Corridor Planning Guidebook

The questions in this section are intended to prompt input and discussion beyond the technical data considered below. People familiar with the study corridor can provide a depth of understanding that may not be captured in the technical analysis. Response themes or highlights should be summarized in the qualitative input section of the existing conditions report.

Agency Engagement

Coordinate with the project team to ask appropriate public agency staff questions such as these. Summarize responses.

• What types of infrastructure assets are present along the corridor that are not included in the MnDOT Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS)? What agencies (private and public) own, operate, or maintain them?
• Are there utilities considered critical or sensitive? If so, when will they need to be replaced?
• Are there utilities in the public right-of-way, including below the highway? Who is the owner?
• Are there assets or utility conflicts requiring additional coordination?
• Are any assets nearing the end of their service life?
• Are there assets that are not right-sized for the corridor (such as excess pavement)? Are there opportunities to remove or modify?
• Is there excess right-of-way that should be planned for (preserved for future expansion, discussed with local agencies for potential other uses, etc.)? 
• Are there assets that do not exist but are desired along the corridor (i.e., lack of ITS)?
• Are there opportunities to combine asset improvements with other planned projects?
• Does your agency receive consistent complaints from the public regarding any assets in the corridor? If so, which ones and where?
• Do maintenance and hydraulics staff know of locations with a history of drainage issues or flooding within the corridor?
• Potential questions for private utility providers:
• Do you have data for assets in the corridor you are able to share?
• Do you have upcoming projects or asset needs in the corridor?
• Are there corridor assets you are otherwise concerned about (due to crash damage from vehicles, vandalism, other issues)?

Public Engagement

Coordinate with the project team to incorporate questions such as these into public engagement activities. Summarize responses or themes as appropriate.

• Do you experience roadway pavement issues in the corridor? If so, where?
• Do you experience drainage or flooding issues in the corridor? If so, where?
• Do you experience issues with sidewalk or trail conditions in the corridor? If so, where?
• Are there locations you think could use more signage or lighting?

The table below shows the technical topic measurements and data to be included in the existing and future conditions analysis for System Stewardship: Asset Management. See Appendix C: Plan Type Data Matrix for direction on level of detail and items that may be optional based on corridor plan type. The items below also may be modified by the scope of work for an individual corridor plan, including modification for additional assets as relevant (such as lighting, ITS, and hydraulic infrastructure).

Table 8. System Stewardship: Asset Management Technical Topics and Data

Topic	Measurement	Data Source
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)
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
Maintenance Issues	Maintenance needs or concerns in the corridor	District maintenance staff
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)

Understanding corridor asset conditions helps planners identify maintenance needs, inform project timing, and coordinate improvements across asset types. The purpose of this section is to provide a snapshot of infrastructure condition and support coordination with upcoming capital or maintenance projects.

Pavement Condition

MnDOT regularly monitors pavement ride quality (smoothness) and pavement condition or distress. Pavement condition is reported quantitatively as Ride Quality Index (RQI), Surface Rating (SR), Pavement Quality Index (PQI), and Remaining Service Life (RSL).

Data

MnDOT asset management staff maintain RQI, SR, PQI, and RSL data for the project corridor. Taken together, this data can inform what types of preservation work may be anticipated on this corridor during the planning horizon. This information may be requested by contacting asset management staff identified at MnDOT’s Asset Management web page, or request that MnDOT project staff obtain the data via TAMS.

Documentation

List and/or map current conditions for the corridor and identify whether conditions are considered acceptable.

Bridge/Culvert Inventory and Condition

Data

The MnDOT Bridge Info Interactive Map includes data on all bridges and bridge-sized culverts (those 10 feet or longer) statewide. This resource includes relevant information for future project planning, such as deficiency status. If needed, further details on bridge condition and investment needs can be requested from MnDOT Bridge Office staff, who maintain the Bridge Office Replacement and Improvement System (BORIS) prioritization tool used to identify bridge investments.

Information on smaller culverts and other drainage-related information (storm sewer systems, stormwater ponds/BMPs, etc.) is captured in the TAMS HydInfra database, available internally at MnDOT. This level of detail and related hydraulics analysis are typically beyond the scope of a corridor study.

Documentation

Summarize bridge and culvert condition inventory in the corridor using a map, table, or simple list, depending on the number of items and extent of information being reported. Include information on status of pedestrian bridges or pedestrian accommodations on bridges as known and relevant. The primary consideration for a corridor study is understanding which assets (bridges, in particular) are planned or programmed to be replaced or substantially improved and when, versus which items should be assumed not to be changing in the foreseeable future. This also may be driven by bridge condition, as well as other factors such as clearance issues and constraints. Replacement planning or programming information can inform whether corridor needs may be addressed by or coordinated with other upcoming projects. For example, will a new pedestrian facility be added as part of an upcoming bridge replacement? Or is the bridge not identified for investment for many years?

Traffic Signal Remaining Service Life

Information on the remaining service life for traffic signals can be helpful for understanding feasibility or likelihood of changes at an intersection and coordination with future planned investments. For example, if the signal is newer, a project to change the intersection control may be further in the future than one at a location where the signal is near the end of its service life and a decision regarding new investment at that location is already anticipated.

Data

Traffic signal remaining service life data and potential schedule for replacement is available from the Office of Asset Management and can be requested from District functional group leads.

Documentation

Summarize traffic signal condition as follows:

• List signalized intersections along the corridor
• Note the installation year or most recent replacement
• Identify signals identified for near-term replacement
• Consult MnDOT District staff or the other traffic engineering staff for updated inspection and replacement schedules or related information

For corridor plans, identifying whether existing infrastructure reflects the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is evaluated at a high-level.

Data

MnDOT conducts ADA reviews for many corridors in the state. The Pedestrian Infrastructure within MnDOT Right of Way map shows completed corridor reviews. If an ADA review has been recently completed, data is available for curb ramps and signal buttons, intersections with complaints, walkway cross slopes, hazards, and obstructions.
If a recent ADA review has not been completed along all or part of the corridor, a high-level desktop review can be completed using aerial imagery and street-level view. It is understood the desktop review will be less complete or detailed than a formal ADA review.

Documentation

Document known or potential locations of ADA concerns on a map, such as:

• Gaps in sidewalk or trail network
• Presence of hazards on walkways (for example, poor condition; barriers such as fire hydrants, utility boxes, etc.)
• Curb ramp availability and quality
• Accessible pedestrian signals (audible/tactile)
• Signs showing “no ped crossing” (typically at ramp terminal intersections)
• Bridge expansion joint (quality of connection, smoothness)
• Locations that are ADA-compliant but where additional investment may be warranted
• Pedestrian bridge ADA information if relevant and available

 

MnDOT and local maintenance staff have direct corridor knowledge that can be used to support and supplement understanding of corridor asset needs and to identify emerging issues or those outside of reported data. This could include vegetation that reduces visibility and presents a safety concern, localized flooding or pavement needs, access concerns, or other issues.

Data

District maintenance staff can provide information related to maintenance work conducted, challenges encountered, and other local perspectives. Guidebook users should work with the study project manager to reach out to appropriate district maintenance staff to understand their perspectives or concerns for the corridor segment, and to also get in touch with relevant local agency maintenance staff for their understanding. Examples of questions to prompt discussion include:

• What maintenance issues in this corridor segment do you spend most time on? The most money on?
• Do you have concerns about any of the following? Pavement, bridges, culverts, guardrail, flooding, ADA, vegetation, right-of-way encroachments? Anything else?
• Are there other assets with deferred maintenance in the corridor that need attention (i.e. signing, lighting, ITS, signals, etc.)?
• Are there any issues related to snow, such as a lack of snow storage (most applicable in urban areas) or blowing snow (most applicable in rural areas)?
• Is there relevant work history data available in TAMS or the older Work Order Management (WOM) system that may identify other maintenance needs?

Documentation

Document input received from maintenance staff. As feasible, indicate whether each item suggests a potential need for coordination with other corridor issues or appears to be a stand-alone maintenance issue.

A high level review of existing and planned utilities in the study corridor can help identify potential constraints or considerations for future improvements (such as a large electrical tower, natural gas pipeline, septic field) as well as opportunities (planned utility replacements, future EV charging stations).

Distinctions should be made between public and private utilities, as the type of utility may influence how data is obtained and who is responsible for providing it. Public utilities, such as stormwater infrastructure, are managed by government entities, and information is typically available through local jurisdictions like cities or townships. In contrast, utilities such as electricity or natural gas or high-speed internet, are typically operated by private companies and often require additional coordination to access relevant data.

Data

Some utility inventory information can be obtained from a local agency (City or County) geospatial information portal. In the Twin Cities metro area, water and wastewater information can be obtained from the Met Council. Other data may need to be requested directly from the utility company.

More detailed information on both public and private utilities can be sourced from Gopher State One Call (GSOC), which enables users to map an entire work site and submit a “ticket” to request utility data. Users can define custom routes and widths to obtain a list of known utilities in the area. GSOC may be more appropriate for corridors where potential utility conflicts and coordination is of higher interest or concern and/or where a greater level of detail or precision is needed.

Follow-up communication with public utilities is generally more straightforward than private. Note that private utilities, in contrast, are private businesses that may not typically share future plans or other information considered proprietary.

Documentation

Summarize the results of the utility scan in a table such as the one below, ideally supplemented by a map showing approximate location information.

Utility Owner/Operator	Location	Type	Contact

Multiple strategies may be used in an asset management analysis aimed at fostering healthy and vibrant places that reduce disparities and promote healthy outcomes for people, the environment, and the economy. Guidebook users should prepare a summary of how healthy equitable communities were considered and include it in the memorandum or report that documents the asset management assessment.

Healthy Equitable Communities

Use a combination of demographic information (Step 2), technical input and input from community members and agency staff to provide responses or observations related to the questions below.

• What input have you received from underserved communities regarding the condition of corridor transportation assets?
• Are there underserved populations that are disproportionately burdened by poor or outdated transportation assets in the corridor?
• Are there opportunities to incorporate context-sensitive designs or streetscaping reflecting the community character during asset upgrades?