1. Brian Kary and Terry Haukom - RTMC

2.  Provide Delay Information To Motorists  Potential for Diversion  Perception Tracking Survey Results

3. Page 3 Base = 602 unless otherwise noted The Dieringer Research Group, Inc. Prepared for MnDOT, September 2012 Perception Tracking Study Wave XI: July-August 2012 Phone Survey Travel Time Messages – Ratings & Comments Overall, drivers continue to consider displaying travel time information on overhead electronic signs to be a good idea.  There is a significant increase in the proportion of drivers who consider displaying travel time messages an “Excellent” idea. 2012 N=602 2011 N=600 #%#% Top 4 Box 47278%48781% Excellent Idea (10) 26945%23038% 9 427%6010% 8 10718%12421% 7 549%7312% 6 193%173% 5 539%468% 4 92%9 3 81%122% 2 122%51% Poor Idea (1) 102%112% Bottom 4 Box 397%376% Don’t Know 193%132% Q71d. How would you rate the idea of posting travel TIME information on overhead electronic signs as a tool to manage traffic? Mean = 8.19Mean = 8.12 *Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. Data noted with arrow is significantly lower or higher respectively than 2011 at the 95% confidence level. All Drivers N = Base # = Frequency

4. Page 4 Base = 602 unless otherwise noted The Dieringer Research Group, Inc. Prepared for MnDOT, September 2012 Perception Tracking Study Wave XI: July-August 2012 Phone Survey Travel Time Messages - Actionability *Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. Data noted with arrow is significantly lower or higher respectively than 2011 at the 95% confidence level. 2012 N=398 2011 N=393 #%#% Almost always7419%5414% Sometimes15539%18347% Rarely12531%11930% Never4311%359% Don't Know1<1%21% Q71b. How often, if at all, do you take an ALTERNATE ROUTE because a travel time message on an overhead electronic message sign showed a longer time than your usual time for the trip? 58% Among those drivers who make a route decision based on a travel time message, nearly 6 in 10 chose to take an alternate route at least some of the time. Have Made an Alternate Route Decision Based on Time Message Info N = Base # = Frequency

5.  Proven Method of Calculating Travel Times  Reduced Costs ◦ Utilize existing 150+ DMS ◦ Utilize detection outside of work zone  Currently have 400 miles of freeway instrumented with loop detection  Future detection will utilize more Wavetronics sensors which may allow detection within work zones  Traveler Information

6. Traveler Information Traveler Information Websites Smart Phone Apps

7. Traveler Information Traffic Reports Travel Times Signs

8.  Wavetronics Sensor  Camera  Wireless Modem  Solar Power

10. Distance Between Stations = ½ mile Distance Between Stations = ½ mile Error Caused by Increased Spacing Between 55 MPH and 5 MPH

11.  Included in Main Project – Lump Sum ◦ I-35E – From CR 96 to I-35  $250,000 ◦ I-694 – From Hwy 61 to Hwy 5  $185,000  Separate Project ◦ I-494 – From Hwy 100 to 34 th Ave (SP 2785-392)  $262,300

12.  Not enough lead time for integration  Lack of communications about traffic switches  Inadequate detection methods ◦ Increased detection spacing ◦ Probe data

13.  Total Project Estimated Cost - $750,000  Provide one prototype trailer.  SP 0285-65 on I-694 from Hwy 252 to I-35W. ◦ Provide 16 trailers.  SP 1982-161 on I-35E from I-35 south split to Cliff Rd. ◦ Provide 8 trailers.  SP 2776-103 Hwy 169 River Bridge. ◦ Provide 18 trailers plus 3 PCMS.  SP 7080-51, 7080-50 on I-35 from District Border to I-35 south split. ◦ Provide 30 trailers which includes 3 w/ cameras plus 3 PCMS.