Assessing Return on
Investment in Minnesota’s
State Highway Program
Technical Report
November 2013

This report was produced with the generous support of The McKnight Foundation.
The McKnight Foundation, a Minnesota-based family foundation, seeks to improve the quality of life for present and future
generations. Through grantmaking, collaboration, and strategic policy reform, we use our resources to attend, unite, andempower those we serve.
Any error and all interpretations are the responsibility of Smart Growth America. Please direct questions about this reportto Roger Millar, PE, AICP, Vice President, Smart Growth America’s Leadership Institute:
rmillar@smartgrowthamerica.org, 406.544.1963.
This report was prepared by:Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . transportation investment
options that . . . move people
and goods . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Return on Investment Analysis Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Return on Investment Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A – Project Stakeholder Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

FIGURES
Figure 1. Investment Option Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. Pavement Preservation, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

TABLES
Table 1.

Beneﬁt-Cost Factors (PRISM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 2.

MnSHIP Investment Category and ROI Category Translation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 3.

ROI Categories - Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 4.

USDOT: ITS Upgrades for New, Rehabilitated or Existing Infrastructure . . . . . . . 16

Table 5.

Maintain Current Performance - Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 6.

Economically Competitive and World Class System - Return on Investment . . 21

Table 7.

Total TFAC Recommendations - Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 8.

Return on Investment Categories – ROI Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 9.

Project Stakeholder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportationi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TOACCOMMODATE 2-SIDED PRINTING.

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program

Assessing Return on
Investment in Minnesota’s
State Highway Program
Technical Report

operating costs, and additionalsafety hazards.

Introduction
The Minnesota Department ofTransportation (MnDOT) updated
the Minnesota 20-Year State
Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP)
in 2012-2013. Through the MnSHIP
planning process and based on
system performance targets, theplan identiﬁed total state highway
system needs of $30 billion andprojected revenue of $18 billion
over the next 20 years resulting in afunding gap of approximately $12
billion. The needs and funding gap
primarily reﬂect mounting pressure
from an aging highway system,
rising construction costs, and slow
revenue growth. Based on analysis
in MnSHIP, underinvestment
will result in a steady decline inperformance of the state highway
system, including:•Pavement in poor condition will
double from approximately 750
miles to 1,500 miles, or between
11-13% of non-interstate
highways. Poor pavement
conditions result in slower
travel times, higher vehicle•

More than 200 bridges on state
principal arterials will be in poor
condition. Weight restrictions
and closures will interfere withfreight movement.

•

With increasing travel times,
performance targets on theInterregional Corridor System- carrying about 30 percent of
all statewide travel on Greater
Minnesota’s most heavily
traveled roads – will not be met.

•

Congestion will worsen in
the Twin Cities area and theMinnesota Department ofTransportation (MnDOT) will
have little-to-no ability toaddress local concerns, add
capacity, or support economic
development at the regionaland community level.

In 2012, the Minnesota
Transportation Finance Advisory
Committee (TFAC) was formed
to develop recommendations forfunding and ﬁnancing the state
highway system over the next 20

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

1

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program

MnDOT has developed . . .
a strong set of investment
decision making tools . . .
years. TFAC recommended meetingthe full needs of the state highway
system in order for Minnesota toremain economically competitiveand provide a high quality oflife. Following the completion of
TFAC’s work in December 2012,
MnDOT partnered with Smart
Growth America (SGA) to evaluate
and understand the potential
return on investment (ROI) of
TFAC’s recommendations. SGA
works with state departments oftransportation across the country
to identify transportation policies
and programs that enable ﬂexible,
eﬃcient ways to increase thecapacity to move people, goods,
and services on state transportation
systems while supporting and
expediting job creation andeconomic development. MnSHIP
served as the foundation for both
TFAC’s recommendations and thisstudy.
The project team conducted
the study over a period of threemonths, beginning in August 2013.
The study process was organizedaround three technical memoranda
and three working meetings
with a Project Stakeholder Group(PSG). The PSG, consisting of 63
representatives from the public andprivate sectors (see Appendix A),
initially met in early August to
discuss diﬀerent approaches
for evaluating transportation
investment options summarized in
the ﬁrst technical memorandum.
The PSG then convened again

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportationin late September to discuss andcomment on a draft ROI analysis
methodology, the subject of thesecond technical memorandum.
Based on the comments andﬁndings from the ﬁrst two roundsof technical memoranda and
PSG meetings, the PSG met for a
ﬁnal time at the end of October
to review the results of the ROI
assessment. The PSG served as asounding board throughout the
study and provided invaluable input
to the ROI assessment.
This technical report documents
the ROI assessment undertakenin the study. Building on therecommendation made by TFAC toinvest an additional $12 billion in
the state highway system over the2Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . reports the dollar value ofsocietal beneﬁts for a dollar ofinvestment . . .
next 20 years, the ROI assessment
speciﬁcally addresses threequestions:
1. Maintaining the current
performance of Minnesota’s
state highway system would
require an investment of anadditional $5 billion over the
next 20 years. What would be
the return on that investment?
2. Improving Minnesota’s state
highway system to help
the state become more
economically competitive
through technology andoperational innovations
and through high return on
investment projects to reduce
congestion and delays would
require the investment of anadditional $7 billion over the
next 20 years. What would be
the return on that investment?

The next section of this report
describes the ROI methodology,
including the major assumptions
and investment categories. The
report then presents the ﬁndingsof the ROI assessment. The
results of this study indicate that
there is a sound business case formaking the $12 billion investment
recommended by TFAC. In total, a$12 billion investment in the state
highway system over the next 20
years would deliver between $21
billion and $42 billion in beneﬁts,
with an average ROI of 2.5 – or, forevery dollar Minnesota invests inthe state highway system, it can
expect to receive two-and-a-halfdollars in beneﬁts.

3. Within the proposed
investments over the next
20 years, some projects andprograms will necessarily havea higher return on investment
and some will have a lower
return on investment. Whichkinds of projects and programs
oﬀer the highest ROI?

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

3

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . methodology calls fordeveloping a composite
return on investment . . .
Return on Investment Analysis
Methodology
Methodology Overview
As discussed in the preceding
section, the goal of the ROI
analysis is to answer threequestions underpinning thestate highway system investment
recommendations made by TFAC
in its 2012 report. While there isno single “recipe” for analyzing
transportation impacts, MnDOT
has developed over time a strong
set of investment decision making
tools and criteria that mirror andrepresent national best practices.
These investment decision making
tools and criteria rely on two widely
recognized techniques – beneﬁtcost analysis (BCA) and life-cycle
cost analysis (LCCA) – that support
sound economic evaluations ofalternative investment options.
Brieﬂy, BCA serves as theprincipal tool for analyzing thereturn on investment of public
sector programs and projects.
Measuring direct beneﬁts andcosts associated with a programor project, BCA diﬀerentiates itself
from private sector ROI analysis

by addressing and monetizing
a broad set of societal beneﬁts,
including economic (e.g., travel
time and operating cost savings),
environmental (e.g. air quality andnoise), and social beneﬁts (e.g.,safety), and not simply revenue
streams. One tool in the investment
decision making process, BCA
analysis reports the dollar valueof societal beneﬁts for a dollar ofinvestment.
Eﬀectively the cost component of
BCA, life-cycle cost analysis captures
all future costs over a project’s
usable life. LCCA diﬀers from BCA
in that it assumes a constant levelof beneﬁts across alternatives andthen identiﬁes the alternative thatminimizes costs to achieve thosebeneﬁts. Accordingly, alternatives
can be compared on a cost basis
and expressed as a beneﬁt-cost
ratio as well. This technique isparticularly useful for evaluating
diﬀerent system preservation
strategies that yield essentially thesame beneﬁts (e.g., maintaining
pavement or bridges in goodcondition), but have diﬀerent costs

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

4

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . proactive approach inmaintaining our existing
highways . . .
during a given analysis period.
Taken together, beneﬁt-cost
analysis and life-cycle cost analysis
serve as the foundation for the
ROI methodology in this technicalmemorandum, allowing us toevaluate the value of an additional
dollar of investment across a series
of investment categories andoptions.

Major Assumptions
Responding to anticipatedpopulation growth and aging
transportation infrastructurein Minnesota, the TFAC
recommendations are organizedaround two proposed, incremental
levels of investment over the
next 20 years: (1) a $5.4 billion
investment beyond projected
revenue to maintain the current
performance of the state highway
system, and (2) an additional$7.1 billion investment tobuild, maintain, and operate an
economically competitive andworld class system. Similar to anindividual’s retirement accountthat contains diﬀerent investment
funds (e.g., technology stocks,
global stocks, Treasury bonds), each
representing a diverse range ofindividual stocks and bonds, the
TFAC investment options consistof diﬀerent investment classes
or categories (e.g., pavement
preservation, bridge replacement,
highway safety, highway
reconstruction) that include awide variety of potential individual
programs and projects (seeFigure 1).

investment category in the diﬀerent
investment options – much as one
would for any investment account.
The following assumptions describein greater detail the key concepts
supporting the ROI analysis.
•

Extending the retirement accountanalogy, the ROI methodology
calls for developing a composite
return on investment based on therelative beneﬁts generated by each

For each investment category,
the ROI analysis relies on a
range of beneﬁt-cost ratios
derived from either beneﬁtcost or life-cycle cost analysis
of a representative sample ofprojects or programs. Relying

Figure 1. Investment Option Framework
INVESTMENTOPTION

Investment
Category

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Investment
Category

Investment
Category5

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . the right treatment to theright pavement at the righttime . . .
Table 1. Beneﬁt-Cost Factors (PRISM)

Social•Safety•Travel Time•

Bicycle/Pedestrian HealthEﬀects•Travel Time Reliability•

Vehicle Operating Costs•

Life Cycle Costs•

Loss of Agricultural Land

•

Noise

on a range of beneﬁt-cost ratios
is particularly important given
the diversity of investment
categories and sample
projects and programs withina category. While underlying
parameters, such as timing
or phasing of improvements,
usable life of a facility, andanalysis period, vary among
the investment categories,
utilizing a range of beneﬁt-cost
ratios allows the ROI analysis todraw informative comparisonsacross categories and ultimately
investment options.
•

Economic

MnDOT has long had valuableguidance, “Beneﬁt-Cost Analysis
for Transportation Projects,” inplace for conducting beneﬁtcost analysis. The ROI analysis
in this memorandum applies
that guidance in tandem•

Environmental•

Emission (CO2 + Criteria
Pollutants)•

Wetland Eﬀects

•

Runoﬀ

with a proprietary tool called
PRISM that MnDOT uses in
its new Corridor Investment
Management Strategy (CIMS)
program to develop beneﬁtcost ratios. PRISM factors
multiple social, economic,
and environmental variables,
summarized in Table 1, into the
beneﬁt-cost ratios.

Return on Investment
Categories

Building on MnSHIP, the ROI
analysis deﬁnes ten investment
categories within the TFAC
recommendations. Table 2
shows the relationship among
the MnSHIP investment
categories and unmet needs,
the ROI categories, and the
TFAC recommendations. As
illustrated in the table, the
MnSHIP unmet needs, deﬁned
as either the costs necessary

Following are descriptions of theten investment categories includedin the ROI analysis. The descriptions
include a brief overview of theinvestment category and theapproach for calculating a beneﬁtcost ratio. Again, due to thediversity of investment categories,
available information varies among
categories. Table 3 summarizes
the ten investment categories andthe information used to develop

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

to meet performance-basedtargets or achieve key system
goals, are the basis for the
TFAC investment amounts.
Detailed descriptions of the ROI
categories are provided in thenext section of this document.

6

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation
$5.4
$7.1
$12.5

Economically Competitive

Total

Amount ($B)

Performance Preservation

Gap Level ($B)

$12,510

Total

$210

Accessible Pedestrian$1,400$390

Bicycle Infrastructure

Regional & Community Priorities$3,860$920

Interregional Corridor Mobility

Twin Cities Mobility$820

Safety$1,860Bridge Condition$250$2,800

Pavement Condition

Roadside Infrastructure

TOTAL Unmet
MnSHIP Need($M)

MnSHIP
Investment Category

Safety-Spot
Improvement at
High-Risk Locations$1,240

$578

$662

X

X

Pavement
PreservationCorridor$2,641$1,264$1,377

X

X

X

Pavement
ReconstructionCorridor
$394

$288

$106

X

X

X

Pavement
ReconstructionUrban/Main Street
$683

$408

$275

X

X

X

X

X

Bridge Replacement
X

X

X

$622

$451

$1,451$1,052$399$1,351

$798

$553

X

Congestion
Mitigation-General

TFAC Investment Amounts ($M)

ROI Category

$171

X

X

X

Bridge Repair

Table 2. MnSHIP Investment Category and ROI Category Translation Matrix

Capacity
Development$2,392$1,246$1,146

X

X

X

Active Traﬃc
Management (ATM)
$193

$114

$79

X

MnPASS
$1,544

$912

$632

X

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program7

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . the beneﬁts can be far
reaching . . .

the beneﬁt-cost ranges, andrepresentative projects are drawn
from the illustrative project list in
the TFAC report where applicable.
Speciﬁc beneﬁt-cost ratio ranges foreach investment category will be
discussed under the ROI ﬁndings in
the last section of the report.

Safety – Spot Improvement/
High Risk Locations
Provision of safe travel is theultimate contribution made by atransportation system to broader
quality of life priorities. While a safe
arrival relies on many factors outside
the direct inﬂuence of MnDOT(e.g., driver behavior), infrastructure
investments promote a safe driving
environment and innovations
in safety treatments make this adynamic area for research andimplementation.
Regulatory agencies, including
USDOT, base decision making about
the cost eﬀectiveness of safetyrelated investments on the “valueof a statistical life” (VSL) economic
concept. This measure reﬂects thecomprehensive value an individual
has demonstrated and a willingness
to pay to avoid a fractional
increase in the risk of death fromparticipating in an activity. The

value placed on avoiding a fatal
outcome also determines the
proportional cost to society of injury
crashes (graded in three severities).
MnDOT has adopted the welldocumented federal guidance for
VSL and injury per-person costs,
further tailoring the crash values
by applying the latest statewide
crash proﬁle showing the average

number of occupants involved in agiven crash type.
Safety improvements then seek
to lower these expected costs by
reducing total crash frequency and/or minimizing the severity of thecrash distribution (e.g., averting
injuries even if property damageonly crashes rise modestly). Return

Table 3. ROI Categories - Data Sources

ROI Category
Safety-Spot Improvement at HighRisk Locations
Pavement Preservation-Corridor

Data Source
Representative MnDOT projects – rural intersection
conﬂict warning systems, diverging diamondinterchanges, and passing lanes
Results from MnDOT’s Transportation AssetManagement Plan

Pavement Reconstruction-Corridor

Generalized LCCA framework

Pavement Reconstruction-Urban/
Main Street

Representative projects in MnDOT CIMS program

Bridge-Repair

Results from MnDOT’s Transportation AssetManagement Plan

Bridge-Replacement

Generalized LCCA framework

Congestion Mitigation-General
Capacity Development
Active Traffic Management (ATM)MnPASS

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Projects included in the Metro District Congestion
Management and Safety Plan
Current scoring of projects in Corridors ofCommerce process
MnDOT’s recent four-year work plan of ATM
investments and average BCRs from USDOT
Opened, programmed, and potential MnPASS
corridors

8Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . would include a broad
range of bridges on diﬀerent
types of highway facilities . . .
on investment can be evaluatedagainst this objective by reference
to a sample of recently completed,planned, or analyzed projects acrossMinnesota characterized by:bridge – conditions can also
potentially jeopardize a state’s
bonding rating resulting in higher
borrowing costs for state and local
governments.

•

Relatively low construction
costs – compared with a
traditional solution•

Limited extent – compared witha major corridor expansion thatmay deliver signiﬁcant beneﬁts
beyond safety enhancement

Transportation agencies typically
rely on life-cycle cost analysis
to quantify savings associatedwith pavement preservation
programs. The goal is to apply
the right treatment to the rightpavement at the right time, andin doing so, avoid or delay more
expensive improvements suchas major roadway rehabilitation
or reconstruction (see Figure 2).
The cost savings associated withpreservation are then expressed
as a cost reduction per lane mileor as a ratio between the cost of
rehabilitation and reconstruction
compared to preservation.

The representative sample ofprojects includes rural intersection
conﬂict warning systems, diverging
diamond interchanges, and passing
lanes. Based on six representative
projects, the average beneﬁt-cost
ratio is approximately four-to-one.

Pavement Preservation –Corridor
According to the U.S. Department ofTransportation (USDOT), “pavement
preservation represents a proactive
approach in maintaining ourexisting highways, reducing costly
and time consuming rehabilitation
and reconstruction projects andthe associated traﬃc disruptions.“
Beyond the obvious importanceand desirability of well maintained
roadways, poor pavement – andAs part of its Transportation AssetManagement Plan, MnDOT iscurrently developing life-cycle
cost analyses for various pavement
and bridge preservation strategies.
For pavement, the LCCA includes
routine and reactive maintenancecosts, and compares a desired
pavement preservation strategy
with a worst-ﬁrst strategy thatreconstructs the worst facilities inany given year. The LCCA results

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

9

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program

Return on investment islisted as the ﬁrst objective
criterion . . .
indicate that the worst-ﬁrst strategy
costs approximately two times asmuch as the desired pavement
preservation strategy over theperiod of analysis.

Pavement Reconstruction –Corridor
The pavement reconstruction–
corridor investment category
involves reconstruction projects
on corridors in Greater Minnesota
outside of urban areas. Measuring
the beneﬁts of pavement
reconstruction investments in thiscontext presents unique challenges.
Because these types of investments
do not typically increase facility
capacity or involve new alignments,
comparing proposed projects
against a “base case” does not easilytranslate into conventional beneﬁtcost analysis highlighting common
user beneﬁts (travel time savings,
vehicle operating costs, safety) andrelying on changes in vehicle-hours
traveled (VHT) and vehicle-miles
traveled (VMT).
Utilizing a life-cycle cost analysis
framework, however, one candeﬁne the “base case” as theexisting facility and compare itwith the reconstructed facility

Figure 2. Pavement Preservation, Rehabilitation andReconstruction

Pavement
Preservation

Pavement
Rehabilitation

Pavement
Reconstruction

Preventive Maintenance –Nonstructural treatments toprevent deterioration
Routine Maintenance –Work performed on a routine
basis to maintain andpreserve the condition of the
highway or to respond to
speciﬁc conditions
Minor Rehabilitation –Nonstructural enhancements
to eliminate surface cracking.

Structural enhancementsthat extend the service life ofan existing pavement and/or improve its load carrying
capacity.

Replacement of the entire
existing pavement structureby the placement of theequivalent or increased
pavement structure.

over the analysis period. In eﬀect,
the beneﬁt-cost argument is thatby reconstructing a facility that iscurrently in poor condition, one
can avoid frequent and expensive
treatments and activities over thelife of the reconstructed facility.
Of course, as discussed above,
pavement preservation strategies
are a cost-eﬀective strategy fordelaying reconstruction, but at

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportationsome point, all pavements reachthe end of their service life. For the
purposes of the ROI analysis, theassumption is that conservatively
and on average the life-cycle cost ofreconstruction is equal to the lifecycle cost of maintaining pavementthat is already in poor condition.

10

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . reﬂecting the multidimensional impacts fromthese major projects . . .
Pavement Reconstruction –Urban/Main Street
This category captures highway
reconstruction projects in cities
and towns, including main street
projects. The full reconstructionof highways in urban settings
allows MnDOT and local partners
to make major improvements andchanges to both the road itself as
well as the underground utilities.
Urban/main street reconstruction
projects may involve improvements
to how stormwater runoﬀ ishandled, changes in access points(access management), lane
reconﬁgurations, new lighting,additions of green space, newmedians, new or reconstructedsidewalks, and other modiﬁcations.
Given the complexity of urban
reconstruction projects, the beneﬁts
can be far reaching and include
both traditional transportation
measures such as travel timeand safety, but also health andenvironmental factors.
Many applications to MnDOT’s
recent CIMS solicitation requested
funding for urban/main street
reconstruction projects and as
part of the project selection
process were evaluated on a
beneﬁt-cost basis using the PRISM

tool. Although the resulting ROI
estimates included many factors,
there is a strong correlation
between traﬃc volume and ROI
for these types of projects. Using
representative projects with arange of traﬃc volumes allows one
to estimate an approximate ROI
for urban reconstruction projects
without the need to conduct
in-depth analysis of the manypotential project elements. Basedon a sample of 34 representative
projects, the average beneﬁt-cost
ratio tends to fall between one andtwo.

Bridge Repair
Similar to the pavement–
preservation category, the lifecycle cost analysis for bridge repair
investments is currently being
evaluated as part of MnDOT’s
Transportation Asset Management
Plan. The bridge repair analysis
considers substructures,
superstructures, and decks, andcompares the LCCA results of aworst-ﬁrst strategy to a typical repair
and maintenance strategy. For thiscategory, the worst-ﬁrst strategy
costs average approximately oneand-a-half times more than the

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

11

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . .maximizes the eﬀectivenessand eﬃciency of the facility . . .

typical maintenance strategy for the
given period of analysis.

Bridge Replacement
The bridge replacement category
poses the same challenges as
the pavement reconstruction–
corridor investment category sincea bridge replacement typicallydoes not increase facility capacity
or involve a new alignment. For
an individual bridge replacement
project, it is possible to evaluate areplacement facility with a “basecase” that assumes closure of theexisting facility. The proposed
investments for bridge replacement,
however, would include a broad
range of bridges on diﬀerent typesof highway facilities in diﬀerent
locations. Consequently, the ROI

analysis utilizes a generalized
life-cycle cost analysis approach
to frame the trade-oﬀ between
ongoing maintenance of a bridgein poor condition and replacing
it. Reconstruction also results
in a long-term continuation of
maximum user beneﬁts, contrasted
with the progressive deteriorationin accessibility and reliability (e.g.
forced/discretionary detours,
load posting restrictions aﬀecting
truck routing) anticipated whenroutine maintenance practices are
performed on a facility late in its
life cycle. The assumption, as withcorridor pavement reconstruction
investments, is that on average thelife-cycle cost of replacing a bridge
is equal to the life-cycle cost ofongoing maintenance of a bridge inpoor condition.

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Congestion Mitigation –GeneralBecause of the level of detailprovided in the Metro District
Congestion Management and
Safety Plan, this category lends
itself more easily to a beneﬁt-cost
analysis. Investments in generalcongestion mitigation are intended
to identify lower cost, higher
beneﬁt improvements that reduce
travel time and crash risk. These
improvements have short timeframes for implementation, attempt
to maximize the use of existing
pavement and right-of-way, andare typically less than one mile inlength.
For each project location, a dollar
value of the total beneﬁts that

12

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program

MnPASS users receive beneﬁts
in the form of faster and morereliable trip times . . .
could be realized was assigned as
the magnitude of the problem.
Recognizing that any project hasa point of diminishing returns,
the proposed solutions were notexpected to solve 100 percent of
the problem. Project eﬀectivenesswas estimated as a percentage ofthe problem addressed. This ranges
from 0 percent to 79 percent forthe 60 projects with quantiﬁed
attributes. Cost estimates weredeveloped based on unit costs andengineering judgment, and range
from $4,000 to $26 million, with the
majority under $4 million.
The projects were categorized into
three tiers based on the return
period, deﬁned as the time after
construction at which the travel
time and crash savings equal the
project cost. Tier 1 projects have areturn period of less than 2 years,
Tier 2 projects have a return periodof 2 to 6 years, and Tier 3 projects
7 to 11 years. The annual beneﬁtof each project was calculated bymultiplying the eﬀectiveness by
the magnitude of the problem. To
calculate a return on investment,
20 years of discounted beneﬁts
were compared to the project cost.
Based on the representative sample
of projects, the overall return on
investment can be calculated byaveraging the median return foreach tier for a ratio of approximately
ﬁve to one.

Capacity Development
Return on investment is listed
as the ﬁrst objective criterion for
project evaluation and prioritization
under the Corridors of Commerce
bonding program created by the
Minnesota Legislature in the springof 2013 (chapter 117, article 3).
With $300 million in new bonding
authority, the initial Corridorsof Commerce appropriation
is expected to ﬁnance only afraction of the large-scale capacity
development proposals generated
statewide, including the eligible
projects identiﬁed in the TFAC
report as “congested sections ofroadway that contain chokepoints
that hamper commuting orcommerce”– alone totaling$571 million using the lower end ofcurrent cost estimate ranges.
Through calculations supportedby the PRISM beneﬁt-cost model,
MnDOT has drafted a return on
investment measure incorporating
safety beneﬁts, travel time savings,
environmental externalities, andoperating and life-cycle costs,

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

13

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . infrastructure investments
promote a safe driving
environment . . .
reﬂecting the multi-dimensional
impacts from these major projects.
In all cases, a Capacity Development(CD) scenario is compared against
a No Build (NB) baseline. At thisearly evaluation stage, whencandidate projects lack detailed
studies for beneﬁt components andconstruction scope and expense,
the ROI estimates that enable a
preliminary ranking must rely on
key assumptions – which may be
reﬁned in the future with expert
oﬃce review:

•

COSTS
•

TRAFFIC•AADT (and VMT) does notchange between NB and CD.

•

The future AADT trend forboth scenarios is projected asa continuation of the segmentcompound annual growth rate
for the 2002-2011 period.

•

Travel time savings for auto andtruck users reﬂect increased
speeds under CD.

SAFETY•NB crash frequencies andseverity are taken from thelatest 10-year actuals.

•

CD crash modiﬁcation factors
are sourced from historicalbeneﬁt-cost analyses or FHWA’s
Crash Modiﬁcations Factor
Clearinghouse.

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Future crash counts track with
AADT growth.

Unless otherwise indicated byavailable project documents,
construction costs are allocatedas:– 70% structures, grading,
sub/base, surface (40-year
average life)–

10% Right-of-Way (100-year
expected life)–

20% engineering and allother purposes (no residual
value)•

Incremental annual operations
and maintenance expense for
CD is $10,000 per added lanemile.

•

NB major rehabilitation/
replacement timing isestimated based on current
pavement condition.

•

The beneﬁt from smootherpavement with CD (for theyears prior to NB rehab/replace)is derived from modelingconducted by the national
research organization TRIP,
linking vehicle operating costs
to the pavement condition
diﬀerential.

14

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . maintain the current
performance of the state
highway system . . .
GENERAL•

Construction duration isestimated as a function of
total project costs (i.e. more
expensive projects require
multiple seasons).

•

Analysis represents 20 years of
beneﬁts following the openingof the CD facility, converted tothe present value equivalent at
a 2.2% discount rate.

Applying this procedure to arepresentative sample of projects,
the average beneﬁt-cost ratio tends
to be slightly greater than one.

Active Traﬃc Management
The rapidly evolving applicationof computer and communication
technologies to transportation
systems oﬀers a number ofopportunities to maximize existing
assets and new investments.
According to FHWA, Active Traﬃc
Management (ATM) is, “the ability
to dynamically manage recurrent
and non-recurrent congestion
based on prevailing and predictedtraﬃc conditions. Focusing on
trip reliability, it maximizes theeﬀectiveness and eﬃciency of the
facility.” Strategies include but are
not limited to speed harmonization,
temporary shoulder use, junction
control, and dynamic signing andrerouting. To date, national research

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportationon the beneﬁts of ATM strategies
has been reported under the larger
umbrella of Transportation Systems
Management and Operations(TSM&O).
TSM&O can include physical andnon-physical investments andaddress a broad array of project andsystem issues and needs. Some ofthese strategies are often referred
to as Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS), but include muchbroader activities. An importantresource for assessing the beneﬁts
and cost of investment in TSM&O
is, Investment Opportunities
for Managing Transportation
Performance through Technology,
a USDOT 2009 report of theIntelligent Transportation Systems

15

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . the beneﬁt-cost ratio
results . . . are all based on the
average investment levels . . .
Joint Program Oﬃce. Table 4 isbased on information contained in
the USDOT ITS beneﬁts database.
Although the beneﬁt-cost ratios
reported in the USDOT table varyby application, it is reasonable todeﬁne a range of beneﬁt-cost ratios
for a speciﬁc set of ATM techniques.
Using average beneﬁt-cost ratiosfrom USDOT and MnDOT’s mostrecent four-year work plan of
ATM investments (25% signal
optimization, 60% information/
detection, and 15% ramp metering),
the average beneﬁt-cost ratio for
ATM investments tends toward
nine-to-one.

Table 4. USDOT: ITS Upgrades for New, Rehabilitated orExisting Infrastructure

Traffic IncidentManagement

Category/Project

B/C Ratio

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
OPTIMIZATION/
RETIMING

17:1 to 62:1

SAFETYSERVICE PATROLS

2:1 to 42:1

SURVEILLANCE/DETECTION

6:1

ROAD WEATHERINFORMATIONSYSTEMS

2:1 to 10:1

RAMP
METERINGSYSTEMS

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

15:1

MnPASS
MnPASS is the high-occupancy/toll(HOT) lane network operated by
MnDOT. The system allows singleoccupant vehicles to travel on
express lanes adjacent to general
purpose lanes with the paymentof a variable fee that is collected
electronically. MnPASS charges
are dynamically set based on thelevel of congestion experienced in
the express lane with a maximum
toll of $8. MnPASS users receive
beneﬁts in the form of faster andmore reliable trip times, as well as
safer driving conditions given thecontrolled access to the express
lanes. Traﬃc also ﬂows more freely
on the non-tolled general purpose
lanes when a fraction of theirvolume chooses to divert to the
MnPASS alternative.
A formal beneﬁt-cost analysis was
conducted on one existing MnPASS
facility (I-394, west of Minneapolis)
in February 2012 by the Center
for Transportation Studies at the
University of Minnesota. MnDOT
is planning to expand the MnPASS
network next to I-35E north of
St. Paul (ending at Little Canada
Road), with construction scheduled
to begin in 2014 and continuing
through 2015. Cambridge

16

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . the value of delivering
higher performance . . .

Systematics completed a beneﬁtcost analysis for this segment inAugust 2012. Additionally, a surveyof travel time and vehicle operating
cost savings was performed inJune 2010 for 14 other candidate
future MnPASS corridors, including
the six identiﬁed as congestion
chokepoints by TRIP:• MN 36• I-94, between the downtowns• I-35W, north from Minneapolis
to Blaine• I-494, from I-94 to MSP Airport• US 169• MN 77
The median beneﬁt-cost statistic
across these eight opened,
programmed, and potential
MnPASS corridors serves as theaverage value of the category ROI
estimate range.

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

17

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . to meet all performancetargets . . .

Return on Investment Findings
Recognizing the fundamentalrole transportation facilities andservices play in the state’s quality oflife and business climate, the TFAC
report focused on the investment
levels necessary to maintain andmodernize Minnesota’s aging
transportation infrastructure for thestate’s growing population. The two
investment options recommended
in the TFAC report are brieﬂy
described below followed by the
return on investment analysis.

Investment Scenarios
Maintain Current
Performance
Given forecasts of future conditions
and system performance levels,
the TFAC report identiﬁed an
additional $5 billion needed overthe next 20 years to maintain thecurrent performance of the state
highway system. According to the
TFAC report, the additional funding
would result in the following
outcomes:•

Pavement and bridge
conditions would not change•

Fatalities would continue todrop•Congestion would increase,
but a few spot improvement
projects could be undertaken
in isolated locations. Very few
expansion projects would
occur.

Economically Competitive &World Class System
Complementing the investment
required to maintain the current
system performance, TFAC also
recommended $7 billion in added
revenue to meet all performancetargets and deliver an economicallycompetitive and world class system.
The additional funding would
allow the state to achieve theseimportant results:•

Pavement and bridge
conditions targets are met•

The rate of decline in traﬃc
fatalities and injuries isincreased•

The MnPASS vision for the Twin
Cities Metro area is completed.
Also, a modest number of highpriority expansion projects arecompleted.

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

18

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . the congestion mitigation
category contributes thegreatest amount of total
beneﬁts.
Investment Scenarios:
Return on Investment
The return on investment analysis
for the TFAC investment options
compares the sum of the average
beneﬁts across all categories tothe incremental investment levels
found in Table 2, i.e., the total
average costs. The average beneﬁt
for each category is the productof multiplying the proposed
investment level by the average
beneﬁt-cost ratio. Additionally, arange of low-to-high beneﬁt-cost
ratios was developed based on asample standard deviation of therepresentative projects with two
exceptions. As discussed earlier,
it is assumed that the pavement
reconstruction–corridor andbridge replacement average
beneﬁt-cost ratios will tend toward
a value of one from a life-cycle
cost perspective, and accordingly,
the low and high values will beapproximately 0.5 and 1.5. It shouldbe emphasized that the low, high,and average beneﬁt-cost ratio
results reported in the following
three summary tables (Table 5, 6,
and 7) are all based on the average
investment levels. Low and highinvestment levels are subsequently
used to determine the ROI range foreach investment category (Table 8).

The ﬁrst question posed at theoutset of this memorandum
focused on the initial investment
scenario, the recommendation toinvest $5 billion over 20 years tomaintain the current performanceof the state highway system. It
asked:
1. Maintaining the current
performance of Minnesota’s
state highway system would
require an investment of anadditional $5 billion over the
next 20 years. What would be
the return on that investment?
Table 5, summarizes the resultsof the ROI analysis for theﬁrst scenario. The proposed
investment of $5 billion over 20
years would yield an average
beneﬁt-cost ratio of 3.1 to 1, withina range of 1.9 to 4.2. While thepavement preservation-corridor
and capacity development
categories represent the largest
investments, the congestion
mitigation category contributes
the greatest amount of total
beneﬁts. Other substantial
beneﬁt amounts would bederived from the pavement
preservation-corridor, safety –spot improvement, and MnPASS
investment categories.

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

19

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . the diversity of potential
investments . . .

The second question for the ROI
analysis centered on the value ofdelivering higher performancelevels across all investment
categories and an economicallycompetitive and world classhighway system. It asked:
2. Improving Minnesota’s state
highway system to help
the state become more
economically competitive

through technology andoperational innovations
and through high return on
investment projects to reduce
congestion and delays would
require the investment of anadditional $7 billion over the
next 20 years. What would be
the return on that investment?

in several categories would benecessary, particularly highway
reconstruction, bridge repair
and replacement, and MnPASS.
Importantly, the congestion
mitigation-general category would
also receive a signiﬁcant increase
in investment, but experiencediminishing returns compared tothe initial round of investment.
A conservative estimate of the
beneﬁt-cost ratio for the bridge

To achieve the higher performancelevels, increased investment

Table 5. Maintain Current Performance - Return on Investment

ROI Category

Average
Investment(millions)

Percentage
of Total
Investment

AverageBeneﬁt(millions)

Low Beneﬁt(millions)High Beneﬁt(millions)

Safety-Spot Improvement at High-Risk Locations

$662

12%

$2,701$1,684$3,718

Pavement Preservation – Corridor$1,37726%$2,754$2,203$3,305

Pavement Reconstruction – Corridor

$106

2%

$93

$53

$133

Pavement Reconstruction – Urban/Main Street

$275

5%

$395

$206

$583

Bridge-Repair

$171

3%

$248

$222

$273

Bridge-Replacement

$399

7%

$399

$199

$598

Congestion Mitigation – General

$553

10%

$5,546$2,546$8,545

Capacity Development$1,14621%$1,526$847$2,204

Active Traﬃc Management (ATM)

$79

1%

$703

$608

$798

MnPASS$632

12%$2,180$1,661$2,700Total Beneﬁt

n/a

n/a

$16,544$10,230$22,858

Total Investment$5,400n/a$5,400$5,400$5,400Return on Investment

n/a

n/a

3.1

1.9

4.2

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

20

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . delivering higher
performance levels across all
investment categories . . .
replacement category also limits
the overall return for this additional
investment. Consequently, as
shown in Table 6, the average returnon investment for the second
scenario is 2.1 to 1, within a range of
1.5 to 2.7.
Combining the two incrementsof additional investment, the total$12 billion recommended by TFAC
would generate the estimatedreturn on investment shown in
Table 7. Six of the ten investment

categories account for 85% of
the proposed investment, withpavement preservation-corridor
and capacity development totaling
40%. Four investment categories– pavement preservationcorridor, congestion mitigationgeneral, MnPASS, and safety-spot
improvements – provide nearly 75%of the total beneﬁts.

representative projects, and address
the third question posed in the
introduction. It asked:
3. Within the proposed
investments over the next
20 years, some projects andprograms will necessarily havea higher return on investment
and some will have a lower
return on investment. Whichkinds of projects and programs
oﬀer the highest ROI?

The ROI ranges in Table 8 arebased primarily on the sample
standard deviation of the analyzed

Table 6. Economically Competitive and World Class System - Return on Investment

ROI Category

Average
Investment(millions)

Percentage
of Total
Investment

AverageBeneﬁt(millions)

Low Beneﬁt(millions)High Beneﬁt(millions)

Safety-Spot Improvement at High-Risk Locations

$578

8%

$2,324$1,454$3,195

Pavement Preservation – Corridor$1,26418%$2,528$2,022$3,034

Pavement Reconstruction – Corridor

$288

4%

$252

$144

$359

Pavement Reconstruction – Urban/Main Street

$408

6%

$585

$305

$864

Bridge-Repair

$451

6%

$654

$586

$721

Bridge-Replacement$1,05215%$1,052$526$1,578Congestion Mitigation – General

$798

11%

$1,836$1,296$2,375

Capacity Development$1,24618%$1,297$772$1,821

Active Traﬃc Management (ATM)

$114

2%

$1,015$878$1,151

MnPASS$912

13%$3,146$2,397$3,896

Total Beneﬁt

n/a

n/a

$14,688$10,379$18,996

Total Investment$7,111n/a$7,111$7,111$7,111Return on Investment

n/a

n/a

2.1

1.5

2.7

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

21

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . competing funding
demands . . . inﬂuencetransportation investments.
Table 7. Total TFAC Recommendations - Return on Investment

ROI Category

Average
Investment(millions)

Percentage
of Total
Investment

AverageBeneﬁt(millions)

Low Beneﬁt(millions)High Beneﬁt(millions)

Safety-Spot Improvement at High-Risk Locations$1,24010%$5,025$3,137$6,913

Pavement Preservation – Corridor$2,64121%$5,282$4,226$6,338

Pavement Reconstruction – Corridor

$394

3%

$344

$197

$492

Pavement Reconstruction – Urban/Main Street

$683

5%

$979

$511

$1,447

Bridge-Repair

$622

5%

$902

$808

$995

Bridge-Replacement$1,45112%$1,451$725$2,176

Congestion Mitigation – General$1,351

11%$7,381$3,842$10,921

Capacity Development$2,39219%$2,823$1,620$4,026

Active Traﬃc Management (ATM)

$193

2%

$1,718$1,486$1,949

MnPASS

$1,54412%$5,327$4,057$6,596

Total Beneﬁt

n/a

n/a

$31,232$20,609$41,854

Total Investment$12,510n/a$12,510$12,510$12,510Return on Investment

n/a

n/a

As one might expect, the highest
ROI point estimates are found in
those categories targeting hightraﬃc volume related investments.
A simple ordering of the point
estimates, however, would showthat half of the values fall between
1.2 and 4.1. It is important also
to underscore again the diversityof potential investments in eachcategory, reﬂected in the ROI
ranges. To capture as much of

the diversity as possible, the low
and high estimates of beneﬁts
were calculated with the high andlow cost estimates, respectively –i.e., the ranges attempt to deﬁne
the worst and best case estimates
within each category. Finally, theROI range for the total investmentof $12.5 billion assumes that thecategories are mostly independentof one another.

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

2.5
Of course, ROI analysis is only oneof several important pieces of
information in the transportation
investment decision making
process. Geographic and social
equity, economic development,
resilience to natural and manmade
emergencies, and competing
funding demands are some of themany other factors that inﬂuencetransportation investments.
Regional and local economic

22

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . involve short-term job
creation, as much as 13,000
jobs per $1 billion . . .
development, in particular, often
play a signiﬁcant role in the decision
making process.
Although the ROI analysis
contained in this document does
not attempt to quantify wider
economic development impacts,
several general observations canbe made. First, the ROI analysis andbeneﬁt-cost ratios do incorporate
direct user or economic beneﬁts,
including travel time, travel
reliability, and vehicle operating
cost savings. These direct user
beneﬁts, in turn, form the basis for

wider, long-term economic impacts
generating what are commonlyreferred to as “multiplier” eﬀects– e.g., gains in business output,
personal income, and jobs.
Because multiplier eﬀects involvea large degree of uncertainty
related to context, it can be
more generally observed thattransportation investments that
do not signiﬁcantly reduce travel
time, improve reliability, or reduce
vehicle operating costs will nothave a signiﬁcant long-term,
economic development impact.

Table 8. Return on Investment Categories – ROI Ranges

ROI Category

Average
Investment(millions)

ROI Point
Estimate

Low/High
ROI Range

Safety-Spot Improvement at High-Risk Locations$1,2404.1

2.2 to 6.6

Pavement Preservation – Corridor$2,6412.0

1.4 to 2.8

Pavement Reconstruction – Corridor

$394

0.9

0.4 to 1.5

Pavement Reconstruction – Urban/Main Street

$683

1.4

0.6 to 2.5

Bridge-Repair

$622

1.5

1.1 to 1.9

Bridge-Replacement$1,451

1.0

0.4 to 1.8

Congestion Mitigation – General$1,3515.5

2.5 to 9.6

Capacity Development$2,392

1.2

0.6 to 2.0

Active Traﬃc Management (ATM)

$193

8.9

6.7 to 12.0

MnPASS

$1,5443.5

2.3 to 5.1$12,5102.5

2.0 to 3.2

TOTAL

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

23

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program. . . investment in the state
highway system over the next
20 years . . .
While transportation investment
will always involve short-term job
creation, as much as 13,000 jobs
per $1 billion according to USDOT,
investments should be geared
toward those that result in higher
productivity and support economic
growth. The ROI analysis in thismemorandum then can serve as
both a useful tool for evaluating the
TFAC recommendations and as aproxy for understanding the overall
economic impact potential of the
proposed investment.

Conclusion
The ROI assessment answers
the three key questions posedin this study. In particular, theresults, summarized below, deﬁne
the estimated range of beneﬁts
expected for each investment
option and the anticipated returnon investment.
1. Maintaining the current
performance of Minnesota’s
state highway system would
require an investment of anadditional $5 billion over the
next 20 years. What would be
the return on that investment?
Answer: A $5 billion
investment over the next

20 years to maintain current
system performance would
deliver between $10 billion and$23 billion in beneﬁts, with anaverage ROI of 3.1.
2. Improving Minnesota’s state
highway system to help
the state become more
economically competitive
through technology andoperational innovations
and through high return on
investment projects to reduce
congestion and delays would
require the investment of anadditional $7 billion over the
next 20 years. What would be
the return on that investment?
Answer: An additional $7 billion
investment over the next 20
years to have an economicallycompetitive and world classstate highway system would
deliver between $10 billion and$19 billion in beneﬁts, with anaverage ROI of 2.1.
3. Within the proposed
investments over the next
20 years, some projects andprograms will necessarily havea higher return on investment
and some will have a lower
return on investment. Which

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

kinds of projects and programs
oﬀer the highest ROI?
Answer: All ten of the highway
investment categories, e.g.,pavement preservationand congestion mitigation,
evaluated in this study
deliver ROI ranges that
include economically feasible
investments, i.e., the ROI is
greater than 1.0. Investment
categories with the highest
ROIs tend to require less rightof-way acquisition and otherphysical inputs.
Based on the results of thisstudy, there is a sound businesscase for making the $12 billion
investment recommended
by TFAC. In total, a $12 billion
investment in the state highway
system over the next 20 years
would deliver between$21 billion and $42 billion in
beneﬁts, with an average ROIof 2.5 – or, for every dollar
Minnesota invests in the state
highway system, it can expect
to receive two-and-a-halfdollars in beneﬁts.

24Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program

Appendix A – Project Stakeholder Group

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

A-1

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program

Table 9. Project Stakeholder Group
Organization

Name

ACEC
ACTT / Minnesota Department of Transportation
AFL- CIO
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability
Anoka County Government Center
Association of Minnesota Counties
Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Chicano Latino Aﬀairs Council
CitizenCity of Bemidji
Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities
Council on Asian-Paciﬁc Minnesotans
Council on Black Minnesotans
Department of Public Safety
Explore Minnesota
Flint Hills Resources
Fed ExFresh Energy
Great Plains Institute
Hennepin County
IUOE - Local 49
Kandiyohi County
Marshall Chamber of Commerce
Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Airport Commission
Minnesota Agri-Growth Council
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota House of Representatives
Minnesota House of Representatives
Minnesota House of Representatives
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency

Randy Geerdes
Barb Brodeen
Shar Knutson
Russ Adams
Jon Olson, Doug Fischer, Jack Forslund
Abby Bryduck
Dorian Grilley, Nick Mason
Jill Chamberlain, Sam Rockwell
Hector Garcia
Ron Biss
Rita Albrecht
Amanda Duerr
Kao Ly Ilean Her
Edward McDonald
Susie Palmer
John Edman, Julie Ramer, Colleen Tollefson
Matthew Lemke
Bill Goins
Michael Noble
Brendan Jordan, Rolf NordstromPeter McLaughlin
Glen Johnson
Harlen Madsen
Cal Brink
Susan Haigh, Pat Born, Adam DunnickJeﬀ Hamiel, Mitch Kilian
Perry Aasness
Jim Erkel, Emily Parks
Doug Fulton
Charlie Poster
Kevin McKinnon
Amber Dallman
Emmett MullinCharles Zelle
Michael Beard
Andy LeerFrank Hornstein
Tonja Orr

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

A-2

Technical Report: Assessing Return on Investment in Minnesota’s State Highway Program
Organization
Minnesota Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee
Minnesota Public Transit Association
Minnesota Senate
Minnesota Senate
Minnesota Transportation Alliance
Minnesota Trucking Association
Murphy Warehouse Company
PolarisMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
Quality Bicycle Products of Minnesota
RBC Capital
Region 9 Regional Development Commission
Rochester Olmstead Council of Governments
St. Louis County
Target Corporation
Transit for Livable Communities
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies
University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Aﬀairs
Urban Land Institute

MnDOT - Minnesota Department of Transportation

Name
Dan Breva
Tony KellenJohn Pederson
Scott Dibble
Margaret Donahoe
John Hausladen, Dan Savaloja
Richard Murphy
Jan Rintamaki, J.R. BurkeDavid Thornton
Steve Flagg
Cory Hoeppner, Laura Janke
Ronda Allis
Phil Wheeler, Mitzi Baker
Chris Dahlberg
Meredith Beeson, Dan Riley
Barb Thoman
Gina Baas
Art Rolnick
Caren Dewar, Aubrey Austin

A-3