PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FOR I-94/T.H. 280 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
SP 8816-1438
Background
The Contractor is required to conduct all tasks as described below on I-94 from T.H. 65 in Minneapolis to Cedar
Avenue in St. Paul. The project length is approximately 9.0 miles on Interstate 94. This will also include the study
of T.H. 280 from I-94 to Larpenteur Avenue/Hennepin Avenue.
Mn/DOT has developed two projects on I- 94 which rehabilitated the inside and outside shoulders, resurfaced the
inplace roadway, upgraded the inplace drainage system, and installed lane control signals. These projects are
consistent with the Minor Rehabilitation with ATM alternative developed in the I-94 Managed Lane Study
completed in January of 2010.
The I-94 Managed Lane Study also developed an alternative that would reconstruct I-94 to provide a managed lane
through the I-94 corridor between downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. As stated in the study, the
reality of funding the reconstruction of I-94 to facilitate additional capacity is unlikely, based upon the current
funding sources available to Mn/DOT.
The goal of this study is to develop concepts for the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the I-94/T.H. 280
interchange to facilitate a managed lane being carried through that interchange and the development of concepts for
direct connections to and from downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul to the managed lane. The tasks associated with
this contract will be project management, public outreach, traffic forecasts, concept development, operational
analysis, and cost estimates.
1.0
Project Management, Coordination and Meetings
This task focuses on effective communication and coordination of the contract work to expedite the
decision-making process and maintain the scheduled completion dates. Contractor involvement is
anticipated for 18 months from Authorization to Proceed.
1.1
Project Management
1.1.1 Prepare work-planning schedule, to be updated monthly, and coordinate all required tasks.
1.1.2 Establish ongoing project coordination with all stakeholders including:
 Minnesota Department of Transportation
 Mn/DOT Project Manager
 Mn/DOT Functional Groups
 City of Minneapolis
 City of St. Paul
 Hennepin County
 Ramsey County
 Governmental Agencies
 Private and Public Utilities
 Metropolitan Transit
 Metropolitan Council
 Businesses and local residences in project area
 Railroad entities located within project area
 Other agencies as required.
1.2
The Contractor will prepare for, attend, and document the following meetings:
 One Project Kick-off Meeting
 Identifying roles of key personnel and establishing communication procedures.
 Review and concurrence of responsibilities of the Contractor and the State.
 Establishment of submittal requirements, review dates, and overall project schedule.
 Establishment of the frequency of ongong project team meeting/reviews.
1




Four meetings regarding the development of the Geometric Concepts.
Project Development Meetings as deemed necessary by the State’s Project Manager
Two Public Information Meetings
Four meetings to discuss design issues with outside agencies, businesses, and property owners as
necessary.
1.3
Contractor Deliverables
 Monitor progress and manage Contractor staff and sub-consultants
 Prepare and submit monthly status reports on project progress
 Provide timely inputs regarding issues that must be resolved regarding the design on an as-needed
basis.
 Implement and oversee quality control plan.
 Prepare for and attend the meetings identified in other work tasks (including preparation of agendas
(three days prior) and meeting minutes (within seven days of the meeting completion) and submit to all
attendees).
2.0
Public Outreach
The Contractor will manage an outreach and education component that ensures adequate and timely
information is provided to the public, stakeholders and decision-makers and provides ample opportunities
for input throughout the process. Outreach efforts will include giving presentations to elected officials,
transportation advocacy and other interest groups, and the formation and management of community and
project advisory groups as necessary. In addition, a project website will be established to provide timely
information on the study, and allow for ongoing community input.
2.1
Project Forums
The Contractor will conduct project forums to address critical topics related to the proposed project
elements, including:
 Community impacts,
 Transit implications,
 Equity issues, and
 Revenue issues.
2.2
Project Surveys
The Project Team will conduct surveys on public opinion toward project design alternatives and
operational features in the Interstate 94 corridor. These surveys will be geared towards the assessment of:
 Attitudes towards congestion,
 Project financing and alternative financing solutions,
 Mn/PASS/HOT Lane Operation, and
 Express bus/bus rapid transit applications.
2.3
Focus Groups
Focus Groups will be held to further probe public attitudes that need to be addressed in implementing
various alternatives.
2.4
Contractor Delierables
 Public Forums – 9 occurances
 Stakeholder Workshops – 3 occurances
 Focus Groups – 3 occurances
 Surveys – 2 occurances
 Reports on each activity – 17 occurances
3.0
Traffic Modeling
Develop 2035 daily and AM/PM peak hour forecasts for alternatives for the re-construction and
2
reconfiguration of the I-94/T.H. 280 interchange, provision of access into and out of a managed lane on
Interstate 94 in Minneapolis, and provision of access into and out of a managed lane on Interstate 94 in St.
Paul, using the Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Forecast Model (TCRM). The study area includes the
I-94 and T.H. 280 corridor segments between T.H. 65 in Minneapolis, Cedar Avenue in St. Paul,
Larpenteur Avenue/Hennepin Avenue to the north, and I-94 to the south. The following travel demand
volumes will be developed for the interchange study area:





Base year existing conditions (2010)
2035 No Build (existing network plus planned improvements from current TPP)
2035 Build Alternative 1
2035 Build Alternative 2 (if needed)
Year of Opening Build (2015) (Preferred Concept)
3.1
Highway network assumptions and transit network assumptions for the 2035 No Build forecast will be
consistent with the Metropolitan Council 2008 Transportation Policy Plan, and will include the UPA
project on I-35W south of downtown Minneapolis, and proposed I-94 MnPASS Lane between downtown
Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul. The travel demand forecasting process and files used to conduct
the I-94 Managed Lanes Study completed by Parsons Brinckerhoff in November 2009 will be provided for
use in this study.
3.2
Socio-economic data assumptions will be consistent with the Metropolitan Council 2008 Transportation
Policy Plan. However, refinement of the Transportation Analysis Zones within the study area was
completed for the I-94 Managed Lanes Study, and should be used for this effort.
3.3
A technical memorandum summarizing the travel demand forecasting methodology, assumptions, and
findings will be prepared for review by Mn/DOT’s Metro District and the Metropolitan Council. This
document will adhere to the guidelines and address the reasonableness checks as indicated in the May 10,
2006 Mn/DOT Memo "Revised Guidelines for Twin City Travel Demand Forecasts Prepared for the
Metropolitan District". Traffic forecasts are not complete until the travel demand methodology,
assumptions, and checks for reasonableness, described within the Traffic Forecasting Memo, are reviewed
and approved by Mn/DOT. Traffic forecasting documentation needs to be reviewed by the Metro District
Traffic Forecaster and traffic forecasts must be approved prior to use in the CORSIM modeling and
analysis.
3.4
Contractor Deliverables:
 Document summarizing methodology and assumptions used to develop forecasts and subsequent
reasonableness checks.
 Forecasts for the following scenarios: 2035 No Build, 2035 Alt 1, 2035 Alt 2, and 2015 Build,
including average annual daily traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour, and estimated heavy
commercial vehicle traffic.
 One paper and one electronic copy in MS Word of the draft report, three copies of the final report plus
one electronic copy in pdf and one MS Word copy.
 Graphic representations (i.e. maps) of existing and forecast for all scenarios.
3.5
Optional:
The Twin Cities Regional Travel Demand Model is not validated to the peak hours. At a minimum, close
scrutiny needs to be given to peak hour forecasting in relation to existing travel behaviors, which is
addressed in the Mn/DOT Traffic Forecasting guidelines referenced above. In addition, Mn/DOT is open to
innovative ideas and suggestions for improving peak hour modeling forecasting.
4.0
Concept Development
4.1
The Contractor will develop up to three alternatives for the re-construction of the I-94 and T.H. 280
interchange. The Contractor will coordinate the development of these concepts with the State, the City of
3
Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Transit, and
other stakeholders. These concepts will be developed using current State standards (Including Bentley
MicroStation - Version 08.05.02.27 and Bentley GEOPAK – 2004 Edition Version 08.05.01.56) for layout
development and in accordance with the HPDP handbook.
4.2
The Contractor will develop up to three alternatives for the provision of access to and from a tolled lane on
I-94 in downtown Minneapolis and downtown St. Paul. The Contractor will coordinate the development of
these concepts with the State, the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council,
Metropolitan Transit, and other stakeholders. These concepts will be developed using current State
standards (Including Bentley MicroStation - Version 08.05.02.27 and Bentley GEOPAK – 2004 Edition
Version 08.05.01.56) for layout development and in accordance with the HPDP handbook.
4.3
The Contractor will identify the impacts associated with each concept developed in Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 for
the purposes of performing impact analysis. These impacts will include but are not limited to Right-ofWay acquisition, Utility Impacts, Railroad Coordination, required ponding and infiltration, permits, and
project cost. The Contractor will develop in impact matrix to compare each alternative developed.
4.4
The Contractor will develop cost estimates for each alternative developed in Tasks 4.1 and 4.2. This will
include preliminary costs sharing for the local municipalities.
4.5
The Contractor will submit ten copies of each alternative developed in Tasks 4.1 and 4.2 for review and
comment by the functional groups at the State and incorporate comments received.
4.6
The State will coordinate intermediate review of design elements by the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul
(Cities), Hennepin County, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Metro Transit, and other
agencies.
5.0
CORSIM Modeling and Analysis
Mn/DOT will provide modeling files developed in 2009. This includes CORSIM files, link-node diagrams,
and lane schematics for the existing conditions and builds scenarios studied.
5.1
Data Collection
 Review data for this project that relates to traffic counts, turning movements, signal timing, ramp
metering, and geometrics as supplied by Mn/DOT and other agencies, by accessing Mn/DOT’s Metro
website, and by accessing Mn/DOT’s data extraction workstation. If data obtained is more than 2 years
old, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to obtain more recent data.
 Conduct field review of the traffic operations during the AM and PM peak periods to aid in the
calibration of the base model and to verify geometric and operations. Consultant has the option to
review corridor operation from the Mn/DOT’s RTMC facility during both peak periods. To schedule
and coordinate corridor operations, contact the RTMC Operations staff at (651) 234-7001.
 Develop a technical memorandum discussing the field observations. Provide information about
locations of existing bottleneck conditions, high weave areas, and mainline queue lengths.
5.2
Building of Base Model
 Develop a link-node diagram of the existing network.
 Develop a lane schematic that graphically represents the existing network and includes all key design
features.
 Interpolate bad or missing volume data, convert data into 15-minute volumes, and balance the volume
data for the AM and PM time period.
 Develop the AM and PM O-D matrixes for all freeway entrances and exits.
 Build the AM and PM base models to reflect the existing freeway and arterials of the modeling limits.
This includes entering volume data and traffic signal and ramp meter control data.
 Verify that the network data has been coded correctly and develop a freeway quality control worksheet
and an arterial quality control worksheet that lists link information.
4

Submit the base models and any supportive materials to Mn/DOT for review and approval.
5.3
Base Model Calibration
 Calibrate the AM and the PM base models according to the current “CORSIM Calibration Parameters”,
incorporated herein by reference.
 Submit AM & PM calibrated model and supportive materials to Mn/DOT for review and approval.
5.4
Design Year Traffic Analysis (No Build and Build Scenarios)
 Develop a link node diagram and lane schematic of the network for the design year Build and No Build
scenarios.
 Convert the 2035 forecasted traffic data into AM and PM 15-minute volume data, balance the volume
data, and check the volume data for capacity constraints for the Build and No Build scenarios.
 Develop AM and PM design year (2035) O-D matrixes for all freeway entrances and exits for the Build
and No Build scenarios.
 Build the AM and PM design year models to reflect the Build and No Build scenarios. This includes
entering volume data, traffic signal and ramp meter control data, and the appropriate calibration values.
 Verify that the network data has been coded correctly and develop a freeway quality control worksheet
and an arterial quality control worksheet that lists link information for the Build and No Build
scenarios.
 Perform five runs on each model using different random seeds for each run. The same random number
set shall be used for each model
 Develop the design year (2035) arterial and freeway measure of effectiveness tables and graphics for
the Build and No Build scenarios. Present modeling results of the design year Build and No Build
scenarios to Mn/DOT and FHWA and highlight any operational issues and concerns.
 Conduct alternative analysis to address operational issues and develop arterial and freeway measure of
effectiveness tables and graphics. Present findings of alternative analysis.
5.5
Opening Year Traffic Analysis (No-Build and Build Scenarios)
The modeling for the opening year will include the preferred Build scenario from task 1.2.4 and the No
Build scenario.
 Develop a link node diagram and lane schematic of the network for the opening year Build and No
Build scenarios.
 Convert the 2015 forecasted traffic data into AM and PM 15-minute volume data, balance the volume
data, and check the volume data for capacity constraints for the Build and No Build scenarios.
 Develop AM and PM opening year (2015) O-D matrixes for all freeway entrances and exits for the
Build and No Build scenarios.
 Build the AM and PM opening year models to reflect the Build and No Build scenarios. This includes
entering volume data, traffic signal and ramp meter control data, and the appropriate calibration values.
 Verify that the network data has been coded correctly and develop a freeway quality control worksheet
and an arterial quality control worksheet that lists link information for the Build and No Build
scenarios.
 Perform five runs on each model using different random seeds for each run. The same random number
set shall be used for each model.
 Develop the opening year (2015) arterial and freeway measure of effectiveness tables and graphics for
review and final approval by Mn/DOT and FHWA.
5.6
Contractor Deliverables
Modeling
 Technical memorandums.
 Signal information not provided by Mn/DOT.
 Heavy vehicle information.
 Link-node diagrams and lane schematics.
 Balanced arterial and freeway traffic volume data sets.
5








O-D Matrices.
Arterial and freeway quality control worksheets.
Calibration result tables and graphs.
Arterial and freeway MOE graphics, tables and summaries.
Final Modeling documentation.
SYNCHRO and CORSIM electronic files for all scenarios.
Meeting agendas plus any other materials required for the meetings.
Meeting minutes.
All deliverables will be submitted in both electronic and hardcopy formats.
6.0
Items to be Provided by Mn/DOT
 Geometric Layout alternatives produced by the State.
 Provide existing turning movement and tube counts provided these are not more than two years old.
 Provide website links to the Data Extract and Data Plot programs for extracting detector data.
 Provide existing signal timings (Mn/DOT signals only). City and County signals are the responsibility
of consultant to request this information.
 Provide ramp metering information.
 Provide a sample of a link-node diagram.
 Provide a sample quality control worksheet.
 Provide Calibration Procedure and Modeling Guidelines
 Provide samples of calibration tables and graphs.
 Provide samples of tabular and graphical output from past IAR reports.
 Provide meeting space for project meetings.
 Review and comment on the calibration results within fifteen working days.
 Review and comment on the simulation results of the proposed freeway design within fifteen working
days.
6