Corridor Planning

Plan Type Data Matrix

With the three different corridor plan types - Corridor Project Plan, Corridor Vision Plan, and Regional Corridor Vision Plan – not all guidebook topics or data collection items apply equally. This table provides guidance on whether a given item is likely to be relevant and whether or when a higher level of detail may be appropriate.

Guidebook Step 1: Pre-Planning

While the pre-planning level of detail will vary among plans, the guidance for this step applies equally to all three plan types.

Item	Information to Review	Source	Corridor Project Plan	Corridor Vision Plan	Regional Corridor Vision Plan
Studies, Plans and Projects
Prior Corridor-Related Studies or Projects	Purpose of the study or project, year conducted/ constructed, agencies involved, key findings related to needs and recommended improvements.	Input from MnDOT, District staff, MPO and/or local agency staff	X	X	X
		MnDOT, regional or local agency corridor plans or studies, including transitways where relevant	X	X	X
		MnDOT construction projects, plans and studies webpage	X	X	X
MnDOT Statewide or District Planning Documents	Scan relevant documents for identified needs and recommended projects, designations (e.g., freight routes, bike routes, emergency evacuation/hazardous materials, etc.), identified modal networks or network gaps in the corridor area.	Various sources	X	X	X
Regional and Local Planning Documents	Scan relevant documents for identified needs and recommended projects, designations (e.g., freight routes, bike routes, emergency evacuation/hazardous materials, etc.), identified modal networks or network gaps in the corridor area.	Area Transportation Partnerships (ATP) relevant studies or other documents	X	X	X
		Regional Development Organizations (RDOs) plans (on the relevant ATP website linked above), as relevant	X	X	X
		MPO metropolitan transportation plan (on the MPO website), as relevant	X	X	X
		City or County transportation plans, Safe Routes to School plans, pedestrian/bicycle plans, emergency management plans, Comprehensive Plans	X	X	X
Programmed Projects	Planned and programmed projects in the STIP and CHIP in the corridor area. Include description of the project, sponsor, links to published plans or websites, timeline for construction, and location in or near the corridor area.	State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)	X	X	X
		MnDOT Capital Highway Improvement Plan (CHIP)	X	X	X
		CHIP Mapping Application	X	X	X
Context
Corridor Purpose and Function	Functional classification of road	MnDOT Functional Classification Map	X	X	X
Land Use Context Categories and Transportation Hierarchy	1) Land Use Context Categories (these can be found in MnDOT’s Access Management Category Interactive Map, which is consistent with Chapter 3 of the Facility Design Guide) 2) Transportation Hierarchy (which can be found in MnDOT’s Complete Streets Handbook and uses roadway characteristics and land use context to determine user priorities along a road segment)	Access Management Category Interactive Map (for internal MnDOT access only) MnDOT Complete Streets Handbook	X	X	X
Community, Land Use, and Economic Development Context	Existing and future land use, relevant land use policies (including Travel Demand Management), local zoning, development patterns, built environment characteristics, key industries, freight origins and destinations, employment centers, schools, housing, parks, and other descriptive information about development within the community.	Local (city/county) or regional comprehensive plans Input from city/county staff regarding pending/proposed developments	X	X	X
Community Demographics	Comparison of demographics within corridor area to City, County, State. Demographics include but are not limited to race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, persons with limited English proficiency, household income, low-wage workers, age, vehicle ownership.	U.S. Census Minnesota Compass	X	X	X
Roadway Characteristics
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) & Heavy Commercial Average Annual Daily Traffic (HCAADT)	Obtain and report most recent daily vehicle volumes as reported for relevant corridor segments	MnDOT Transportation Data Management System	X	X	X
Roadway Geometry, Design and Modal Elements	Number and purpose of lanes, lane widths, intersection controls, curb cuts, transit elements, sidewalk and bicycle lane widths and design	Aerial maps and/or field walk	X	X	X
Roadway Designations	Identify whether the corridor is on the NHS system, is an OSOW corridor, is a historical segment of trunk highway, or is a scenic byway.	National Highway System (NHS) on FHWA Minnesota’s NHS Webpage Oversize/Overweight (OSOW) Superload Corridors map on MnDOT's Freight Webpage MnDOT Historical Segments of Trunk Highways in Minnesota Storymap MnDOT Scenic Byways Webpage	X	X	X
Aesthetics and Visual Quality	Presence of street trees and landscaping, lighting, street furniture, wayfinding, etc., and contribution to visual quality or aesthetics of the corridor	Aerial maps and/or field walk	X	X	X

Topic	Measurement	Data Source	Corridor Project Plan	Corridor Vision Plan	Regional Corridor Vision Plan
Transportation Safety
Documented Crashes	Critical index for fatal and serious injury crashes (intersection and segment)	• Historical crashes • Historical vehicle volumes	X	X	X
	Presence on Ped/Bike High-Injury Network	Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment (VRUSA) Data Dashboard	X	X	X
	Critical index for all crashes (intersection and segment)	• Historical crashes • Historical vehicle volumes	Some plans	Some plans	No
	Concerning crash patterns	Historical crash data (request)	Some plans	Some plans (higher-level)	Some plans (higher-level)
Crash Risk	Locations of High Crash Risk	• District Safety Plan (request) • Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment (VRUSA) Data Dashboard	X	X	X
Crash Risk	Vehicle Speeds	Field measurements or connected device data	X	Some plans	Some plans
System Stewardship: Asset Management
Asset Condition	• Pavement condition • Bridge/culvert inventory and condition • Traffic signal remaining service life	• District functional group leads • Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS) – available to MnDOT staff • Bridge Info Interactive Map • MnDOT bridge staff • MnDOT Asset Management Specialists (Office of Asset Management)	X	X (higher-level)	Some plans (higher-level)
Pedestrian ADA Infrastructure	Sidewalk and curb ramp inventory and condition	• District ADA Coordinator, aerial imagery, MnDOT Pedestrian Infrastructure Viewer App Map • Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS) – available to MnDOT staff	X	Some plans	No
Maintenance Issues	Maintenance needs or concerns in the corridor	District maintenance staff	X	Some plans	Some plans (higher-level)
Utilities Scan	Public and private utility inventory	• City/County geospatial portal lookup • Coordination with known private utility owners • Met Council (for water/wastewater information in Twin Cities metro area) • Optional: Request inventory via Gopher State One Call (GSOC)	X	Some plans	Some plans (higher-level)
System Stewardship: Environment
Contaminated Materials	Locations of contaminated materials which may be encountered during construction	MPCA and MDA “What’s in my Neighborhood” databases	X	Some plans	No
Historic and Cultural Resources	Locations of identified historic or cultural resources	Minnesota State Historic Inventory Portal	X	X	X
Section 4(f)/ Section 6(f) Resources	Identification of potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) sites(parks, trails, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic properties)	• 4(f): Online maps, local comp plans/land use plans, DNR land use maps • 6(f): Minnesota DNR list of sites funded by LWCF or receiving state or local recreation grants	X	Some plans (higher-level)	Some plans (higher-level)

Threatened and Endangered Species	Presence of threatened and endangered species (state and/or federal)	• Minnesota DNR National Heritage Information System (NHIS) • USFWS IPaC project planning tool	X	No	No
Wetlands and Water Resources	Mapped wetlands, waterways and public waters; floodplains	• USFWS NWI and Minnesota NWI • Minnesota PWI • FEMA Floodplains	X	Some plans	Some plans
Climate Action
Vehicle Miles Traveled	Baseline vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the corridor	See methodology and calculation in Critical Connections: Motor Vehicles and Freight	X	X	X
Flood Potential	Locations within the corridor susceptible to flooding	MnDOT flood event database MnDOT district hydraulics and maintenance staff Flood models (if any) developed by local partner agencies Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100- and 500- year floodplain zones	X	X	Some plans (higher level)
Coastal Erosion Hazards (TH 61/ Lake Superior only)	Erosion potential of segments of the Lake Superior Coast	Arrowhead Regional Development Commission	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans (higher level)
Vulnerable Slope Area	Areas in the corridor vulnerable to slope failure and recommended for mitigation as identified in the Slope Vulnerability Assessments	MnDOT Slope Vulnerability Assessments	X	X	X (higher level)
Electric Vehicle Charging	Location of existing and recommended charging locations (clusters) in or in proximity to the study area	EVINA Long Distance Charging Analysis Dashboard	X	X	X
Electric Vehicle Registrations	Number of electric vehicles registered in the past year in ZIP codes within the corridor	Minnesota Public Utilities Commission	X	X	X
Critical Connections: Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit
Facilities and Services	• Existing or planned facilities for walking, bicycling or transit • Completeness and directness of network facilities • Pedestrian and bicycling conflict points	• Bicycling: MnDOT Bikeways Application or local community database and plans • Walking and Bicycling: Map of existing and planned walking and/or biking facilities provided by agencies along the corridor • Transit: GIS or map data available through MN Geospatial Commons, or provided by the transit agency (local, regional, intercity, etc.) • Request data from School District for bus stops and walk zones • Relevant Safe Routes to Schools plans	X	X (higher-level)	X (higher-level)
Pedestrian Access and Mobility	Level of need and demand for pedestrian facilities	PAWS Tier Map lookup of scores	X	X	X
Pedestrian Access and Mobility	Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) is accessible and appropriate to context	• MnDOT Facility Design Guide: Section 8C.9.2. • Aerial imagery	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Bicyclist Access and Mobility	Bicycling connectivity to local and regional network	• MnDOT Bikeways Application • District Bicycle Investment Routes identified in the MnDOT District Bicycle Plans or priorities identified in the Bike+ Plan • Community planning documents	X	X	X
Bicyclist Access and Mobility	Appropriate existing bicycle facilities for corridor characteristics	• MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual • MnDOT Complete Streets Transportation Hierarchy Tool • Level of Traffic Stress lookup	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Transit	Connectivity to transit networks	Transit stops and routes along and within ½ mile of the study corridor, retrieved through MN Geospatial Commons, or provided by the transit agency (local, regional, intercity, etc.)	Some plans	Some plans (higher-level)	No
	Accessibility and infrastructure at transit stops	• MnDOT Right of Way map, local agency data, or desktop review • District ADA Coordinator, aerial imagery, MnDOT Pedestrian Infrastructure Viewer App Map • Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS) – available to MnDOT staff	Some plans	Some plans (higher-level)	No
	Level of existing and planned transit along the corridor	• For corridors outside MnDOT’s Metro District, Figure 4-7: Statewide Transit Need Index from the Greater Minnesota Transit Plan • For corridors within Metro District, Metropolitan Council’s Transit Market Area (Figure G-1) and Network Now Framework	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Micromobility	Availability and quality of micromobility and shared micromobility facilities	• Consultation with local agencies • Past community and transportation plans to identify trip generators along the corridor	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Critical Connections: Motor Vehicles and Freight
Volume Counts	Passenger vehicle turning movements, heavy vehicle turning movements, pedestrian and bicycle crossings at corridor intersections	Field counts or platform like StreetLight	X	Some plans	Some plans
Access Management	Compliance with MnDOT’s Access Management Manual	Aerial imagery & MnDOT Guidelines	X	X	Some plans
Roadway Capacity, Travel Delay, and Reliability	Existing Volume-to-Capacity Ratio	• AADT (MnDOT’s Transportation Data Management System) • Highway Capacity Manual	X	X	X
	Future Volume-to-Capacity Ratio	• AADT (MnDOT’s Transportation Data Management System) • Highway Capacity Manual	X	X	X
	Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)	AADT	X	X	X
	Vehicle Travel Delay	• ClearGuide (primary source) • Other sources if appropriate, per guidance	X	X	X
	Vehicle Travel Time Reliability	• ClearGuide (primary source) • Other sources if appropriate, per guidance	X	X	Some plans
	Truck Travel Time Reliability Index (TTTRI)	State Freight Plan (Chapter 3)	X	X	Some plans
Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)	Existing TSMO Strategies and Activities	RTMC, aerial imagery, staff input	X	X	X
Freight and Intermodal	Highway Freight Routes and Tonnage	• Minnesota Rail Viewer Application • Minnesota Freight webpage maps	X	X	X
Critical Connections: Other Topics
Agricultural Vehicles	Agricultural, timber or food/grain production areas along or served by the corridor	Map of land use, farming, husbandry/cropland data from National Agricultural Statistics Services (NASS), or as provided by the community	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Agricultural Vehicles	Access to agricultural product destinations served by the corridor	• Map of grain elevators, mills, stockyards, livestock auction, or canning and freezing facilities (provided by the community or through online map review) • Wholesale Directories (such as Minnesota Grown Directory)	Some plans	Some plans (higher-level)	Some plans (higher-level)
Animal-Powered Vehicles	Presence of communities with animal-powered vehicles served by the study corridor	Location of Amish communities/other communities that use animal-powered vehicles through online maps and resources (Example sources). The best resource will likely be agency and community staff.	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Snowmobile and Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs)	Snowmobile and OHVs (all-terrain vehicles, off-highway motorcycles and off-road vehicles) use adjacent to or crossing the corridor	• OHVs: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) OHV Trail Atlas • Snowmobile: MnDNR Snowmobile Trails Map	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
Airports	Location of airports potentially affected	MnSASP Hub tool (from the Minnesota State Aviation System Plan (MnSASP)	X	X (higher-level)	X (higher-level)
Economic Development and Jobs	Employment or commerce destinations served by the corridor	Location of employment or commerce destinations through the following sources: • Online map lookup • Review of existing land use • Business listings	X	X (higher-level)	X (higher-level)
Economic Development and Jobs	Potential/future employment or commerce destinations served by the corridor	• Land use plan to identify future land use and development goals • Review of zoning map to identify areas with potential employment commerce developments	X	X (higher-level)	X (higher-level)
Tourism	Tourism supporting facilities served by the study corridor	Location of tourism-supportive facilities such as airports, rest stops, tourist information centers, tourist destinations, outdoor recreation, trails, parks, biking, camping) through the following sources: • Online map review • Other online resources	X	X (higher-level)	X (higher-level)

Topic	Criteria	Measurement/Methodology	Corridor Project Plan	Corridor Vision Plan	Regional Corridor Vision Plan
Context
Aesthetics and Visual Quality	Aesthetics and Visual Quality	Qualitative assessment based on professional judgement: 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	X	X	X
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	X	X	X
Transportation Safety
Anticipated Safety Improvement	Anticipated safety improvement	Qualitative narrative of anticipated safety improvement based on judgement and understanding of proven safety countermeasures.	X	X	X
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)?	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)	Some plans (simple qualitative method only)
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? 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)	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)	Some plans (simple qualitative method only)
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)	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)
System Stewardship: Asset Management
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)	X	X	Some plans (if done in Step 3)
	Bridge/culvert inventory and 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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)
	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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)
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 solutions • Incorporate degree of improvement as relevant based on ADA requirements (planning-level assessment)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)	No
Bicycle 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)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)	No
Maintenance Issues	Maintenance needs or concerns in the corridor	• Potential for proposed solution to positively or negatively affect identified maintenance needs or concerns • Qualitative analysis based on understanding of identified issues	X	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if present)
Utilities Scan	Public and private utility impacts	• Potential for proposed solution to negatively impact identified utility or utilities (estimated degree) • Estimated degree or extent of direct impact based on footprint of proposed solution	X	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)
System Stewardship: Environment
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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	No
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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)
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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)
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	X	No	No
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	X	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)
Climate Action
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	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)
Flood Potential	Change in flooding susceptibility	• Estimated likelihood and degree that proposed solution will change future flood potential • Qualitative estimate based on professional judgement	X	X	Some plans (if done in Step 3)
Coastal Erosion Hazards	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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)
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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)
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)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)
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	X	X	X
Critical Connections: Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Transit
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)	X	X	X
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	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
	Change in lineal feet of pedestrian facilities	• Measure extent of new facilities • Review and compare	X	X	X
	Pedestrian Crossing Stress	• Differences in safety and stress at crossings • Complete a Design Flag Analysis • Evaluate flags for existing conditions and for alternative conditions • Compare results	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
	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	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)
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	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in 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	Some plans	Some plans	Some plans
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 •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	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	No
Transit	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	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	No
Micro-mobility	Support for micro-mobility	• Number of locations providing micromobility parking or docking stations • Count and compare to current condition	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)	Some plans (if done in Step 3)
Critical Connections: Motor Vehicles and Freight
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	X (quantitative method)	X (at least one method)	Some plans (qualitative method only)
Roadway Capacity, Travel Delay, and Reliability	Volume-to-Capacity Ratio	Calculate the V/C for each alternative	X	X	X
	Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)	Calculate the VMT for each alternative	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)
	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	X (at least one method)	X (qualitative method only)	X (qualitative method only)
	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	X (at least one method)	X (qualitative method only)	Some plans (qualitative method only)
	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	X (at least one method)	X (qualitative method only)	Some plans (qualitative method only)
Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSMO)	Existing 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? • Does the alternative have an opportunity to include new TSMO strategies and activities? Quantitative Option – Answer the following question: How many or to what degree are TSMO strategies and activities included?	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)	X (at least one method)
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)	X	X	X
	Rail Crossings	Qualitatively document whether existing rail crossings are improved or removed.	X	X	X
	Other Freight and Intermodal Characteristics	Qualitatively document potential impacts or opportunities on other freight and intermodal characteristics identified in Step 3	X	X	X
Critical Connections: Other Topics
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	X	X	X
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	X	X	X
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	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)	Some plans (if present)
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	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)	Some plans (if present & done in Step 3)
Airports	Impact on affected airports	• Qualitative review of adverse impacts • Qualitative review of potential opportunities to improve access to airport	X	X	X
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.	X	X	X
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.	X	X	X

While the implementation plan level of detail will vary among plans, the guidance for this step applies equally to the different plan types.

Plan Type Data Matrix

Guidebook Step 1: Pre-Planning

Guidebook Step 1: Pre-Planning

Guidebook Step 2: Background and Context

Guidebook Step 3: Existing and Future Conditions Assessment

Guidebook Step 4: Potential Solutions

Guidebook Step 5: Implementation Plan