,868 2,5344 Jamison Road 2,224 5,308 7,5325 North Dearborn Road 2,477 512 2,9896 Sneakville Road 287 307 5947 North Dearborn Road 963 303 1,2668 Old US 52 3,887 5,968 9,8559 Mt. Pleasant Road 464 178 64210 Sawdon Ridge Road 528 545 1,07311 Pribble Road 1,078 526 1,60412 Whites Hill Road 1,470 797 2,26713 North Dearborn Road 1,249 279 1,52814 North Dearborn Road 1,320 382 1,70215 York Ridge Road 1,217 282 1,49916 Weisburg Road 527 386 91317 St. Peters Road 1,059 542 1,60118 North Hogan 856 374 1,23019 Chesterville Road 380 304 68420 Hogan Hill Road 524 551 1,07521 West County Line Road 363 347 71022 Cole Lane 1,959 1,011 2,97023 Texas Gas Road 289 190 47924 Arlington Road 175 184 35925 Wilson Creek Road 3,182 969 4,15126 North Hogan Road 210 127 33727 Sangamaw Road 221 278 49928 Laughery Creek Road 42 47 8929 Rummel Road 335 355 69030 Johnson Fork Road 1,448 893 2,34131 Collier Ridge Road 235 127 362Source: Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentTable 1G – 2002 County Roadway 24-hour Traffic InformationAverage Daily Traffic (ADT)DateStreet NameSouth North East West TotalADT ADT ADT ADT ADT11/19/2002 W County Line Road 275 200 47511/19/2002 Lawrenceville Road 456 321 77711/19/2002 Lower Dillsboro Road 150 207 35711/19/2002 Stitts Hill Road 213 348 56111/19/2002 York Ridge Road 358 447 80511/19/2002 Laughery Creek Road 10 12 2211/19/2002 Mt. Pleasant Road 175 200 37511/19/2002 Legion Road 111 174 28511/19/2002 Chesterville Road.. 266 166 43211/19/2002 Cole Lane 981 732 1,713Source: Southern Indiana Regional Planning CommissionDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-12

Figure 1-5 – 2001 Annual Average Daily TrafficDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-13

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-14Figure 1-6 – 2002-2003 Annual Average Daily Traffic Comparison

1.4.2 Intermodal Transportation OptionsIntermodal transportation refers to modes of transportation within the study area inaddition to roadways and highways. It includes considerations such as: public useairports, freight and passenger railroad services, bus transit services, marine terminalsand other water ports, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.AirportsThere are no public use airports located in Dearborn County. However, the GreaterCincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport is located only 20 minutes(approximately 18 miles) from the southeastern portion of the county. The airport haseight passenger airlines and serves approximately 20 million passengers per year.Freight and Passenger RailroadsCurrently Dearborn County has no passenger rail to serve the county. AMTRAK hasone passenger rail service line that serves the Greater Cincinnati Area. The completeroute connects Chicago, ILL with Washington, D.C. The route operates three times perweek. CSX and Central Railroad of Indiana serve Dearborn County with freight rail.TransitThe county is served by Catch-A-Ride, operated by Lifetime Resources, Inc., a fixedroute point deviation and demand responsive service. The service area coversDearborn, Jefferson, Ripley, Ohio, and Switzerland counties. In the past, service wasprovided to Cincinnati and Florence on a limited basis but due to financial constraints ithas been recently discontinued. Service to these areas could prove valuable in thefuture as Dearborn County continues to grow and should be investigated during longrange planning efforts.Marine Terminals and other Water PortsThe Consolidated Grain and Barge located in Aurora serves the county. Rohe Pavingand Gravel and Omare Paving and Gravel are also located on SR 56 near AuroraBicycle and Pedestrian FacilitiesThere is an existing pedestrian and bicycle trail in the cities of Lawrenceburg and Auroraalong the Ohio River. While this trail does not link the two cities, local plans include thecompletion of this facility. According to the city of Lawrenceburg Pedestrian ConnectivityStudy (2001), several other bicycle and walking trails are recommended. They includethe Lawrenceburg Levee Walk, the development of the Tanner’s Creek Trail on anabandoned railroad right-of-way and the creation of a loop around the city ofLawrenceburg. There is an existing shared use path along U.S. 50 and several sharedroadways in the northeast portion of Dearborn County.1.5 TOURISM ACTIVITIESDearborn County offers unique attractions to the area. This section describes the touristactivities available within the county.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-15

Entertainment Activities• Argosy Casino - Argosy Casino and hotel is located along US 50 inLawrenceburg and offers riverboat gambling and accommodations year round.The facility brings approximately 3.5 million visitors per year to the area.• Perfect North Slopes - Dearborn County is the location of Perfect North Slopes,the only ski resort in the Cincinnati area. The facility has approximately 70 acresof trails and sees approximately 150,000 to 175,000 visitors per year during thewinter operating months.• Chateau Winery – The Chateau Winery is located in Guilford and opened in1973. To date it is the largest vineyard within the state of Indiana at nearly 100acres.• Lawrenceburg Speedway – The Lawrenceburg Speedway is open during thesummer months and has a quarter-mile dirt track which races sprint cars,modified cars and pro-stocks. It is located in the Dearborn County Fairgrounds.• Competition Go-Kart Racing – Competition Go-Kart Racing is located inLawrenceburg just off US 50. This entertainment facility is open year round.Historic Sites• The Vance-Tousey House - This historic home was built in 1818 byLawrenceburg’s founder Samuel C. Vance. The home is considered one of thefinest examples of Federal architecture and is on the National Register of HistoricPlaces.• The Jesse Hunt House – This Lawrenceburg home was built in 1818 and isconsidered the first three story brick building in Indiana. The building has servedas both a hotel and restaurant over the years.• The Hillforest Victorian House Mansion – This unique Steamboat Gothicstructure is located in Aurora and was built in the mid-1850’s by Thomas Guff.The home is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and wasdesignated a National Historic Landmark in 1992• Carnegie Hall – Carnegie Hall was built in 1908 as part of Moores Hill MethodistCollege. Moores Hill College was founded in 1854 and is one of the earliest coeducationalcolleges in the country. Carnegie Hall is all that remains of thecampus. In 1994, the Hall was placed on the National Register of HistoricPlaces.• Veraestau – Jesse L. Holman, founder of Aurora and one of the first SupremeCourt Justices of Indiana built Veraestau in 1810 overlooking Aurora and theOhio River.Golf CoursesDearborn County is home to 5 golf courses including:• Country View Golf Course on Hyland Road• Elk Run Golf Course in Aurora• The Farm Golf Club in Logan• The Grand Oak Golf Club in West Harrison• Sugar Ridge Golf Club in LawrenceburgDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-16

1.6 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIESNumerous documents, including transportation planning studies, county plans and otherrelated reports have been developed to plan for, design, and implement varioustransportation-related improvements in the study area. Before proceeding with theTransportation Study, a clear understanding of these other documents was necessary inorder to fully understand the realm of problems and possible solutions that have beenpreviously identified or studied.Documents were examined for: (1) their relevance to the Transportation Assessmentand (2) their mention or description of transportation improvements that would have animpact to the transportation system in the study area. Studies or documents analyzedincluded those summarized below:Regional Rail PlanThe Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), the Transit Authority ofNorthern Kentucky (TANK), Hamilton County, and the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana RegionalCouncil of Governments (OKI) collaborated on a plan for the development of a regionalpassenger rail transit system in Hamilton County and the Greater Cincinnati/ NorthernKentucky area. The Regional Rail Plan is an outgrowth of a number of separate, yetcoordinated, analyses including long range planning efforts from various agencies.Western Corridor Transit OptionsWhile several alignments were identified as part of the Regional Rail Plan, of particularinterest to the Dearborn County Transportation Study are the Western Corridor TransitOptions. Two rail transit opportunities were identified for further study as a result of theRegional Rail Plan; a light rail alignment following Central Parkway and Interstate 74,and a commuter rail alignment using RailAmerica’s existing CIND Line along River Roadto Lawrenceburg. Additional studies would be required to advance either of theproposed Western Corridor rail projects. The OKI Board of Trustees is committed to aformal study of the Western Corridor and is actively pursuing funding for such an effort.SR 101 StudyThe SR 101 Corridor Improvement Feasibility/NEPA Study was undertaken by theIndiana Department of Transportation to assess the implications of limited north-southaccess in the SR 101 study area and to identify feasible alternatives. The study area ranapproximately 17 miles from I-74 in the north to US 50 in the south. It included thecounties of Dearborn, Ohio, Switzerland, Ripley and Jefferson. The study wascompleted in December 2002.While several alternatives were evaluated, the study concluded that a new roadwaybetween Markland Dam and US 50 (via SR 56) to I-74 was the most feasible. Thealternative would not only involve the acquisition of new right of way but also a newinterchange at I-74. The recommendations of the study also concluded that subsequentevaluation of the preferred alternative proceed through three phases; Phase 1 includedan evaluation of short-term, low-cost Transportation System Management Alternatives(TSM), Phase 2 would be the design and construction of the southern portion of thepreferred alternative and finally Phase 3 would be the completion of the northern portion.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-17

1.7 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTSAn understanding of the region’s past transportation projects and future transportationplans is important for study context as well as study decision-making. TransportationPlans analyzed for this study include:• INDOT Transportation Improvement Plan – FY 2002 to FY 2004• INDOT Long Range Plan – FY 2000 to 20251.7.1 INDOT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)Several projects are listed in the INDOT TIP for Dearborn County. These projectsaddress issues associated with the state-maintained roadway system in the study area.A similar plan is needed for the county roadways in the area.Project DescriptionSR 1 Slide CorrectionSR 1 IntersectionImprovementSR 1 IntersectionImprovementSR 1 RoadRehabilitationSR 46 SlideCorrectionTable 1H – INDOT TIP ProjectsLocationYear ofImplementationMt Pleasant Rd, 6.2 milesnorth of US 502002ProgramRoadsideImprovementsGeorgetown Rd 2004 Safety ImprovementsSawmill Rd, 0.66 milessouth of I-74US 50 to SR 46 20032.6 miles west of US 52 2002 & 2004SR 46 Resurfacing SR 11 to SR 1 2003US 50 Resurfacing SR 1 to Ohio State Line 2003US 50 Resurfacing SR 101 to Sharon Rd 2003SR 56 RoadReconstructionCounty Rd RailroadProtectionSpecial Road, Bike/Pedestrian FacilitiesCounty Road,Historical SitePreservationCity Street, Bike/Pedestrian FacilitiesCity Street,EnhancementCity Street, NewRoad ConstructionRising Sun to Aurora 20022004 Safety ImprovementsNon-InterstatePreservationRoadsideImprovementsNon-InterstatePreservationNon-InterstatePreservationNon-InterstatePreservationNon-InterstatePreservationRailroad Protection 2002 Safety ImprovementsGreendale - Bike/PedestrianTrail Roadway SurroundingGreendaleAurora - Bridge overLaughery Creek on SR 56 atOhio/ Dearborn County LineAurora - Lesko Park toAurora Corporate LineAurora - Aurora toLawrenceburg Trail; WilsonCreek to Lesko ParkLawrenceburg - 2.6 mileswest of US 521.7.2 INDOT Long Range Plan2002 Enhancement2002 Enhancement2003 Enhancement2003 Enhancement2002 Group IV ProgramThe Seymour District INDOT Long Range Plan shows the plan for the construction of aportion of State Route 48. This will be new construction that will join Wilson Creek RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-18

to US 50. The new roadway will be a two lane road spanning about 1.8 miles in theLawrenceburg area. The estimated cost of the new roadway is $14 million.1.8 SUMMARYThe economic base of the county is sound, with the poverty rate in most areas wellbelow the national average. These results are not unexpected given the type ofdevelopment that has taken place, mostly subdivisions serving commuters to theGreater Cincinnati region. While there are large employers in the region, includingArgosy and Seagram and Sons, Inc., many residents still work outside the county. Forthe county to continue to grow further, industry is needed to provide high quality, familysustainingjobs.Dearborn County is a rapidly growing area, with population increases well over thenational average for the last ten years. According to projections by OKI, this area thepopulation in this area is expected to jump by 60% by 2030. In fact, according to the2000 Census, some of Dearborn County is now within the urban boundary for GreaterCincinnati. While bedroom communities and large subdivisions are developing in theeastern portion of the county where fast and efficient access to the interstate system isavailable, the central and western portion of the county still remains rural. If thepopulation projections are correct, it is only reasonable to ascertain that rural areas willbecome thriving communities in the near future. Therefore, the transportation systemneeds to be upgraded to meet the changing conditions.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 1-19

ChapterTWOROADWAYFUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONSThe functional classifications of roadways are necessary to differentiate betweenseparate operating systems. In addition to disseminating roadways by operatingsystem, functional classification can also be based on route numbering or administrativeresponsibility. For the purposes of the Dearborn County Transportation Study, theroadways will be classified by operating class. This type of categorization is the mosthelpful when determining design features and for transportation planning. The datapresented in this section has been compiled from the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets, 2001 and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)Design Manual.The classification of highways by operating system in a rural setting is determined byseveral factors.• Geometric Characteristics – The physical design of the roadwayincluding, lane width, pavement width, grade etc.• Traffic Volumes – the volume of Average Daily Traffic the roadwayserves.• Connectivity – the level of connectivity and access the roadwayprovides. Higher design roadway classifications generally connect intercountyor inter-state roadways. Lower level classifications generallyprovide local access.• Access Control – the level of access that is permitted on the roadway.Each roadway in Dearborn County provides a particular function. In general thesefunctions are differentiated by a hierarchy of traffic movements which includes, fromhighest to lowest function, local access roads, collection systems, distribution facilitiesand primary movements. Each roadway in the county will be classified by one of theseoperational functions.2.1 URBAN VS. RURAL CLASSIFICATIONUrban and rural areas have fundamentally different characteristics in respect topopulation density, land use, street networks and travel patterns. Therefore, urban andrural highway systems are classified separately. Urban areas are defined by having adefinite boundary, as defined by INDOT, and a population of 5,000 persons or more. Atthe time of this study, there were no urban boundaries in Dearborn County, therefore theurban criteria does not apply and the roadways will be classified under a rural system.With the results of the 2000 census, this may change and the classifications within theDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-1

urban boundary will need to be updated. While there is not an urban boundary currentlyin the county, there are roadways which have a curb and gutter configuration; mostly inincorporated areas of the county. To account for these roadways we have included anUrban Local category.2.2 RURAL ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONSIn the past, Dearborn County has categorized roadways into four (4) classifications;freeway, arterial, collector, sub-collector/local. These classifications were basedprimarily on the connectivity of the facility and the degree of access that is provided. Ingeneral, the freeway category included I-74 and I-275, the arterials were identified asU.S. or State routes, collectors provided links between local roadways and arterials andthe remaining facilities were classified as sub-collectors/local streets. Upon furtherinvestigation, it was determined that a more detailed classification system was neededfor the county. A system that is not only based on connections provided but also on theadditional criteria listed earlier in this section.The INDOT Design Manual provides for several additional classifications based not onlyon connectivity but also the amount of traffic that a roadway serves. These additionalcategories will provide Dearborn County a more detailed picture of the roadway system.The new procedure to classify roadway will follow a two phase process.1) Classification by Access - A determination will be made as to theinterconnectivity of the roadway and the importance of the route not onlywithin the county but externally as well. This analysis will establish theroadway category; arterial, collector or local roadway.2) Classification by Traffic Volumes - After the roadway category isdetermined, an analysis of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) will subclassifythe facility and determine the design parameters appropriate tothat level of roadway.Each roadway classification utilized is accompanied by appropriate design criteria andtypical sections. These classifications along with the guidelines are detailed in thischapter.Arterial SystemThere are two types of arterials, the principal arterial and the rural arterial. A principalarterial is generally identified as a facility which serves corridor movements adequate forstatewide or interstate travel. The roadways in this category can be identified as theinterstate system within the county. As these routes are maintained by the state, theywill not be discussed in the Assessment; rather the effort is focused on the roadwaysmanaged by the county, the rural arterial system.Rural arterials are categorized by their linkages to cities or larger towns and theygenerally provide interstate or intercounty service. They are capable of attracting travelover long distances and have a spacing that is consistent with the population density inthe county. All developed areas are generally within a reasonable distance to a ruralarterial.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-2

To further classify the roadways in this category, three (3) sub-categories have beendeveloped based on the ADT volumes on the facilities. A list of these sub-categories islisted in Table 2A. As each sub-category serves a separate level of traffic, designcriteria has been developed separately to accommodate these differences. Forexample, a high-volume arterial’s design standards will be greater than that of a lowvolumearterial. Example typical sections and criteria for each are illustrated in Section2.3 of this report. Approximately 20% of the roadway miles in the county are classifiedas Arterials.Table 2A – Rural Arterial Sub-CategoriesSub-CategoryAverage Daily Traffic(ADT)Category I ADT < 400Category II 400 < ADT < 3,000Category III 3,000 < ADT < 5,000Category IV ADT > 5,000Collector SystemThe rural collector system generally serves intracounty travel as opposed to statewidemovements. The trips associated with a collector are predominantly shorter than thoseassociated with arterial routes. Consequently, lesser design speeds are used and thedesign standards are generally less than that of arterial routes. Collector routes provideservice to smaller communities and provide connections to the arterial system. They arecategorized as serving the more important intracounty routes. Collector roadwaysaccount for 20% of the roadway miles in the County.In order to further define the collector system the following sub-categories have beendeveloped based on the ADT volumes on the roadway.Table 2B – Rural Collector Sub-CategoriesSub-CategoryAverage Daily Traffic(ADT)Category I ADT 5,000Local RoadwaysThe local roadway system in contrast to the arterial and collector system primarilyprovides access to adjacent land and to the wider network. It serves principally shortertrips and constitutes all roadways not classified as arterials or collector roads. To furtherdesignate this category and the design parameters required a set of sub-categories hasbeen developed based on the roadway traffic volumes. Over half of the roadways inDearborn County are classified as local roadways. These sub-categories are presentedin Table 2C below.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-3

Table 2C – Local Roadway Sub-CategoriesSub-CategoryAverage Daily Traffic(ADT)Category I ADT 5,000Curb & Gutter Local RoadNA(Urban Local Road)Categories I-V and the subsequent examples typical sections illustrate a local roadwaywhere ample right of way is available for drainage concerns and minimal access isrequired. In some cases, as that of a subdivision for example, right of way is limited andnumerous driveway cuts are needed. In these instances, a curb and gutter section mayserve the area more appropriately. Therefore, we have included an example curb andgutter section in the report in addition to the traditional rural designs. The examplesection, as with each other section listed, have been compiled from the IndianaDepartment of Transportation Design Manual.It is important to note that the Roadway Functional Classifications will need to becontinually reviewed and updated by the county. Functional Classifications can changeover time due to new development and changing travel patterns.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-4

Figure 2-1 – Roadway Functional Classification MapDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-5

Street1ST ST2ND ST3 MILE RDG3RD ST4TH ST5TH ST6TH STACCESS RDADAMS STAEP DRAKES HILL RDAKES RDALANS BRANCH RDALBERTA DRALPINE DRAMITY DRAMM RDANDERSON RDANDRES RDANDREW CTAPPALACHIA DRAPPLE CTAQUA VISTA DRTable 2D – Roadway Functional ClassificationsCategory& Sub-CategoryCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadStreetARCH STARGOSY PKWYARLINGTON RDARTHUR STASCHE RDASH STASHWOOD CTASPEN HILL CTASPEN RIDGE DRATLANTIC AVEAUTUMN WAY DRBACK STBANBERRY CTBANBERRY DRBANK STBARBER RDBARRETT RDBARTH RDBASKET LNBATEMAN DRBATH RDBATTA RDBAUM HOLLOW RDCategory& Sub-CategoryCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IIRural CollectorCategory IRural CollectorCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IIRural Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IUrban Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-6

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryBEATTY RDCategory IRural Local RoadBLOOM RDCategory IRural Local RoadBEAU VISTA DRCategory IRural Local RoadBLUE CREEK RDCategory IIRural Local RoadBECKETT LNDGCategory IUrban Local RoadBLUE GOOSE RDCategory IRural Local RoadBEECHWOOD CIRCategory IRural Local RoadBLUE RIDGE CTCategory IRural Local RoadBELL ARBOR RDCategory IRural Local RoadBLUE RIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBELLAIRE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBOARDWALK DRCategory IRural Local RoadBELLEMEADE CTCategory IRural Local RoadBOCOCK RDCategory IRural Local RoadBELLEMEADE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBODE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBELLEVIEW DRCategory IUrban Local RoadBOND RDCategory IRural CollectorBELLS BRANCH RDCategory IRural Local RoadBONNELL RDCategory IIRural CollectorBENEDICT DRCategory IUrban Local RoadBOWER RDCategory IRural Local RoadBENEKER RDCategory IRural Local RoadBOYD RDCategory IRural Local RoadBENNING RDCategory IRural Local RoadBRABAMHURST DRCategory IRural Local RoadBERKSHIRE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBRANDT DRCategory IRural Local RoadBERNE CTCategory IRural Local RoadBRANDT RDCategory IRural Local RoadBESS DRCategory IRural Local RoadBRAUN STCategory IUrban Local RoadBIG WATER CTCategory IRural Local RoadBRIAR RIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBIHR RDCategory IRural Local RoadBRIARWAY CTCategory IRural Local RoadBILLUPS DRCategory IUrban Local RoadBRIARWAY NORTH DRCategory IRural Local RoadBIRCH STCategory IUrban Local RoadBRIARWOOD DRCategory IRural Local RoadBISCHOFF HILL RDCategory IRural Local RoadBRIDGEWAY STCategory IUrban Local RoadBITTNER RDCategory IRural Local RoadBRIGHT LEAF DRCategory IRural Local RoadBLASDEL DRCategory IRural Local RoadBRIGHT RIDGE CTCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-7

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryBRIGHT RIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBUTLER DRCategory IRural Local RoadBRIGHTLAND CTCategory IRural Local RoadCADES CTCategory IRural Local RoadBRIGHTLAND DRCategory IRural Local RoadCALTALPA STCategory IUrban Local RoadBRIGHTWOOD DRCategory IRural Local RoadCAMBRIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadBRINDLESTONE DRCategory IRural Local RoadCAMPGROUND DRCategory IRural Local RoadBRINDLEY DRCategory IUrban Local RoadCAMPO VERDE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBROADRIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadCAMPUS STCategory IUrban Local RoadBROADWAY STCategory IUrban Local RoadCANAL STCategory IUrban Local RoadBROOKRIDGE CIRCLE DRCategory IRural Local RoadCAROLINA TRACE RDCategory IRural Local RoadBROOKS RDCategory IRural Local RoadCARR RDCategory IRural Local RoadBROWN RDCategory IRural Local RoadCARRIE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBROWN STCategory IUrban Local RoadCARROLL AVECategory IUrban Local RoadBRUCE HILL RDCategory IRural Local RoadCARROLL STCategory IUrban Local RoadBRUSH FORK RDCategory IUrban Local RoadCASTLETINE RDCategory IRural Local RoadBUCKEYE CTCategory IRural Local RoadCATALPA AVECategory IUrban Local RoadBUENA VISTA AVECategory IRural Local RoadCATHERINE STCategory IRural Local RoadBULACH DRCategory IRural Local RoadCEDAR CLIFF DRCategory IRural Local RoadBUNKUM RDCategory IRural Local RoadCEDAR CREEK DRCategory IRural Local RoadBURNS RDCategory IRural Local RoadCEDAR RIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadBURTZELBACH RDCategory IRural CollectorCEDARVIEW CTCategory IRural Local RoadBUSINESS CENTER DRCategory IRural Local RoadCENTER STCategory IUrban Local RoadBUSSE LNCategory IRural Local RoadCENTRAL AVECategory IUrban Local RoadBUTLER CTCategory IRural Local RoadCENTRAL DRCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-8

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryCHALET CTCategory IRural Local RoadCOLLEGE STCategory IUrban Local RoadCHAPIN RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOLLIER RIDGE RDCategory IRural CollectorCHAPPELOW HILL RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOLORADO DRCategory IRural Local RoadCHAPPELOW RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadCONCORD SQUARE DRCategory IRural Local RoadCHARLOTTE STCategory IUrban Local RoadCOOK AVECategory IUrban Local RoadCHATHAM RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOOK LNCategory IUrban Local RoadCHESTERVILLE RDCategory IIRural CollectorCOOK RDCategory IRural Local RoadCHIPMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOPPERFIELD CTCategory IRural Local RoadCHURCH LNCategory IRural Local RoadCORA AVECategory IUrban Local RoadCHURCH RDCategory IRural Local RoadCORA DRCategory IRural Local RoadCHURCH STCategory IRural Local RoadCORA RDCategory IRural Local RoadCIRCLE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadCORNETT RDCategory IRural Local RoadCLAY MILLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOSBY DRCategory IRural Local RoadCLEARVIEW CTCategory IRural Local RoadCOTTAGE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadCLIFTMONT CIRCategory IRural Local RoadCOTTONWOOD CIRCategory IRural Local RoadCLINIC DRCategory IRural Local RoadCOUNTRY CLUB RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOAX LNCategory IRural Local RoadCOUNTRY HILLS CTCategory IRural Local RoadCOBB RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOUNTRY HILLS DRCategory IRural Local RoadCOCHRAN STCategory IUrban Local RoadCOUNTY FARM RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOLD SPRINGS RDCategory IRural Local RoadCOVE CIR ECategory IRural Local RoadCOLE LNCategory IIIRural CollectorCOVE CIR WCategory IRural Local RoadCOLE STCategory IUrban Local RoadCRAIG AVECategory IUrban Local RoadCOLLEGE BLVDCategory IUrban Local RoadCRANES RUN RDCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-9

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryCRAVENHURST DRCategory IRural Local RoadDEHILL DRCategory IRural Local RoadCREEKSIDE DRCategory IRural Local RoadDEJERUS LNCategory IUrban Local RoadCRESCENT DRCategory IRural Local RoadDELKER STCategory IRural Local RoadCRESTHAVEN DRCategory IRural Local RoadDENNIS RDCategory IRural Local RoadCRESTVIEW CTCategory IRural Local RoadDENRIDGE CTCategory IRural Local RoadCROSS DRCategory IRural Local RoadDEWITT RDCategory IRural Local RoadCROSS RDCategory IRural Local RoadDIEFENBACH RDCategory IRural Local RoadCUMBERLAND CTCategory IRural Local RoadDIEHL DRCategory IUrban Local RoadCUMBERLAND DRCategory IRural Local RoadDIETRICH CRESCENT DRCategory IUrban Local RoadCUTTER RDCategory IRural Local RoadDINAH DRCategory IRural Local RoadDAKOTA DRCategory IRural Local RoadDISBRO RDCategory IRural Local RoadDARLING RDCategory IRural Local RoadDITTMER RDCategory IRural Local RoadDAVID DRCategory IRural Local RoadDIXON STCategory IUrban Local RoadDAVIDSON RDCategory IRural Local RoadDOCKERY RDCategory IRural Local RoadDAVIES RDCategory IIRural Local RoadDOG RDCategory IRural Local RoadDAWN DRCategory IRural Local RoadDOGWOOD CTCategory IRural Local RoadDawn Paul DrCategory IRural Local RoadDOLE RDCategory IRural Local RoadDEAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadDONNA DRCategory IRural Local RoadDEARBORN CTCategory IUrban Local RoadDORMAN AVECategory IUrban Local RoadDEBORAH DRCategory IRural Local RoadDOUGHTY RDCategory IRural Local RoadDECKER AVECategory IUrban Local RoadDOUGLAS DRCategory IRural Local RoadDEER CTCategory IRural Local RoadDUNEVANT DRCategory IRural Local RoadDEER RUN DRCategory IRural Local RoadDUNN STCategory IUrban Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-10

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryDUTCH HOLLOW RDCategory IRural Local RoadELM STCategory IUrban Local RoadE 3RD STCategory IUrban Local RoadENNIS RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadE ADAMS STCategory IRural Local RoadESSEX LNCategory IRural Local RoadE CENTER STCategory IUrban Local RoadESTER JAMES LAKE RDCategory IRural Local RoadE FORK RDCategory IRural Local RoadESTER RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadE HIGH STCategory IUrban Local RoadEUGENE CTCategory IRural Local RoadE LAUGHERY CREEK RDCategory IRural Local RoadEUPHEMIA STCategory IUrban Local RoadE MAIN STCategory IRural Local RoadEWING RDCategory IRural Local RoadE TATE STCategory IUrban Local RoadEXPORTING STCategory IUrban Local RoadEAGLEVIEW DRCategory IRural Local RoadFACKLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadEARL CTCategory IRural Local RoadFAIR MEADOWS DRCategory IRural Local RoadEAST DRCategory IRural Local RoadFAIRVIEW STCategory IRural Local RoadEAST STCategory IUrban Local RoadFAIRWAY DRCategory IRural Local RoadEASY WAY DRCategory IRural Local RoadFALCON WAYCategory IRural Local RoadECHO TRLCategory IRural Local RoadFARM LAND DRCategory IRural Local RoadEDELWEISS DRCategory IRural Local RoadFARMERS RETREAT RDCategory IRural Local RoadEINSEL RDCategory IRural Local RoadFARRAR DRCategory IRural Local RoadELAM RDCategory IIRural CollectorFELLER AVECategory IUrban Local RoadELEANOR LNCategory IRural Local RoadFELLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadELIZABETH DRCategory IUrban Local RoadFERNGROVE CTCategory IRural Local RoadELLINGHAUSEN RDCategory IRural Local RoadFIELDCREST DRCategory IRural Local RoadELM CIRCLE DRCategory IRural Local RoadFIREWOOD WAYCategory IRural Local RoadELM DRCategory IRural Local RoadFIVE POINT RDCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-11

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryFLORENCE DRCategory IRural Local RoadGEORGETOWN RDCategory IIIRural Local RoadFLOYD CTCategory IRural Local RoadGHARTOM CIRCategory IRural Local RoadFOREST AVECategory IUrban Local RoadGIBSON DRCategory IRural Local RoadFOREST DRCategory IUrban Local RoadGLENEAGLES PLCategory IRural Local RoadFOUR WAY ACRESCategory IRural Local RoadGLENN DRCategory IUrban Local RoadFOX RDCategory IRural Local RoadGNAWBONE RDCategory IUrban Local RoadFOX RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadGOLFVIEW CTCategory IRural Local RoadFOXWOOD CTCategory IRural Local RoadGOOSE RUN RDCategory IIRural Local RoadFRANKLIN STCategory IUrban Local RoadGRAF RDCategory IRural Local RoadFRONT STCategory IUrban Local RoadGRAHAM CTCategory IRural Local RoadFUCHS RDCategory IRural Local RoadGRAND OAK DRCategory IRural Local RoadGABBARD DRCategory IRural Local RoadGRANT STCategory IUrban Local RoadGAFF STCategory IUrban Local RoadGREEN MEADOW DRCategory IRural Local RoadGAGES LNCategory IUrban Local RoadGREEN RDCategory IRural Local RoadGARDEN GREEN DRCategory IRural Local RoadGREENHILL CTCategory IRural Local RoadGARDEN MEADOWS DRCategory IRural Local RoadGREENLAWN WAYCategory IRural Local RoadGARDEN RIDGE AVECategory IUrban Local RoadGREENTREE RDCategory IRural Local RoadGARY DRCategory IRural Local RoadGREENWOOD DRCategory IRural Local RoadGATCH HILL RDCategory IRural CollectorGREGORY RDCategory IRural Local RoadGAYNOR RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadGRELLE RDCategory IRural CollectorGEIGER RDCategory IIRural Local RoadGRIMSLEY RDCategory IRural Local RoadGENEVA CTCategory IRural Local RoadGRUBBS RDCategory IRural Local RoadGEORGE STCategory IUrban Local RoadGULON STCategory IUrban Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-12

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryGUNKLE PLCategory IUrban Local RoadHARTFORD CIRCategory IRural Local RoadGUTAPFEL RDCategory IRural Local RoadHARTLAND CTCategory IRural Local RoadGUTMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadHARTMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadGUTZWILLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadHARVEY RDCategory IRural Local RoadHAAG AVECategory IUrban Local RoadHAUBROCK RDCategory IRural Local RoadHAAS RDCategory IRural Local RoadHAWLEY DRCategory IRural Local RoadHADDOCK DRCategory IRural Local RoadHAWTHORNE HTSCategory IRural Local RoadHAGER RDCategory IRural Local RoadHAYES STCategory IUrban Local RoadHAMPTON DRCategory IRural Local RoadHAYMAN DRCategory IUrban Local RoadHANBY CIRCategory IRural Local RoadHEATHER CTCategory IRural Local RoadHANOVER AVECategory IUrban Local RoadHECK DRCategory IUrban Local RoadHANOVER DRCategory IRural Local RoadHEDGEWOOD DRCategory IRural Local RoadHAPPY HOLLOW RDCategory IRural Local RoadHEIDI HAVEN DRCategory IRural Local RoadHARDING RDCategory IRural Local RoadHEINER HTSCategory IRural Local RoadHARDWOOD RIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadHENDERSON RDCategory IRural Local RoadHARMONY HILL DRCategory IRural Local RoadHENRY STCategory IUrban Local RoadHARRIET AVECategory IRural Local RoadHICKORY DRCategory IRural Local RoadHARRIET STCategory IUrban Local RoadHICKORY RDCategory IRural Local RoadHARRINGTON RDCategory IRural Local RoadHIDDEN VALLEY DRCategory IRural Local RoadHARRISON AVECategory IUrban Local RoadHIGH STCategory IUrban Local RoadHARRISON STCategory IUrban Local RoadHIGHLAND AVECategory IRural Local RoadHARRISON STCategory IRural Local RoadHIGHLANDER DRCategory IRural Local RoadHARRY AVECategory IUrban Local RoadHIGHRIDGE CTCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-13

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryHIGHRIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadI AND M STCategory IUrban Local RoadHILBERT RDCategory IRural Local RoadINDIAN WOODS TRLCategory IRural Local RoadHILL RDCategory IRural Local RoadINDIANA AVECategory IUrban Local RoadHILL TOP DRCategory IRural Local RoadINTERLOCHEN LNCategory IRural Local RoadHILLCREST DRCategory IRural Local RoadIRELAND RDCategory IRural Local RoadHILLSIDE AVECategory IUrban Local RoadIVY HILL DRCategory IRural Local RoadHILLVIEW DRCategory IRural Local RoadJACKSON RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadHILTZ RDCategory IRural Local RoadJACKSON STCategory IUrban Local RoadHINMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadJACOBS RDCategory IRural Local RoadHOFFMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadJACOBSEN RDCategory IRural Local RoadHOGAN CREEK RDCategory IRural Local RoadJAMISON DRCategory IRural Local RoadHOGAN HILL RDCategory IIIRural CollectorJAMISON RDCategory IVRural ArterialHOLLAND DRCategory IUrban Local RoadJANDEL DRCategory IRural Local RoadHOLLYHEDGE LNCategory IRural Local RoadJAST ACRES LNCategory IUrban Local RoadHOLT RDCategory IRural Local RoadJAY LYNN DRCategory IRural Local RoadHON RDCategory IUrban Local RoadJEB CTCategory IRural Local RoadHoppy HollowCategory IRural Local RoadJEB DRCategory IRural Local RoadHORIZON WAYCategory IRural Local RoadJENNIFER RDCategory IRural Local RoadHORTON RDCategory IRural Local RoadJENNY LYNN DRCategory IRural Local RoadHOUSTON RDCategory IRural Local RoadJEWETT DRCategory IRural Local RoadHUESEMAN RDCategory IRural CollectorJOHNSON FORK RDCategory IIIRural Local RoadHUFFMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadJOHNSON STCategory IUrban Local RoadHYLAND RDCategory IRural Local RoadJOSEPH CTCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-14

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryJOSEPH LNCategory IRural Local RoadKOCHER RDCategory IRural Local RoadJOY LYNNE DRCategory IRural Local RoadKOLB RDCategory IRural Local RoadJUDD DRCategory IRural Local RoadKONRADI RDCategory IRural Local RoadJUDICIARY STCategory IUrban Local RoadKRAUS RDCategory IRural Local RoadJUSTIS RDCategory IRural Local RoadKRIS KROSSINGCategory IRural Local RoadKACEE CTCategory IUrban Local RoadKRISTEN DRCategory IRural Local RoadKAISER DRCategory IIRural CollectorKUEBEL RDCategory IRural Local RoadKAMMEYER RDCategory IRural Local RoadKYM CTCategory IRural Local RoadKANSAS STCategory IUrban Local RoadLAKE DILLDEAR RDCategory IRural Local RoadKARST RDCategory IRural Local RoadLAKE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadKATHY CTCategory IRural Local RoadLAKE STCategory IUrban Local RoadK-BOY DRCategory IRural Local RoadLAKE TAMBO RDCategory IIRural CollectorKEETS CTCategory IUrban Local RoadLAKEVIEW DRCategory IRural Local RoadKELLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadLAMPLIGHT DRCategory IRural Local RoadKELLY BIRD DRCategory IRural Local RoadLANGLEY HTSCategory IUrban Local RoadKELSEY RDCategory IRural Local RoadLANGTREE STCategory IUrban Local RoadKING STCategory IUrban Local RoadLATTIER RDCategory IRural Local RoadKIRBY RDCategory IRural Local RoadLATTIMER RDCategory IRural Local RoadKLARE XINGCategory IRural Local RoadLAUGHERY CREEK RDCategory IRural Local RoadKLAUSING RDCategory IRural Local RoadLAUMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadKLEIN ACRES RDCategory IRural Local RoadLAURA DRCategory IRural Local RoadKNOLLWOOD DRCategory IRural Local RoadLAUREL LNCategory IUrban Local RoadKNOPF RDCategory IRural Local RoadLAWRENCE STCategory IUrban Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-15

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryLAWRENCEBURG RDCategory IRural Local RoadLOCUST STCategory IUrban Local RoadLAWRENCEVILLE RDCategory IIRural CollectorLOG LNCategory IRural Local RoadLAWSON CTCategory IRural Local RoadLONGBRANCH RDCategory IRural Local RoadLEATHERWOOD RDCategory IRural Local RoadLONGNECKER RDCategory IRural Local RoadLEFFLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadLONGVIEW DRCategory IRural Local RoadLEGION RDCategory IRural CollectorLORETTA STCategory IRural Local RoadLELA DRCategory IRural Local RoadLOREY LNCategory IRural Local RoadLENOVER STCategory IUrban Local RoadLOSECAMP RDCategory IRural Local RoadLEONA DRCategory IRural Local RoadLOUDEN RDCategory IRural Local RoadLEWIS RDCategory IRural Local RoadLOWER DILLSBORO RDCategory IRural CollectorLEWIS STCategory IUrban Local RoadLUCERNE LNCategory IRural Local RoadLEXINGTON DRCategory IRural Local RoadLUDLOW STCategory IUrban Local RoadLIEBCHEN CTCategory IRural Local RoadLUTZ RDCategory IRural Local RoadLIESL CTCategory IRural Local RoadMAIN STCategory IUrban Local RoadLIGGETT RDCategory IRural Local RoadMAIN STCategory IUrban Local RoadLIMESTONE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMAIN STCategory IUrban Local RoadLINCOLN CTCategory IUrban Local RoadMAIN STCategory IUrban Local RoadLINCOLN STCategory IUrban Local RoadMAIN STCategory IUrban Local RoadLINLEY LNCategory IUrban Local RoadMAIN STCategory IRural Local RoadLIPPS RDCategory IRural Local RoadMALLORY RDCategory IRural Local RoadLIPSCOMB RDCategory IRural Local RoadMANCHESTER LANDINGSTCategory IUrban Local RoadLIVINGSTON RDCategory IRural Local RoadMANCHESTER STCategory IUrban Local RoadLOCUST STCategory IRural Local RoadMAPLE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-16

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryMAPLE GLEN DRCategory IUrban Local RoadMAUNE RDCategory IRural Local RoadMAPLE KNOLL CTCategory IRural Local RoadMC MANAMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadMAPLE LEAF LNCategory IRural Local RoadMCCANN RDCategory IRural Local RoadMAPLE STCategory IUrban Local RoadMCCLURE WAYCategory IUrban Local RoadMAPLE STCategory IRural Local RoadMCGUIRE STCategory IUrban Local RoadMAPLERIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMCINTOSH VISCategory IRural Local RoadMAPLEWOOD CTCategory IRural Local RoadMCQUEEN RDCategory IRural Local RoadMARCIA CTCategory IRural Local RoadMEADOWBROOK DRCategory IRural Local RoadMARGARET STCategory IUrban Local RoadMEADOWCREEK DRCategory IUrban Local RoadMARIE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMEADOWRIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMARIE STCategory IUrban Local RoadMECHANIC STCategory IUrban Local RoadMARINA ESTSCategory IRural Local RoadMEERCHAM WAYCategory IRural Local RoadMARKET STCategory IRural Local RoadMEGAN DRCategory IRural Local RoadMARKS WAY RDCategory IRural Local RoadMEGRUE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMARLOWE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMELODY LNCategory IRural Local RoadMARSH RDCategory IRural Local RoadMEMORIAL DRCategory IRural Local RoadMARTHA DR NCategory IRural Local RoadMEYER RDCategory IRural Local RoadMARTHA DR SCategory IRural Local RoadMEYERFIELD PLCategory IRural Local RoadMARTIN LUTHER KING DRCategory IUrban Local RoadMICHAEL DRCategory IRural Local RoadMARTIN RDCategory IRural Local RoadMICHELLE LNCategory IUrban Local RoadMARY KAY LNCategory IRural Local RoadMIDWAY CTCategory IUrban Local RoadMARY STCategory IUrban Local RoadMILLER AVECategory IUrban Local RoadMATTERHORN DRCategory IRural Local RoadMILLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-17

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryMILLER STCategory IUrban Local RoadMURRAY RDCategory IRural Local RoadMILLSTONE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMYRTLE LNCategory IRural Local RoadMINGER DRCategory IUrban Local RoadN BOWLES STCategory IUrban Local RoadMISTY LNCategory IRural Local RoadN BROADWAY STCategory IUrban Local RoadMOBILE CIRCategory IUrban Local RoadN COUNTY LINE RDCategory IIRural CollectorMOBILE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadN DEARBORN RDCategory IIRural ArterialMONTANA DRCategory IRural Local RoadN HOGAN RDCategory IIIRural CollectorMONTCLAIR CTCategory IRural Local RoadN MANCHESTER RDCategory IRural Local RoadMONTERAY CIRCategory IRural Local RoadN STATE STCategory IIRural ArterialMONTEREY CIRCategory IRural Local RoadNADIA LNCategory IUrban Local RoadMOODY RDCategory IRural Local RoadNEAD LNCategory IUrban Local RoadMOORE LNCategory IRural Local RoadNELSON DRCategory IRural Local RoadMOORE STCategory IUrban Local RoadNELSON RDCategory IRural Local RoadMORGAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadNEVADA CTCategory IRural Local RoadMORGANS BRANCH RDCategory IRural Local RoadNEW LIFE LNCategory IRural Local RoadMORNINGSIDE DRCategory IRural Local RoadNEW STCategory IUrban Local RoadMOSMEIER RDCategory IRural Local RoadNEW TRENTON RDCategory IRural Local RoadMOUNT PLEASANT RDCategory IIRural CollectorNEWCOM KNLSCategory IRural Local RoadMOUNT SINAI RDCategory IRural Local RoadNOLTE RDCategory IRural Local RoadMOUNT TABOR RDCategory IRural Local RoadNORKUS RDCategory IRural Local RoadMOUNTAIN MEADOWS CTCategory IRural Local RoadNOWLIN AVECategory IUrban Local RoadMOUNTAIN WYCategory IRural Local RoadOAK CIRCLE DRCategory IRural Local RoadMULFORD STCategory IUrban Local RoadOAK CTCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-18

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryOAK STCategory IUrban Local RoadPAR DRCategory IRural Local RoadOAK STCategory IUrban Local RoadPARK AVECategory IRural Local RoadOAKDALE CIRCategory IUrban Local RoadPARK GROVE AVECategory IUrban Local RoadOAKEY AVECategory IUrban Local RoadPARK STCategory IUrban Local RoadOAKHAVEN CTCategory IRural Local RoadPARKSIDE AVECategory IUrban Local RoadOAKHAVEN DRCategory IRural Local RoadPATTISON STCategory IUrban Local RoadOAKRIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadPELLA XINGCategory IRural Local RoadOAKWOOD CTCategory IRural Local RoadPEPPERTOWN RDCategory IRural Local RoadOBERTING RDCategory IRural Local RoadPERFORMANCE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadOLD HICKORY RDCategory IRural CollectorPERSIMMON WOODS LNCategory IRural Local RoadOLD HOGAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadPICNIC LAWN DRCategory IRural Local RoadOLD SR 56Category IRural Local RoadPICNIC WOODS DRCategory IRural Local RoadOLD STATE HWY 1Category IRural CollectorPIN OAK LNCategory IUrban Local RoadOLD STATE ROAD 350Category IUrban Local RoadPINDELL RDCategory IUrban Local RoadOLD US HWY 52Category IVRural ArterialPINE RIDGE LNCategory IRural Local RoadONE MILE RDCategory IRural Local RoadPINE STCategory IUrban Local RoadORCHARD DRCategory IRural Local RoadPINE VALLEY CTCategory IRural Local RoadOSBORNE RDCategory IRural Local RoadPINHOOK RDCategory IRural Local RoadOUTER DRCategory IRural Local RoadPIPER LNCategory IRural Local RoadOVERLOOK CIRCategory IRural Local RoadPLATT RDCategory IRural Local RoadOVERLOOK DRCategory IRural Local RoadPLEASANT VIEW DRCategory IRural Local RoadPACIFIC AVECategory IRural Local RoadPOLLARD RDCategory IRural Local RoadPALMER RDCategory IRural Local RoadPONTIAC DRCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-19

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryPOPLAR STCategory IUrban Local RoadREDWOOD DRCategory IRural Local RoadPOPLAR STCategory IRural Local RoadREESE DRCategory IRural Local RoadPOSSUM RIDGE RDCategory IRural CollectorRENCK CTCategory IRural Local RoadPOST 464 RDCategory IRural Local RoadRICE RDCategory IRural Local RoadPRIBBLE CIRCategory IRural Local RoadRICHMOND STCategory IRural Local RoadPRIBBLE RDCategory IIIRural CollectorRIDGE AVECategory IRural Local RoadPRIEST RDCategory IIRural CollectorRIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadPRIMROSE DRCategory IRural Local RoadRIDGECLIFF CTCategory IRural Local RoadPROBASCO STCategory IUrban Local RoadRIDGEWOOD CIRCategory IRural Local RoadPROBST RDCategory IRural Local RoadRISING SUN PIKECategory IUrban Local RoadPROFESSIONAL PARK DRCategory IRural Local RoadRITZMANN DRCategory IUrban Local RoadPROSPERITY RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadRIVER RDCategory IRural Local RoadPRUYN STCategory IUrban Local RoadROBERTS RDCategory IRural Local RoadPUTTER PLCategory IRural Local RoadROBINSON DRCategory IUrban Local RoadQUARRY DRCategory IRural Local RoadROLLING DRCategory IRural Local RoadRABA CTCategory IRural Local RoadROSEMEADE DRCategory IRural Local RoadRAILROAD AVECategory IUrban Local RoadRUBLE RDCategory IRural Local RoadRAINBOW RDCategory IRural Local RoadRUDOLPH WAYCategory IUrban Local RoadRAND DRCategory IUrban Local RoadRULLMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadRANDALL AVECategory IRural Local RoadRUMMEL RDCategory IIRural Local RoadRANDY AVECategory IRural Local RoadRUMSEY RDCategory IRural Local RoadRAVENDA DRCategory IRural Local RoadRUNNING DEER LNCategory IRural Local RoadRAY LYNN DRCategory IRural Local RoadRUSSELL RDCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-20

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryRUSTIC DRCategory IRural Local RoadSCENIC DRCategory IRural Local RoadRUTH AVECategory IRural Local RoadSCHAEFER RDCategory IRural Local RoadRYAN CTCategory IRural Local RoadSCHAICH RDCategory IRural Local RoadS BOWLES STCategory IUrban Local RoadSCHANTZ RDCategory IRural Local RoadS BROADWAY STCategory IUrban Local RoadSCHLEMNER CTCategory IRural Local RoadS HOGAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadSCHMALTZ RDCategory IRural Local RoadS PRUYN STCategory IUrban Local RoadSCHNEBELT STCategory IUrban Local RoadS STATE STCategory IUrban Local RoadSCHUMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadSAINT ANDREW LNCategory IRural Local RoadSCHUSTER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSAINT CLAIR STCategory IUrban Local RoadSCHWIER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSAINT JOE DRCategory IRural Local RoadSCHWIPP RDCategory IRural Local RoadSAINT LEON CTCategory IRural Local RoadSCUDDER CIRCategory IUrban Local RoadSAINT MORITZ CTCategory IRural Local RoadSCUDDER DRCategory IUrban Local RoadSAINT PETERS RDCategory IIIRural Local RoadSEFTAN LNCategory IRural Local RoadSALT FORK CTCategory IRural Local RoadSELDOM SEEN DRCategory IRural Local RoadSALT FORK RDCategory IRural CollectorSEQUOTA CTCategory IRural Local RoadSAMILL RDCategory IRural Local RoadSERENITY RIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadSAND RUN RDCategory IRural CollectorSHADOW DRCategory IRural Local RoadSANDAMONT DRCategory IRural Local RoadSHADY LANE CTCategory IRural Local RoadSANDSTONE DRCategory IRural Local RoadSHADY LNCategory IRural Local RoadSANGAMAW RDCategory IIRural Local RoadSHAE LNCategory IUrban Local RoadSAPLING CTCategory IRural Local RoadSHANA LNCategory IUrban Local RoadSAWDON RIDGE RDCategory IIIRural CollectorSHANGRILA DRCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-21

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategorySHARON DRCategory IRural Local RoadSPRINGDALE RDCategory IRural Local RoadSHAWNEE DRCategory IRural Local RoadSPRINGWOOD CTCategory IRural Local RoadSHELDON STCategory IUrban Local RoadSTADIUM LNCategory IUrban Local RoadSHERMAN DRCategory IRural Local RoadSTAMPER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSHERMAN STCategory IUrban Local RoadSTATE HWY 1Category IIIRural ArterialSHIPPING STCategory IUrban Local RoadSTATE HWY 148Category IIRural ArterialSHORT HILL AVECategory IRural Local RoadSTATE HWY 262Category IVRural ArterialSHORT LNCategory IRural Local RoadSTATE HWY 46Category IVRural ArterialSHORT RDCategory IRural Local RoadSTATE HWY 48Category IVRural ArterialSHORT RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadSTATE HWY 62Category IIIRural ArterialSHORT STCategory IUrban Local RoadSTATE LINE RDCategory IVRural ArterialSHUTER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSTATE ROAD 350Category IVRural ArterialSIEFFERMAN CTCategory IRural Local RoadSTATE ROAD 56Category IIIRural ArterialSIEFFERMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadSTATION HOLLOW RDCategory IRural Local RoadSKYVIEW CIRCategory IRural Local RoadSTEELE RDCategory IRural Local RoadSMOKEY MOUNTAIN DRCategory IRural Local RoadSTEEPLE CHASE CTCategory IRural Local RoadSNEAKVILLE RDCategory IIRural CollectorSTEINHAUSER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSOAP HILL RDCategory IRural CollectorSTEVENS RDCategory IRural Local RoadSOAPSTONE DRCategory IRural Local RoadSTEWART RDCategory IRural Local RoadSPANGLER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSTEWART STCategory IUrban Local RoadSPARTA PIKECategory IRural Local RoadSTIMSON RDCategory IRural Local RoadSPEEDWAY DRCategory IUrban Local RoadSTITTS HILL RDCategory IIRural Local RoadSPRINGDALE CTCategory IRural Local RoadSTONEGATE DRCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-22

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategorySTONEY LONESOME RDCategory IRural Local RoadTHOMAS RDCategory IRural Local RoadSTOOPS RDCategory IRural Local RoadTHORNHILL LNCategory IRural Local RoadSTOUT RDCategory IRural Local RoadTIGER BLVDCategory IUrban Local RoadSTROTHER DRCategory IRural Local RoadTIMBERLANE RDCategory IRural Local RoadSUMMIT DRCategory IRural Local RoadTIMBERLINE TRLCategory IRural Local RoadSUNNY DRCategory IRural Local RoadTIMBERVIEW RDCategory IRural Local RoadSUNNYRIDGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadTODDS LNCategory IUrban Local RoadSUNSET DRCategory IUrban Local RoadTOWER RDCategory IRural Local RoadSUNSET DRCategory IRural Local RoadTRACEY LNCategory IRural Local RoadSUNSET DRCategory IRural Local RoadTRACKVILLE RDCategory IRural Local RoadSYCAMORE ESTATES DRCategory IRural Local RoadTRAILSIDE DRCategory IRural Local RoadSYCAMORE STCategory IRural Local RoadTRANQUILITYCategory IRural Local RoadSYCAMORE WOODS DRCategory IRural Local RoadTREE TOP DRCategory IRural Local RoadSYKES DRCategory IRural Local RoadTRESTER HLCategory IUrban Local RoadTALI TRLCategory IRural Local RoadTREVOR DRCategory IRural Local RoadTAMARACK CTCategory IRural Local RoadTROJAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadTANGMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadTROON PLCategory IRural Local RoadTANNER AVECategory IUrban Local RoadTUPPENCE TRLCategory IRural Local RoadTANNERS CREEK LNCategory IUrban Local RoadTURKEY POINT RDCategory IRural Local RoadTEBBS AVECategory IUrban Local RoadTWIN OAKS DRCategory IUrban Local RoadTemple DrCategory IRural Local RoadTYROLEAN WAYCategory IRural Local RoadTERRILL RDCategory IRural Local RoadULHMANSIEK RDCategory IRural Local RoadTEXAS GAS RDCategory IIRural Local RoadUNION RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-23

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryURBAN WYCategory IUrban Local RoadW CONWELL STCategory IUrban Local RoadUS HWY 50Category IVRural ArterialW COUNTY LINE RDCategory IIRural CollectorUS HWY 52Category IVRural ArterialW HARRISON AVECategory IUrban Local RoadUTAH CTCategory IRural Local RoadW HIGH STCategory IUrban Local RoadVALLEY DRCategory IRural Local RoadW MOORE STCategory IUrban Local RoadVALLEY VISTA CTCategory IRural Local RoadW TATE STCategory IUrban Local RoadVALLEY VISTA DRCategory IRural Local RoadWALKER AVECategory IUrban Local RoadVALRENE CTCategory IRural Local RoadWALNUT GRVCategory IRural Local RoadVAN WEDDING RDCategory IRural Local RoadWALNUT RIDGE TRLCategory IRural Local RoadVELMA DRCategory IRural Local RoadWALNUT STCategory IUrban Local RoadVENTURA DRCategory IRural Local RoadWALNUT STCategory IRural Local RoadVIKING DRCategory IRural Local RoadWALT PANER RDCategory IRural Local RoadVILLAGE DRCategory IRural Local RoadWALTERS RDCategory IRural Local RoadVINE STCategory IUrban Local RoadWARREN PLCategory IUrban Local RoadVINEYARD CTCategory IRural Local RoadWASHINGTON STCategory IUrban Local RoadVOGEL RDCategory IRural Local RoadWASHINGTON STCategory IRural Local RoadVOGELSANG RDCategory IRural Local RoadWATER STCategory IUrban Local RoadVOLZ RDCategory IRural Local RoadWATSON RDCategory IRural Local RoadW 4TH STCategory IUrban Local RoadWAYNE AVECategory IUrban Local RoadW ADAMS STCategory IRural Local RoadWEBSTER STCategory IUrban Local RoadW BELLEVIEW RDCategory IUrban Local RoadWEILER RDCategory IRural Local RoadW BROADWAY STCategory IUrban Local RoadWEISBURG RDCategory IIRural Local RoadW CENTER STCategory IUrban Local RoadWESLEYER STCategory IUrban Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-24

StreetCategory& Sub-CategoryStreetCategory& Sub-CategoryWESLING RDCategory IRural Local RoadWINGATE RDCategory IRural Local RoadWESSELER RDCategory IRural Local RoadWINTER STCategory IUrban Local RoadWEST STCategory IUrban Local RoadWITT RDCategory IRural Local RoadWESTSIDE DRCategory IUrban Local RoadWOLIUING RDCategory IRural Local RoadWHISPERING WOODS DRCategory IRural Local RoadWOOD STCategory IUrban Local RoadWHITE PLAINS RDCategory IRural Local RoadWOODLAND CIRCategory IRural Local RoadWHITE RIDGE RDCategory IRural Local RoadWOODLAND HLSCategory IRural Local RoadWHITES HILL RDCategory IIIRural Local RoadWOODLAWN AVECategory IRural Local RoadWIEDEMAN RDCategory IRural Local RoadWOODS RDCategory IRural Local RoadWILBUR DRCategory IRural Local RoadWYMON STCategory IUrban Local RoadWILKERSON RDCategory IRural Local RoadYODELODEL LNCategory IRural Local RoadWILLIAMS STCategory IUrban Local RoadYORK AVECategory IUrban Local RoadWILLOUGBY RDCategory IRural Local RoadYORK STCategory IRural Local RoadWILMINGTON CTCategory IRural Local RoadYORKRIDGE RDCategory IIIRural CollectorWILMINGTON HILLS DR NCategory IRural Local RoadZIEGLER BLVDCategory IRural Local RoadWILMINGTON HILLS DR SCategory IRural Local RoadZIMMER RDCategory IRural Local RoadWILMINGTON PIKECategory IRural CollectorZINSER RDCategory IRural Local RoadWILSON CREEK RDCategory IVRural CollectorZURICH TRLCategory IRural Local RoadWINDEMERE HLCategory IRural Local RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-25

2.3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION EXAMPLE TYPICAL SECTIONSThe following figures list example typical sections and guidelines for each of the RuralRoadway Functional Classification categories described in Section 2.2. Thesecriterions were compiled using information from the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets, 2001 and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)Design Manual. The sections and guidelines listed below are to be utilized only asexamples and should not be viewed as a final design. Roadway design is a complicatedand in-depth process requiring the evaluation of several individual factors including butnot limited to, drainage, pavement design, environmental factors and geometrics. Theseindividualized factors are beyond the scope of the work completed here. Detailed designmust be undertaken each time a roadway is rehabilitated or constructed. The examplesections and criteria presented below are intended to be utilized for planning andcomparison purposes only, roadway design should always be completed on a case-bycasebasis.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-26

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-27Figure 2-2 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category I Rural Arterial

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-28Figure 2-3 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category II Rural Arterial

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-29Figure 2-4 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category III Rural Arterial

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-30Figure 2-5 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category IV Rural Arterial

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-31Figure 2-6 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category I Local Rural Collector

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-32Figure 2-7 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category II Local Rural Collector

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-33Figure 2-8 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category III Local Rural Collector

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-34Figure 2-9 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category IV Local Rural Collector

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-35Figure 2-10 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category V Local Rural Collector

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-36Figure 2-11 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category I Local Rural Road

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-37Figure 2-12 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category II Local Rural Road

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-38Figure 2-13 – Geometric Design Criteria: Category III Local Rural Road

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-39Figure 2-14– Geometric Design Criteria: Category IV Local Rural Road

Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 2-41Figure 2-16– Geometric Design Criteria: 2-Lane Curb & Gutter Local Roadway

ChapterTHREEROADWAY ASSESSMENTOne of the goals of the Dearborn County Transportation Assessment identified the needto “provide an accurate blueprint of the county roadway system to assist inunderstanding the growth of the county and its future needs.” The gathering andanalysis of centerline and roadway attribute data achieves this objective.3.1 DATA GATHERING & EXTRACTIONOne of the first tasks of the project was to complete a Global Information System (GIS)digital centerline map of roadways in the entire county. This task was accomplishedusing data collection vehicles containing eight (8) cameras collecting spatially indexedvideo for all Dearborn County. Each video frame is tagged with precise geographiccoordinates computed with data from an Inertial Motion Unit (IMU) and GlobalPositioning Satellite (GPS) signals to support 360° roadway measurements andcoordinate location extraction.Select attributes of the roadways were also collected during this process. They includedthe number of lanes, the pavement width, the shoulder width, the pavement type, thepavement condition, and existence of pavement markings. Along with roadwayattributes, a sign and guardrail inventory was also completed. All of thesecharacteristics are now associated with the digital GIS centerline map. A completelisting of the all roadway attribute data is contained in the Appendix of this document.3.2 ASSESSMENT DATA SUMMARYBefore this study was undertaken, a complete roadway inventory of the county had notbeen completed since the early 1970’s. At that time a manual assessment wasperformed and from that starting point new roadway miles were added as they wereconstructed. In 2002, Dearborn County claimed 503 miles of county roadways to theIndiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), excluding incorporated areas. At thecompletion of the data extraction for this project it was determined that Dearborn Countywas actually responsible for 532 miles of roadway, a 29 mile increase. This increasehas implications for funding. Funding from the INDOT is determined by the amount ofroadway miles in the county; therefore, Dearborn County should see an increase in theirallocation.3.3 PAVEMENT CHARACTERISTICSPavement TypeAs can be seen from 3A and Figure 3-1, over 80% of the roadway miles in DearbornCounty are paved, with just fewer than 4% or about 20 miles unpaved. Thepaved/unpaved condition, which encompasses approximately 50 miles of roadway in thecounty, is classified as either a segment that contained both pavement and gravel or thepavement had deteriorated to the point where it could no longer be considered rigid.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-1

Figure 3-1 - Pavement TypeDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-2

Approximately one-half of the 400 miles of paved roadways contained pavementmarkings. In general it is not necessary for all rural roadways to have striping, but itbecomes a safety issue as traffic increases.Pavement ConditionTable 3A – Pavement TypePavement Type% of Roadway Milesin CountyPaved 88%Unpaved 4%Paved/Unpaved 8%The condition of the pavement was also quantified during the project. Examples ofpavement conditions were provided from Dearborn County staff; see photos below. Ascan be seen from Table 3B, over half of the paved roadway miles in the county are ingood condition, meaning that the pavement is adequate and that there are pavementmarkings. Approximately 30% of the roadway miles are classified as fair condition. Fairis defined as pavement that is generally well maintained, but may need local repairs,shoulders or pavement markings. Four percent of the roadway miles in the county areconsidered in poor condition; a situation where repair or repaving is needed.Good Fair PoorConditionTable 3B – Pavement Condition(Paved Roadways)% of Roadway Milesin CountyGood 67%Fair 29%Poor 4%Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-3

Lane & Shoulder Width DeficienciesExample typical sections for each roadway functional classification are listed in Chapter2 of this report. Those standards were compared to the existing conditions of thefacilities in Dearborn County to determine whether a lane or shoulder width deficiencyexisted. Tables 3C and 3D and Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the results of the analysis.As can be seen in the tables and figures, three-quarters of the roadway miles in thecounty have a lane width deficiency. It is important to note that the severity of thedeficiencies does vary from less than one foot to more than five feet. Table 3.5illustrates that almost all of the roadway miles, 92%, have a shoulder width deficiency.This is not surprising given that most of the roadways in the county evolved over timefrom farm paths to paved roadways.Table 3C – Lane WidthCondition% of Roadway Milesin CountyAcceptable 25%Deficient 75%Table 3D – Shoulder WidthCondition% of Roadway Milesin CountyAcceptable 8%Deficient 92%3.4 SIGN INVENTORYA sign inventory was completed for the entire county. This information was needed todevelop a baseline and to help identify future maintenance needs in the future.Contained in Table 3E are the results of the inventory; Figure 3-4 illustrates the locationsof the signage.Table 3E – Sign InventorySign TypeNumber in CountyParking 63Speed Limit 592Stop 657Street Name 932Yield 47Other3,650(Driver Information/Warning Signs)TOTAL 5,941Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-4

Figure 3-2 – Lane Width DeficienciesDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-5

Figure 3-3 – Shoulder Width DeficienciesDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-6

Figure 3-4 – Sign InventoryDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-7

3.5 GUARDRAIL INVENTORYThe length and location of each guardrail was also extracted from the digital GIS data.In total, there is approximately 45 miles of guardrail in the county. This information willassist with future maintenance and safety needs. The guardrail locations are illustratedin Figure 3-5.Figure 3-5 – Guardrail InventoryDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-8

3.6 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CURVE SUMMARYAn analysis of the vertical and horizontal curves along six selected roadways wascompleted as part of the Transportation Assessment. The six roadway analyzed werealso studied as part of the Highway Capacity Analysis; Cole Lane, State Line Road,Wilson Creek Road, Yorkridge Road, Jamison Road and North Dearborn Road. Thestandards for which the horizontal and vertical alignments were measured are includedin the example typical sections in Chapter 2 of this report. Below is a summary of theanalysis; more detailed data along with mapping is included in the Appendix of thisreport.Table 3F – Horizontal and Vertical Curve DeficienciesRoadway Horizontal Curves Vertical CurvesMinimum Radius notmetRate of Curvature notmetMin/Max GradeCriteria not metCole Lane 49% 42% 14%State Line Road 33% 72% 17%Wilson Creek Road 32% 65% 7%Yorkridge Road 33% 39% 0%Jamison Road 64% 26% 17%North Dearborn Road 42% 45% 56%As illustrated in the table above, each of the roadways studied has some degree ofdeficiency. The greatest deficiencies are found on North Dearborn Road where over halfof the curves do not meet standards. The curve deficiencies on each of the roadwaysdiffer in severity and should be analyzed individually before improvements alternativesare determined.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 3-9

CHAPTERFOURSELECTED ROADWAYCAPACITY ANALYSIS4.1 SELECTED ROADWAY CAPACITY ANALYSISIntroductionCapacity analysis was performed on six selected roadways within the Dearborn Countystudy area using the most recent version of the Transportation Research Board’sHighway Capacity Software. The following explains the procedures and results of theanalysis.Roadway Capacity Analysis ProcedureIn order to perform the roadway capacity analysis, highways must be categorized as oneof two Classes. Class I highways are two-lane facilities on which motorists expect totravel at high speeds. They are major intercity routes, primary arterials connecting majortraffic generators, daily commuter routes, or primary links in the state or nationalhighway network. Class II roadways are also two-lane highways, but motorists do notexpect to travel at high speeds. These facilities function as access routes to Class Iroadways, serve as scenic or recreational routes, and are not primary arterials.The congestion on a roadway is measured using Level of Service (LOS) from LOS A toLOS F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions or a free-flow system; LOS Frepresents the worst condition or a congested system. In general, a LOS C on a ruralroadway is considered acceptable. When the LOS falls below C, the roadway becomescrowded and the mobility of the facility is degraded. In general, a roadway with a LOSD, E or F should be analyzed to determine if capacity adding improvements arenecessary. Figure 4-1 is an illustration of LOS at a signalized intersection.The LOS for two-lane facilities is a function of mobility as defined by the HighwayCapacity Manual, 2000. Mobility of these facilities is measured in two ways. For Class Ifacilities where efficient mobility is paramount, two factors are utilized; percent-timefollowing another vehicle and average travel speed. Both criteria are outputs of thecapacity analysis. On Class II highways where mobility is less critical the LOS is definedonly in terms of percent-time following another vehicle. The LOS for Class I and Class IIroadways are calculated differently because drivers have varying expectations from thefacilities. The tables below present the LOS criteria for Class I and II two-lane facilities.To complete the capacity analysis, input criteria specific for each roadway is needed.These inputs include the roadway geometry, terrain and traffic operations. Trafficoperations data includes the direction of traffic flow, the hourly volume of the roadwayand the peak-hour factor. Each of these specific criteria helps to determine the LOS ofthe roadway. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4C.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 4-1

Table 4A – Level of Service and Volume to Capacity RatioClass I RoadwaysLevel of Service Percent Time-SpentFollowingAverage Travel Speed(mph)A < 36 >55B 35-49 55-51C 50-64 50-46D 65-79 45-41E >80 3200passenger cars per hour) exceeds the capacity ofthe roadwaySource: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000Figure 4-1 – Level of Service for Signalized IntersectionsDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 4-2

Table 4B – Level of Service and Volume to Capacity RatioClass II RoadwaysLevel of ServicePercent Time-Spent FollowingA < 41B 40-54C 55-69D 70-84E >85FLOS F applies whenever the flow rate(>3200 passenger cars per hour) exceedsthe capacity of the roadwaySource: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000To complete the capacity analysis, input criteria specific for each roadway is needed.These inputs include the roadway geometry, terrain and traffic operations. Trafficoperations data includes the direction of traffic flow, the hourly volume of the roadwayand the peak-hour factor. Each of these specific criteria helps to determine the LOS ofthe roadway. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4C.Both the existing (2003) and the future year (2030) LOS were determined for eachroadway. In order to calculate the future year traffic, a growth factor of 1.5% per yearwas utilized. This factor was determined in coordination with OKI and is consistent withOKI’s Long Range Transportation Plan.Roadway Capacity Analysis ResultsAs illustrated in Table 4C and Figure 4-2, there are minimal changes in the LOS for eachof the roadways. The complete data sheets for each roadway are included in theappendices of this report.RoadwayTable 4C – Highway Capacity Analysis Results% Time SpentFollowingFacilityClassAverage Travel Speed(MPH)LOS2003 2030 2003 2030 2003 2030Wilson Creek Class II 49.0% 55.5% NA NA B CYork Ridge Class II 40.6% 42.8% NA NA B BCole Lane Class II 39.5% 44.9% NA NA A BN Dearborn Road Class I 35.1% 38.1% 32.8 31.7 E EState Line Road Class I 44.6% 51.3% 29.7 28.0 E EJamison Road Class I 54.6% 59.1% 27.0 26.7 E EWilson Creek Road, York Ridge Road and Cole Lane are currently functioning at anappropriate LOS and should continue to in the future. While immediate capacity addingprojects for the Class II roadways is not warranted at this time, regular and appropriatemaintenance on these roadways should continue.North Dearborn Road, State Line Road and Jamison Road are all exceeding anappropriate LOS at the present time and continue to maintain a LOS E in the horizonyear. One option to correct this problem is to increase the capacity of the roadway byutilizing a four-lane section. Given the existing development and current geometry,widening these roadways could be an expensive proposition and may be disruptive toDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 4-3

Figure 4-2 – Capacity Analysis ResultsDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 4-4

the community. Before undertaking a major widening project, another solution may beAccess Management which can generally be put in place easily and with minimaldisruption. Access Management is defined as the control of driveways andintersections to maintain safety at a roadway's full traffic-carrying capacity. ImplementingAccess Management encourages smooth and safe traffic flow and helps communitiesavoid some of the traffic problems caused by uncontrolled development.Access Management can include signalization, controlled access, and limiting theamount of curb cuts on a roadway (driveway consolidation). Improvements such asthese help reduce traffic congestion on roadways. Studies have shown that AccessManagement can reduce accidents as much as 50 percent while safely increasing travelspeeds by as much as 40 percent. Fewer delays and accidents also cut transportationcosts for businesses, and business locations remain more accessible and attractive tocustomers when there is less congestion.Below is a list of Access Management solutions that can begin to be put into practicetoday.• Providing a minimum distance between access points. There are a couple ofoptions for determining access density. The Center for Transportation Researchand Education recommends 600 feet on a rural arterial. The Indiana Departmentof Transportation’s Driveway Permit Manual recommends utilizing travel speedas a way to determine density, see Table 4D. Spacing between access points inrural areas is especially important because these roadways generally havehigher travel speeds.•Table 4D – Minimum Separation of Access PointsHighway SpeedMinimum Spacing(mph)(feet)30 18535 24540 30045 35050 39555 435Source: Indiana Department of Transportation Driveway Permit Manual, 1996• Providing adequate sight-distance. It is very important to assure thatappropriate sight-distances are provided for the motorists when exiting an accesspoint. Sight distance guidelines may be found in Chapter 3 of the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy onGeometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2001.• Providing adequate intersection spacing. It is important to provide adequatespacing between intersections. At least one-half mile spacing is recommendedfor arterials.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 4-5

• Providing adequate spacing between intersections. It is important to keep anappropriate spacing between access points and intersection points in order toavoid traffic conflicts. Driveways should not be located within the “functionalsection” of the intersection, see Figure 4-3. The functional area includes not onlythe required vehicle storage length, but also an appropriate driver decisiondistance.Figure 4-3 – Interchange Functional Area• Utilizing shared driveways. A shared driveway consists of one or moreproperties utilizing a single access point. They are most commonly used formultiple commercial properties, but can also be utilized for residential properties.• Utilizing a three-lane cross-section. Three-laning an intersection, meaningconstruction of separate lanes for left-turning vehicles, is a significant capacityincreasefactor. When left-turning vehicles impede the flow of through traffic,capacity decreases dramatically. The impact is felt even when the left-turningmovement is relatively light. A two-lane road augmented by left-turn lanes canforestall the need for a four-lane road. At the same time, a four-lane road withoutleft-turn lanes may have little more capacity than a two-lane road with left-turnlanes. A left-turn lane is generally effective for roadways with less than 17,000vehicles per day. This would be a compromise between adding capacity andkeeping the existing configuration.• Utilizing frontage roads. Frontage roads generally work best when they areutilized in an area that is not fully developed and where there is a developmentplan. Frontage roads allow for more dense development with a minimal numberof access points.North Dearborn Road, State Line Road and Jamison Road all exhibit similarcharacteristics; they serve residential traffic with some commercial and/or lightmanufacturing/distribution and all appear to use minimum Access Managementpractices. While the traffic may not grow significantly in the future, Access Managementmay become a considerable problem. Currently, each resident or business have at leastone individual access point. Beginning to utilize best management practices now willhelp relieve traffic problems later. While Dearborn County is still growing, it may behelpful to adopt some of the Access Management practices listed above. In the case ofAccess Management it is much easier to implement in the beginning of a project then totry to retrofit into a development later.Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 4-6

ChapterFIVERECOMMENDATIONS5.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGYThe future project recommendations for Dearborn County were prioritized utilizing theroadway assessment data. Current conditions were compared to the example designcriteria for each roadway functional classification. Thresholds were set to determineroadway deficiencies and future needs. The following lists the deficiency limits utilizedfor the analysis.• Arterial Roadways – In order to qualify as a future project, arterial roadwaysmust have a per-lane deficiency of at least one foot. Secondaryconsiderations included shoulder deficiencies of more than two feet,pavement type and/or pavement condition.• Collector Roadways – In order to qualify as a future projectrecommendation, collector roadways must display a per-lane deficiency of atleast one foot. Secondary considerations included, shoulder deficiencies ofmore than two feet, pavement type and/or pavement conditions.• Local Roadways – Local roadways with a per-lane width deficiency of morethan four and one-half feet; essentially a one lane road. As all local roadwaysconsidered had a shoulder deficiency of more than two feet and poorpavement conditions, these criteria were not utilized as a secondary factor.5.2 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONSThe following lists illustrate future project recommendations. It is important to note thatthese projects are placed in three categories according to roadway classification only;the projects are not in any specific order within the categories. Specific project detailsare not listed; rather it is a recommendation to improve the roadways in each category.The project particulars will be determined by subsequent studies.Arterial Roadways• State Line Road• North Dearborn Road• Jamison RoadCollector Roadways• Grelle Road• West County Line Road• Old Hickory Road• Hueseman Road• Sawdon Ridge Road• Legion Road• Old US Hwy 52• North State Street• Gatch Hill Road• Soap Hill Road• Old State Hwy 1• Mount Pleasant Road• North Hogan Road• Sneakville RoadDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-1

• Lower Dillsboro Road• Bond Road• Salt Fork Road• Possum Ridge Road• North County Line Road• Elam Road• Collier Ridge Road• Lake Tambo Road• Kaiser DriveLocal Roadways• Dewitt Road• Cambridge Road• Hogan Creek Road• Losecamp Road• Witt Road• Gutzwiller Road• Liggett Road• Lipscomb Road• Hogan Hill Road• Bonnell Road• Cole Lane• Priest Road• Yorkridge Road• Pribble Road• Chesterville Road• Arlington Road• Russell Road• Martin Road• Konradi Road• Lattier Road• Graf Road• Jacobs Road• Poplar RoadState and US RoutesWhile these roadways are not maintained by the county, they do display deficiencies andare therefore listed for the purposes of continuity. Any future projects will be determinedby the Indiana Department of Transportation.• State Hwy 148• State Hwy 62• State Hwy 1• State Hwy 262• State Hwy 46• US Hwy 52• State Road 350• US Hwy 50Dearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-2

Figure 5-1 – Arterial Roadways Recommended ProjectsDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-3

Figure 5-2 – Collector Roadways Recommended ProjectsDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-4

Figure 5-3 – Local Roadways Recommended ProjectsDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-5

5.3 TRAFFIC COUNT RECOMMENDATIONSGathering traffic information is a continuing process. Traffic counts are used toaccurately classify roadways and to determine future needs. To this end, the followingtraffic count phasing methodology is recommended. Figure 5-4, illustrates the phasingplan.• Traffic counts will be collected on all arterial and collector roadways inyears one and two of a five year cycle.• In years three through five of the five year cycle, 25 local roadway trafficcounts will be taken each year for a total of 75 counts in each cycle. Asthere are over 300 miles of local roadways in the county, 75 counts everyfive years will begin the data gathering process.In addition to the phasing plan, it is also recommended that there is an amendment tothe zoning ordinance requiring a 24-hour traffic count to be conducted on any roadwaywhere an access point is requested. The traffic count would be funded by the applicantand would be conducted by a firm approved by the county. These counts would beutilized to determine future needs of the roadway and would become part of the county’straffic count database. It is estimated that each 24-hour traffic count would cost between$400 to $600.Year1 2 3 4 5Year1 2 3 4 5Arterials &CollectorsLocalRoadwaysArterials &CollectorsLocalRoadwaysFigure 5-4 – Traffic Count Phasing PlanDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-6

5.4 TYPICAL COSTSWhen planning for future projects, it is vital to estimate project costs. The typical costsfor widening one-mile of a two-lane rural road are illustrated in Table 5A below. Thisestimate was determined by evaluating similar-type projects in Indiana. This estimateinclude a complete “build” of the project per mile including; pavement, drainage, signage,maintenance of traffic and fees. It is important to note that these estimates are for twocomplete travel lanes; typically when a roadway is widened the entire facility isreconstructed. Also, while the roadway classification typical sections call for varyinglane widths, the costs of adding one or two more feet of pavement are not significantenough to warrant separate cost estimates. Therefore, this estimate can be used forany rural two-lane roadway for the purposes of planning. Of course as with anyengineering project, actual costs would be determined during design.Table 5A – Typical Reconstruction Costs per MilePercentage of Total CostsCost per mile*Earthwork 15% $300,000Pavement 50% $1,000,000Drainage & Erosion Control 15% $300,000Signing/Pavement Markings 2% $40,000Maintenance of Traffic 3% $60,000Other 15% $300,000TOTAL 100% $2,000,000* Cost/mile based on two lanes, open drainage, and asphalt pavementDearborn County Transportation Assessment Page 5-7

Roadway Assessment DataAppendix A

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)3 MILE RDG 0.17 2 12.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ACCESS RD 0.19 2 5.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -AKES HILL RD 0.03 2 7.4 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairAKES RD 0.31 2 6.8 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairALANS BRANCH RD 0.15 2 10.1 1.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -ALANS BRANCH RD 0.45 2 5.7 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ALBERTA DR 0.11 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -AMITY DR 0.14 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -AMM RD 0.96 2 8.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ANDERSON RD 0.31 2 6.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededANDREW CT 0.09 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -APPALACHIA DR 0.07 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -APPALACHIA DR 0.09 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -APPLE CT 0.05 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ARLINGTON RD 1.19 2 8.1 2.9 Paved YES Fair 359 YES Category I Rural Collector D A -ARLINGTON RD 2.16 2 9.5 1.2 Paved YES Good 359 YES Category I Rural Collector D D -ASCHE RD 0.10 2 8.7 - Both NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -ASCHE RD 0.40 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -ASCHE RD 0.62 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -ASCHE RD 1.09 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -ATLANTIC AVE 0.06 2 10.9 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D Paving NeededATLANTIC AVE 0.07 2 11.2 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairAUTUMN WAY DR 0.29 2 19.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BANBERRY CT 0.03 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BANBERRY CT 0.08 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BANBERRY CT 0.12 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BANBERRY DR 0.10 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BARBER RD 0.15 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BARBER RD 0.86 2 7.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BARBER RD 1.06 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BARBER RD 1.50 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BARRETT RD 0.43 2 8.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BARTH RD 0.66 2 7.6 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BASKET LN 0.05 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BASKET LN 0.07 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BASKET LN 0.07 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BATEMAN DR 0.08 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BATEMAN DR 0.08 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BATH RD 0.25 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BATTA RD 0.49 2 7.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BAUM HOLLOW RD 0.62 2 8.4 1.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BEATTY RD 0.04 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BEATTY RD 0.04 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BEATTY RD 0.04 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BEATTY RD 0.89 2 10.2 7.8 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A A -BEATTY RD 1.09 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELL ARBOR RD 0.19 2 7.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELL ARBOR RD 0.47 2 7.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLEMEADE CT 0.09 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLEMEADE DR 0.17 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 1 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)BELLS BRANCH RD 0.24 2 7.2 2.0 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLS BRANCH RD 0.25 2 9.0 1.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLS BRANCH RD 0.36 2 8.6 1.9 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLS BRANCH RD 0.40 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLS BRANCH RD 0.50 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLS BRANCH RD 0.56 2 8.3 2.0 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BELLS BRANCH RD 1.13 2 8.9 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BENEDICT DR 0.09 2 12.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D -BENEKER RD 0.60 2 7.8 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBENNING RD 0.75 2 7.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BERKSHIRE DR 0.33 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BESS DR 0.07 2 8.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BIG WATER CT 0.08 2 8.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BIHR RD 0.42 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BIRCH ST 0.04 2 14.1 3.3 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -BISCHOFF HILL RD 0.15 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BISCHOFF HILL RD 0.98 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BISCHOFF HILL RD 1.04 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BITTNER RD 0.62 2 7.0 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBLASDEL DR 0.09 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BLASDEL DR 0.20 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BLOOM RD 2.13 2 6.7 1.3 Both NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BLUE CREEK RD 0.46 2 7.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -BLUE CREEK RD 0.54 2 8.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -BLUE CREEK RD 1.12 2 13.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category II Rural Local Road A D -BLUE GOOSE RD 0.53 2 7.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BLUE RIDGE CT 0.06 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BLUE RIDGE DR 0.13 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BLUE RIDGE DR 0.16 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BLUE RIDGE DR 0.16 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BLUE RIDGE DR 0.17 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BOARDWALK DR 0.06 2 9.0 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBOCOCK RD 0.78 2 5.6 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BOND RD 0.18 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -BOND RD 0.78 2 9.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -BONNELL RD 0.01 2 6.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -BONNELL RD 0.37 2 11.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector A D -BONNELL RD 0.54 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -BONNELL RD 0.65 2 6.8 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -BONNELL RD 0.67 2 7.2 - Both NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -BONNELL RD 1.27 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -BONNELL RD 1.67 2 10.1 - Both NO Poor - NO Category II Rural Collector D D Paving NeededBOWER RD 0.48 2 7.7 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBOYD RD 0.36 2 6.1 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBOYD RD 0.94 2 6.3 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRANDT RD 0.29 2 6.0 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIAR RIDGE DR 0.10 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIARWAY CT 0.04 2 10.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIARWAY CT 0.29 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIARWAY NORTH DR 0.28 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 2 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)BRIARWOOD DR 0.23 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIARWOOD DR 0.67 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHT LEAF DR 0.08 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHT LEAF DR 0.09 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHT LEAF DR 0.15 2 19.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIGHT RIDGE CT 0.05 2 20.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIGHT RIDGE DR 0.13 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHT RIDGE DR 0.14 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIGHTLAND CT 0.12 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIGHTLAND DR 0.16 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHTLAND DR 0.22 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHTWOOD DR 0.06 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHTWOOD DR 0.09 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIGHTWOOD DR 0.13 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BRIGHTWOOD DR 0.14 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRIGHTWOOD DR 0.46 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BROADRIDGE DR 0.24 2 19.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BROOKS RD 0.32 1 11.9 0.0 Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D Paving NeededBROOKS RD 0.45 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BROOKS RD 1.86 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -BROWN RD 0.07 1 9.1 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBROWN RD 0.37 2 6.0 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairBRUCE HILL RD 0.84 2 5.4 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BRUSH FORK RD 0.22 2 10.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -BRUSH FORK RD 2.08 2 5.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D Paving NeededBULACH DR 1.87 2 5.6 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BUNKUM RD 0.27 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BURNS RD 0.27 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BURNS RD 0.55 2 7.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BURTZELBACH RD 2.89 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -BUSINESS CENTER DR 0.12 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BUSSE LN 0.08 2 5.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -BUTLER CT 0.09 2 13.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BUTLER DR 0.08 2 13.3 1.1 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -BUTLER DR 0.24 2 13.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CADES CT 0.07 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CAMBRIDGE RD 0.10 2 4.9 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairCAMBRIDGE RD 0.28 2 5.5 - Both NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CAMPGROUND DR 0.21 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CAMPO VERDE DR 0.23 2 21.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CAROLINA TRACE RD 0.04 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CAROLINA TRACE RD 0.15 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CAROLINA TRACE RD 0.25 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CARR RD 0.04 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CARR RD 0.09 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CARR RD 0.12 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CARR RD 0.15 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CARR RD 0.15 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CARR RD 0.15 2 20.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CARR RD 0.63 2 8.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 3 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)CARRIE DR 0.26 1 8.4 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairCASTLETINE RD 0.61 2 6.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CEDAR CREEK DR 0.03 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CEDAR CREEK DR 0.39 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CEDAR RIDGE DR 0.09 2 9.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CENTER ST 0.04 2 12.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -CENTRAL DR 1.00 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPIN RD 1.28 2 6.9 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededCHAPPELOW HILL RD 0.30 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW HILL RD 0.46 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW HILL RD 0.52 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.10 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.13 2 7.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.16 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.19 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.32 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.35 2 8.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.44 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHAPPELOW RIDGE RD 0.64 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHATHAM RD 1.32 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.05 2 9.1 - Paved YES Fair 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.16 2 9.1 0.8 Paved NO Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.18 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.32 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.41 2 9.6 - Paved YES Good 684 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.48 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.51 2 10.4 - Paved YES Good 684 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.59 2 9.6 0.6 Paved YES Fair 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.61 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.63 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.63 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good 684 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.80 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good 684 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 0.81 2 9.5 0.6 Paved YES Fair 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 1.05 2 9.1 0.5 Paved NO Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHESTERVILLE RD 1.76 2 8.9 - Paved YES Good 684 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -CHIPMAN RD 0.48 2 5.8 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairCHURCH LN 0.62 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHURCH LN 0.77 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CHURCH RD 0.64 2 7.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CLAY MILLER RD 1.00 2 7.0 1.8 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -COCHRAN ST 0.05 2 4.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -COLD SPRINGS RD 0.64 2 9.3 3.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D A -COLD SPRINGS RD 1.01 2 9.1 0.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -COLE LN 0.05 2 10.2 0.9 Paved YES Good 2970 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -COLE LN 0.11 2 11.6 6.5 Paved NO Fair 2970 YES Category III Rural Collector A A -COLE LN 0.16 2 9.8 - Paved YES Good 2970 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -COLE LN 0.21 2 7.1 - Paved NO Poor 2970 NO Category III Rural Collector D D RepairCOLE LN 0.59 2 10.7 2.2 Paved NO Good 2970 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -COLE LN 0.60 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good 2970 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -COLE LN 0.96 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good 2970 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 4 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)COLLIER RIDGE RD 0.49 2 8.9 1.7 Paved YES Good 362 YES Category I Rural Collector D D -COLLIER RIDGE RD 0.82 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 362 YES Category I Rural Collector D D -COLLIER RIDGE RD 2.15 2 7.9 - Paved YES Good 362 YES Category I Rural Collector D D -COLORADO DR 0.07 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -COLORADO DR 0.18 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CONCORD SQUARE DR 0.08 2 8.9 2.1 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A -COOK RD 1.58 2 6.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededCOPPERFIELD CT 0.08 1 14.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -COPPERFIELD CT 0.08 1 13.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CORA DR 0.02 2 13.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CORA DR 0.11 2 7.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CORA RD 0.09 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CORNETT RD 0.13 1 8.7 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairCOSBY DR 0.18 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -COUNTRY CLUB RD 0.11 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -COUNTRY HILLS DR 0.02 2 10.3 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairCOUNTRY HILLS DR 0.52 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -COUNTY FARM RD 0.91 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -COUNTY FARM RD 2.21 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CRANES RUN RD 0.72 2 5.7 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairCRAVENHURST DR 0.27 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CREEKSIDE DR 0.14 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CRESCENT DR 0.12 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -CROSS RD 2.11 2 8.5 2.8 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D A -CUMBERLAND CT 0.04 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CUMBERLAND DR 0.14 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CUMBERLAND DR 0.15 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CUMBERLAND DR 0.34 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -CUTTER RD 1.63 2 7.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DAKOTA DR 0.14 2 11.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -DAKOTA DR 0.19 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -DARLING RD 0.04 1 7.9 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DAVIDSON RD 0.35 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DAVIES RD 1.64 2 7.9 1.4 Paved NO Good - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -DAWN PAUL DR 0.08 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DEAN RD 0.41 2 6.7 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairDEER RUN DR 0.09 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DEHILL DR 0.10 2 9.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DENNIS RD 0.28 1 8.8 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairDENNIS RD 0.36 2 5.6 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DENRIDGE CT 0.25 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -DEWITT RD 0.26 2 4.8 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairDIEFENBACH RD 0.14 2 7.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DIEFENBACH RD 0.19 2 8.0 2.4 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A -DIEHL DR 0.05 2 15.9 3.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D -DISBRO RD 0.35 2 6.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededDITTMER RD 0.32 2 5.8 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOCKERY RD 0.53 2 22.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -DOG RD 0.47 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOG RD 0.50 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 5 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)DOG RD 1.27 2 6.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOGWOOD CT 0.17 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOLE RD 0.14 2 8.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOLE RD 0.24 2 5.2 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOLE RD 0.29 2 8.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DOUGHTY RD 0.35 2 11.9 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairDOUGLAS DR 0.16 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -DUNEVANT DR 0.05 2 16.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -DUNEVANT DR 0.07 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUNEVANT DR 0.09 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUNEVANT DR 0.19 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUNEVANT DR 0.26 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.09 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.14 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.28 2 9.0 0.3 Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairDUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.30 2 8.8 0.8 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.31 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.37 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 0.56 2 9.1 0.7 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -DUTCH HOLLOW RD 1.22 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -E FORK RD 0.30 2 4.4 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.03 2 14.3 3.8 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.20 2 10.3 2.5 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.20 2 11.3 1.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.51 2 8.5 2.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D A -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 1.62 2 9.1 1.5 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 1.72 2 8.7 2.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D A -E LAUGHERY CREEK RD 2.39 2 8.8 0.9 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -E MAIN ST 0.46 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -EARL CT 0.06 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -EAST DR 0.14 2 22.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -EASY WAY DR 0.14 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -EASY WAY DR 0.23 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -EINSEL RD 0.05 2 7.5 3.0 Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A RepairEINSEL RD 0.11 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -EINSEL RD 0.13 2 6.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -EINSEL RD 0.19 2 7.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ELAM RD 0.17 1 10.0 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairELAM RD 0.33 2 6.9 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -ELIZABETH DR 0.60 2 11.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ELLINGHAUSEN RD 1.47 2 7.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ELM CIRCLE DR 0.21 2 23.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ENNIS RIDGE RD 2.06 2 7.3 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededESSEX LN 0.06 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ESSEX LN 0.13 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ESTER JAMES LAKE RD 0.99 2 9.4 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededESTER RIDGE RD 0.26 2 9.3 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededESTER RIDGE RD 0.28 2 9.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededESTER RIDGE RD 0.33 2 8.6 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ESTER RIDGE RD 0.50 2 8.9 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 6 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)ESTER RIDGE RD 0.80 2 8.1 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededESTER RIDGE RD 0.95 2 7.9 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairESTER RIDGE RD 1.06 2 8.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededESTER RIDGE RD 1.51 2 8.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededEUGENE CT 0.06 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -EWING RD 0.84 2 7.3 1.8 Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairFACKLER RD 0.24 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FACKLER RD 0.99 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FAIR MEADOWS DR 0.08 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -FAIR MEADOWS DR 0.43 2 9.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FAIRWAY DR 0.13 2 11.0 1.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -FAIRWAY DR 0.38 2 9.4 1.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -FALCON WAY 0.07 2 8.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FALCON WAY 0.09 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FARM LAND DR 0.43 2 24.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -FARMERS RETREAT RD 0.49 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -FARMERS RETREAT RD 0.53 2 8.0 2.3 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A -FARMERS RETREAT RD 1.03 2 7.8 - Paved YES Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FELLER RD 0.75 2 8.0 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -FELLER RD 0.96 2 7.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -FIVE POINT RD 1.07 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FIVE POINT RD 1.41 2 8.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FLOYD CT 0.01 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FLOYD CT 0.07 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FOUR WAY ACRES 0.35 2 6.7 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairFOX RD 0.46 2 6.6 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededFOX RD 0.47 2 6.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -FRANKLIN ST 0.05 2 7.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -FRANKLIN ST 0.06 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -FRANKLIN ST 0.22 2 9.7 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D RepairFUCHS RD 0.45 2 7.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededGABBARD DR 0.04 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GABBARD DR 0.07 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GABBARD DR 0.08 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GABBARD DR 0.10 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GARDEN GREEN DR 0.15 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GARDEN MEADOWS DR 0.10 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GARDEN MEADOWS DR 0.16 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GARY DR 0.28 2 23.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GATCH HILL RD 1.15 2 8.8 1.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -GAYNOR RIDGE RD 0.07 2 7.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GAYNOR RIDGE RD 0.20 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GAYNOR RIDGE RD 0.47 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GAYNOR RIDGE RD 0.50 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GAYNOR RIDGE RD 0.73 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GAYNOR RIDGE RD 1.07 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GEIGER RD 1.67 2 7.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.06 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.25 2 10.1 - Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.29 2 10.2 0.8 Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 7 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)GEORGETOWN RD 0.33 2 9.8 - Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.36 2 9.5 0.8 Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.56 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.64 2 10.1 4.8 Paved YES Fair 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 0.70 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GEORGETOWN RD 1.01 2 9.0 1.1 Paved YES Good 2534 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -GHARTOM CIR 0.12 2 19.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GIBSON DR 0.07 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GIBSON DR 0.08 2 10.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GIBSON DR 0.10 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GIBSON DR 0.12 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GIBSON DR 0.19 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GOLFVIEW CT 0.32 2 9.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GOOSE RUN RD 0.86 2 7.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededGOOSE RUN RD 1.15 2 7.3 2.8 Both NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -GRAF RD 0.06 2 7.9 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairGRAF RD 0.50 2 5.4 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairGRAF RD 0.56 2 7.4 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededGRAHAM CT 0.10 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GRAND OAK DR 0.56 2 16.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GREEN MEADOW DR 0.15 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GREENWOOD DR 0.15 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -GREENWOOD DR 0.45 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -GREGORY RD 0.27 2 12.5 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -GRELLE RD 0.50 2 7.7 1.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -GRELLE RD 0.77 2 8.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -GRELLE RD 1.96 2 8.0 2.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D A -GRIMSLEY RD 0.25 2 7.2 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairGRUBBS RD 0.29 1 7.6 - Unpaved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GUTAPFEL RD 0.50 2 7.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GUTAPFEL RD 0.97 2 7.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -GUTMAN RD 0.65 2 5.9 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededGUTZWILLER RD 0.45 2 5.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededHAAS RD 0.09 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HADDOCK DR 0.04 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HADDOCK DR 0.18 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HAGER RD 0.51 2 8.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HAPPY HOLLOW RD 0.43 2 5.2 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HAPPY HOLLOW RD 0.44 2 5.3 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HAPPY HOLLOW RD 0.75 2 5.0 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HARDING RD 0.55 2 7.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HARMONY HILL DR 0.08 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HARMONY HILL DR 0.17 2 18.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HARRIET AVE 0.11 2 10.8 0.8 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HARRINGTON RD 0.34 2 5.2 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HARRISON ST 0.13 2 7.0 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairHARTLAND CT 0.12 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HARTMAN RD 1.00 2 7.4 1.1 Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededHARVEY RD 0.30 2 8.3 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -HAUBROCK RD 0.65 2 6.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 8 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)HAWLEY DR 0.17 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HEDGEWOOD DR 0.28 2 22.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HENDERSON RD 0.03 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HENDERSON RD 0.26 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HENDERSON RD 0.29 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HENDERSON RD 0.30 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HENDERSON RD 0.51 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HICKORY DR 0.11 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HIGHLAND AVE 0.10 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HIGHLANDER DR 0.30 2 17.4 4.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -HIGHRIDGE RD 0.11 2 14.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HIGHRIDGE RD 0.16 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HIGHRIDGE RD 0.38 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HILBERT RD 0.10 1 10.6 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HILL RD 0.59 2 6.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HILLCREST DR 0.20 2 8.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HILTZ RD 0.78 2 5.7 - Unpaved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HINMAN RD 0.44 2 6.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HOFFMAN RD 0.27 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HOGAN CREEK RD 1.59 2 4.9 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededHOGAN HILL RD 0.05 2 9.3 - Paved YES Fair 1075 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -HOGAN HILL RD 0.09 2 9.8 - Paved YES Fair 1075 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -HOGAN HILL RD 0.11 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair 1075 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -HOGAN HILL RD 0.25 2 9.3 - Paved YES Fair 1075 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -HOGAN HILL RD 0.54 2 9.4 - Paved YES Fair 1075 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -HOGAN HILL RD 0.60 2 9.1 - Paved YES Fair 1075 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -HOGAN HILL RD 0.63 2 8.9 - Paved YES Fair 1075 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -HOLT RD 0.27 2 7.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HOLT RD 0.97 2 8.4 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairHON RD 0.07 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -HON RD 0.17 2 7.5 0.9 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -HOPPY HOLLOW 0.21 2 30.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -HORIZON WAY 0.12 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HORIZON WAY 0.12 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HORIZON WAY 0.37 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HORTON RD 0.59 2 7.6 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairHOUSTON RD 0.58 2 6.2 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairHUESEMAN RD 0.07 2 10.8 0.8 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Collector A D -HUESEMAN RD 0.11 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -HUESEMAN RD 0.14 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -HUESEMAN RD 0.36 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -HUESEMAN RD 0.46 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -HUESEMAN RD 1.81 2 8.6 1.2 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -HUESEMAN RD 1.86 2 8.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -HUFFMAN RD 0.52 2 5.5 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairHYLAND RD 0.03 1 13.8 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairHYLAND RD 0.25 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HYLAND RD 0.31 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -HYLAND RD 0.34 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -INDIANA AVE 0.05 2 10.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 9 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)IRELAND RD 0.28 2 11.3 - Unpaved YES Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairIRELAND RD 0.50 2 9.6 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairIRELAND RD 0.73 2 8.3 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -IRELAND RD 1.05 2 8.9 1.5 Paved NO Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -JACKSON RIDGE RD 1.96 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JACOBS RD 0.50 2 5.4 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairJACOBSEN RD 0.21 2 6.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JAMISON DR 0.03 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JAMISON DR 0.06 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JAMISON DR 0.06 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JAMISON DR 0.06 2 10.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JAMISON DR 0.06 2 10.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JAMISON DR 0.15 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JAMISON RD 0.19 2 10.0 - Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JAMISON RD 0.22 2 10.8 - Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JAMISON RD 0.41 2 9.8 - Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JAMISON RD 0.45 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JAMISON RD 0.57 2 10.4 - Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JAMISON RD 0.64 2 10.6 1.9 Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JAMISON RD 0.68 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 7532 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -JANDEL DR 0.56 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JAY LYNN DR 0.19 2 16.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JEB CT 0.05 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JEB DR 0.10 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JEB DR 0.38 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JENNIFER RD 0.16 2 8.0 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JENNY LYNN DR 0.10 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JENNY LYNN DR 0.27 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JENNY LYNN DR 0.33 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JOHNSON FORK RD 0.10 2 9.0 - Paved YES Fair 2341 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -JOHNSON FORK RD 0.19 2 10.4 - Paved YES Fair 2341 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -JOHNSON FORK RD 0.29 2 16.8 13.4 Paved YES Fair 2341 YES Category III Rural Local Road A A -JOHNSON FORK RD 0.44 2 9.3 - Paved YES Fair 2341 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -JOHNSON FORK RD 0.57 2 9.6 - Paved YES Fair 2341 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -JOHNSON FORK RD 0.58 2 12.3 - Paved YES Fair 2341 YES Category III Rural Local Road A D -JOSEPH LN 0.02 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JOSEPH LN 0.07 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JOY LYNNE DR 0.03 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JOY LYNNE DR 0.18 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JUDD DR 0.04 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JUDD DR 0.08 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JUDD DR 0.15 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JUDD DR 0.16 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -JUSTIS RD 0.18 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -JUSTIS RD 0.24 2 6.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KAISER DR 0.37 2 8.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Collector D D -KAISER DR 0.58 2 9.1 1.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Collector D D -KAISER DR 0.85 2 8.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Collector D D -KAISER DR 1.06 2 8.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Collector D D -KAISER DR 1.47 2 8.9 0.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Collector D D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 10 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)KAMMEYER RD 0.16 2 6.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KAMMEYER RD 0.95 2 6.3 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KARST RD 0.28 2 7.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KATHY CT 0.18 2 8.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -K-BOY DR 0.11 2 9.5 48.1 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A -KELLER RD 0.25 2 13.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -KELLER RD 0.55 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KELLER RD 0.89 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KELLY BIRD DR 0.13 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -KELLY BIRD DR 0.25 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KELSEY RD 0.62 1 9.6 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairKING ST 0.21 2 10.3 1.4 Paved NO Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road D D -KING ST 0.22 2 6.9 - Paved YES Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -KIRBY RD 0.04 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KIRBY RD 0.39 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -KLARE XING 0.16 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KLAUSING RD 0.42 2 7.3 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairKLEIN ACRES RD 0.47 2 5.3 0.9 Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KNOPF RD 0.46 2 4.7 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KOCHER RD 0.28 2 11.6 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairKOCHER RD 0.45 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KOLB RD 0.80 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KONRADI RD 0.19 2 5.3 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairKONRADI RD 0.84 2 7.3 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairKONRADI RD 1.29 2 5.9 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairKRAUS RD 1.00 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KRIS KROSSING 0.08 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KRISTEN DR 0.20 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -KUEBEL RD 0.85 2 7.3 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairKUEBEL RD 1.24 2 6.7 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededLAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.04 2 22.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -LAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.07 2 7.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.07 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.08 2 7.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.09 2 8.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.24 2 7.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAKE DILLDEAR RD 0.34 2 7.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAKE TAMBO RD 0.49 2 8.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -LAKE TAMBO RD 0.87 2 7.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -LAKE TAMBO RD 1.21 2 9.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -LAMPLIGHT DR 0.04 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAMPLIGHT DR 0.17 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LATTIER RD 0.25 2 5.3 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairLATTIER RD 0.42 2 6.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LATTIER RD 0.76 2 6.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LATTIER RD 0.86 2 9.4 1.3 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LATTIMER RD 0.76 2 6.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.07 2 7.0 - Paved YES Good 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.22 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.53 2 8.5 - Paved YES Good 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 11 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.60 2 8.2 1.1 Paved YES Fair 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 0.68 2 8.1 1.5 Paved YES Good 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 1.41 2 8.7 1.3 Paved YES Good 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 2.10 2 7.8 1.0 Both YES Fair 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUGHERY CREEK RD 2.50 2 8.1 1.6 Paved YES Good 89 YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUMAN RD 0.80 2 7.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAUMAN RD 1.15 2 8.4 1.4 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAURA DR 0.09 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LAWRENCEBURG RD 1.29 2 12.6 2.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -LAWRENCEVILLE RD 0.13 2 11.1 - Paved YES Good 777 YES Category II Rural Collector A D -LAWRENCEVILLE RD 0.87 2 11.6 - Paved YES Good 777 YES Category II Rural Collector A D -LAWRENCEVILLE RD 1.00 2 10.8 - Paved YES Good 777 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -LAWRENCEVILLE RD 1.01 2 11.1 - Paved YES Good 777 YES Category II Rural Collector A D -LEATHERWOOD RD 1.21 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEFFLER RD 1.03 2 7.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEGION RD 0.28 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair 285 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LEGION RD 0.50 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair 285 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LEGION RD 0.50 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair 285 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LEGION RD 0.99 2 8.0 - Paved NO Fair 285 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LEGION RD 1.52 2 9.3 - Paved NO Fair 285 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LELA DR 0.02 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -LELA DR 0.24 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEONA DR 0.04 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEONA DR 0.07 2 7.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEONA DR 0.16 2 8.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEONA DR 0.20 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LEWIS RD 0.62 2 8.3 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairLEXINGTON DR 0.68 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -LIGGETT RD 0.64 2 5.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededLIMESTONE DR 0.06 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LINCOLN CT 0.12 2 10.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -LIPPS RD 0.78 2 6.7 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LIPSCOMB RD 0.34 2 5.0 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairLIVINGSTON RD 0.86 2 8.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LOCUST ST 0.25 2 14.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -LOG LN 0.06 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LONGBRANCH RD 0.99 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LONGBRANCH RD 1.13 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LONGBRANCH RD 1.58 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LONGNECKER RD 0.08 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -LONGNECKER RD 0.15 2 10.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -LONGNECKER RD 0.42 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LORETTA ST 0.13 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LOSECAMP RD 0.43 2 4.9 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairLOUDEN RD 0.69 2 6.6 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -LOWER DILLSBORO RD 0.50 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good 357 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LOWER DILLSBORO RD 0.81 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good 357 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LOWER DILLSBORO RD 0.84 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good 357 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LOWER DILLSBORO RD 1.22 2 9.5 - Paved NO Fair 357 NO Category I Rural Collector D D -LOWER DILLSBORO RD 1.23 2 8.7 2.5 Paved NO Fair 357 NO Category I Rural Collector D A -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 12 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)LUTZ RD 0.90 2 6.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededMAIN ST 0.30 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road D D -MALLORY RD 0.36 2 6.5 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairMANCHESTER ST 0.17 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -MAPLE DR 0.07 2 4.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -MAPLE LEAF LN 0.14 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MAPLERIDGE DR 0.06 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MAPLERIDGE DR 0.36 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MAPLEWOOD CT 0.08 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARIE DR 0.31 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARKET ST 0.28 2 11.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MARKS WAY RD 0.37 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARLOWE DR 0.30 2 9.3 1.3 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARSH RD 0.08 2 7.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARSH RD 0.65 2 16.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MARTHA DR N 0.11 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARTHA DR N 0.18 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MARTHA DR N 0.21 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARTHA DR S 0.11 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARTHA DR S 0.17 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MARTIN RD 0.11 2 8.2 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairMARTIN RD 0.97 2 5.1 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededMAUNE RD 0.35 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MAUNE RD 1.01 2 6.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MC MANAMAN RD 0.69 2 5.7 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MCCANN RD 0.26 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MCCANN RD 0.70 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MCQUEEN RD 0.10 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MCQUEEN RD 0.10 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEADOWRIDGE DR 0.14 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEGAN DR 0.07 2 6.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEGRUE DR 0.06 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEGRUE DR 0.08 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEGRUE DR 0.16 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MELODY LN 0.19 2 6.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEMORIAL DR 0.05 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEMORIAL DR 0.13 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MEYER RD 0.16 2 9.7 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairMEYER RD 0.25 2 6.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MICHAEL DR 0.08 2 7.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MICHAEL DR 0.12 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MILLER RD 0.96 2 7.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MILLSTONE DR 0.14 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MILLSTONE DR 0.27 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MISTY LN 0.36 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOBILE CIR 0.02 2 10.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -MOBILE CIR 0.05 2 12.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -MOBILE DR 0.03 2 15.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -MONTANA DR 0.12 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MONTANA DR 0.17 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 13 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)MOODY RD 0.82 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOORE LN 0.20 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MORGAN RD 0.23 2 8.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MORGAN RD 0.23 2 7.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MORGAN RD 0.41 2 7.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MORGAN RD 0.74 2 8.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MORGANS BRANCH RD 0.31 2 20.9 0.7 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MOSMEIER RD 1.11 2 6.6 2.9 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A -MOUNT PLEASANT RD 0.25 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -MOUNT PLEASANT RD 0.26 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -MOUNT PLEASANT RD 0.34 2 9.0 - Paved NO Poor 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairMOUNT PLEASANT RD 0.37 2 9.2 - Paved NO Poor 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairMOUNT PLEASANT RD 0.48 2 9.2 - Paved NO Poor 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairMOUNT PLEASANT RD 0.66 2 8.7 - Paved NO Poor 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairMOUNT PLEASANT RD 1.80 2 10.3 - Paved NO Fair 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -MOUNT PLEASANT RD 2.37 2 7.7 - Paved NO Fair 642 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -MOUNT SINAI RD 0.07 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNT SINAI RD 0.09 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNT SINAI RD 0.51 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNT SINAI RD 0.57 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNT TABOR RD 0.58 2 8.1 1.2 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNT TABOR RD 1.21 2 7.9 1.4 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CT 0.08 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CT 0.09 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CT 0.32 2 12.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -MURRAY RD 0.16 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.16 2 6.6 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairN COUNTY LINE RD 0.22 2 5.4 - Unpaved NO Good - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.32 2 6.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.50 1 10.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.54 2 6.2 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category II Rural Collector D D RepairN COUNTY LINE RD 0.63 2 9.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.70 2 7.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.73 2 6.6 - Both NO Poor - NO Category II Rural Collector D D Paving NeededN COUNTY LINE RD 0.75 2 7.2 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.75 2 8.2 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.86 2 6.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 0.95 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N COUNTY LINE RD 1.22 2 6.3 - Both NO Fair - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.06 2 15.7 2.2 Paved YES Poor 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial A D RepairN DEARBORN RD 0.07 2 8.8 - Paved YES Poor 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial D D RepairN DEARBORN RD 0.08 2 10.6 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.09 2 9.4 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.11 2 9.9 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.12 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.12 2 9.5 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.12 2 9.5 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.12 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.13 2 10.6 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.14 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 14 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)N DEARBORN RD 0.15 2 9.8 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.17 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.17 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.17 2 11.2 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.18 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.21 2 9.3 - Paved YES Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.21 2 9.2 - Paved YES Poor 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial D D RepairN DEARBORN RD 0.24 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.24 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.26 2 11.5 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.26 2 9.6 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.28 2 10.6 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.29 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.32 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.34 2 13.4 7.1 Paved NO Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial A A -N DEARBORN RD 0.37 2 10.1 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.39 2 9.4 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.40 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.48 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.49 2 16.6 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -N DEARBORN RD 0.49 2 10.3 - Paved YES Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.50 2 10.0 - Paved NO Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.72 2 11.1 - Paved YES Poor 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial D D RepairN DEARBORN RD 0.79 2 9.1 - Paved YES Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.83 2 8.9 - Paved YES Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.84 2 10.4 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.86 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 0.95 2 10.6 - Paved NO Good 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 1.13 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair 2989 NO Category II Rural Arterial D D -N DEARBORN RD 1.58 2 11.0 3.9 Paved YES Fair 2989 YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -N HOGAN RD 0.07 2 8.8 - Paved YES Fair 1230 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 0.08 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 0.30 2 14.0 4.5 Paved YES Good 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector A A -N HOGAN RD 0.41 2 8.5 - Paved YES Fair 1230 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 0.49 2 9.4 - Paved YES Good 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 0.50 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good 1230 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 0.55 2 8.8 - Paved NO Fair 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 0.75 2 11.8 - Paved YES Good 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector A D -N HOGAN RD 0.76 2 8.4 - Paved YES Fair 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 1.05 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair 1230 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 1.08 2 9.2 - Paved NO Fair 1230 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 1.44 2 9.2 - Paved YES Fair 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 1.87 2 10.6 1.8 Paved YES Good 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 2.46 2 8.9 1.0 Paved YES Fair 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -N HOGAN RD 3.03 2 11.7 2.5 Paved YES Fair 1230 YES Category III Rural Collector A D -N MANCHESTER RD 0.05 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -N MANCHESTER RD 0.30 2 7.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -N MANCHESTER RD 0.49 2 7.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -N MANCHESTER RD 0.52 2 8.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -N MANCHESTER RD 0.81 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 15 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)N MANCHESTER RD 1.40 2 8.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -N STATE ST 0.30 2 13.3 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -NEAD LN 0.07 2 15.7 3.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D -NELSON RD 0.51 2 14.1 7.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -NEVADA CT 0.04 2 9.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -NEW TRENTON RD 0.87 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -NEW TRENTON RD 1.15 2 9.1 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairNOLTE RD 0.70 2 6.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -NORKUS RD 0.16 2 7.9 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairNORKUS RD 0.35 2 6.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -NOWLIN AVE 0.07 2 18.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -OAK CIRCLE DR 0.18 2 16.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OAKDALE CIR 0.11 2 4.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -OAKHAVEN CT 0.03 2 21.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OAKHAVEN DR 0.11 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OAKHAVEN DR 0.11 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OAKHAVEN DR 0.13 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OAKRIDGE DR 0.07 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OAKRIDGE DR 0.12 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OAKRIDGE DR 0.13 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OAKWOOD CT 0.05 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OLD HICKORY RD 0.49 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -OLD HICKORY RD 0.87 2 9.6 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -OLD HICKORY RD 1.22 2 7.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -OLD HOGAN RD 0.13 2 10.2 2.9 Paved NO Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -OLD HOGAN RD 0.20 2 6.4 - Paved YES Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairOLD SR 56 0.04 2 12.4 1.9 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OLD STATE HWY 1 0.12 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -OLD STATE HWY 1 1.24 2 8.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Collector D D -OLD STATE ROAD 350 0.31 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -OLD STATE ROAD 350 0.40 2 9.2 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -OLD STATE ROAD 350 0.63 2 10.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -OLD STATE ROAD 350 0.71 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - YES Category I Urban Local Road D D -OLD STATE ROAD 350 0.73 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -OLD US HWY 52 0.08 2 10.6 0.9 Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -OLD US HWY 52 0.11 2 13.2 13.2 Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -OLD US HWY 52 0.12 2 10.5 - Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -OLD US HWY 52 0.15 2 13.0 6.3 Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -OLD US HWY 52 0.21 2 13.1 7.8 Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -OLD US HWY 52 0.29 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -OLD US HWY 52 0.30 2 11.7 4.0 Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -OLD US HWY 52 0.90 2 16.5 11.6 Paved YES Good 9855 YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -ONE MILE RD 0.22 1 10.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D Paving NeededONE MILE RD 0.26 2 9.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ONE MILE RD 0.45 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Orchard Dr 0.04 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ORCHARD DR 0.14 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Orchard Dr 0.16 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OSBORNE RD 0.39 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OUTER DR 0.02 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 16 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)OUTER DR 0.05 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -OUTER DR 0.10 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OUTER DR 0.10 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -OUTER DR 0.22 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PACIFIC AVE 0.11 2 10.1 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairPALMER RD 0.30 2 6.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PALMER RD 0.56 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PAR DR 0.08 2 8.9 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PAR DR 0.15 2 8.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PAR DR 0.18 2 9.3 1.0 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PARK AVE 1.51 2 10.2 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -PELLA XING 0.40 2 9.5 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.13 2 8.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.18 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.19 2 8.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.29 2 9.2 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.60 2 8.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.62 2 9.0 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PEPPERTOWN RD 0.90 2 9.6 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PICNIC LAWN DR 0.03 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PICNIC LAWN DR 0.03 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PICNIC LAWN DR 0.10 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PICNIC WOODS DR 0.06 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PICNIC WOODS DR 0.20 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PIN OAK LN 0.09 2 5.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -PIN OAK LN 0.12 2 4.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -PINDELL RD 0.05 2 4.8 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D RepairPINE RIDGE LN 0.06 2 19.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PINE RIDGE LN 0.07 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PINE RIDGE LN 0.09 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PINE RIDGE LN 0.13 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PINE ST 0.04 2 7.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -PINE ST 0.07 2 4.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -PINE VALLEY CT 0.07 2 26.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PINHOOK RD 0.17 2 15.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -PINHOOK RD 0.89 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PINHOOK RD 1.72 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PINHOOK RD 2.04 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PIPER LN 0.06 2 10.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PLATT RD 0.01 1 12.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PLATT RD 0.50 2 8.2 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PLATT RD 0.74 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PLATT RD 1.16 2 7.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -POLLARD RD 1.28 2 6.6 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededPONTIAC DR 0.10 2 22.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PONTIAC DR 0.19 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -POPLAR ST 0.06 2 14.6 2.7 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -POPLAR ST 0.07 2 5.4 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairPOSSUM RIDGE RD 0.45 2 8.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -POSSUM RIDGE RD 2.65 2 10.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 17 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)POST 464 RD 0.74 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -POST 464 RD 1.01 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PRIBBLE CIR 0.23 2 11.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PRIBBLE RD 0.09 2 9.5 - Paved YES Good 1604 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -PRIBBLE RD 0.16 2 8.7 - Paved NO Good 1604 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -PRIBBLE RD 0.22 2 8.8 1.0 Paved YES Good 1604 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -PRIBBLE RD 0.98 2 10.5 - Paved YES Good 1604 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -PRIBBLE RD 1.20 2 9.8 - Paved YES Good 1604 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -PRIEST RD 0.71 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category II Rural Collector D D -PROBASCO ST 0.14 2 12.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -PROBST RD 0.03 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PROBST RD 0.07 2 8.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PROBST RD 0.18 2 8.2 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PROBST RD 0.19 2 10.5 1.1 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -PROBST RD 0.30 2 7.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -PROBST RD 0.79 2 5.7 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededPROFESSIONAL PARK DR 0.07 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PROFESSIONAL PARK DR 0.09 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -PROSPERITY RIDGE RD 0.49 2 8.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PROSPERITY RIDGE RD 0.59 2 9.6 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PROSPERITY RIDGE RD 1.70 2 7.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -PUTTER PL 0.04 2 10.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -RAINBOW RD 0.59 2 6.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -RANDALL AVE 0.87 2 10.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -REDWOOD DR 0.07 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -REDWOOD DR 0.08 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -REDWOOD DR 0.16 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -REDWOOD DR 0.21 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -RENCK CT 0.08 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -RENCK CT 0.08 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -RICE RD 0.53 2 6.3 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairRISING SUN PIKE 0.42 2 9.6 0.8 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Urban Local Road D D -ROBERTS RD 0.46 2 8.6 1.3 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ROBERTS RD 0.61 1 14.6 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ROLLING DR 0.10 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ROLLING DR 0.12 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ROLLING DR 0.16 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ROLLING DR 0.18 2 15.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ROLLING DR 0.23 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -RUBLE RD 0.75 2 9.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -RUMMEL RD 0.03 2 13.0 - Paved NO Fair 690 NO Category II Rural Local Road A D -RUMMEL RD 0.19 2 9.2 0.8 Paved YES Good 690 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -RUMMEL RD 0.23 2 8.3 1.2 Paved YES Good 690 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -RUMMEL RD 0.27 2 8.9 1.2 Paved YES Good 690 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -RUMMEL RD 0.31 2 8.8 0.6 Paved YES Good 690 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -RUMMEL RD 1.17 2 9.1 1.9 Paved YES Good 690 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -RUMSEY RD 0.82 2 6.5 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairRUSSELL RD 0.09 2 5.0 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairRUTH AVE 0.14 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -S HOGAN RD 0.07 2 7.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 18 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)S HOGAN RD 0.88 2 8.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -S HOGAN RD 2.31 2 8.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -S STATE ST 0.03 2 15.2 - Paved YES Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D RepairS STATE ST 0.04 2 15.9 - Paved YES Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D RepairS STATE ST 0.06 2 17.6 - Paved YES Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D RepairS STATE ST 0.07 2 18.5 - Paved YES Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D RepairS STATE ST 0.15 2 19.2 - Paved YES Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D RepairS STATE ST 0.19 2 14.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D -S STATE ST 0.20 2 13.3 - Paved YES Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D RepairSAINT PETERS RD 0.05 2 9.9 - Paved YES Fair 1601 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D -SAINT PETERS RD 0.35 2 9.5 - Paved NO Fair 1601 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -SAINT PETERS RD 0.61 2 9.8 - Paved YES Fair 1601 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D -SAINT PETERS RD 1.01 2 9.8 - Paved NO Fair 1601 YES Category III Rural Local Road D D -SALT FORK CT 0.04 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SALT FORK CT 0.07 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SALT FORK RD 0.09 2 11.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.09 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SALT FORK RD 0.10 2 10.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.11 2 10.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.14 2 8.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SALT FORK RD 0.15 2 9.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SALT FORK RD 0.15 2 11.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.21 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.22 2 10.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.34 2 11.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 0.44 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector A D -SALT FORK RD 1.83 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SALT FORK RD 2.05 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SAMILL RD 0.98 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SAND RUN RD 0.99 2 9.5 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SANDSTONE DR 0.09 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SANDSTONE DR 0.13 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SANGAMAW RD 0.38 2 8.3 3.4 Paved YES Good 499 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -SANGAMAW RD 0.43 2 7.9 1.8 Paved YES Good 499 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -SANGAMAW RD 0.49 2 8.6 1.8 Paved YES Good 499 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -SANGAMAW RD 0.87 2 7.8 - Paved YES Good 499 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -SAPLING CT 0.04 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SAWDON RIDGE RD 0.19 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair 1073 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -SAWDON RIDGE RD 0.24 2 8.4 - Paved NO Fair 1073 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -SAWDON RIDGE RD 0.37 2 9.1 - Paved NO Fair 1073 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -SAWDON RIDGE RD 0.79 2 8.8 - Paved NO Fair 1073 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -SAWDON RIDGE RD 0.95 2 9.1 - Paved YES Fair 1073 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -SAWDON RIDGE RD 1.53 2 8.1 - Paved NO Fair 1073 NO Category III Rural Collector D D -SCENIC DR 1.84 2 9.7 2.6 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D A -SCHAEFER RD 0.94 2 7.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHAICH RD 0.70 2 6.0 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededSCHANTZ RD 1.00 2 7.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHANTZ RD 1.01 2 6.3 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairSCHLEMNER CT 0.04 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHMALTZ RD 0.19 2 6.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 19 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)SCHMALTZ RD 1.48 2 8.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHUMAN RD 0.40 2 10.8 1.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -SCHUMAN RD 0.50 2 14.5 6.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -SCHUSTER RD 0.28 2 6.6 1.5 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHWIER RD 0.10 2 4.7 - Unpaved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHWIER RD 0.52 2 5.9 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHWIER RD 0.54 2 4.9 - Both NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SCHWIPP RD 0.32 2 7.3 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededSCHWIPP RD 0.51 2 8.2 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededSCHWIPP RD 0.53 2 9.2 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairSEFTAN LN 0.21 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SELDOM SEEN DR 0.10 2 6.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SELDOM SEEN DR 0.13 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SELDOM SEEN DR 0.14 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SELDOM SEEN DR 0.14 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SELDOM SEEN DR 0.22 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SEQUOTA CT 0.02 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SERENITY RIDGE DR 0.07 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SERENITY RIDGE DR 0.25 2 10.0 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairSHADOW DR 0.07 2 22.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SHADOW DR 0.10 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHADY LANE CT 0.11 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHADY LN 0.31 2 9.6 1.2 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHANGRILA DR 0.06 1 14.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SHANGRILA DR 0.06 1 14.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SHANGRILA DR 0.07 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHANGRILA DR 0.11 2 9.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHARON DR 0.26 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHARON DR 0.43 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHAWNEE DR 0.07 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SHERMAN DR 0.13 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHORT HILL AVE 0.23 2 17.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SHORT RD 0.34 2 8.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHORT RIDGE RD 2.89 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SHUTER RD 1.00 2 6.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SIEFFERMAN CT 0.10 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SIEFFERMAN RD 0.51 2 13.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SMOKEY MOUNTAIN DR 0.10 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SMOKEY MOUNTAIN DR 0.26 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.07 2 9.0 - Paved YES Fair 594 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.08 2 7.7 - Paved NO Good 594 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.11 2 9.5 - Paved NO Fair 594 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.13 2 7.7 - Paved NO Good 594 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.19 2 9.5 - Paved NO Fair 594 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.69 2 9.9 - Paved NO Good 594 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -SNEAKVILLE RD 0.96 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair 594 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -SOAP HILL RD 0.48 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SOAP HILL RD 0.48 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SOAP HILL RD 1.53 2 8.6 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -SOAPSTONE DR 0.04 2 10.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 20 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)SPANGLER RD 0.86 2 9.1 2.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D A -SPANGLER RD 0.92 2 8.4 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -SPANGLER RD 1.21 2 7.5 2.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D A -SPARTA PIKE 0.05 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SPARTA PIKE 0.09 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SPARTA PIKE 0.15 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SPARTA PIKE 0.16 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SPARTA PIKE 0.59 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SPARTA PIKE 0.72 2 9.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STADIUM LN 0.10 2 11.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D -STAMPER RD 1.06 2 8.9 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -STATE HWY 1 0.07 2 13.4 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.07 4 11.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 1 0.09 2 15.5 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.18 2 14.4 4.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.19 2 24.2 11.6 Paved YES Fair - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.20 2 14.8 5.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.22 2 13.3 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.23 2 14.2 1.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.24 2 13.3 3.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.27 2 18.3 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.31 2 13.5 1.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.32 2 14.8 4.7 Paved YES Fair - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.44 2 24.7 16.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.45 2 24.0 9.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.45 2 22.2 12.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.48 2 18.4 8.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.49 2 13.3 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.49 2 18.9 6.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.60 2 15.2 2.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.64 2 14.1 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.84 2 15.7 5.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 0.84 2 13.1 7.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 0.86 2 15.3 2.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 1.02 2 14.0 2.4 Paved YES Fair - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 1 1.22 2 18.7 12.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 1.25 2 15.6 8.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 1.51 2 14.7 7.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 1.60 2 20.3 12.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 1 1.72 2 13.9 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 148 0.09 2 11.6 3.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.12 2 11.9 4.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.13 2 11.8 2.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.14 2 10.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.16 2 14.1 5.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 148 0.18 2 9.7 - Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.21 2 11.1 3.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.24 2 14.0 5.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 148 0.30 2 12.8 5.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 148 0.30 2 12.6 4.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 21 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)STATE HWY 148 0.31 2 11.3 2.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.38 2 11.2 2.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.39 2 11.6 4.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.40 2 11.0 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 148 0.47 2 12.9 3.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 148 0.59 2 14.1 5.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 148 0.63 2 9.9 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category II Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 262 0.03 2 9.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 262 0.13 2 11.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 262 0.26 2 18.7 7.1 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 262 0.31 2 12.8 3.9 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 262 0.42 2 10.1 0.9 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 262 0.68 2 9.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 262 0.68 2 10.4 1.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 262 1.22 2 9.6 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 46 0.06 2 13.0 2.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.13 2 13.5 1.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.15 2 14.1 3.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.17 2 16.1 5.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.18 2 13.1 2.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.22 2 14.2 4.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.27 2 16.6 3.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.35 2 14.2 4.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.40 2 12.6 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.40 2 17.3 4.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.41 2 13.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.50 2 14.9 5.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.52 2 13.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.56 2 14.4 4.2 Paved NO Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.62 2 12.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 0.63 2 14.4 4.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 1.38 2 14.1 4.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 1.40 2 12.7 - Paved YES Good - NO Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 1.45 2 15.1 5.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 46 1.60 2 12.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.04 2 11.6 3.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.04 2 14.7 6.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.04 2 10.1 7.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.05 2 15.4 4.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.06 2 11.2 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.06 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.07 2 10.2 0.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.08 2 10.3 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.08 2 13.3 6.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.08 2 10.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.08 2 10.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.09 2 11.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.09 2 10.5 3.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.09 2 12.0 4.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.09 2 10.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 22 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)STATE HWY 48 0.10 2 11.7 3.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.10 2 11.2 3.5 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.10 2 15.5 4.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.10 2 11.3 2.8 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.11 2 12.8 3.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.11 2 14.0 4.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.11 2 12.3 2.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.12 2 12.8 2.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.13 2 14.2 2.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.14 2 12.7 3.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.15 2 11.7 3.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.16 2 12.7 4.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.16 2 11.1 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.17 2 11.3 1.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.18 2 10.6 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.19 2 10.7 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.19 2 10.7 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.19 2 13.7 4.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.20 2 12.1 5.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.21 2 10.7 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.21 2 12.6 3.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.22 2 9.8 1.5 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.24 2 9.0 1.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.25 2 11.5 3.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.26 2 11.0 1.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.27 2 17.2 6.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.29 2 13.9 3.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.33 2 11.9 2.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.33 2 15.6 5.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.36 2 10.1 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.36 2 13.0 4.1 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.38 2 11.6 3.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.49 2 14.3 7.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.50 2 10.0 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.52 2 13.6 2.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.56 2 19.1 4.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.61 2 9.4 2.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.65 2 10.6 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.71 2 11.3 2.6 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.83 2 13.9 2.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 48 0.84 2 9.5 0.9 Paved YES Poor - NO Category IV Rural Arterial D D RepairSTATE HWY 48 0.97 2 11.0 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 0.99 2 10.2 1.4 Paved NO Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 48 1.45 2 22.3 11.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 62 0.02 2 18.9 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 62 0.02 2 17.7 2.7 Paved NO Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.03 2 12.5 1.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.03 2 12.1 - Paved YES Fair - NO Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.04 2 17.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.04 2 15.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 23 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)STATE HWY 62 0.05 2 16.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.06 2 16.6 3.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.06 2 15.7 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.06 2 15.9 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.06 2 15.7 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.06 2 15.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATE HWY 62 0.11 2 23.7 9.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE HWY 62 0.17 2 10.5 1.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 62 0.42 2 9.8 0.8 Paved YES Poor - NO Category III Rural Arterial D D RepairSTATE HWY 62 0.68 2 11.6 2.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 62 0.79 2 9.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 62 0.80 2 10.2 1.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 62 1.34 2 10.5 1.5 Paved NO Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial D D -STATE HWY 62 1.93 2 10.2 11.8 Paved YES Fair - YES Category III Rural Arterial D A -STATE LINE RD 0.06 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.06 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.06 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.06 2 8.9 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.07 2 10.2 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.08 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.09 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.10 2 9.3 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.11 2 8.9 - Paved YES Fair 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.11 2 8.9 - Paved YES Fair 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.12 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.13 2 8.8 - Paved YES Fair 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.13 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.16 2 10.3 1.9 Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.18 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.18 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.19 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.21 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.21 2 9.1 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.24 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.25 2 9.0 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.44 2 9.5 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.53 2 10.2 4.7 Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.63 2 11.0 1.7 Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 0.64 2 9.1 - Paved YES Fair 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 1.17 2 9.2 - Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE LINE RD 1.22 2 9.5 1.1 Paved YES Good 6713 YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -STATE ROAD 350 0.05 3 15.0 9.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.09 3 17.1 2.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.11 2 13.0 0.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.12 2 14.3 2.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.12 2 12.4 0.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.15 3 15.3 10.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.16 2 13.9 1.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.16 2 13.3 0.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.18 2 14.3 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 24 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)STATE ROAD 350 0.18 2 22.4 10.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.20 2 13.9 4.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.22 2 13.4 1.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.23 2 13.7 2.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.23 2 15.3 2.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.28 2 14.3 2.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.29 2 20.6 10.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.30 2 13.3 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.37 2 21.4 10.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.37 2 12.7 1.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.39 2 17.2 7.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.42 2 21.6 10.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.45 2 13.3 2.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.59 2 13.4 0.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.60 3 18.0 14.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -STATE ROAD 350 0.68 2 15.7 8.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.69 2 13.9 1.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.72 2 13.4 1.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.87 2 12.7 2.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.92 2 15.8 5.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 0.97 2 21.9 8.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 350 1.00 2 15.0 2.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -STATE ROAD 56 0.58 2 18.0 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A A -STATE ROAD 56 1.75 2 17.7 5.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category III Rural Arterial A D -STATION HOLLOW RD 0.86 2 9.4 1.6 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STEELE RD 0.42 1 9.8 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairSTEELE RD 0.51 2 13.5 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D RepairSTEEPLE CHASE CT 0.23 2 10.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -STEINHAUSER RD 0.52 2 6.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STEVENS RD 0.53 2 5.2 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STEWART RD 0.55 2 6.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STEWART ST 0.21 2 9.3 1.2 Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D RepairSTIMSON RD 0.52 2 6.2 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairSTITTS HILL RD 0.26 2 8.5 0.9 Paved YES Good 561 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -STITTS HILL RD 0.84 2 8.7 - Paved YES Good 561 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -STONEGATE DR 0.46 2 9.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STONEY LONESOME RD 0.28 2 15.1 2.9 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A A -STOOPS RD 0.87 2 18.7 3.8 Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A A -STOOPS RD 0.90 2 9.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STOUT RD 0.34 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STOUT RD 0.35 2 9.6 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairSTOUT RD 0.53 2 14.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -STOUT RD 0.69 2 9.4 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -STROTHER DR 0.07 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -SYCAMORE ST 0.08 2 5.4 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairSYKES DR 0.08 2 8.5 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TAMARACK CT 0.03 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -TANGMAN RD 0.72 2 8.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TEMPLE DR 0.13 1 8.2 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TERRILL RD 0.39 2 5.6 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 25 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)TEXAS GAS RD 1.26 2 7.1 0.9 Paved NO Good 479 NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -TEXAS GAS RD 1.76 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good 479 NO Category II Rural Local Road D D -THOMAS RD 0.27 2 7.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TIGER BLVD 0.30 2 17.7 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Urban Local Road A D -TIMBERLANE RD 0.12 2 12.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -TIMBERVIEW RD 0.31 2 19.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -TOWER RD 0.82 2 10.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -TRACEY LN 0.26 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -TRACKVILLE RD 0.71 2 8.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -TRACKVILLE RD 1.00 2 8.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -TRANQUILITY 0.06 2 9.9 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededTREE TOP DR 0.38 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TRESTER HL 0.53 2 7.6 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D Paving NeededTREVOR DR 0.07 2 9.6 - Unpaved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TREVOR DR 0.27 2 9.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TROJAN RD 0.50 2 13.8 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road A D -TURKEY POINT RD 0.64 2 6.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -TURKEY POINT RD 1.29 2 7.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ULHMANSIEK RD 0.15 2 6.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNION RIDGE RD 3.48 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.04 2 11.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.06 2 9.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.08 2 15.5 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.12 2 5.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.13 2 20.1 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D Paving NeededUNKNOWN STREET 0.16 2 9.0 - Paved YES Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.24 2 9.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.24 2 6.8 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.25 2 6.4 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.30 2 6.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.30 2 7.1 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.32 2 6.3 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNKNOWN STREET 0.83 2 8.7 - Paved NO Poor - YES Category I Urban Local Road D D RepairUNNAMED ST 0.05 2 8.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.01 2 10.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.03 2 6.9 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.03 2 11.5 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -UNNAMED STREET 0.03 2 7.9 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairUNNAMED STREET 0.05 2 15.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -UNNAMED STREET 0.06 2 6.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.10 2 6.3 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.10 2 8.6 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.11 2 9.0 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.12 2 9.9 1.2 Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.17 2 14.7 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road A D -UNNAMED STREET 0.17 2 9.7 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairUNNAMED STREET 0.18 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -UNNAMED STREET 0.36 1 8.1 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairUS HWY 50 0.03 2 12.4 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.03 2 13.9 5.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 26 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)US HWY 50 0.04 4 11.9 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.06 2 11.3 1.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.06 2 19.5 9.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.06 2 22.2 9.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.06 2 15.1 5.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.06 2 26.6 10.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.07 2 13.2 3.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.07 4 11.5 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.08 2 14.6 7.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.08 2 11.1 4.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.08 2 11.7 7.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.08 2 18.1 7.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.10 2 8.9 0.6 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.10 2 12.4 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.11 2 17.5 7.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.13 2 22.8 9.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.13 2 15.3 7.4 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.14 2 14.5 6.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.15 2 19.6 11.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 0.15 2 23.0 7.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.15 2 11.4 1.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.15 2 16.0 9.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.15 4 12.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.16 4 14.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.16 5 16.4 12.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 0.17 5 16.4 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.17 4 11.4 3.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.17 2 18.1 7.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.17 2 19.0 7.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.17 5 16.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.18 2 17.5 7.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.18 2 15.9 4.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.19 2 20.8 8.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.19 2 15.7 - Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.19 2 17.6 7.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.19 2 22.9 8.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.20 2 22.5 6.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.21 2 17.1 6.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.21 2 18.9 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.22 2 16.7 8.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.22 5 16.3 4.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.22 4 12.2 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.25 2 39.2 8.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.26 2 15.2 6.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.26 2 20.0 8.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.26 2 19.2 8.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.27 2 18.4 9.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.27 2 17.4 9.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.27 2 22.0 7.4 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.28 2 16.5 10.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 27 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)US HWY 50 0.28 2 17.6 8.5 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.28 2 17.2 6.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.30 2 24.1 10.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.30 2 23.8 8.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.30 2 18.0 8.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.30 2 24.1 10.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.31 2 21.9 6.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.31 2 21.6 5.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.31 2 19.9 8.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.31 2 21.4 13.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 0.31 2 21.2 13.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 0.32 2 13.7 10.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.34 2 17.1 12.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 0.34 2 18.0 8.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.34 2 18.1 10.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.35 2 18.0 6.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.35 2 23.0 8.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.38 4 16.2 6.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.41 2 20.5 8.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.41 2 20.3 7.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.41 2 16.5 10.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.41 4 11.3 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 50 0.41 2 15.6 9.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.41 2 18.0 8.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.45 2 25.5 10.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.47 2 19.8 9.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.48 2 18.7 9.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.49 2 17.2 8.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.49 3 26.2 9.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.52 2 16.9 7.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.63 2 17.8 6.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.63 2 18.5 7.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.63 2 16.9 6.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.68 2 19.6 8.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.68 2 17.7 7.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.69 2 18.6 7.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.69 2 17.5 7.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.69 2 22.0 6.3 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.69 2 15.3 6.5 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.70 2 17.2 7.2 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.70 2 18.2 7.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.71 2 19.0 8.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.72 2 19.8 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.79 2 17.6 8.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.84 2 21.7 7.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.87 2 18.2 7.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.90 2 18.2 7.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 0.98 2 16.3 11.4 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 1.02 2 18.3 6.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 1.03 2 18.4 6.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 28 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)US HWY 50 1.04 2 17.0 9.0 Paved YES Fair - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 50 1.22 2 19.4 12.1 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 1.22 2 17.4 12.6 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 50 1.38 4 11.4 8.3 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 52 0.10 2 12.4 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 52 0.18 2 14.1 2.9 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 52 0.19 2 18.8 16.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 52 0.25 2 11.8 - Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial D D -US HWY 52 0.43 2 16.2 10.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -US HWY 52 0.79 2 15.6 11.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A A -US HWY 52 1.36 2 14.4 2.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category IV Rural Arterial A D -UTAH CT 0.04 2 10.1 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -VALLEY VISTA CT 0.13 2 10.4 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -VALLEY VISTA CT 0.13 2 10.2 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -VALLEY VISTA DR 0.05 2 9.7 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -VALLEY VISTA DR 0.41 2 8.6 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -VAN WEDDING RD 0.64 2 7.5 1.8 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -VAN WEDDING RD 0.74 2 8.0 1.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -VAN WEDDING RD 0.75 2 7.4 1.7 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -VIKING DR 0.05 2 9.0 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -VIKING DR 0.10 2 8.8 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -VINEYARD CT 0.07 2 9.70897 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -VOGEL RD 0.27 2 5.34395 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -VOGELSANG RD 0.35 2 5.8121 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededVOLZ RD 0.56 2 10.1496 2.2 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Local Road A A -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.16 2 9.25955 - Paved NO Fair 710 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.22 2 8.25277 - Paved YES Good 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.33 2 8.43135 - Paved YES Good 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.35 2 8.94485 - Paved YES Good 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.41 2 8.5433 1.4 Paved YES Fair 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.46 2 8.46955 - Paved YES Fair 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.48 2 9.0185 0.6 Paved YES Good 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.49 2 6.19565 - Unpaved YES Fair 710 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.49 2 8.57975 - Paved NO Fair 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.52 2 9.12482 - Paved NO Fair 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 0.82 2 9.37515 0.6 Paved YES Good 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 1.01 2 7.39395 - Both YES Good 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 1.03 2 8.64175 - Paved YES Fair 710 NO Category II Rural Collector D D -W COUNTY LINE RD 1.38 2 10.6719 3.4 Paved YES Fair 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D A -W COUNTY LINE RD 1.66 2 8.91905 - Both YES Fair 710 YES Category II Rural Collector D D -WALNUT GRV 0.12 2 8.9637 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALNUT ST 0.03 2 7.68465 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALNUT ST 0.06 2 7.64765 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALNUT ST 0.09 2 8.45443 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -WALT PANER RD 0.22 2 7.23535 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALTERS RD 0.06 2 8.84695 - Paved YES Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALTERS RD 0.17 2 8.2766 2.0 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALTERS RD 0.22 2 8.85405 1.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALTERS RD 0.67 2 8.82725 1.5 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -WALTERS RD 1.13 2 7.24905 1.9 Paved NO Good - YES Category I Rural Local Road D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 29 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Repair/PavingNeeded)WASHINGTON ST 0.09 2 6.1308 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Urban Local Road D D -WATSON RD 0.20 2 5.55485 - Unpaved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairWEILER RD 0.49 2 5.9642 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairWEISBURG RD 0.08 2 10.2563 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road A D -WEISBURG RD 0.21 2 10.312 - Paved YES Good 913 NO Category II Rural Local Road A D -WEISBURG RD 0.25 2 9.8155 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -WEISBURG RD 0.34 2 10.1097 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road A D -WEISBURG RD 0.72 2 9.4555 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -WEISBURG RD 0.75 2 10.0657 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road A D -WEISBURG RD 0.99 2 10.1594 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road A D -WEISBURG RD 1.03 2 9.5439 - Paved NO Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road D D -WEISBURG RD 1.04 2 10.173 - Paved YES Fair 913 YES Category II Rural Local Road A D -WESLING RD 0.41 2 2.6777 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WESLING RD 0.43 2 5.5191 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WESSELER RD 0.54 2 8.34125 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WHITE PLAINS RD 0.44 2 8.6617 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WHITE PLAINS RD 1.61 2 9.80428 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WHITE RIDGE RD 0.06 2 9.97655 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WHITE RIDGE RD 0.30 2 9.60435 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WHITES HILL RD 0.17 2 9.37395 - Paved NO Poor 2267 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D RepairWHITES HILL RD 0.17 2 9.6938 - Paved NO Fair 2267 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D -WHITES HILL RD 0.36 2 9.475 - Paved NO Poor 2267 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D RepairWHITES HILL RD 0.49 2 9.4153 - Paved NO Poor 2267 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D RepairWHITES HILL RD 1.02 2 9.8249 - Paved NO Poor 2267 NO Category III Rural Local Road D D RepairWIEDEMAN RD 0.27 2 7.2569 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILBUR DR 0.12 2 9.10055 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILKERSON RD 0.45 2 7.1843 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILKERSON RD 0.63 2 6.9898 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairWILLOUGBY RD 0.18 2 7.4729 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILMINGTON CT 0.05 2 6.15175 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILMINGTON CT 0.07 2 9.80485 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILMINGTON HILLS DR N 0.25 2 9.8909 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILMINGTON HILLS DR S 0.14 2 9.95015 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILMINGTON HILLS DR S 0.29 2 9.33285 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WILMINGTON PIKE 0.21 2 9.69175 2.4 Paved YES Good - YES Category I Rural Collector D A -WILMINGTON PIKE 2.10 2 9.35588 1.7 Paved YES Fair - YES Category I Rural Collector D D -WILSON CREEK RD 0.25 2 12.8197 5.1 Paved YES Good 4151 YES Category IV Rural Collector A D -WILSON CREEK RD 1.18 2 11.301 3.7 Paved YES Good 4151 YES Category IV Rural Collector D D -WILSON CREEK RD 1.93 2 13.1563 2.5 Paved YES Good 4151 YES Category IV Rural Collector A D -WINGATE RD 0.27 2 8.50815 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WITT RD 0.19 2 5.59545 - Both NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D Paving NeededWITT RD 0.28 2 4.93725 - Paved NO Poor - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D RepairWOLIUING RD 0.02 2 8.21455 - Unpaved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WOLIUING RD 0.52 2 7.21313 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WOLIUING RD 0.93 2 7.27435 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WOODLAND HLS 0.27 2 7.3946 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -WOODS RD 0.43 2 9.41845 - Paved NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -YORK ST 0.11 2 9.60315 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -YORKRIDGE RD 0.02 2 10.0797 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 0.03 2 9.6765 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 30 of 31

Dearborn County Transportation AssessmentGeometrics Pavement Conditions FunctionRoadway Functional ClassificationDeficienciesStreetLength ofSegment# ofLanesLaneWidthShoulderWidthPavementTypePavementMarkingsPavementConditionAverage DailyTrafficSchool BusRouteLane WidthShoulderWidthPavement Condition(mi) (ft) (ft) (yes/no) (yes/no) (Category & Sub-Category)(Deficient/Acceptable)(Deficient/Acceptable)YORKRIDGE RD 0.34 2 9.4059 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 0.66 2 10.4839 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 0.67 2 10.2177 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 0.68 2 9.8823 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 1.13 2 9.2594 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 1.25 2 9.55495 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -YORKRIDGE RD 2.26 2 10.0213 - Paved YES Good 1499 YES Category III Rural Collector D D -ZIEGLER BLVD 0.08 2 24.2854 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road A D -ZIMMER RD 0.47 2 7.63815 - Paved NO Good - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -ZINSER RD 0.10 2 8.37603 - Both NO Fair - NO Category I Rural Local Road D D -649.89 mi(Repair/PavingNeeded)Dearborn CountyTransportation AssessmentAppendix APage 31 of 31

Cole Ln.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayCole LnFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2003Description___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 2Shoulder width 0.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92Lane width 9.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 2.7 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 29 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 124 veh/hDirectional split 66 / 34 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71PCE for trucks, ET 2.5PCE for RVs, ER 1.1Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.967Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 196 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 129 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 40 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 40.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 3.4 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 35.0 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

Cole Ln.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 0.77PCE for trucks, ET 1.8PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.984Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 178 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 117Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 14.5 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 25.0Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 39.5 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSAVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.06Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 92 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 339 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 2.6 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

Cole Ln2.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayCole LnFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2030Description Existing Roads with Future Traffic Volumes___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 2Shoulder width 0.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92Lane width 9.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 2.7 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 29 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 185 veh/hDirectional split 66 / 34 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71PCE for trucks, ET 2.5PCE for RVs, ER 1.1Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.967Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 293 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 193 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 40 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 40.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 4.0 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 33.8 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

Cole Ln2.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 0.77PCE for trucks, ET 1.8PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.984Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 265 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 175Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 20.8 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 24.1Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 44.9 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSBVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.09Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 137 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 505 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 4.1 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

Jamison.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayJamison RdFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2003Description___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 1Shoulder width 0.5 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95Lane width 10.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 3.2 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 17 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 314 veh/hDirectional split 70 / 30 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71PCE for trucks, ET 2.5PCE for RVs, ER 1.1Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.967Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 481 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 337 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 4.3 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 27.0 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

Jamison.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 0.77PCE for trucks, ET 1.8PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.984Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 436 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 305Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 31.8 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 22.8Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 54.6 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSEVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.15Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 266 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1011 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 9.8 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

Jamison2.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayJamison RdFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2030Description Existing Roads with Future Traffic Volumes___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 1Shoulder width 0.5 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95Lane width 10.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 3.2 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 17 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 471 veh/hDirectional split 70 / 30 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.93PCE for trucks, ET 1.9PCE for RVs, ER 1.1Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.978Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 545 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 382 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 4.1 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 26.7 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

Jamison2.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 0.94PCE for trucks, ET 1.5PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.990Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 533 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 373Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 37.4 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 21.7Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 59.1 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSEVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.17Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 399 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1517 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 14.9 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

N Dearborn.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayNorth Dearborn RdFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2003Description___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 1Shoulder width 0.5 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86Lane width 10.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 15.6 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 94 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 25 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 78 veh/hDirectional split 71 / 29 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.7PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 92 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 65 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 1.5 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 32.8 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

N Dearborn.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.1PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 91 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 65Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 7.7 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 27.4Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 35.1 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSEVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.03Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 354 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1217 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 10.8 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

N Dearborn2.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayNorth Dearborn RdFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2030Description Existing Roads with Future Traffic Volumes___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 1Shoulder width 0.5 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86Lane width 10.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 15.6 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 94 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 25 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 117 veh/hDirectional split 71 / 29 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.7PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 138 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 98 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 2.2 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 31.7 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

N Dearborn2.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.1PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 136 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 97Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 11.3 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 26.8Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 38.1 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSEVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.04Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 531 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1825 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 16.8 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

State Line Rd.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayState Line RdFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2003Description___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 1Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89Lane width 10.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 6.8 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 93 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 40 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 215 veh/hDirectional split 71 / 29 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.7PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 245 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 174 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 3.4 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 29.7 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

State Line Rd.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.1PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 242 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 172Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 19.2 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 25.5Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 44.6 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSEVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.08Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 408 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 1453 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 13.8 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

State Line Rd2.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayState Line RdFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2030Description Existing Roads with Future Traffic Volumes___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 1Shoulder width 1.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89Lane width 10.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 6.8 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 93 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 40 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 322 veh/hDirectional split 71 / 29 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.7PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 367 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 261 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 4.1 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 28.0 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

State Line Rd2.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.1PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 363 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 258Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 27.3 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 23.9Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 51.3 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSEVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.11Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 611 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 2177 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 21.8 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

Wilsons Creek.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayWilsons CreekFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2003Description___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 2Shoulder width 2.5 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89Lane width 11.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 3.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 24 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 173 veh/hDirectional split 77 / 23 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71PCE for trucks, ET 2.5PCE for RVs, ER 1.1Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.967Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 283 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 218 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 3.9 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 28.9 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

Wilsons Creek.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 0.77PCE for trucks, ET 1.8PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.984Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 256 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 197Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 20.2 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 28.9Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 49.0 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSBVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.09Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 172 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 611 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 6.0 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

Wilsons Creek2.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayWilsons CreekFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2030Description Existing Roads with Future Traffic Volumes___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 2Shoulder width 2.5 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89Lane width 11.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 3.5 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Rolling % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 24 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 259 veh/hDirectional split 77 / 23 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 0.71PCE for trucks, ET 2.5PCE for RVs, ER 1.1Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.967Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 424 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 326 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 35 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 35.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 4.4 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 27.3 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

Wilsons Creek2.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 0.77PCE for trucks, ET 1.8PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.984Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 384 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 296Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 28.6 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 26.8Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 55.5 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSCVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.13Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 257 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 914 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 9.4 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

York Ridge.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayYork RidgeFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2003Description___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 2Shoulder width 0.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89Lane width 9.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 7.4 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 26 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 62 veh/hDirectional split 81 / 19 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.7PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 71 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 58 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 40 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 40.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 1.2 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 38.2 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

York Ridge.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.1PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 70 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 57Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 6.0 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 34.6Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 40.6 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSBVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.02Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 128 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 457 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 3.4 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

York Ridge2.txtHCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1dPhone:E-Mail:Fax:___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________AnalystSteve BrinckAgency/Co.Parsons BrinckerhoffDate Performed 08/21/03Analysis Time PeriodHighwayYork RidgeFrom/ToJurisdictionAnalysis Year 2030Description Existing Roads with Future Traffic Volumes___________________________________Input Data_________________________________Highway class Class 2Shoulder width 0.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89Lane width 9.0 ft % Trucks and buses 2 %Segment length 7.4 mi % Recreational vehicles 4 %Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 100 %Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 26 /miUp/down %Two-way hourly volume, V 93 veh/hDirectional split 81 / 19 %____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.7PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.986Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 106 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 86 pc/hFree-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:Field measured speed, SFM 40 mi/hObserved volume, Vf 0 veh/hEstimated Free-Flow Speed:Base free-flow speed, BFFS - mi/hAdj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS - mi/hAdj. for access points, fA - mi/hFree-flow speed, FFS 40.0 mi/hAdjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 1.9 mi/hAverage travel speed, ATS 37.3 mi/h__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________Page 1

York Ridge2.txtGrade adjustment factor, fG 1.00PCE for trucks, ET 1.1PCE for RVs, ER 1.0Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.998Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 105 pc/hHighest directional split proportion (note-2) 85Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 8.8 %Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 34.0Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 42.8 %________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________Level of service, LOSBVolume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.03Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 193 veh-miPeak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 685 veh-miPeak 15-min total travel time, TT15 5.2 veh-h______________________________________________________________________________Notes:1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminateanalysis-the LOS is F.Page 2

Horizontal & VerticalCurve DataAppendix C

Cole Lane State Line Wilson Creek Yorkridge Jamison Rd N. DearbornHorizontal CurvesMinimum Radius (ft) 600 965 760 600 965 760Total Curves (ft) 4710.66 15089.07 8152.72 10355.82 9348.79 22791.11Total Deficient (ft) 2299.55 5020.56 2595.97 3395.17 5961.70 9620.84Deficient % 49% 33% 32% 33% 64% 42%Vertical CurvesCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 61 114 84 61 114 84Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 79 115 96 79 115 96Maximum grade 10% 6% 10% 10% 6% 6%Minimum grade 0.05% 0.5% 0.05% 0.05% 0.5% 0.5%Total Curves (ft) 8300 16920 9700 11775 6650 34080K-ValuesTotal Deficient (ft) 3500 12120 6300 4575 1700 16380Deficient % 42% 72% 65% 39% 26% 48%Max/Min GradesTotal Deficient (ft) 1200 2820 650 0 1100 19230Deficient % 14% 17% 7% 0% 17% 56%

Cole Ln. - Category III Rural CollectorMinimum horizontal radius600 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 61Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 79Maximum grade 10 %Minimum grade 0.1 %Horizontal CurvesCurve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) Radius (ft)MinimumRadius Met?H1 9+66.98 10+64.46 0.21 0.23 97.48 100 NOH2 11+95.70 15+53.27 0.25 0.32 357.57 800 YESH3 17+88.87 19+97.17 0.37 0.40 208.30 225 NOH4 21+94.45 24+17.59 0.44 0.48 223.14 300 NOH5 26+93.80 28+88.63 0.54 0.57 194.83 2000 YESH6 33+53.65 38+45.14 0.66 0.75 491.49 850 YESH7 39+93.09 41+92.61 0.78 0.82 199.52 700 YESH8 42+51.22 43+95.88 0.83 0.86 144.66 175 NOH9 46+75.57 49+50.31 0.91 0.96 274.74 350 NOH10 52+78.71 55+11.36 1.03 1.07 232.65 1000 YESH11 61+57.66 63+58.38 1.19 1.23 200.72 800 YESH12 74+18.65 77+41.08 1.43 1.49 322.43 350 NOH13 79+55.23 82+98.56 1.53 1.60 343.33 225 NOH14 87+23.80 90+05.51 1.68 1.73 281.71 465 NOH15 95+49.07 97+82.90 1.83 1.88 233.83 500 NOH16 105+67.33 106+69.09 2.03 2.05 101.76 2000 YESH17 109+95.01 114+05.28 2.11 2.19 410.27 3000 YESH18 126+99.83 128+69.76 2.43 2.46 169.93 500 NOH19 138+34.11 140+56.41 2.65 2.69 222.30 2500 YESCole Lane HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Cole Ln. - Category III Rural CollectorMinimum horizontal radius600 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 61Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 79Maximum grade 10 %Minimum grade 0.1 %Vertical CurvesCurve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V1 1+18.82 6+18.82 0.05 0.14 3.54 -0.95 500.00 CREST 111 YES YESV2 7+62.25 12+62.25 0.17 0.27 -0.95 1.17 500.00 SAG 236 YES YESV3 16+66.97 18+66.97 0.34 0.38 1.17 13.72 200.00 SAG 16 NO NOV4 18+77.13 19+77.13 0.38 0.40 13.72 3.00 100.00 CREST 9 NO NOV5 22+13.40 25+13.40 0.45 0.50 3.00 8.51 300.00 SAG 54 NO YESV6 25+46.63 28+46.63 0.51 0.57 8.51 10.00 300.00 SAG 201 YES YESV7 30+64.05 35+64.05 0.61 0.70 10.00 7.09 500.00 CREST 172 YES YESV8 39+11.85 44+11.85 0.77 0.86 7.09 12.58 500.00 SAG 91 YES NOV9 50+30.93 54+30.93 0.98 1.05 12.58 -6.45 400.00 CREST 21 NO NOV10 59+07.31 64+07.31 1.15 1.24 -6.45 6.62 500.00 SAG 38 NO YESV11 70+33.62 72+33.62 1.36 1.40 6.62 -2.03 200.00 CREST 23 NO YESV12 72+61.03 74+61.03 1.40 1.44 -2.03 2.11 200.00 SAG 48 NO YESV13 80+54.73 85+54.73 1.55 1.65 2.11 -2.71 500.00 CREST 104 YES YESV14 87+90.34 92+90.34 1.69 1.79 -2.71 2.23 500.00 SAG 101 YES YESV15 94+07.73 99+07.73 1.81 1.90 2.23 -2.26 500.00 CREST 111 YES YESV16 103+51.83 108+51.83 1.99 2.08 -2.26 -3.77 500.00 CREST 331 YES YESV17 113+27.08 118+27.08 2.17 2.27 -3.77 2.84 500.00 SAG 76 NO YESV18 119+19.01 124+19.01 2.28 2.38 2.84 6.71 500.00 SAG 129 YES YESV19 124+67.46 129+67.46 2.39 2.48 6.71 -6.27 500.00 CREST 39 NO YESV20 131+28.99 134+28.99 2.51 2.57 -6.27 6.34 300.00 SAG 24 NO YESV21 134+43.04 137+43.04 2.57 2.63 6.34 0.76 300.00 CREST 54 NO YESCole Lane VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

State Line Rd. - Category IV Rural ArterialMinimum horizontal radius965 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 114Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 115Maximum grade 6 %Minimum grade 0.5 %Horizontal CurvesCurve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) Radius nimum Radius Met?H1 26+94.91 31+27.84 3.53 3.61 432.93 900 NOH2 34+23.14 38+41.03 3.67 3.75 417.89 10000 YESH3 45+99.88 49+62.25 3.89 3.96 362.37 10000 YESH4 51+21.73 55+26.45 3.99 4.07 404.72 1000 YESH5 59+92.03 60+58.70 4.16 4.17 66.67 800 NOH6 61+84.16 63+27.83 4.19 4.22 143.67 800 NOH7 64+63.72 74+12.68 4.24 4.42 948.96 1600 YESH8 74+97.61 76+37.16 4.44 4.47 139.55 300 NOH9 77+26.83 79+19.03 4.48 4.52 192.20 1500 YESH10 81+31.30 82+39.20 4.56 4.58 107.90 800 NOH11 82+86.75 84+76.08 4.59 4.63 189.33 350 NOH12 86+38.96 87+63.82 4.66 4.68 124.86 1000 YESH13 88+32.18 90+60.22 4.69 4.74 228.04 350 NOH14 92+96.73 96+73.11 4.78 4.85 376.38 1200 YESH15 96+88.09 98+98.41 4.86 4.90 210.32 300 NOH16 100+05.41 111+74.31 4.92 5.14 1168.90 5000 YESH17 113+17.14 117+03.57 5.16 5.24 386.43 5000 YESH18 118+10.40 119+53.82 5.26 5.28 143.42 1000 YESH19 123+54.68 127+60.28 5.36 5.44 405.60 850 NOH20 131+28.09 132+81.92 5.51 5.54 153.83 200 NOH21 138+65.54 141+55.63 5.65 5.70 290.09 800 NOH22 142+73.70 145+48.67 5.72 5.78 274.97 800 NOH23 146+63.61 154+05.48 5.80 5.94 741.87 11000 YESH24 156+58.77 162+65.07 5.99 6.10 606.30 1200 YESH25 167+21.62 167+88.85 6.19 6.20 67.23 1000 YESH26 169+10.18 171+42.13 6.22 6.27 231.95 350 NOH27 172+97.50 176+73.79 6.30 6.37 376.29 300 NOH28 182+80.65 189+99.97 6.48 6.62 719.32 1800 YESH29 190+13.78 191+45.09 6.62 6.65 131.31 800 NOH30 199+38.62 201+28.98 6.80 6.83 190.36 1500 YESH31 206+85.65 209+36.58 6.94 6.99 250.93 350 NOH32 227+26.27 229+81.99 7.32 7.37 255.72 500 NOH33 241+66.66 244+52.92 7.60 7.65 286.26 2000 YESH34 248+31.73 248+75.81 7.72 7.73 44.08 800 NOH35 249+49.90 249+78.03 7.75 7.75 28.13 100 NOH36 250+27.20 253+42.17 7.76 7.82 314.97 1500 YESH37 262+18.16 264+98.73 7.99 8.04 280.57 1600 YESH38 267+31.76 269+46.82 8.08 8.12 215.06 800 NOH39 276+91.81 280+35.80 8.27 8.33 343.99 600 NOState Line Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Curve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) Radius nimum Radius Met?H40 286+69.36 288+90.63 8.45 8.49 221.27 300 NOH41 301+02.83 303+81.65 8.72 8.77 278.82 1500 YESH42 309+49.55 310+89.83 8.88 8.91 140.28 175 NOH43 317+85.94 324+06.32 9.04 9.16 620.38 2000 YESH44 33945.71 35300.65 9.45 9.71 1354.94 3500 YESH45 35949.23 36030.59 9.83 9.84 81.36 1000 YESH46 37066.54 37205.19 10.04 10.07 138.65 800 NOState Line Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

State Line Rd. - Category IV Rural ArterialMinimum horizontal radius965 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 114Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 115Maximum grade 6 %Minimum grade 0.5 %Vertical CurvesCurve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V1 4+05.89 9+05.89 3.10 3.19 1.21 -1.82 500.00 CREST 165 YES YESV2 12+31.40 20+31.40 3.25 3.41 -1.82 1.33 800.00 SAG 254 YES YESV3 45+85.07 47+35.07 3.89 3.92 1.33 4.55 150.00 SAG 47 NO YESV4 47+55.36 49+55.36 3.92 3.96 4.55 0.50 200.00 CREST 49 NO YESV5 51+28.50 55+28.50 3.99 4.07 0.50 4.27 400.00 SAG 106 NO YESV6 57+11.05 59+11.05 4.10 4.14 4.27 10.80 200.00 SAG 31 NO NOV7 59+46.01 61+46.01 4.15 4.18 10.80 4.80 200.00 CREST 33 NO NOV8 63+57.13 65+57.13 4.22 4.26 4.80 11.00 200.00 SAG 32 NO NOV9 65+70.32 68+20.32 4.27 4.31 11.00 6.88 250.00 CREST 61 NO NOV10 75+23.55 77+23.55 4.45 4.48 6.88 3.13 200.00 CREST 53 NO NOV11 77+74.30 80+74.30 4.49 4.55 3.13 10.64 300.00 SAG 40 NO NOV12 81+75.73 83+25.73 4.57 4.60 10.64 2.49 150.00 CREST 18 NO NOV13 83+39.63 85+39.63 4.60 4.64 2.49 8.43 200.00 SAG 34 NO NOV14 89+78.22 92+78.22 4.72 4.78 8.43 0.95 300.00 CREST 40 NO NOV15 94+22.96 96+22.96 4.81 4.84 0.95 10.00 200.00 SAG 22 NO NOV16 96+35.67 99+35.67 4.85 4.90 10.00 2.05 300.00 CREST 38 NO NOV17 113+84.00 115+84.00 5.18 5.21 2.05 -3.59 200.00 CREST 35 NO YESV18 115+95.79 118+95.79 5.22 5.27 -3.59 3.26 300.00 SAG 44 NO YESV19 120+49.92 122+49.92 5.30 5.34 3.26 -3.76 200.00 CREST 28 NO YESV20 122+74.99 124+74.99 5.35 5.38 -3.76 3.87 200.00 SAG 26 NO YESV21 124+82.60 126+07.60 5.38 5.41 3.87 -2.05 125.00 CREST 21 NO YESV22 127+54.23 132+54.23 5.44 5.53 -2.05 3.58 500.00 SAG 89 NO YESV23 136+67.75 139+67.75 5.61 5.67 3.58 -3.46 300.00 CREST 43 NO YESV24 140+20.35 143+20.35 5.68 5.73 -3.46 4.14 300.00 SAG 39 NO YESV25 144+96.85 147+96.85 5.77 5.82 4.14 -4.32 300.00 CREST 35 NO YESV26 148+88.94 151+88.94 5.84 5.90 -4.32 2.85 300.00 SAG 42 NO YESV27 155+08.26 160+08.26 5.96 6.05 2.85 -0.50 500.00 CREST 149 YES YESV28 167+82.17 169+32.17 6.20 6.23 -0.50 6.63 150.00 SAG 21 NO NOV29 169+40.40 171+10.40 6.23 6.26 6.63 4.98 170.00 CREST 103 NO NOV30 171+51.48 173+51.48 6.27 6.31 4.98 1.90 200.00 CREST 65 NO YESV31 181+39.89 185+39.89 6.46 6.53 1.90 -1.84 400.00 CREST 107 NO YESV32 185+47.74 188+47.74 6.53 6.59 -1.84 1.71 300.00 SAG 85 NO YESV33 191+50.49 194+50.49 6.65 6.70 1.71 -2.00 300.00 CREST 81 NO YESV34 194+80.19 197+80.19 6.71 6.77 -2.00 0.94 300.00 SAG 102 NO YESV35 209+82.55 212+82.55 6.99 7.05 0.94 -3.04 300.00 CREST 75 NO YESV36 214+19.57 217+19.57 7.08 7.13 -3.04 6.00 300.00 SAG 33 NO YESV37 217+25.78 219+75.78 7.14 7.18 6.00 0.50 250.00 CREST 45 NO YESV38 238+98.79 243+98.79 7.55 7.64 0.50 -3.71 500.00 CREST 119 YES YESState Line Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Curve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V39 246+04.80 248+04.80 7.68 7.72 -3.71 4.18 200.00 SAG 25 NO YESV40 248+49.73 249+99.73 7.73 7.76 4.18 -6.00 150.00 CREST 15 NO YESV41 250+23.43 251+73.43 7.76 7.79 -6.00 0.79 150.00 SAG 22 NO YESV42 256+03.32 261+03.32 7.87 7.96 0.79 -3.65 500.00 CREST 113 NO YESV43 264+35.66 270+35.66 8.03 8.14 -3.65 3.30 600.00 SAG 86 NO YESV44 272+63.57 277+63.57 8.18 8.28 3.30 -0.75 500.00 CREST 123 YES YESV45 285+06.63 290+06.63 8.42 8.51 -0.75 3.08 500.00 SAG 131 YES YESV46 291+46.46 296+46.46 8.54 8.64 3.08 -2.37 500.00 CREST 92 NO YESV47 297+46.93 302+46.93 8.65 8.75 -2.37 1.25 500.00 SAG 138 YES YESV48 331+00.57 341+00.57 9.29 9.48 1.25 -0.50 1000.00 CREST 571 YES YESV49 362+12.86 365+12.86 9.88 9.94 -0.50 -3.78 300.00 CREST 91 NO YESV50 366+63.05 369+63.05 9.96 10.02 -3.78 6.00 300.00 SAG 31 NO YESV51 369+79.26 372+79.26 10.02 10.08 6.00 -0.50 300.00 CREST 46 NO YESV52 376+02.67 378+27.67 10.14 10.19 -0.50 -3.01 225.00 CREST 90 NO YESV53 378+40.17 380+90.17 10.19 10.23 -3.01 0.74 250.00 SAG 67 NO YESState Line Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Wilson Creek Rd. - Category IV Rural CollectorMinimum horizontal radius760 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 84Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 96Maximum grade 10 %Minimum grade 0.1 %Horizontal CurvesCurve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) RadiusMinimumRadius Met?H1 0+38.07 2+03.00 0.81 0.85 164.93 800 YESH2 3+94.23 4+72.03 0.88 0.90 77.80 1200 YESH3 5+66.29 6+29.42 0.91 0.93 63.13 1000 YESH4 11+77.79 14+82.26 1.03 1.09 304.47 2000 YESH5 20+10.77 21+67.90 1.19 1.22 157.13 1000 YESH6 23+88.08 25+43.67 1.26 1.29 155.59 300 NOH7 38+95.63 41+07.18 1.54 1.59 211.55 550 NOH8 46+41.84 47+44.24 1.69 1.71 102.40 1000 YESH9 51+90.58 56+62.01 1.79 1.88 471.43 800 YESH10 56+85.19 58+91.88 1.88 1.92 206.69 800 YESH11 60+62.62 63+18.80 1.96 2.00 256.18 760 YESH12 64+67.32 66+70.60 2.03 2.07 203.28 800 YESH13 69+55.35 71+75.34 2.12 2.17 219.99 300 NOH14 75+32.17 78+96.90 2.23 2.30 364.73 2000 YESH15 82+48.99 85+32.00 2.37 2.42 283.01 2000 YESH16 85+88.14 88+47.06 2.43 2.48 258.92 800 YESH17 89+07.83 89+95.16 2.49 2.51 87.33 1000 YESH18 90+73.19 93+54.72 2.53 2.58 281.53 800 YESH19 95+28.05 100+23.79 2.61 2.71 495.74 800 YESH20 101+14.43 103+75.05 2.72 2.77 260.62 250 NOH21 104+23.54 105+58.86 2.78 2.81 135.32 800 YESH22 105+93.51 107+97.73 2.81 2.85 204.22 1000 YESH23 108+80.17 109+93.71 2.87 2.89 113.54 1000 YESH24 112+17.19 114+26.37 2.93 2.97 209.18 500 NOH25 115+16.51 116+85.66 2.99 3.02 169.15 950 YESH26 119+69.16 121+17.95 3.07 3.10 148.79 350 NOH27 121+80.29 129+25.36 3.11 3.26 745.07 1700 YESH28 131+17.87 133+63.71 3.29 3.34 245.84 760 YESH29 135+24.29 136+89.20 3.37 3.40 164.91 1000 YESH30 137+61.46 141+80.11 3.41 3.49 418.65 700 NOH31 144+23.16 150+02.37 3.54 3.65 579.21 600 NOH32 155+30.82 157+91.25 3.75 3.80 260.43 475 NOH33 162+81.50 164+13.46 3.89 3.92 131.96 85 NOWilson Creek Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Wilson Creek Rd. - Category IV Rural CollectorMinimum horizontal radius760 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 84Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 96Maximum grade 10 %Minimum grade 0.1 %Vertical CurvesCurve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V1 3+57.95 7+57.95 0.87 0.95 0.20 -2.10 400.00 CREST 174 YES YESV2 9+52.89 13+52.89 0.99 1.06 -2.10 1.91 400.00 SAG 100 YES YESV3 14+04.75 15+54.75 1.07 1.10 1.91 8.36 150.00 SAG 23 NO YESV4 15+55.20 17+05.20 1.10 1.13 8.36 1.99 150.00 CREST 24 NO YESV5 19+04.18 24+04.18 1.17 1.26 1.99 -2.98 500.00 CREST 101 YES YESV6 24+96.01 27+96.01 1.28 1.34 -2.98 4.24 300.00 SAG 42 NO YESV7 28+40.53 30+90.53 1.35 1.39 4.24 -5.46 250.00 CREST 26 NO YESV8 31+21.41 34+21.41 1.40 1.46 -5.46 1.23 300.00 SAG 45 NO YESV9 37+87.65 42+87.65 1.52 1.62 1.23 -2.76 500.00 CREST 125 YES YESV10 45+94.38 48+44.38 1.68 1.72 -2.76 3.77 250.00 SAG 38 NO YESV11 48+68.82 50+68.82 1.73 1.77 3.77 -5.72 200.00 CREST 21 NO YESV12 50+76.67 52+26.67 1.77 1.80 -5.72 4.62 150.00 SAG 15 NO YESV13 52+36.65 58+36.65 1.80 1.91 4.62 -2.61 600.00 CREST 83 NO YESV14 60+08.12 65+08.12 1.95 2.04 -2.61 1.79 500.00 SAG 114 YES YESV15 70+33.06 72+33.06 2.14 2.18 1.79 -4.95 200.00 CREST 30 NO YESV16 72+35.36 74+10.36 2.18 2.21 -4.95 0.94 175.00 SAG 30 NO YESV17 87+27.00 90+27.00 2.46 2.52 0.94 3.99 300.00 SAG 98 YES YESV18 91+69.86 93+69.86 2.54 2.58 3.99 -1.41 200.00 CREST 37 NO YESV19 94+12.62 99+12.62 2.59 2.68 -1.41 2.70 500.00 SAG 122 YES YESV20 115+38.94 119+38.94 2.99 3.07 2.70 13.84 400.00 SAG 36 NO NOV21 120+41.00 122+91.00 3.09 3.13 13.84 6.95 250.00 CREST 36 NO NOV22 124+47.91 127+47.91 3.16 3.22 6.95 10.00 300.00 SAG 98 YES YESV23 128+97.05 130+97.05 3.25 3.29 10.00 6.27 200.00 CREST 54 NO YESV24 131+22.21 134+22.21 3.29 3.35 6.27 -0.10 300.00 CREST 47 NO YESV25 137+07.00 140+07.00 3.40 3.46 -0.10 7.95 300.00 SAG 37 NO YESV26 141+30.32 145+30.32 3.48 3.56 7.95 0.81 400.00 CREST 56 NO YESV27 145+97.47 147+97.47 3.57 3.61 0.81 10.00 200.00 SAG 22 NO YESV28 147+99.09 149+74.09 3.61 3.64 10.00 -1.34 175.00 CREST 15 NO YESV29 151+03.87 154+53.87 3.67 3.73 -1.34 6.63 350.00 SAG 44 NO YESV30 157+86.90 159+36.90 3.80 3.83 6.63 -0.60 150.00 CREST 21 NO YESV31 159+59.73 161+59.73 3.83 3.87 -0.60 10.00 200.00 SAG 19 NO YESV32 161+63.40 163+13.40 3.87 3.90 10.00 -0.41 150.00 CREST 14 NO YESV33 165+89.39 167+89.39 3.95 3.99 -0.41 10.00 200.00 SAG 19 NO YESV34 168+01.52 169+01.52 3.99 4.01 10.0 -0.7 100.00 CREST 9 NO YESWilson Creek Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

York Ridge Rd. - Category III Rural CollectorMinimum horizontal radius600 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 61Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 79Maximum grade 9 %Minimum grade 0.1 %Horizontal CurvesCurve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) RadiusMinimumRadius Met?H1 1+37.44 2+48.72 10.38 10.40 111.28 1000 YESH2 5+14.67 6+88.51 10.45 10.49 173.84 500 NOH3 8+31.91 11+53.32 10.51 10.57 321.41 475 NOH4 12+00.03 14+12.55 10.58 10.62 212.52 200 NOH5 17+13.28 18+75.29 10.68 10.71 162.01 465 NOH6 19+18.15 20+36.19 10.72 10.74 118.04 1000 YESH7 20+81.49 21+86.26 10.75 10.77 104.77 500 NOH8 24+27.05 26+21.01 10.81 10.85 193.96 1200 YESH9 29+00.98 31+11.31 10.90 10.94 210.33 350 NOH10 32+09.23 32+64.85 10.96 10.97 55.62 1000 YESH11 40+87.62 44+93.01 11.13 11.21 405.39 2000 YESH12 48+11.17 49+48.22 11.27 11.29 137.05 250 NOH13 51+73.04 53+35.14 11.33 11.37 162.10 475 NOH14 57+08.08 59+67.02 11.44 11.49 258.94 465 NOH15 61+62.40 64+41.14 11.52 11.58 278.74 2000 YESH16 66+15.16 68+73.83 11.61 11.66 258.67 465 NOH17 70+78.63 72+82.31 11.70 11.73 203.68 2000 YESH18 74+47.72 76+39.23 11.77 11.80 191.51 500 NOH19 83+39.17 87+26.87 11.93 12.01 387.70 800 YESH20 87+84.44 90+19.53 12.02 12.06 235.09 500 NOH21 95+10.45 98+97.66 12.16 12.23 387.21 465 NOH22 101+95.45 104+40.06 12.29 12.33 244.61 1500 YESH23 106+58.23 109+26.47 12.37 12.42 268.24 475 NOH24 119+79.65 120+69.01 12.62 12.64 89.36 100 NOH25 126+35.12 129+45.57 12.75 12.81 310.45 2000 YESH26 131+60.62 135+02.67 12.85 12.91 342.05 700 YESH27 136+99.10 139+52.00 12.95 13.00 252.90 2000 YESH28 142+96.57 145+18.69 13.06 13.10 222.12 500 NOH29 148+42.43 150+41.74 13.17 13.20 199.31 600 YESH30 156+24.03 157+62.76 13.31 13.34 138.73 2000 YESH31 162+93.82 168+05.27 13.44 13.54 511.45 4000 YESH32 172+15.84 176+52.16 13.62 13.70 436.32 4000 YESH33 182+01.28 184+31.77 13.80 13.85 230.49 800 YESH34 185+55.85 187+00.09 13.87 13.90 144.24 5000 YESH35 188+94.71 193+71.62 13.93 14.02 476.91 3000 YESH36 197+96.43 200+79.81 14.10 14.16 283.38 5000 YESH37 210+75.95 217+35.16 14.35 14.47 659.21 1300 YESH38 23427.31 23687.93 14.79 14.84 260.62 5000 YESYork Ridge Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Curve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) RadiusMinimumRadius Met?H39 25153.11 25541.89 15.12 15.19 388.78 2000 YESH40 291+42.71 293+38.30 15.87 15.91 195.59 1000 YESH41 323+03.69 324+34.89 16.47 16.50 131.20 1200 YESYork Ridge Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

York Ridge Rd. - Category III Rural CollectorMinimum horizontal radius600 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 61Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 79Maximum grade 10 %Minimum grade 0.1 %Vertical CurvesCurve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V1 18+63.85 24+63.85 10.71 10.82 10.00 8.00 600.00 CREST 300 YES YESV2 28+15.50 33+15.50 10.89 10.98 8.00 0.61 500.00 CREST 68 YES YESV3 50+16.25 51+16.25 11.31 11.32 0.61 4.24 100.00 SAG 28 NO YESV4 53+00.64 55+00.64 11.36 11.40 4.24 -2.71 200.00 CREST 29 NO YESV5 58+24.80 60+24.80 11.46 11.50 -2.71 1.14 200.00 SAG 52 NO YESV6 60+26.54 65+26.54 11.50 11.59 1.14 4.96 500.00 SAG 131 YES YESV7 67+17.62 72+17.62 11.63 11.72 4.96 0.68 500.00 CREST 117 YES YESV8 74+65.48 76+65.48 11.77 11.81 0.68 -2.91 200.00 CREST 56 NO YESV9 78+16.60 80+16.60 11.84 11.87 -2.91 0.97 200.00 SAG 52 NO YESV10 88+53.67 91+53.67 12.03 12.09 0.97 2.28 300.00 SAG 229 YES YESV11 93+86.67 96+86.67 12.13 12.19 2.28 -0.55 300.00 CREST 106 YES YESV12 106+21.22 108+71.22 12.37 12.41 -0.55 7.46 250.00 SAG 31 NO YESV13 108+92.33 111+42.33 12.42 12.47 7.46 0.23 250.00 CREST 35 NO YESV14 161+99.87 164+09.87 13.42 13.46 0.23 -4.55 210.00 CREST 44 NO YESV15 164+61.56 168+61.56 13.47 13.55 -4.55 4.76 400.00 SAG 43 NO YESV16 168+93.75 171+93.75 13.55 13.61 4.76 -1.08 300.00 CREST 51 NO YESV17 173+60.37 178+60.37 13.64 13.74 -1.08 3.68 500.00 SAG 105 YES YESV18 180+11.61 183+11.61 13.77 13.82 3.68 -5.15 300.00 CREST 34 NO YESV19 183+37.24 185+37.24 13.83 13.87 -5.15 0.97 200.00 SAG 33 NO YESV20 235+72.47 245+72.47 14.82 15.01 0.97 -0.74 1000.00 CREST 585 YES YESV21 260+17.79 270+17.79 15.28 15.47 -0.74 1.60 1000.00 SAG 427 YES YESV22 282+94.41 292+94.41 15.71 15.90 1.60 0.11 1000.00 CREST 671 YES YESV23 305+74.88 310+74.88 16.15 16.24 0.11 -1.55 500.00 CREST 301 YES YESV24 318+23.30 321+73.30 16.38 16.45 -1.55 6.31 350.00 SAG 45 NO YESV25 322+07.41 325+57.41 16.46 16.52 6.31 0.43 350.00 CREST 60 NO YESV26 344+93.37 349+93.37 16.89 16.98 0.43 -3.08 500.00 CREST 142 YES YESV27 354+07.99 359+22.99 17.06 17.16 -3.08 4.84 515.00 SAG 65 NO YESV28 360+78.79 364+28.79 17.19 17.25 4.84 -2.13 350.00 CREST 50 NO YESV29 364+39.55 366+39.55 17.26 17.29 -2.13 2.71 200.00 SAG 41 NO YESYork Ridge Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Jamison Rd. - Category IV Rural ArterialMinimum horizontal radius965 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 114Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 115Maximum grade 6 %Minimum grade 0.5 %Horizontal CurvesCurve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) RadiusMinimumRadius Met?H1 2+61.12 3+88.34 9.58 9.61 127.22 300 NOH2 5+35.02 7+66.81 9.63 9.68 231.79 800 NOH3 10+41.65 13+35.00 9.73 9.79 293.35 500 NOH4 16+15.31 17+77.41 9.84 9.87 162.10 1000 YESH5 18+50.12 22+20.33 9.88 9.95 370.21 400 NOH6 26+81.40 29+90.73 10.04 10.10 309.33 800 NOH7 33+67.48 37+89.12 10.17 10.25 421.64 800 NOH8 42+03.98 44+47.93 10.33 10.38 243.95 760 NOH9 47+02.79 50+46.82 10.42 10.49 344.03 1000 YESH10 52+95.69 56+08.06 10.54 10.60 312.37 850 NOH11 56+51.29 58+70.47 10.60 10.64 219.18 500 NOH12 59+96.16 62+84.26 10.67 10.72 288.10 760 NOH13 66+36.07 72+34.01 10.79 10.90 597.94 475 NOH14 75+89.28 77+92.56 10.97 11.01 203.28 225 NOH15 78+23.73 81+05.64 11.01 11.07 281.91 350 NOH16 82+57.79 87+00.39 11.10 11.18 442.60 475 NOH17 88+68.94 91+01.48 11.21 11.26 232.54 1500 YESH18 98+61.54 112+43.26 11.40 11.66 1381.72 1300 YESH19 118+99.12 121+34.93 11.79 11.83 235.81 2500 YESH20 122+59.92 125+63.07 11.85 11.91 303.15 1000 YESH21 130+16.13 132+15.44 12.00 12.04 199.31 500 NOH22 132+97.88 135+07.70 12.05 12.09 209.82 500 NOH23 135+72.57 138+69.12 12.10 12.16 296.55 450 NOH24 139+43.43 142+00.49 12.17 12.22 257.06 1000 YESH25 142+70.47 144+93.10 12.24 12.28 222.63 1200 YESH26 146+24.05 149+10.76 12.30 12.36 286.71 800 NOH27 155+15.13 157+63.18 12.47 12.52 248.05 1000 YESH28 158+48.41 162+77.57 12.53 12.62 429.16 600 NOH29 164+16.94 166+14.22 12.64 12.68 197.28 500 NOJamison Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Jamison Rd. - Category IV Rural ArterialMinimum horizontal radius965 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 114Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 115Maximum grade 6 %Minimum grade 0.5 %Vertical CurvesCurve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V1 0+95.22 5+95.22 9.55 9.65 2.06 -6.73 500.00 CREST 57 NO NOV2 38+75.11 44+75.11 10.27 10.38 -6.73 -1.96 600.00 SAG 126 YES NOV3 48+44.10 53+44.10 10.45 10.55 -1.96 -6.00 500.00 CREST 124 YES YESV4 54+05.85 55+55.85 10.56 10.59 -6.00 -2.39 150.00 SAG 42 NO YESV5 62+95.02 66+95.02 10.73 10.80 -2.39 -5.69 400.00 CREST 121 YES YESV6 67+09.12 71+09.12 10.80 10.88 -5.69 -1.80 400.00 SAG 103 NO YESV7 75+46.29 78+96.29 10.96 11.03 -1.80 -2.66 350.00 CREST 407 YES YESV8 79+13.62 82+63.62 11.03 11.10 -2.66 -3.96 350.00 CREST 269 YES YESV9 83+01.50 88+01.50 11.11 11.20 -3.96 -1.13 500.00 SAG 177 YES YESV10 108+93.64 112+93.64 11.60 11.67 -1.13 2.16 400.00 SAG 122 YES YESV11 113+00.90 117+00.90 11.67 11.75 2.16 -2.97 400.00 CREST 78 NO YESV12 119+34.80 125+34.80 11.79 11.91 -2.97 0.50 600.00 SAG 173 YES YESV13 130+75.95 133+25.95 12.01 12.06 0.50 2.59 250.00 SAG 120 YES YESV14 133+56.25 136+06.25 12.06 12.11 2.59 -2.59 250.00 CREST 48 NO YESV15 138+60.39 143+60.39 12.16 12.25 -2.59 0.96 500.00 SAG 141 YES YESV16 158+37.98 163+37.98 12.53 12.63 0.96 -0.94 500.00 CREST 263 YES YESJamison Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

N. Dearborn Rd. - Category II Rural ArterialMinimum horizontal radius760 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 84Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 96Maximum grade 6 %Minimum grade 0.5 %Horizontal CurvesCurve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) RadiusMinimumRadius Met?H1 0+61.18 1+86.34 0.01 0.04 125.16 1000 YESH2 131+19.77 133+78.32 2.48 2.53 258.55 950 YESH3 134+52.11 138+38.12 2.55 2.62 386.01 3500 YESH4 141+38.57 141+71.80 2.68 2.68 33.23 100 NOH5 152+20.12 152+36.79 2.88 2.89 16.67 100 NOH6 291+61.93 294+33.90 5.52 5.57 271.97 450 NOH7 299+18.47 303+54.70 5.67 5.75 436.23 1250 YESH8 303+58.18 305+25.95 5.75 5.78 167.77 300 NOH9 307+21.32 313+28.63 5.82 5.93 607.31 800 YESH10 316+31.70 321+10.50 5.99 6.08 478.80 450 NOH11 322+92.27 325+48.34 6.12 6.16 256.07 3000 YESH12 325+87.22 328+10.97 6.17 6.21 223.75 375 NOH13 331+92.09 338+42.56 6.29 6.41 650.47 275 NOH14 340+51.36 344+51.09 6.45 6.52 399.73 2500 YESH15 346+56.78 349+51.13 6.56 6.62 294.35 300 NOH16 356+87.33 358+01.70 6.76 6.78 114.37 1000 YESH17 360+02.63 363+24.79 6.82 6.88 322.16 1500 YESH18 367+39.93 369+32.97 6.96 6.99 193.04 350 NOH19 377+90.67 381+55.84 7.16 7.23 365.17 2000 YESH20 389+45.82 389+93.74 7.38 7.39 47.92 50 NOH21 394+43.59 396+07.80 7.47 7.50 164.21 350 NOH22 400+55.84 402+63.88 7.59 7.63 208.04 1000 YESH23 410+71.40 415+34.33 7.78 7.87 462.93 650 NOH24 419+27.14 421+02.79 7.94 7.97 175.65 450 NOH25 422+13.47 422+38.70 7.99 8.00 25.23 200 NOH26 425+15.97 426+29.69 8.05 8.07 113.72 500 NOH27 426+92.41 428+38.30 8.09 8.11 145.89 350 NOH28 429+14.02 430+49.91 8.13 8.15 135.89 400 NOH29 431+38.96 431+90.83 8.17 8.18 51.87 400 NOH30 432+79.12 433+35.04 8.20 8.21 55.92 300 NOH31 434+73.84 440+08.50 8.23 8.33 534.66 760 YESH32 443+14.49 459+66.32 8.39 8.71 1651.83 4500 YESH33 460+57.85 465+40.51 8.72 8.81 482.66 900 YESH34 470+32.49 475+26.30 8.91 9.00 493.81 2000 YESH35 483+45.84 487+44.18 9.16 9.23 398.34 800 YESH36 499+41.49 504+34.51 9.46 9.55 493.02 850 YESH37 504+86.93 509+86.74 9.56 9.66 499.81 2000 YESH38 516+78.01 519+53.63 9.79 9.84 275.62 500 NON Dearborn Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Curve No. PC PT PC Milepoint PT Milepoint Length (ft) RadiusMinimumRadius Met?H39 528+57.16 530+86.81 10.01 10.05 229.65 1000 YESH40 532+85.83 539+91.74 10.09 10.23 705.91 760 YESH41 545+95.44 549+70.52 10.34 10.41 375.08 400 NOH42 555+01.36 556+73.46 10.51 10.54 172.10 125 NOH43 595+22.19 597+52.07 11.27 11.32 229.88 500 NOH44 607+12.82 613+51.30 11.50 11.62 638.48 2500 YESH45 614+05.57 615+79.80 11.63 11.66 174.23 500 NOH46 616+70.61 619+51.27 11.68 11.73 280.66 900 YESH47 620+33.67 623+34.27 11.75 11.81 300.60 650 NOH48 628+08.10 634+56.63 11.90 12.02 648.53 765 YESH49 636+54.99 641+34.49 12.06 12.15 479.50 1000 YESH50 647+56.16 648+11.50 12.26 12.27 55.34 100 NOH51 659+71.12 660+50.41 12.49 12.51 79.29 100 NOH52 664+21.80 667+90.60 12.58 12.65 368.80 500 NOH53 679+81.35 682+34.77 12.88 12.92 253.42 800 YESH54 684+73.29 688+23.04 12.97 13.03 349.75 800 YESH55 692+95.31 695+78.75 13.12 13.18 283.44 450 NOH56 697+15.00 699+50.41 13.20 13.25 235.41 600 NOH57 704+65.07 707+45.81 13.35 13.40 280.74 450 NOH58 710+39.61 714+09.82 13.45 13.52 370.21 800 YESH59 720+93.05 724+19.69 13.65 13.72 326.64 600 NOH60 726+97.30 729+18.28 13.77 13.81 220.98 350 NOH61 730+35.29 732+51.61 13.83 13.87 216.32 250 NOH62 734+18.48 738+07.04 13.91 13.98 388.56 200 NOH63 741+04.01 744+06.31 14.03 14.09 302.30 250 NOH64 745+13.35 746+28.98 14.11 14.13 115.63 500 NOH65 748+28.66 749+62.62 14.17 14.20 133.96 200 NOH66 765+72.19 766+45.45 14.50 14.52 73.26 200 NOH67 768+50.67 770+55.72 14.56 14.59 205.05 600 NOH68 772+78.40 773+38.46 14.64 14.65 60.06 1000 YESH69 778+25.69 780+38.64 14.74 14.78 212.95 500 NOH70 782+57.28 784+83.91 14.82 14.86 226.63 190 NOH71 785+62.47 788+13.57 14.88 14.93 251.1 450 NOH72 789+32.80 795+30.31 14.95 15.06 597.51 2500 YESH73 797+14.89 801+22.54 15.10 15.17 407.65 400 NOH74 803+59.66 808+83.32 15.22 15.32 523.66 2000 YESN Dearborn Road HorizontalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

N. Dearborn Rd. - Category II Rural ArterialMinimum horizontal radius760 ftCrest rate or vertical curvature (K-value) 84Sag rate of vertical curvature (K-value) 96Maximum grade 6 %Minimum grade 0.5 %Vertical CurvesCurve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V1 3+62.60 7+62.60 0.07 0.14 1.17 1.99 400.00 SAG 488 YES YESV2 8+47.04 12+47.04 0.16 0.24 1.99 -0.72 400.00 CREST 148 YES YESV3 15+75.27 20+75.27 0.30 0.39 -0.72 0.32 500.00 SAG 481 YES NOV4 34+22.06 39+22.06 0.65 0.74 0.32 -1.40 500.00 CREST 291 YES NOV5 42+53.04 45+03.04 0.81 0.85 -1.40 2.54 250.00 SAG 63 NO YESV6 45+28.40 47+78.40 0.86 0.91 2.54 -5.54 250.00 CREST 31 NO YESV7 47+82.02 49+82.02 0.91 0.94 -5.54 2.10 200.00 SAG 26 NO YESV8 57+22.41 62+22.41 1.08 1.18 2.10 -2.00 500.00 CREST 122 YES YESV9 62+31.14 65+81.14 1.18 1.25 -2.00 -0.50 350.00 SAG 233 YES YESV10 67+63.57 71+13.57 1.28 1.35 -0.50 -3.33 350.00 CREST 124 YES YESV11 72+47.46 75+47.46 1.37 1.43 -3.33 4.33 300.00 SAG 39 NO YESV12 75+67.85 78+67.85 1.43 1.49 4.33 -1.71 300.00 CREST 50 NO YESV13 86+07.36 94+07.36 1.63 1.78 -1.71 1.82 800.00 SAG 227 YES YESV14 102+47.56 108+47.56 1.94 2.05 1.82 -7.80 600.00 CREST 62 NO NOV15 109+08.76 114+08.76 2.07 2.16 -7.80 7.65 500.00 SAG 32 NO NOV16 114+26.35 115+26.35 2.16 2.18 7.65 -5.69 100.00 CREST 7 NO NOV17 115+63.31 119+63.31 2.19 2.27 -5.69 3.63 400.00 SAG 43 NO YESV18 121+86.46 126+86.46 2.31 2.40 3.63 -5.04 500.00 CREST 58 NO YESV19 128+14.48 131+14.48 2.43 2.48 -5.04 -0.62 300.00 SAG 68 NO YESV20 131+18.65 133+93.65 2.48 2.54 -0.62 -8.17 275.00 CREST 36 NO NOV21 136+52.27 140+52.27 2.59 2.66 -8.17 3.88 400.00 SAG 33 NO NOV22 153+37.86 159+37.86 2.90 3.02 3.88 1.23 600.00 CREST 226 YES YESV23 176+93.02 183+93.02 3.35 3.48 1.23 -5.79 700.00 CREST 100 YES YESV24 187+40.46 190+40.46 3.55 3.61 -5.79 7.11 300.00 SAG 23 NO NOV25 190+51.88 194+01.88 3.61 3.67 7.11 -5.69 350.00 CREST 27 NO NOV26 196+10.33 199+10.33 3.71 3.77 -5.69 0.34 300.00 SAG 50 NO NOV27 199+34.41 201+84.41 3.78 3.82 0.34 -7.00 250.00 CREST 34 NO NOV28 205+44.06 208+44.06 3.89 3.95 -7.00 6.91 300.00 SAG 22 NO NOV29 208+93.92 211+93.92 3.96 4.01 6.91 -2.37 300.00 CREST 32 NO NOV30 212+50.87 215+50.87 4.02 4.08 -2.37 3.97 300.00 SAG 47 NO YESV31 221+78.27 241+78.27 4.20 4.58 3.97 -2.57 2000.00 CREST 306 YES YESV32 243+98.22 246+98.22 4.62 4.68 -2.57 4.65 300.00 SAG 42 NO YESV33 247+17.92 249+67.92 4.68 4.73 4.65 -2.36 250.00 CREST 36 NO YESV34 265+53.94 270+53.94 5.03 5.12 -2.36 -0.71 500.00 SAG 303 YES YESV35 290+04.67 295+04.67 5.49 5.59 -0.71 -3.44 500.00 CREST 183 YES YESV36 303+19.18 306+19.18 5.74 5.80 -3.44 -6.06 300.00 CREST 115 YES NOV37 308+86.53 315+86.53 5.85 5.98 -6.06 -11.78 700.00 CREST 122 YES NOV38 320+77.99 326+77.99 6.08 6.19 -11.78 -0.73 600.00 SAG 54 NO NON Dearborn Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004

Curve No. PVC PVT PVC Milepoint PVT MilepointEntranceGrade (%) Exit Grade (%) Length (ft) Crest/Sag K-ValueK-ValueCriteria Met?Minimum/MaximumGrade Criteria Met?V39 336+68.76 346+68.76 6.38 6.57 -0.73 10.27 1000.00 SAG 91 NO NOV40 355+72.29 370+72.29 6.74 7.02 10.27 0.70 1500.00 CREST 157 YES NOV41 382+79.38 385+79.38 7.25 7.31 0.70 2.71 300.00 SAG 149 YES YESV42 388+32.61 391+32.61 7.35 7.41 2.71 -0.91 300.00 CREST 83 NO YESV43 395+79.31 397+79.31 7.50 7.53 -0.91 0.70 200.00 SAG 124 YES YESV44 397+81.78 404+11.78 7.53 7.65 0.70 -7.44 630.00 CREST 77 NO NOV45 413+56.17 418+56.17 7.83 7.93 -7.44 2.40 500.00 SAG 51 NO NOV46 419+16.67 421+16.67 7.94 7.98 2.40 -9.17 200.00 CREST 17 NO NOV47 421+52.97 424+52.97 7.98 8.04 -9.17 11.03 300.00 SAG 15 NO NOV48 426+49.34 456+49.34 8.08 8.65 11.03 -4.83 3000.00 CREST 189 YES NOV49 459+34.39 462+34.39 8.70 8.76 -4.83 3.58 300.00 SAG 36 NO YESV50 464+55.61 467+55.61 8.80 8.86 3.58 -3.92 300.00 CREST 40 NO YESV51 469+40.49 472+40.49 8.89 8.95 -3.92 1.69 300.00 SAG 53 NO YESV52 486+72.81 504+72.81 9.22 9.56 1.69 -8.15 1800.00 CREST 183 YES NOV53 504+88.95 508+38.95 9.56 9.63 -8.15 5.96 350.00 SAG 25 NO NOV54 511+61.94 516+61.94 9.69 9.78 5.96 -0.17 500.00 CREST 82 NO NOV55 525+07.54 528+07.54 9.94 10.00 -0.17 -9.30 300.00 CREST 33 NO NOV56 529+40.70 532+40.70 10.03 10.08 -9.30 4.24 300.00 SAG 22 NO NOV57 543+89.67 546+89.67 10.30 10.36 4.24 -0.54 300.00 CREST 63 NO YESV58 575+29.58 578+29.58 10.90 10.95 -0.54 -4.96 300.00 CREST 68 NO YESV59 580+26.35 583+76.35 10.99 11.06 -4.96 6.94 350.00 SAG 29 NO NOV60 584+93.07 587+93.07 11.08 11.14 6.94 -0.07 300.00 CREST 43 NO NOV61 609+14.51 612+14.51 11.54 11.59 -0.07 -7.77 300.00 CREST 39 NO NOV62 613+20.72 617+20.72 11.61 11.69 -7.77 8.18 400.00 SAG 25 NO NOV63 618+14.74 622+14.74 11.71 11.78 8.18 0.50 400.00 CREST 52 NO NOV64 650+17.31 653+17.31 12.31 12.37 0.50 -5.40 300.00 CREST 51 NO YESV65 655+51.20 657+26.20 12.42 12.45 -5.40 6.48 175.00 SAG 15 NO NOV66 657+35.56 658+85.56 12.45 12.48 6.48 0.50 150.00 CREST 25 NO NOV67 698+35.04 701+35.04 13.23 13.28 0.50 -2.65 300.00 CREST 95 YES YESV68 702+73.47 706+73.47 13.31 13.39 -2.65 -0.76 400.00 SAG 212 YES YESV69 723+69.38 728+69.38 13.71 13.80 -0.76 -4.26 500.00 CREST 143 YES YESV70 730+58.08 736+58.08 13.84 13.95 -4.26 -0.59 600.00 SAG 163 YES YESV71 778+55.99 783+55.99 14.75 14.84 -0.59 -9.51 500.00 CREST 56 NO NON Dearborn Road VerticalParsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, Inc.3/17/2004