Congestion Pricing - Links to Congestion Pricing Home
< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the test plan for developing, conducting, and analyzing surveys, interviews, and focus groups for the National Evaluation of the Minnesota Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) under the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) UPA program. The information from these activities will be used in examining analysis areas contained in the Minnesota UPA National Evaluation Plan. This test plan is one of 11 test plans identified in the Minnesota UPA National Evaluation Plan.

The test plan begins with a brief overview of the Minnesota UPA projects and the relationship between the analysis areas and the test plans outlined in the Minnesota UPA National Evaluation Plan. The test plan presents information on the purpose and approach, participant recruitment protocol, preliminary questions, analysis methods, and schedule and responsibilities for the different surveys, interviews, and focus groups.

1.1 The Minnesota UPA

Minnesota was selected by the U.S. DOT as an Urban Partner to implement projects aimed at reducing congestion based on four complementary strategies known as the 4Ts: Tolling, Transit, Telecommuting/Travel Demand Management (TDM), and Technology. Under contract to the U.S. DOT, a national evaluation team led by Battelle is assessing the impacts of the projects in a comprehensive and systematic manner in Minnesota and other sites. The national evaluation will generate information and produce technology transfer materials to support deployment of the strategies in other metropolitan areas. The national evaluation will also generate findings for use in future federal policy and program development related to mobility, congestion, and facility pricing.

The Minnesota UPA partners include the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA), and Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey, and Hennepin counties. The Center for Transportation Studies and the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public affairs at the University of Minnesota are also partners in the UPA.

The Minnesota projects are focused on reducing traffic congestion in the I-35W corridor and in downtown Minneapolis. ITS technologies underlie many of the Minnesota UPA projects, including those focused on tolling, real-time traffic and transit information, transit signal priority, and guidance technologies for shoulder-running buses. Figure 1-1 highlights the general location of the various Minnesota UPA projects, which are described below.

  • High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes. The HOT lanes on I-35W represent a major component of the Minnesota UPA. This element includes expanding the existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes and constructing new HOT lanes. The HOT lanes will be dynamically priced. The existing HOV lanes on I-35W from Burnsville Parkway to I-494 will be expanded into dynamically priced HOT lanes. A new dynamically priced HOT lane will be added on I-35W from I-494 to 46th Street as part of the reconstruction of the Crosstown Commons Section.
  • Priced Dynamic Shoulder Lane (PDSL). The second tolling element of the Minnesota UPA is the implementation of a PDSL on I-35W in the northbound direction from 46nd Street to downtown Minneapolis. The PDSL incorporates active lane management techniques and technologies, including speed harmonization.
  • Auxiliary Lanes. An auxiliary lane and collector ramp is being constructed on I-35W in the northbound direction from 90th Street and I-494. An auxiliary lane is being constructed on I-35W in the southbound direction from 106th Street to Highway 13.
  • Park-and-Ride Facilities. A total of six new or expanded park-and-ride facilities will be constructed as part of the Minnesota UPA. Two of the park-and-ride facilities are on I-35W north of downtown Minneapolis, one is on I-35W south of downtown Minneapolis, and three are on Cedar Avenue. The following describes the general facility locations and the anticipated number of parking spaces. A new 500-space parking ramp will be constructed adjacent to the existing 1,000-space parking lot at 95th Ave along I-35W North in Blaine. A new 460-space parking ramp will be constructed along I-35W North in Roseville. A new 750-space parking ramp will be constructed along I-35W south in Lakeville. A new 120-space parking lot with an enclosed passenger waiting facility will be constructed along Cedar Ave at Highway 13 in Eagan. A new 200-space parking lot will be constructed along Cedar Avenue at 180th Street in Lakeville. A new 500-space parking ramp, a 250-space surface lot, and a side platform station will be constructed along Cedar Ave at 155th Street in Apple Valley.
  • New Buses. A total of 27 new buses will be purchased as part of the Minnesota UPA. These vehicles include a mix of standard, hybrid, and coach buses. The buses will be used to operate new and expanded express bus service.
  • Downtown Minneapolis Dual Bus Lanes on Marquette and 2nd Avenues. Double contraflow bus lanes are being constructed on Marquette and 2nd Avenues in downtown Minneapolis. Called the MARQ2 project, the lanes replace existing single contraflow lanes on each avenue. The project also includes construction of wider sidewalks, and improved lighting, landscaping, and passenger waiting areas.
  • Transit Advantage Bus Bypass Lane. A “Transit Advantage” bus bypass lane/ramp has been constructed to facilitate the movement of northbound buses at the Highway 77/Highway 62 intersection. A new bus-only left-turn lane has been constructed and new traffic signals have been installed to allow buses to make a left turn from Highway 77 to Highway 62.
  • Cedar Avenue Lane Guidance System. A lane guidance system for shoulder-running buses will be developed, implemented, and operated on Cedar Avenue. The system includes lateral guidance assistance, collision avoidance, and AVL technology. Lane assistance feedback will be provided to the bus operator through a “heads up” windshield display, a vibrating seat, and an active steering wheel.
A map shows the highway network in and around Minneapolis and Saint Paul. It shows the track of Route 35 with its splits into Route 35E and Route 35W; Route 94 with its splits into Route 494 and Route 694, Route 169, Route 77, Route 55, Route 61, and Route 394. HOT lanes are labeled along most of Route 35W and along a portion of Route 77. Cedar Avenue Lane Guidance is indicated along a portion of Route 77. PDSL is indicated along the central urban portion of Route 35W, with the MARQ2 Project indicated at the intersection of Route 35W with Route 394. Locations of Park and Ride Lots are also shown along Route 35W and Route 77.

Figure 1-1. General Location of Minnesota UPA Projects

  • Real-Time Transit Information and Real-Time Traffic and Transit Information. Real-time transit information, including next bus arrival information, will be provided along the MARQ2 lanes in downtown Minneapolis and park-and-ride facilities. Dynamic message signs along I-35W will display real-time traffic and transit travel times to downtown Minneapolis.
  • Transit Signal Priority. Transit signal priority will be implemented along a contiguous stretch of Central Avenue north of downtown Minneapolis, and at selected locations around two park-and-ride facilities.
  • Telecommuting. The telecommuting element of the Minnesota UPA focuses on increasing the use of Results Only Work Environment (ROWE), telecommuting, and flexible work arrangements throughout the region, including increasing the number of teleworkers and/or workers on flexible schedules in the I-35W corridor by 500 individuals. ROWE provides employees flexibility in the work location and hours by focusing on performance and results rather than presence at the office during standard work hours. ROWE is used extensively at Best Buy Corporation, headquartered in Minnesota. The UPA telecommuting component seeks to increase its use by other businesses in the region. The telecommuting element is funded entirely with state funds.

The Transit Advantage project became operational in December 2008. The majority of projects will be in operation by December 2009. The I-35W HOT lanes in the Crosstown Commons Section, the Cedar Avenue Lane Guidance System, and the Cedar Avenue Transit Station are scheduled for completion by October 2010.

1.2 Minnesota UPA National Evaluation Plan and the Use of Survey, Interview, and Focus Group Data

The Minnesota UPA National Evaluation Plan focuses on the 12 analysis areas outlined in the NEF1 and 11 test plans. Table 1-1 presents the relationships among the analysis areas and the test plans.

The approach taken in this test plan is to build on the interviews and surveys already conducted by the Minnesota UPA partnership agencies. Historical information from these surveys and interviews helps establish the baseline conditions. To the extent possible, these surveys and interviews will be used in the post-deployment phase. Questions on the UPA projects will be added to some surveys and questions on topics related to the UPA projects will be monitored. To fully assess the impact of the UPA projects, additional surveys, interviews, and focus groups are needed, however. These additional surveys, interviews, and focus groups are presented in this test plan.

Table 1-2 presents all the major data elements to be obtained in each survey, interview, and focus group described in this test plan. The measures of effectiveness for each data element will be used are shown along with the evaluation of hypotheses/questions with which the MOEs are associated. The surveys, interviews, and focus group test plan supports all of the analyses areas, except the cost benefit analysis. Table 1-2 is organized by the population groups to be studied and then by the study instrument to be used. A total of 17 study instruments – surveys, interviews, and focus groups – are specified. These include both existing and new instruments needed for the national UPA evaluation. The proposed surveys, interviews and focus groups are based on current information from the local partners. Figure 1-2 presents the general timeline for conducting the various interviews, surveys, and focus groups. The ongoing surveys conducted by the local partner agencies are listed above the timeline, while the special surveys, interviews, and focus groups to be conducted for the UPA evaluation are listed below the timeline. As the test plan was being finalized, the Metropolitan Council indicated that a survey on MnPASS users/non-users will be added to the 2010 Travel Behavior Inventory. This information has been included in the test plan, but will be updated as more details are available from the Metropolitan Council. Also, Metro Transit has added new routes to the University of Minnesota. These routes will be added into the transit on-board ridership survey discussed in Section 5.0.

Preliminary questions are included in the test plan for the various surveys, interviews, and focus groups. These questionnaires build on previous surveys in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and use the common socio-economic questions included in the Metro Transit Customer Satisfaction surveys. It is realized the exact questions and approaches will be finalized based on further discussions with local partners, the market research firms, and the national evaluation team.

The remainder of this report is divided into 12 sections according to the study instruments.

  • Section 2.0 presents the telecommuter surveys.
  • Section 3.0 describes the stakeholder interviews and workshops.
  • Section 4.0 discusses the focus groups on the real-time transit and highway travel time dynamic message signs.
  • Section 5.0 presents the surveys for transit riders.
  • Section 6.0 presents the surveys for MnPASS users.
  • 7.0 present the surveys for carpoolers.
  • Section 8.0 describes the telephone interviews of I-35W users.
  • Section 9.0 outlines the interviews with Minnesota State Patrol officers, FIRST operators, and bus operators.
  • Section 10.0 describes the interviews with commercial fleet services/operators, transportation-sensitive business representatives, and the downtown Minneapolis business community.
  • Section 11.0 discusses Mn/DOT's Omnibus Survey.
  • Section 12.0 describes the Metropolitan Council's Travel Behavior Inventory.
  • Section 13 outlines the Mn/DOT Perception Tracking Study.
Table 1-1. Relationship Among Test Plans and Evaluation Analysis
Evaluation Analysis
Minnesota UPA Test Plans Congestion Analysis Tolling Analysis Transit Analysis Telecommuting/ TDM Analysis Technology Analysis Safety Analysis Environmental Analysis Equity Analysis Goods Movement Analysis Business Impact Analysis Non-Technical Success Factors Analysis Cost Benefit Analysis
Traffic System Data Test Plan Major Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Major Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Major Input Supporting Input empty cell Major Input
Tolling Test Plan empty cell Major Input empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input empty cell empty cell Major Input
Transit System Data Test Plan Supporting Input Supporting Input Major Input Supporting Input Major Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input
Telecommuting Data Test Plan empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell
Safety Test Plan empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input
Surveys Test Plan Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input Major Input empty cell
Transportation Modeling Test Plan empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input
Environmental Data Test Plan empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input Supporting Input empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input
Content Analysis Test Plan empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input empty cell
Cost Benefit Analysis Test Plan empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell empty cell Major Input
Exogenous Factors Test Plan Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input Supporting Input

Major Input — Major Input Supporting Input — Supporting Input


Table 1-2. Surveys, Interviews, and Focus Groups Test Plan Data Elements and Use in Testing Hypotheses/Questions
Survey/Interview/ Focus Group Data Element Measures of Effectiveness Hypotheses/Questions* Baseline Post-Deployment
Population – Telecommuters
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.1 Mode for typical work trip
  • Percent by mode
 MNTele/TDM-1 X X
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.2 Vehicle used for work trip:  make/year/ model
  • Used in emissions calculation
  • Cost to employee per trip saved by telecommuting
 MNEnv-1
MNEnv-3		 X X
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.3 Departure times for trips to and from work
  • Commuters who shift their travel times to off-peak hours
 MNTele/TDM-1 X X
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.4 Length of work trip in miles and minutes
  • VT and VMT reduction in the I-35W corridor in the peak hours
  • Cost to employee per trip saved by telecommuting
 MNTele/TDM-1
MNEnv-1
MNEnv-3		 X X
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.5 Days per week in alternative work option
  • VT and VMT reduction in the I-35W corridor in the peak hours
  • Cost to employee per trip saved by telecommuting
 MNTele/TDM-1
MNEnv-1
MNEnv-3		 X X
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.6 Perceptions of changes in congestion due to telecommuting
  • Perception of change in congestion due to telecommuting
 MNTele/TDM-2 X X
  1. Humphrey Telecommuter Survey
 1.7 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 X X
Population – Agency Stakeholders
  1. Stakeholder Interviews
 2.1 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
  • Observations from UPA participants
 MNNonTech-1
MNNonTech-2
MNNonTech-3
MNNonTech-5		 X X
  1. Stakeholder Interviews
 2.2 Institutional Arrangements – Keys to Success
  • Observations from UPA participants
 MNNonTech-1
MNNonTech-2
MNNonTech-3		 X X
  1. Stakeholder Interviews
 2.3 Outreach Activities – Keys to Success
  • Observations from UPA participants
 MNNonTech-1
MNNonTech-2
MNNonTech-3
MNNonTech-4
MNNonTech-6		 X X
  1. Stakeholder Interviews
 2.4 Lessons Learned
  • Observations from UPA participants
 MNNonTech-1
MNNonTech-2
MNNonTech-3
MNNonTech-4
MNNonTech-5
MNNonTech-6		 X X
I-35W Travelers
  1. DMS Focus Groups
 3.1 Commute behavior
  • General commute characteristics (mode, roads, time of day, etc.)
 Context for analysis of all hypotheses in this section empty cell empty cell
  1. DMS Focus Groups
 3.2 Perceptions of congestion
  • Perceived changes in travel times, trip time reliability, and duration and extent of congestion
 MNCong-6
MNCong-7
MNCong-8
MNTransit-2
MNTransit-3		 empty cell X
  1. DMS Focus Groups
 3.3 Awareness and perception of DMS
  • Relative contribution of the DMS to congestion reduction
 MNTech-3 empty cell X
  1. DMS Focus Groups
 3.4 Change in travel behavior in response to DMS
  • Change in drivers switching to transit
 MNTransit-1 empty cell X
Transit
  1. Metro Transit Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS)
 4.1 How make trip if did not ride bus?
  • Reduction in VMT
  • Actual and percent change in drivers and carpoolers willing to try transit.
 MNENV-1
MNENV-3
MNTransit-2		 X X
  1. Metro Transit CSS
 4.2 Frequency of bus use/days per week
  • Reduction in VMT
  • Actual and percent change in drivers and carpoolers willing to try transit.
 MNENV-1
MNENV-3
MNTransit-2		 X X
  1. Metro Transit CSS
 4.3?Perceptions of service quantity (number of express trips, etc) and quality
  • Contribution of UPA strategies in contributing to mode shift to transit.
 MNTransit-4 X X
  1. Metro Transit CSS
 4.4 Number of years riding the bus
  • Actual and percent change in drivers and carpoolers switching to transit.
 MNTransit-2
MNTransit-3		 X X
  1. Metro Transit CSS
 4.5 Change in cost
  • Change in travel costs for those switching from driving to transit
 MNCBA-1 empty cell X
  1. Metro Transit CSS
 4.5 Socio-economic demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 X X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.1 Prior mode of transit riders
  • Actual and percent change in drivers and carpooler switching to transit
 MNTransit-2
MNTransit-3		 empty cell X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.2 Reasons for using transit
  • Contribution of UPA strategies contributing to mode shift to transit
 MNTransit-4 empty cell X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.3 Length of commute in time and distance
  • Calculation of change in VMT
 MNENV-1
MNENV-2		 empty cell X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.4 Perception of UPA transit improvements (need list, e.g. park and ride, travel time DMS, more frequent bus service)
  • Percentage of respondents citing a reduction in travel time
  • Percentage of respondents citing an improvement in travel reliability
 MNCong-9
MNCong-10		 empty cell X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.5 Perception of Safety using HOT lanes, MARQ2 lanes, and guided bus
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-2
MNSafety-3
MNSafety-4		 empty cell X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.5 Change in cost
  • Change in travel costs for those switching from driving to transit
 MNCBA-1 empty cell X
  1. On-board Transit Rider Survey
 5.6 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 empty cell X
Population – I-35W MnPASS Users
  1. MnPASS Surveys
 6.1 Prior Mode
  • Use of HOT and PDSL options
 MNTolling-2 empty cell X
  1. MnPASS Surveys
 6.2 Frequency of use
  • Use of HOT and PDSL options
 MNTolling-2 empty cell X
  1. MnPASS Surveys
 6.3 Reasons for use
  • Percentage of respondents citing a reduction in travel time
  • Percentage of respondents citing an improvement in travel reliability
 MNCong-6
MNCong-7		 empty cell X
  1. MnPASS Surveys
 6.4 Perceptions of Safety using HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-2 empty cell X
  1. MnPASS Surveys
 6.5?Travel costs
  • Travel costs for travelers switching from another mode to HOT lanes
 MNCBA-1 empty cell X
  1. MnPASS Surveys
 6.5 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 empty cell X
  1. Travel Behavior Inventory – MnPASS Surveys
 7.1 Prior Mode
  • Use of HOT and PDSL options
 MNTolling-2 empty cell X
  1. Travel Behavior Inventory – MnPASS Surveys
 7.2 Frequency of use
  • Use of HOT and PDSL options
 MNTolling-2 empty cell X
  1. Travel Behavior Inventory – MnPASS Surveys
 7.3 Reasons for use
  • Percentage of respondents citing a reduction in travel time
  • Percentage of respondents citing an improvement in travel reliability
 MNCong-6
MNCong-7		 empty cell X
  1. Travel Behavior Inventory – MnPASS Surveys
 7.4 Perceptions of Safety using HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-2 empty cell X
  1. Travel Behavior Inventory – MnPASS Surveys
 7.5 Travel costs
  • Travel costs for travelers switching from another mode to HOT lanes
 MNCBA-1 empty cell X
  1. Travel Behavior Inventory – MnPASS Surveys
 7.5 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 empty cell X
Population – I-35W HOT Lane Carpoolers
  1. Carpooler Survey
 8.1 Prior Mode
  • Increase in average vehicle occupancy levels
 MNTransit-3 empty cell X
  1. Carpooler Survey
 8.2 Frequency of use
  • Increase in average vehicle occupancy levels
  • Reduction in VMT
 MNTransit-4
MNCong-9
MNCong-10		 empty cell X
  1. Carpooler Survey
 8.3 Reasons for Use
  • Contribution of strategies
  • Perception of improvements
 MNTransit-4
MNCong-9
MNCong-10		 empty cell X
  1. Carpooler Survey
 8.4 Perceptions of safety using HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-2 empty cell X
  1. Carpooler Survey
 8.5 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 empty cell X
  1. I-35W User Telephone Survey
 9.1 Prior Mode
  • Increase in average vehicle occupancy levels
 MNTransit-3 empty cell X
  1. I-35W User Telephone Survey
 9.2 Frequency of use
  • Increase in average vehicle occupancy levels
  • Reduction in VMT
 MNTransit-4
MNCong-9
MNCong-10		 empty cell X
  1. I-35W User Telephone Survey
 9.3 Reasons for Use
  • Combination of strategies
  • Perception of improvements
 MNTransit-4
MNCong-9
MNCong-10		 empty cell X
  1. I-35W User Telephone Survey
 9.4 Perceptions of safety using HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-2 empty cell X
  1. I-35W User Telephone Survey
 9.5 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 empty cell X
Population – I-35W General-Purpose Freeway Lane Users
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.1 Commute behavior
  • General commute characteristics (mode, roads, time of day, etc.)
 Context for analysis of all hypotheses in this section empty cell X
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.2 Perception of reduction in travel time
  • Perception of reduction in travel time
 MNCong-6 empty cell X
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.2 Perception of improvement in trip-time reliability
  • Perception of improvement in trip-time reliability
 MNCong-7 empty cell X
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.3 Awareness and perception of DMS
  • Relative contribution of the DMS to congestion reduction
 MNTech-3 empty cell X
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.4 Perception of reduction in congestion
  • Perception of reduction in congestion
 MNCong-8
MNCong-9		 empty cell X
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.5 Perception of safety
  • Perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-2 empty cell X
  1. I-35W South User Telephone Survey
 10.6 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 MNEquity-1
MNEquity-2		 empty cell X
Population – Minnesota State Patrol Officers
  1. MN State Patrol Officer Interviews
 11.1 Most common citation or violation issues
  • Change in violation rates
 MNTolling-3 empty cell X
  1. MN State Patrol Officer Interviews
 11.2 Perception of changes in crashes and incidents since HOT, ATM, DMS, and PDSL operational
  • Change in perception of safety
 MNSafety-1
MNSafety-2		 empty cell X
  1. MN State Patrol Officer Interviews
 11.3 Perception of change in congestion levels since HOT, PDSL, ATM, and DMS
  • Change in perception of traffic congestion
 MNCong-3 empty cell X
Population – FIRST Operators
  1. FIRST Operator Interviews
 12.1 Perception of changes in safety with active traffic management
  • Change in perception of safety
 MnSafety-1
MnSafety-2		 empty cell X
  1. FIRST Operator Interviews
 12.2 Perception of changes in crashes and incidents since HOT and PDSL operational
  • Change in perception of safety
 MNSafety-1
MNSafety-2		 empty cell X
  1. FIRST Operator Interviews
 12.3 Perception of change in congestion levels since HOT, PDSL, ATM, and DMS
  • Change in perception of traffic congestion
 MNCong-3 empty cell X
Population – Bus Operators
  1. Bus Operator Interviews
 13.1 Perception of changes in safety with active traffic management
  • Change in perception of safety
 MNSafety-3 empty cell X
  1. Bus Operator Interviews
 13.2 Perception of changes in crashes and incidents since HOT and PDSL operational
  • Change in perception of safety
 MNSafety-1
MNSafety-2
MNSafety-3
MNSafety-4		 empty cell X
  1. Bus Operator Interviews
 13.3 Perception of change in congestion levels since HOT, PDSL, ATM, and DMS
  • Change in perception of traffic congestion
 MnCong-3 empty cell X
  1. Bus Operator Interviews
 13.4 Perception of changes in safety with MARQ2 lanes
  • Change in perception of safety
 MNSafety-3 empty cell X
  1. Bus Operator Interviews
 13.5 Perception of safety with bus lane guidance system
  • Perception of safety/safe operations
 MNSafety-4 empty cell X
  1. Bus Operator Interviews
 13.6 Perception of safety with real-time transit and traffic DMS
  • Perceived changes in safety post-deployment
 MNSafety-1 empty cell empty cell
Population – Commercial Fleet Operators
  1. Commercial Fleet Services/Operators Interviews
 14.1 Use of I-35W
  • Percent of vehicles using I-35W
 MNGoods-1 empty cell X
  1. Commercial Fleet Services/Operators Interviews
 14.2 Use of HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Percent of vehicles using tolled facilities
 MNGoods-1 empty cell X
  1. Commercial Fleet Services/Operators Interviews
 14.3?Perceptions in changes in travel times and congestion due to UPA projects
  • Perceived advantages and disadvantages of UPA projects
  • Percent change in travel times in general-purpose freeway lanes
 MNGoods-2 empty cell X
  1. Commercial Fleet Services/Operators Interviews
 14.4 Perceptions of changes in safety
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-4 empty cell X
  1. Commercial Fleet Services/Operators Interviews
 14.5 Perception of change in congestion levels since HOT, PDSL, ATM, and DMS
  • Change in perception of traffic congestion
 MNCong-3
MNGoods-3		 empty cell X
Population – Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives
  1. Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives Interviews
 15.1 Use of I-35W
  • Percent of vehicles using I-35W
 MNGoods-1 empty cell X
  1. Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives Interviews
 15.2 Frequency of Use of HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Percent of vehicles using tolled facilities
 MNGoods-1 empty cell X
  1. Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives Interviews
 15.3?Perceived changes in traffic congestion due to UPA projects
  • Perceived advantages and disadvantages of UPA projects
  • Percent change in travel times in general-purpose freeway lanes
 MNGoods-2
MNGoods-3		 empty cell X
  1. Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives Interviews
 15.4 Perceived time savings by using HOT lanes and PDSL
  • Percent change in travel times
 MNGoods-2 empty cell X
  1. Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives Interviews
 15.5 Impact by MARQ2 lanes
  • Change in the employers' perceptions about impacts on business operations
  • Change in perceptions of transportation costs and benefits for businesses
 MNBusiness-1
MNBusiness-2		 empty cell X
  1. Transportation-Sensitive Business Representatives Interviews
 15.6 Perceptions of changes in safety
  • Changes in the perception of safety by travelers
 MNSafety-4 empty cell X
Population – Downtown Minneapolis Business Community
  1. Downtown Minneapolis Business Community Interviews
 16.1 Previous use of MARQ2 lanes
  • Change in the employers' perceptions about impacts on business operations
  • Change in perceptions of transportation costs and benefits for businesses
 MNBusiness-1
MNBusiness-2		 empty cell X
  1. Downtown Minneapolis Business Community Interviews
 16.2 Perception of employees use of transit
  • Contribution of different elements to transit use
 MnTransist-4 empty cell X
  1. Downtown Minneapolis Business Community Interviews
 16.3 Perceptions of impact of MARQ2 lanes
  • Change in employers' perception about impacts on business operation
  • Change in perception of transportation costs and benefits
 MNBusiness-1
MNBusiness-2		 empty cell X
  1. Downtown Minneapolis Business Community Interviews
 16.4 Perception of safety of MARQ2 lanes
  • Change in perception of safety
 MnSafety-3 empty cell X
Population – Households in Region
  1. MN/DOT Omnibus Survey (2008) and anticipated 2010 and 2011
 17.1 Telecommute status
  • Baseline conditions and change over time
 MnTele-1 X X
  1. MN/DOT Omnibus Survey (2008) and anticipated 2010 and 2011
 17.2 Number days a week telecommute
  • Calculation of change in VMT
 MnENV-1
MnENV-3		 X X
  1. MN/DOT Omnibus Survey (2008) and anticipated 2010 and 2011
 17.3 Socio-demographic descriptors
  • Used for analysis of other data elements
 empty cell X X
  1. Mn/DOT Perception Tracking Survey
 18.1 Perception of DMS
  • Awareness and use of pre-UPA DMS
 MnTech-3 X X
  1. Mn/DOT Perception Tracking Survey
 18.2 Perception of real-time transit and traffic DMS/change mode because of improvements
  • Contributions of strategies to mode change
 MnTech-3 empty cell X

*Listed are acronyms corresponding to hypotheses/questions to be addressed with data from this test plan. An explanation of these acronyms can be found in Appendix A, which contains a compilation of the hypotheses/questions for all the analysis areas from the Minnesota UPA National Evaluation Plan.

The timeline extends from October 2008 to May 2010 and indicates the sequence of surveys, interviews, and workshops. Ongoing surveys are indicated in October 2009 and between January and May 2010. Stakeholder interviews are indicated between May and September 2009. A stakeholder workshop is indicated just before September 2009.

Figure 1-2. General Timeline for Conducting Interviews, Surveys, and Focus Groups


The timeline extends from June 2010 to April 2012 and indicates the sequence of surveys, interviews, workshops, and reports. Surveys are indicated prior to and just after October 2010, and prior to and just after April 2011, and prior to and just after October 2011. Interviews are indicated between June and October 2020, and in April 2011. Reports are indicated in June 2010, April 2011, and April 2012.

Figure 1-2. General Timeline for Conducting Interviews, Surveys, and Focus Groups (Continued)

1 The document is available online at following website: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/30000/30700/30764/14446.pdf

You may need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the PDFs on this page.

  Last modified: February 11, 2022