INFRASTRUCTURE PRESERVATION POLICY REVIEW TEAM
SUMMARY REPORT
Does the existing policy help facilitate statewide decisions? If yes, how? If no, why not?
The policy does help to facilitate statewide decisions. Many of the stated objectives for bridges,
pavements, and other infrastructure are included in the STIP guidance. The ARRA program also supported
objectives put forth in the policy.
Is the current policy still relevant? Why? Why not?
The overall objectives are still relevant. However, there are specific strategies regarding short term
investment priorities and pavement preservation techniques that will require update.
Could the policy be combined/streamlined with another existing policy or policies?
Probably not. This infrastructure preservation policy is relatively succinct and the four areas covered,
bridges, pavements, other state highway infrastructure and other state transportation infrastructure are
each unique in terms of approach to preservation. This will be revisited after review of the maintenance
and security policy review team meeting.
What are the most important things/points that the existing MnDOT policy is saying
Structural integrity of our existing system continues to be a priority. With bridges, much of the investment
strategy was largely defined in Chapter 152 and is reflected in the Statewide Plan. For pavements, we
monitor the entire system and model future condition based on forecasts of available funding. The
challenge is in the size of the need and the investment required to meet this need in the short term (Better
Roads) and the long term. For other highway infrastructure, we are not as advanced in our ability to
monitor/assess the condition of the systems, although we have made great strides since the last plan.
MnDOT’s asset management working group will be advancing this effort.
What are the key aspects, considerations and/or themes drawn from this policy that should be
carried into the next Plan?
It is all still applicable.
Is there consistency between the existing policy and strategy from MnDOT’s statewide
transportation plan and other plans?
Yes.
How could what is being said in the current policy/objectives/strategies be clarified or said better?
It was pointed out that investment decisions for infrastructure do not always result in lowest life cycle costs
for each segment of roadway or asset unit. The goal is to optimize the cost effectiveness of investments
system wide, given available funding.
Summary of PRT Discussion
INFRASTRUCTURE PRESERVATION POLICY REVIEW TEAM
SUMMARY REPORT
Are there any potentially critical topics missing (i.e. risk management, complete streets, climate
change, CSS, sustainability, etc.) that are “new” since the policy was adopted?
Enterprise risk management will be applied to preservation investment decisions and, therefore, should be
highlighted either here or elsewhere in the plan.
Defining the “right sized” system to be preserved was a discussion point. This is a question that should be
addressed in the development of the 50 year Vision and the Statewide Plan Update but has broader
implications than “Preserving Infrastructure”.
What from the other plans should be considered in the MnDOT Statewide Multimodal Plan?
None
What are the most important 5 to 10 key themes/ideas to identify/carry forward in the Statewide
Multimodal Plan.
1. Maintaining the structural integrity of the transportation system continues to be a priority.
2. We are at distinctly different places in terms of managing and investing in the highways, bridges,
other highway infrastructure as well as participating in the monitoring or management of non
Mn/DOT infrastructure.
3. Broader questions such as how we apply enterprise risk management and defining the future size
of the system will affect preservation policy and investment decisions.
Summary of PRT Discussion