Brian Isaacson, AICP Program Director, MnDOT Metro Program Management

 Process followed  Initial results  Problems…  Reasonableness?  Conclusions…

 Developed traffic forecasts ◦ Based on Metro Council/State demographer population and employment forecasts ◦ Used current regional plan network assumptions (almost no improvements in study area)

 Traffic volumes – ◦ Similar to those on I-494 in Bloomington  Design effect: ◦ Called for 12 lane cross section on I-94, 6 lanes on TH 610 ◦ Directional movements at many of the ramps connecting I-94 and TH 610 ◦ High ROW need

 Forecasted volumes seemed high for the area ◦ Peaking characteristics ◦ Daily forecast volumes  Called demographic assumptions into question  Both had dramatic effect on potential design ◦ Ancillary concern that at this scale, the project would potentially be too expensive to deliver in any reasonable timeframe

 Re-examined demographics ◦ Population and employment trends vs. expected 2030 figures  Revisited volumes at key locations ◦ Entering volumes at District boundary exceeded what is possible…

 Need to make distinction between ◦ Known/existing volumes and demographics ◦ Those attributable to development that has yet to be realized/appear on the horizon  Update traffic forecasts based on revised demographics

 Volumes consistent with rest of the region  Design effect: ◦ Analysis of existing vs. speculative volumes provides insights as to which movements are “required” ◦ Potentially allows for reduced cross section (mainline I-94 and TH 610)  Reduced ROW imapcts under reduced cross section

 Risk assessment is an element of the overall forecasting process – now more than ever…  Rates of growth (demographic and volume) are all worth analyzing in greater detail  With the level of uncertainty in the current economic climate, the emphasis should be on known values (employment, population, volumes) as touchstones for analysis  Identifying the gap between existing and future – understanding the likelihood that the future

 The greater the discrepancy between known/existing values and projected values (and their potential effect on design/scope), the greater the need for understanding the probability of how long/under what circumstances will bring the future conditions to fruition