MnSHIP Investment Approaches

S C E N A R I O P L A N N I N G : B A C K G R O U N D

MnSHIP Investment Approaches

MnSHIP’s total revenue will be distributed among ten investment categories. MnSHIP is a fiscally constrained plan, and must balance the needs and risks of each category against those of the others. Each investment category has its own folio describing the trade-offs of different investment levels. Please see page 8 for a list of investment folios.

What is the State Highway Investment Plan?

MnDOT is developing its 20-Year State Highway Investment Plan

• Approach A - Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure

(roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) on the entire system.

2013-2032 (MnSHIP). The purpose of the plan is to provide a fiscally constrained investment direction, linking the policies and strategies laid out in the Statewide Multimodal Transportation

• Approach B - The current investment direction illustrates how

MnDOT currently invests, based on the most recently approved statewide investment direction.

Plan to capital improvements on the state highway system. The

MnSHIP update process uses a risk and performance-based

• Approach C - Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates and increasing investment in mobility, local priorities and non-motorized transportation options.

20-year framework to guide future capital improvements on

Minnesota’s 12,000-mile state highway system.

The following three sets of two-page spreads illustrate each approach. The left side of each spread contains highlights of

What is scenario planning? the approach and a hypothetical scenario describing a drive

Scenario planning allows people to look at a range of investment from Winona to Bemidji. On the right, strengths and drawbacks approaches and understand the implications of each. MnDOT are highlighted, and a table compares this approach to current has outlined four to five levels of potential funding for each funding levels and lists major outcomes of the approach. investment category, called Performance Levels (PL)s. Each PL is unique in its investment level, strategy, performance outcomes, and associated risks. Investment approaches illustrated in this folio combine different PLs from each investment category.

What are major assumptions when choosing an approach?

It is important to keep in mind the following items when thinking about the trade-offs associated with the three approaches:

• Each approach assumes constant revenue (fiscally constrained);

What will the future investment direction look like?

MnDOT has developed Approach A Approach C

• Each approach assumes the same system size; three approaches that

• If you want to spend more money in one category, you must spend less on another; and demonstrate fairly diverse possibilities of how available

Approach B

(Current)

• There is no right or wrong answer - each option requires difficult trade-offs across the entire system.

Approaches A + C

Relative change from Approach B funding could be divided between the

MnDOT aims to understand public tolerances of and desires for shifting from Approach B towards A or C.

Asset Management investment categories. The intent of showing different investment approaches is to illustrate the range of possibilities, or bookends,

Traveler Safety for forming the basis of the future investment direction. In the end, it is unlikely that any of the three approaches will be the actual investment direction - rather, it is assumed that feedback will be used to refine existing priorities in favor of elements illustrated in Approach A or C. The three investment approaches illustrated in this folio are:

Critical

Connections

Approaches A + C invest more or less in each investment category, as compared with current investment (Approach B).

P A G E 1

Regional + Community

Improvement Priorities

S C E N A R I O P L A N N I N G : I N V E S T M E N T A P P R O A C H

Approach A

Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system; reduce investment in mobility, non-motorized transportation options, and local priorities.

Highlights

Some highlights of what this funding approach could mean along Minnesota’s state highway system in the next 20 years:

Existing roads

Existing bridges

Good ride quality on most state highways, though lower than today on all noninterstates.

Less than 10% of bridges in poor condition. Many bridges repaired at optimal point in life-cycle. Few bridge closures.

System upgrades are applied efficiently and approach alignment with life cycle costs.

Roadside

Infrastructure

Safety Decline in annual fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways continues, but slows compared to current levels.

Interregional Corridor mobility

No additional capacity on connections between Greater Minnesota regional centers.

Travel times remain similar to today on all but a few roads.

Twin Cities mobility Approximately 1+ spot mobility improvements addressed each year. One new MnPASS

Lane completed.

Bicycle Infrastructure Shoulders are generally in good condition, allowing for a smooth bicycle ride on most state highways.

Accessible Pedestrian

Infrastructure

Few pedestrian safety or access improvements implemented that are not related to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Regional + Community

Improvement Priorities

MnDOT addresses regional concerns and collaboration opportunities primarily through the priority and timing of bridge and pavement projects.

What might Approach A look like 20 years into the future?

You are making the seven-hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. Throughout your drive, you notice that over half of the roads that you will travel on have good pavement conditions , regardless of whether they are interstates or state highways. This makes for a smooth, comfortable drive. The route to Bemidji from Winona remains the same in 2032 as you remember it from 2012, but the drive through the Twin Cities takes longer due to persistent congestion from the US 52 / I-94 interchange all the way to St. Cloud. A bit north of Brainerd, you realize that increased traffic volumes makes passing very difficult on the two-lane sections of MN 371 .

Upon reaching your destination, you and your friends immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your ride begins pleasantly on a highway with broad and well maintained shoulders , but there is no signage to indicate that you are on a bike trail and you have to pay close attention to where you are to make sure you don’t miss the trail’s departure point on the far side of the road. When you cross the highway, you feel exposed and unsafe . Later, when the trail again meets up and runs on a low-volume state highway, you are disappointed to find that there is a gravel shoulder. As a result, you ride in the highway travel lane where the road is smooth but there is less of a buffer between you and passing traffic.

P A G E 2


Approach A

Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure (roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system; reduce investment in mobility, non-motorized transportation options, and local priorities.

Biggest Strengths

• Pavement, bridge and roadside infrastructure condition approaches a state of good repair

• The vast majority of roadways are smooth and bridge condition meets national performance targets

Biggest Drawbacks

• Little to no added capacity across all modes

• Limited responsiveness to local concerns


Improvement Priorities 1%

Accessible

Pedestrian 1%

Bicycle 2%

Twin Cities

Mobility 3%

Traveler

Safety 4%

Project

Support 11%

Pavement

Condition

46% INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT

TC BI

IR PE

RC CC TS PS AM

PA

Roadside

Infrastructure

Condition 10%

-86% -36% -25% 0%

RI BR

+23%

AM: Asset Management

TS: Traveler Safety

CC: Critical Connections

RC: Regional + Community Improvement Priorities

INVESTMENT APPROACH OUTCOMES

Bridge

Condition

21%

= to invest.

Investment approach impacts invest.

2032 total inv.

$6,570 M 46% Pavement

Condition

Bridge

Condition

Roadside

Infrastructure

Condition

Traveler Safety (TS)

$3,050 M 21%

$1,470 M 10%

$640 M 4%

=

2

3

2

1

Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor.

Non-interstate principal arterials: 60% (3,470 miles) Good, 11% (630 miles) Poor.

Non-principal arterials: 61% (4,100 miles) Good, 17% (1,140 miles) Poor.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds met for all roads.

Principal arterials: 83% (1,278 bridges) Good/Satisfactory, 8% (100 bridges) Poor

Non-principal arterials: 84% (1,024 bridges) Good/Satisfactory, 8% (114 bridges)

Poor

All very poor (#4) culverts addressed. Visibility standards met on most signs and markings. Rest areas maintained. System upgrades approach alignment with life cycle costs. Guardrail, attenuator, + fence systems upgraded to new standards during repairs.

Total fatalities + serious injuries likely to continue decade-long decline, but at a slower rate. System-wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at 66% of current rate. No investment in standalone projects to address sustained crash locations.

Minimal mobility investments. Most corridors maintain performance; mobility on

4 corridors declines. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns continue to occur.

Improve 1+ spot mobility issue per year. Congestion likely increases + reliability decreases system-wide. One managed lane corridor.

Interregional

Corridor

Mobility

Twin Cities

Mobility

$0 M 0%

$400 M 3%

= 0

0

Bicycle

Infrastructure

Accessible

Pedestrian

Infrastructure

$250 M

$180 M

2%

1%

=

=

1

1

Current bicycle network maintained due to pavement and bridge investment. Most replaced/reconstructed bridges accommodate bicyclists where appropriate.

Investment made through pavement + bridge projects. Few non-ADA pedestrian safety or access improvements undertaken. Accessible Pedestrian Signals installed at over half of the signalized intersections in the system.


Improvement

Priorities (RC)

Project Support

$210 M 1% 0 Inability to address economic competitiveness and quality of life beyond those related to system performance targets. No projects selected through statewide solicitation process.

$1,580 M 11% n/a n/a A fixed percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right-of-way, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives.

Total $14.3 billion

100%

P A G E 3

*: PL = Performance Level. See Investment Folios for specific information on each PL funding and outcomes. PLs are independent across investment categories.


Approach B: Current Investment Direction

Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, non-motorized transportation options, and local priorities; accept significant decline in pavement condition on low-volume roads.

Highlights


Existing roads


Roadside

Infrastructure

Good ride quality on a majority of high-volume roads with declining ride quality on all non-interstate roads.

Less than 10% of bridges in poor condition. Many bridges repaired at optimal point in life-cycle. Few bridge closures.

Deteriorating culverts may fail and result in frequent/severe flooding. Sign visibility is reduced. Several rest areas close. Guardrail systems repaired but not upgraded.

Safety Fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways continue to decline on an annual basis.

Interregional Corridor

Mobility

Limited improvements to flow, safety, and mobility on two-lane highways throughout the state. Travel times remain similar to today on all but a few roads.

Twin Cities Mobility Approximately 2+ spot mobility improvements addressed each year. Two new MnPASS

Lanes completed.

Bicycle Infrastructure Shoulders are generally in good condition, allowing for a smooth bicycle ride on most state highways.


Infrastructure

Few pedestrian safety or access improvements implemented that are not related to complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.



Engage stakeholders in collaborative efforts to identify and prioritize investment opportunities on state highways. Several projects funded per year that promote local objectives relating to economic competitiveness and quality of life.

What might Approach B look like 20 years into the future?

You are making the seven-hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. You notice that the pavement conditions on the interstates and major roads that comprise most of your journey are much better than the low volume roads on which you start and end your trip. The route to Bemidji from Winona is much as you remember it in 2012, although congestion has gotten worse between the Twin Cities and St Cloud . A bit north of Brainerd, you notice that traffic volumes are higher on MN 371, but fortunately there are frequent passing lanes and bypass lanes to allow you to navigate slower moving vehicles.

Upon reaching your destination, you and your friend immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your ride begins on a highway and you are disappointed to find that there are cracks and depressions in the shoulders forcing you to keep your eyes on the pavement. You are glad when the trail crosses the highway to depart the right-of-way, but the crossing is unprotected, causing you to feel exposed and unsafe . Later, when the trail again meets up and runs on a state highway, you are disappointed to find that there is a gap in the trail where the shoulder narrows dramatically – at some points, you are forced to ride on the highway itself.

P A G E 4


Approach B: Current Investment Direction

Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, non-motorized transportation options, and local priorities; accept significant decline in pavement condition on low-volume roads.

Biggest Strength

• Ability to address highest priority needs across all investment categories

Biggest Drawback

• Limited ability to respond to growing infrastructure and evolving multimodal needs

Accessible

Pedestrian 1%

Project

Support 11%



10%

Pavement

Condition

33%

Bicycle 2%

INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT

Twin Cities Mobility

6%

AM

0%

TS

0%

CC

0%

RC

0%

PS

0%


TS: Traveler Safety




Traveler

Safety 6%

Roadside

Infrastructure

7%

Bridge Condition

23% invest.

2032 total inv.

$4,690 M 33%

= to invest.

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

Investment direction impacts

Pavement

Condition

Bridge

Condition

$3,320 M 23%

1

3

Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor.

Non-interstate principal arterials: 65% (3,750 miles) Good, 13% (770 miles) Poor.

Non-principal arterials: 8% (560 miles) Good, 42% (2,900 miles) Poor.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds not met on non-principal arterials.


Non-principal arterials: 84% (1,024 bridges) Good/Satisfactory, 8% (114 bridges)

Poor

Growing number of unaddressed very poor (#4) culverts. Some signs and pavement markings fall below visibility standards. One-third of rest areas are closed. Guardrail systems repaired but not updated to new systems.

Roadside

Infrastructure

Condition


Interregional

Corridor

Mobility

Twin Cities

Mobility

$990 M

$860 M

$0 M

$900 M

7%

6%

0%

6%

1

2

0

1

Total fatalities + serious injuries are likely to continue decade-long decline.

System-wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at current rate. Several sustained crash locations addressed.

Minimal mobility investments. Most corridors maintain performance; mobility on

4 corridors declines. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns continue to occur.

Address 2+ spot mobility issues per year. Congestion likely increases + reliability decreases system-wide. Two managed lane corridors. Completion of MN 610 to

I-94.

Current bicycle network maintained due to pavement and bridge investment. Most replaced/reconstructed bridges accommodate bicyclists where appropriate.

Bicycle

Infrastructure

Accessible

Pedestrian

Infrastructure


Improvement Priorities (RC)

Project Support

$250 M

$180 M

$1,540 M

$1,580 M

2%

1%

10%

11%

1

1

2 n/a

Investment made through pavement + bridge projects. Few non-ADA pedestrian safety or access improvements undertaken. Accessible Pedestrian Signals installed at over half of the signalized intersections in the system.

Ability to capitalize on partnership opportunities. Economic competitiveness and quality of life addressed through partnerships, + design add-ons. Several small- and large-scale improvements per year address needs not associated with performance targets.

A fixed percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right-ofway, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives.


100%

P A G E 5



Approach C

Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non-motorized transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non-interstate highways.

Highlights


Existing roads


Roadside

Infrastructure

Good ride quality on interstates, but pavement condition on the rest of the system declines significantly.

Less than 15% of bridges in poor condition. Few bridges repaired at optimal point in life-cycle. Weight restrictions on compromised bridges restrict freight movement.

Deteriorating culverts may fail and result in frequent/severe flooding. Sign visibility is reduced. Several rest areas close. Guardrail systems repaired but not upgraded.

Safety Fatalities and serious injuries on Minnesota roadways likely to continue decline on annual basis.


Mobility

MnDOT makes improvements that improve traffic flow, safety and mobility on the interregional corridors with the most predicted delay.

Twin Cities Mobility Approximately 5+ spot mobility improvements addressed. Two - three new/ reconstructed interchanges. Four new MnPASS Lanes completed.

Bicycle Infrastructure Targeted expansion to the state’s bicycle network, including improvements on many bridges.


Infrastructure

Targeted expansion of pedestrian network. Investment complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act on all signalized intersections and for all curb ramps in system.



MnDOT advances economic competitiveness and quality of life considerations through partnerships, design add-ons, and several small- and large- scale projects per year that address needs not associated with statewide performance targets.

What might Approach C look like 20 years into the future?

You are making the seven-hour drive from Winona to Bemidji to visit an old friend and spend a few days biking on state trails, and your planned route will take you through Rochester, the Twin Cities and Saint Cloud before heading north to complete your journey. You immediately notice that, while the interstates are in good condition, other roads are not ; the roughness of TH 52 (a non-interstate route) has patches of poor pavement that makes driving the speed limit uncomfortable and puts significant wear and tear on your car. Although traffic is slow through the heart of the metro, new lanes and some additional interchanges on I-94 and TH 10 allow for smooth traffic flow heading into and leaving St. Cloud.

Upon reaching your destination, you and your friend immediately grab your bikes so you can get out on the trail and leave your worries behind. Your ride begins on a highway, and although the road itself shows signs of deterioration, the shoulder is wide, well maintained, and painted to indicate a bike path.

Abundant signage alerts you to where you are along the trail . You are pleased to find that the trail’s highway crossing is protected by flashing lights and yellow markings that alert traffic to the presence of bicyclists. You also notice that gaps in the trail have been filled, so that no part of your ride is in the highway travel lane.

P A G E 6


Approach C

Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non-motorized transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non-interstate highways.

Biggest Strengths

• Improved safety

• Promotes mode choice

• Adds capacity in priority locations

Biggest Drawbacks

• Significant decline in the condition of most roadways

• Increased travel times on more than half of the highway system



13%

Project

Support

11%

Pavement

Condition

24%

INVESTMENT CATEGORIES % CHANGE FROM CURRENT

BI TC

PA

AM

BR

-26%

RI

PS

0%

RC

+17%

TS

+36%

IR

CC


TS: Traveler Safety



+139%


PE

Accessible Pedestrian 2%

Bicycle 2%

Twin Cities

Mobility

12%

IRC

Mobility

6%

Traveler

Safety

8%

Bridge

Condition

17%

Roadside

Infrastructure

5%

= to invest.

Investment approach impacts invest.

2032 total inv.

$3,370 M 24% Pavement

Condition

0 Interstate principal arterials: 70% (1,300 miles) Good, 2% (35 miles) Poor.

Non-interstate principal arterials: 58% (3,320 miles) Good, 20% (1,150 miles) Poor.

Non-principal arterials: 2% (130 miles) Good, 56% (3,790 miles) Poor.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board financial reporting thresholds not met on Non-interstate principal arterials or non-principal arterials.

Bridge

Condition

Roadside

Infrastructure

Condition


Interregional

Corridor

Mobility

Twin Cities

Mobility

Bicycle

Infrastructure

$2,500 M

$750 M

$1,170 M

$800 M

$1,780 M

$300 M

17%

5%

8%

6%

12%

2%

=

2

1

3

2

2

2


Non-principal arterials: 79% (952 bridges) Good/Satisfactory, 14% (177 bridges)

Poor

Growing number of unaddressed very poor (#4) culverts. Some signs and pavement markings fall below visibility standards. One-third of rest areas are closed.

Guardrail systems repaired but not updated to new systems.

Total fatalities/serious injuries likely to continue decade-long decline. Possible reduction in non-motorized crashes. System-wide, strategic proactive strategies implemented at 133% of current rate. Many sustained crash locations addressed.

Improved flow and reliability on 4 high-impact corridors, impacts 60% of IRC delay.

Nearly all corridors maintain performance. Isolated segment and recreational peak mobility concerns continue to occur.

Address 5+ spot mobility issues per year. System-wide congestion likely increases

+ reliability decreases. Four managed lane corridors (I-35E, I-94, I-35W/MN 36).

Completion of MN 610 to I-94.

Standalone bikeway projects are undertaken, mainly low-cost, high benefit projects (bike lanes, sharrows, route signage, etc.), some bridges, tunnels + separated paths.

Accessible

Pedestrian

Infrastructure



(RC)

Project Support

$290 M

$1,800 M

$1,580 M

2%

13%

11% n/a

2

3 n/a

Complies with ADA on all signalized intersections (1,200) and for all curb ramps (20,000) in system. Standalone pedestrian projects are undertaken, incl. crosswalks, sidewalks, curb extensions, refuges, + complete streets elements.

Strong ability to capitalize on partnership opportunities. Economic competitiveness

+ quality of life addressed via partnerships, + design add-ons. Several small and large-scale improvements/yr address needs not associated w/performance targets

A fixed percentage allocated towards delivering projects that includes right-ofway, consultant services, supplemental agreements, and construction incentives.


100%

P A G E 7


S C E N A R I O P L A N N I N G : B A C K G R O U N D

Investment Approaches Comparison

Investment Summary

Biggest Strengths

Biggest Drawback

Pavement (PA)

% in Poor Condition

Bridges (BR)

% in Poor Condition

Roadside Infrastructure

(RI)

Safety (TS)

Approach A

Focus on maintaining existing infrastructure

(roads, bridges, roadside infrastructure) across the entire system; reduce investment in mobility, non-motorized transportation options, and local priorities

Pavement, bridge and roadside infrastructure condition approaches a state of good repair; the vast majority of roadways are smooth and bridge condition meets national performance targets

Little to no added capacity across all modes; limited responsiveness to local concerns

2% principal arterial interstate

11% other principal arterials

17% non-principal arterials

8% principal arterials


Needs addressed throughout the state, overall condition improves

Approach B

Focus on bridges and safety; maintain current investment in mobility, nonmotorized transportation options, and local priorities; accept significant decline in pavement condition on low-volume roads

Ability to address highest priority needs across all investment categories

Limited ability to respond to growing infrastructure and evolving multimodal needs






Address strategically, manage decline

Approach C

Focus on meeting infrastructure needs on interstates; increase investment in mobility, local priorities and non-motorized transportation options; accept significant deterioration in the condition of infrastructure on non-interstate highways

Improved safety; promotes mode choice and adds capacity in priority locations

Significant decline in the condition of most roadways; increased travel times on more than half of the highway system






Address strategically, manage decline


Mobility (IR)

Twin Cities Mobility (TC)

Decline in fatalities likely to continue to decline but at a slower rate

Minimal mobility investment

Address 1+ spot mobility issues per year; one new MnPASS lane

Bicycle Infrastructure (BI) Full maintenance of existing bike amenities, but no additional facilities


(AP)


Priorities (RC)

Most pedestrian improvements are ADA-related

Local concerns primarily addressed through priority and timing of bridge and pavement projects

Decline in fatalities likely to continue

Minimal mobility investment

Address 2+ spot mobility issues per year; two new MnPASS lanes

Full maintenance of existing bike amenities, but no additional facilities

Most pedestrian improvements are

ADA-related

Local concerns addressed through partnerships, design add-ons, and a few projects per year addressing quality of life and economic competitiveness

Decline in fatalities likely to continue

Added capacity improves flow on regional connections w/ greatest predicted delay

Address 5+ spot mobility issues per year; construct 2-3 interchanges; 4 new MnPASS lanes

Targeted expansion of the state’s bicycle network

Targeted expansion of ped. network; both

ADA and non-ADA pedestrian improvements

Local concerns addressed through partnerships, design add-ons, and several projects per year addressing quality of life and economic competitiveness

How will I get a chance to voice my opinion?

There are a number of ways to stay involved and help shape the future investment direction for the state highway system:

• Come to the District Stakeholder Engagement Meetings held throughout October, 2012. See website for details.

• Send us comments

• Look for the on our website or at the email below.

MnSHIP Interactive Scenario Tool on the

MnSHIP website to submit your opinions on the investment approaches electronically.

Whatever method you think is best, we hope to hear from you!

Look for these additional folios!

Overview + Background

• What is MnSHIP?

Investment Category Folios

• Pavement Condition

• Bridge Condition

• Roadside Infrastructure

Condition

• Traveler Safety

• Interregional Corridor Mobility

• Twin Cities Mobility

• Bicycle Infrastructure

• Accessible Pedestrian

Infrastructure

• Regional + Community


• Project Support

Stakeholder and public input is one of several factors that will influence the investment direction set in MnSHIP.

For more information, contact:

Ryan Wilson, P.E., AICP

Project Manager, 20-Year State Highway Investment Plan

Office of Capital Programs & Performance Measures

Minnesota Department of Transportation

395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 440

St. Paul, MN 55155-1899

651.366.3537

ryan.wilson@state.mn.us

P A G E 8 www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/statehighwayinvestmentplan/

MnSHIP Investment Approaches

MnSHIP Investment Approaches

Approach A

Highlights

What might Approach A look like 20 years into the future?

Approach A

Biggest Strengths

Biggest Drawbacks

Approach B: Current Investment Direction

Highlights

What might Approach B look like 20 years into the future?

Approach B: Current Investment Direction

Biggest Strength

Biggest Drawback

Approach C

Highlights

What might Approach C look like 20 years into the future?

Approach C

Biggest Strengths

Biggest Drawbacks

Investment Approaches Comparison

Related documents

Products

Support

MnSHIP Investment Approaches