Corridor Planning Guidebook

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Aesthetics and Visual Quality

Aesthetics and Visual Quality

• Change in presence of street trees and landscaping, lighting, street furniture, wayfinding, etc., and contribution to visual quality or aesthetics of the corridor compared to existing condition (qualitative assessment based on professional judgment)

Step 2: Aesthetics and Visual Quality

Complete Streets

Consistency with Complete Streets Hierarchy

• Use Complete Streets Project Specific Transportation Hierarchy Assessment to document change in complete streets features compared to existing

Step 2: Complete Streets Project Specific Transportation Hierarchy Assessment

Right-of-Way

Relation to existing right-of-way

• Indicate whether proposed option is likely to go beyond existing MnDOT highway right-of-way. Quantify if readily available; otherwise, provide qualitative response.

Step 2: Right-of-Way

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Anticipated Safety Improvement

Anticipated safety improvement

Qualitative narrative of anticipated safety improvement based on judgement and understanding of proven safety countermeasures.

This is a highly simplified safety evaluation that may be applicable for some locations or corridors depending on corridor needs, context, and level of detail for the study.
Judgement may supplement understanding where CMFs (described below) are not available.

Step 3: Critical Crash Locations, Documented Crashes, Crash Risk

Crash Rates 

Anticipated crash rates

Methods below assume use of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs):

• Simple qualitative screening method: Does the alternative improve safety (is the CMF less than 1)?
• Simple quantitative method: What is the new anticipated crash rate (what is the CMF)?
• Simple quantitative method (comparison): How much is safety anticipated to improve (what % reduction is associated with the CMF)?

Where possible, include severity rate CMFs or focus on fatal/serious injury crashes (data may not be separated out this way in all cases).
CMFs are not available in all cases. May need to report CMF for similar improvements or consider other measurements.

Step 3: Critical Crash Locations, Documented Crashes

Crash Risk 

Anticipated crash risk

Simple qualitative method: Provide responses to the following questions:

• Are crash risks identified in the District Safety Plan addressed?
• Are vehicle speeds anticipated to be reduced?
• How does the solution affect crash likelihood, crash severity, and roadway users’ exposure to crashes?

Detailed quantitative methods: There are several methods to produce quantitative estimates of crash risk. The Guidebook does not provide guidance on how to complete specific types of analysis but provides the following list of potential methods to consider:

• Safe System for Intersections Method (FHWA)
• 20 Design Flags Method (NCHRP Report 948)
• SSAM - Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (simulation assessment utilizing traffic modeling software)

Additional methods are available and may be applicable based on determination by analyst and project team.

Step 3: Crash Risk

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvement

Simple qualitative method: Provide responses to the following questions:

• Are improvements included that specifically address safety, convenience and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists?
• Are pedestrian or bicycle conflict points mitigated with safety and comfort improvements while maintaining and improving pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity?
• Are design features sufficient to manage vehicle speeds?

Detailed quantitative method

• 20 Design Flags Method (NCHRP Report 948)

Safety benefits to non-motorized users may be captured in the other safety evaluation criteria but are included here as a standalone metric to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety is given priority in alignment with the Safe System Approach and MnDOT's effort to prioritize vulnerable roadway users.

Step 3: Critical Crash Locations, Documented Crashes, Crash Risk

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Asset Condition 

Pavement condition 

• Number of deficient pavement lane miles in corridor to be improved and degree or expected duration of improvement (e.g., mill and overlay vs. reconstruction)
• Compare deficiency information with proposed solutions. Assumes resurfaced pavement is no longer deficient

Step 3: Pavement Condition

Bridge/culvert condition 

• Number and/or degree of improvement to bridges identified as deficient or needing investment
• Number of deficient culverts improved
• Compare deficiency information with proposed solutions

Step 3: Bridge/Culvert Condition 

Traffic signal remaining service life 

• Number of intersections where proposed solution will result in replacement of aging signals
• Compare service life information with proposed solutions

Step 3: Traffic Signal Remaining Service Life

Pedestrian ADA Infrastructure

Sidewalk and curb ramp condition 

• Number of deficient locations that will be improved and degree of improvement
• Compare deficient locations with proposed alternatives
• Incorporate degree of improvement as relevant based on ADA requirements (planning-level assessment)

Additional methods are available and may be applicable based on determination by analyst and project team.

Step 3: Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Condition 

Bicycling Infrastructure

Pavement and facility condition

• Number of deficient locations that will be improved and degree of improvement
• Compare deficient locations with proposed alternatives
• Incorporate degree of improvement requirements to meet facility type aligned with Chapter 3 of the MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (planning-level assessment)

Additional methods are available and may be applicable based on determination by analyst and project team.

Step 3: Appropriate Bicycling facilities for Corridor Characteristics

Maintenance Issues

Maintenance needs or concerns

• Potential for proposed solution to positively or negatively affect identified maintenance needs or concerns
• Qualitative analysis based on understanding of identified issues

Step 3: Maintenance Needs or Concerns

Life cycle costs

• Qualitative estimate of life cycle costs to operate and maintain proposed option compared to existing

While capital costs may be obtained through one-time funding sources, operations and maintenance costs are borne by the agency for infrastructure lifespan

None

Utilities Scan 

Public and private utility impacts 

• Potential for proposed solution to negatively impact identified utility or utilities
• Estimated degree or extent of direct impact based on footprint of proposed solution

Step 3: Public and Private Utility Scan

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Contaminated Materials

Impact on known contaminated materials sites

• Number of contaminated materials sites potentially impacted
• Estimated direct impact on site based on footprint of proposed solution

Step 3: Contaminated Materials 

Historic and Cultural Resources

Impact on identified historic or cultural resources 

• Number of historic or cultural resources potentially impacted
• Estimated direct impact on resource based on footprint of proposed solution

Step 3: Historic and Cultural Resources 

Section 4(f)/ Section 6(f) Resources 

Impact on potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) sites 

• Number of potential 4(f) and/or 6(f) resources potentially impacted
• Estimated direct impact on site based on footprint of proposed solution

Step 3: Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Impact on threatened and endangered species

• Acreage of vegetation removal, and risk for potential “likely to affect” federally protected species
• Qualitative rating scale based on estimated impacts

Step 3: Threatened and Endangered Species 

Wetlands and Water Resources

Impact on wetlands; waterways and public waters; floodplains 

• Risk of wetland impacts - Estimated acreage of permanent wetland impacts
• Risk of impact on waterways and public waters - Qualitative rating based on estimated impact
• Risk of floodplain impact - Qualitative rating based on estimated impact

Step 3: Wetlands and Water Resources 

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Change in corridor vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

• Potential change in VMT from baseline

Qualitative Option

• Answer the question using educated judgement: Is the alternative anticipated to reduce, maintain, or increase VMT? How might anticipated VMT be different from No Build, or from other alternatives? (include info about what can increase or decrease VMT)

Quantitative Option

• If a travel demand model is available, utilize traffic modeling software to calculate projected VMT for each alternative

Travel demand modeling is likely only an option for specific corridors located within MPO boundaries.

Step 3: Baseline VMT

Flood Potential 

Change in flooding susceptibility

• Estimated likelihood and degree that proposed solution will change future flood potential
• Qualitative estimate based on professional judgement

Step 3: Flood Potential

Coastal Erosion Hazards
(TH 61/Lake Superior only)

Erosion potential of segments of the Lake Superior Coast 

• Estimated change to erosion potential based on proposed alternative or solution
• Qualitative estimate based on professional judgment

Step 3: Presence of Coastal Erosion Hazards

Vulnerable Slope Area 

Impact on areas vulnerable to slope failure

• Estimated likelihood and degree to which proposed solution will change slope vulnerability
• Qualitative estimate based on professional judgment

Step 3: Presence of Vulnerable Slope Areas 

Electric Vehicle Charging 

Change in EV charging locations

• Number of locations and/or number of chargers adversely impacted
• Estimated impact based on footprint of proposed solution (direct property impact and/or access impact)

Step 3: Existing and Proposed EV Charging 

Urban Heat Islands

Opportunity to reduce urban heat island effects

• Number and/or degree of improvements to reduce urban heat island effects (such as trees/shading, reduction of impermeable surfaces, etc.)
• Qualitative estimate based on professional judgment

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Facilities and Services

Presence of System Gaps

• Change in number and length of facility gaps compared to existing condition
• Gaps are defined as missing or substandard facilities that create barriers to walking, biking, and accessing transit (including crossings)

Assess for system completeness and directness. A gap may not be limited to a missing segment of sidewalk, for example. It could include the absence of a low stress pedestrian crossing, lack of protected bikeway or a circuitous or indirect and inconvenient route.

Step 3: Facilities and Services

Pedestrian Access and Mobility

Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress

• Pedestrian level of traffic stress compared to existing
• Complete a Design Flag Analysis
• Evaluate flags for existing conditions and for alternative conditions
• Compare results

This evaluation is especially relevant if the corridor context includes populated areas.

Step 3: Facilities and Services

Change in Lineal Feet of Pedestrian Facilities 

• Measure extent of new facilities
• Review and compare

This data will identify differences in the amount of contiguous infrastructure available and should be reviewed as part of the level of traffic stress and system completeness and directness.

Step 3: Facilities and Services

Pedestrian Crossing Safety and Stress

• Differences in safety and stress at crossings
• Complete a Design Flag Analysis
• Evaluate flags for existing conditions and for alternative conditions
• Compare results

This evaluation is especially relevant if the corridor context includes populated areas.

Step 3: Facilities and Services

Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) 

• Change in alignment with PAR guidance for pedestrian access route for the context compared to existing condition
• Chapter 8 of MnDOT Facility Design Guide

Step 3: Pedestrian Access Route

Bicyclist Access and Mobility 

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress 

• Percent of facilities and/or facility distance that are low-stress compared to existing
• Calculate lineal feet of facilities by level of traffic stress
• Complete a Design Flag Analysis
• Evaluate flags for existing conditions and for alternative conditions
• Compare results

This evaluation is especially relevant if the corridor context includes populated areas, including suburban and rural contexts where shared use paths and regional trails are adjacent to or crossing a corridor.

Step 3: Bicyclist Access and Mobility

Separation from Motor Vehicles

• Alignment with the guidance for bikeway type for the context compared to existing conditions
• Chapter 3 of MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual

Additional methods are available and may be applicable based on determination by analyst and project team

Step 3: Facilities and Services

Transit

Access to Transit

• Change in distance to low stress crossings compared to existing
• Measure distance from transit stop to low stress crossing in each direction away from the stop

Step 3:Facilities and Services

• Length of continuous route of ADA compliant pedestrian facilities connected to transit stop compared to existing condition
• Measure distance from transit stop in each direction away from stop

Step 3: Accessibility and Infrastructure at Transit Stops

Quality and Extent of Facilities at Transit Stop 

• Change in number of stops by facility type/category compared to existing
• Count stop locations by facility type: with no facility; with furniture; with shelter and furniture

Not all locations will have fixed route or on-demand transit services. Also identify where regular school bus stops may be located.

Step 3: Transit

Micro-mobility

Support for micro-mobility 

• Number of locations providing micromobility parking or docking stations
• Count and compare to current condition

The context will influence whether this data is relevant to the project. This will be most relevant in populated areas and near destinations.

Step 3: Micromobility

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Access Management

Access Management Guidelines

Qualitative Option

• Document whether the alternative provides an opportunity for access consolidation or closure

Quantitative Option

• Compliance with MnDOT’s Access Management Manual

Both qualitative & quantitative methods may be used. Some alternatives will be detailed enough to know proposed impacts to accesses, while less detailed alternatives may focus on the opportunity rather than location of access modifications.

Step 3: Access Management

Roadway Capacity, Travel Delay, and Reliability

Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) Ratio 

• Calculate the V/C for each alternative

Consider the extent to which “improving” the V/C ratio may be in tension with other SMTP objectives

Step 3: Existing and Future V/C Ratios

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Qualitative Option

• Answer the question using educated judgement: Is the alternative anticipated to reduce, maintain, or increase VMT? How might anticipated VMT be different from No Build, or from other alternatives? (include info about what can increase or decrease VMT)

Quantitative Option

• If a travel demand model is available, utilize traffic modeling software to calculate projected VMT for each alternative

Travel demand modeling is likely only an option for specific corridors located within MPO boundaries.

Step 3: VMT

Vehicle Travel Delay 

Qualitative Option

• Answer the question using educated judgement: Can the alternative be anticipated to reduce vehicle travel delay?

Quantitative Option

• Utilize traffic modeling software to determine travel delay for each alternative

Quantitative method requires traffic modeling to calculate delay for alternatives.
For a visioning study, or a study in which vehicle delay is not a concern, using judgement and estimating using the qualitative method is most appropriate.

Step 3: Vehicle Travel Delay

Vehicle Travel Time Reliability 

Qualitative Option

• Answer the question using educated judgement: Can the alternative be anticipated to improve vehicle travel time reliability?

Quantitative Option

• Utilize traffic modeling software to determine travel time reliability for each alternative

Requires traffic modeling to calculate reliability for alternatives. For a visioning study, or a study in which travel time reliability is not a concern, consider using judgement and estimating using the qualitative method.

Step 3: Vehicle Travel Time Reliability

Truck Travel Time Reliability Index (TTTRI) 

Qualitative Option

• Answer the question using educated judgement: Can the alternative be anticipated to improve truck travel time reliability?

Quantitative Option

• Utilize traffic modeling software to determine truck travel time reliability for each alternative

Requires traffic modeling to calculate reliability for alternatives. For a visioning study, or a study in which travel time reliability is not a concern, consider using judgement and estimating using the qualitative method.

Step 3: TTRI

Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)

TSMO Strategies and Activities

Qualitative Option - Answer the following questions:

• Does the alternative improve existing TSMO strategies and activities?
• Does the alternative include new TSMO strategies and activities?

Quantitative Option – Answer the following question:

• How many or to what degree are TSMO strategies and activities included?

Coordination with MnDOT’s TSMO Office is recommended to ensure TSMO strategies and activities are incorporated appropriately.

Step 3: TSMO

Freight and Intermodal

Highway Freight Routes and Tonnage 

• Qualitatively determine whether alternatives appropriately maintain the current freight route designation (or set the corridor up for a different desired design)

Step 3: Highway Freight Routes and Tonnage 

Rail Crossings 

• Qualitatively document whether existing rail crossings are improved or removed.

If there is a problematic rail crossing today, it likely needs to be evaluated and addressed through a more detailed process than the guidebook is able to get into (unique scenario).

Step 3: Rail Crossings

Other Freight and Intermodal Characteristics 

• Qualitatively document potential impacts or opportunities on other freight and intermodal characteristics identified in Step 3

Step 3: Other Freight and Intermodal Characteristics

Category and Topic

Criteria

Measurement and Methodology

Considerations

Baseline Data Source

Agricultural Vehicles

Impact on agricultural, timber or food/grain vehicle travel

• Change to constraints to agricultural vehicle travel in the corridor compared to existing
• Qualitative review of geometric, safety, access or other existing or proposed features

Step 3: Agricultural Vehicles

Access to agricultural product destinations served by the corridor 

• Change in access and/or quality of access to known destinations compared to existing
• Qualitative review/professional judgement

Step 3: Access to Agricultural, Forestry or Natural Resource Product Destinations

Animal-Powered Vehicles

Impact on animal-powered vehicles 

• Change to safety, access or other concerns for animal-powered vehicles in the corridor compared to existing
• Qualitative review, including consultation with local agency and District partners

Step 3: Animal-Powered Vehicles

Snowmobile and Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs)

Impact on snowmobile and OHVs (all-terrain vehicles, off-highway 
motorcycles and off-road vehicles) use adjacent to or crossing the corridor 

• Change in safety and/or access compared to existing conditions
• Qualitative review/professional judgement

Coordinate with local partners to identify where snowmobiles and OHVs cross the corridor

Step 3: Snowmobiles and Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV)

Airports

Impact on affected airports

• Qualitative review of potential adverse impacts
• Qualitative review of potential opportunities to improve access to airport

Step 3: Airports

Economic Development and Jobs

Impact on access to existing and future employment or commerce destinations served by the corridor

• Change in access compared to existing conditions
• Qualitative review/professional judgement, considering roadway capacity, access changes, design improvements/ constraints, etc.

Step 3: Economic Development and Jobs

Tourism

Impact on tourism-supporting facilities served by the corridor 

• Change in access compared to existing conditions
• Qualitative review/professional judgement, considering roadway capacity, access changes, design improvements/ constraints, etc.

Step 3: Economic Development and Jobs