Work Zone Mobility and Safety Program
Peer-to-Peer Program for Work Zones > Accelerated Road Works for Work Zone Safety and Mobility

Minnesota STH 36 Full Road Closure

slide 1: TH 36 – Highways for Life

Steve Kordosky
Minnesota DOT

slide notes:

None.



slide 2: Project Location

Google Map with the project location highlighted.

slide notes:

We are competing with the world for our message.



slide 3: Project Description

Detailed map of the project area with labels indicating the type of work to be done at various locations.

slide notes:

None.



slide 4: Corridor Background

  • 4-Lane Urban Highway
  • Commuter Link
  • AADT = 57,000
  • 3 Signals
  • Gateway Trail
 Overpass featuring a large snowman to the side of the road. Photo credit: R. Kent Barnard, Minnesota DOT.

slide notes:

None.



slide 5: Project Background

  • Improve Safety
    • Ped Bridge
    • Trail
  • Improve Capacity
    • Convert to freeway
    • Interchanges
 A signalized intersection.

slide notes:

None.



slide 6: Project Challenges

  • Limited $$
  • Traffic Disruption
  • Safety
  • Public Buy-in
 The deconstructed bridge with the roadway removed down to the soil level.

slide notes:

None.



slide 7: New Idea!!!

  • Close TH 36 During Reconstruction
  • Detour Traffic to alternative routes
  • Are we CRAZY!!

slide notes:

None.



slide 8: Construction Office Concerns

  • Travel Time Study
  • Re-Open 1 Lane in Each Direction ASAP
  • Un-Weave the Weave
 Map of the study area showing the traffic impacts on interstates and main arterials in the region from the construction activity.

slide notes:

None.



slide 9: How do we do this?

  • Public Buy-in
  • Business Impacts
  • Congestion
  • Construction Efficiency

slide notes:

None.



slide 10: HFL Performance Goals

  • Safety: workzone, worker, facility
  • Construction Congestion: Faster, fewer delays
  • Quality: Smoothness, noise, user satisfaction

slide notes:

None.

slide 11: How Long Will it Take?

  • 2+ Years w/o closure
  • 3-6 Months w/closure
  • Constructability Review
    • One-on-one
    • 5 Potential Contractors
 Artist's conceptual drawing of the reconstructed overpass.

slide notes:

None.



slide 12: Market Research

  • Residents/Commuters/Businesses
  • Pre-Construction Survey
    • Prefer 2-years construction vs 5 month closure
  • Post-Construction Survey

slide notes:

None.



slide 13

  • Residents
    • In favor of construction
    • Likely to be moderately supportive of either
    • Higher percentage preferred 5 month closure
  • Through commuters
    • In favor of construction
    • Likely to be moderately supportive of either
    • Slightly more favorable to 2 year off peak delays
    • Split 50-50

slide notes:

None.



slide 14

  • I694/35E Users
    • Slightly more favorable reaction to 2-year non-peak delays
    • Split 50-50
  • Businesses
    • More favorable to 2-year non-peak delays
    • More likely to react negatively to 5-month closure
    • Higher percentage preferred 2-year non-peak delays

slide notes:

None.



slide 15: 5 Month Closure
Reasons for Stated Preference

Graph indicates that, among those who preferred a 5-month closure of the facility, the primary reason given by a plurality of the residents and commuters surveyed was they just wanted to get it over and done with, whereas Interstate drivers preferred to be inconvenienced for 5 months rather than 2 years.

slide notes:

If go with 2-year off peak – need to address these things in communications



slide 16: Reasons for Stated Preference
2 Year Off Peak Delays

Graph showed that among those who preferred 2 years of off-peak delays, the primary reason survey respondents gave for this preference were that they would still be able to drive on the roadway.

slide notes:

None.



slide 17: Biggest Impacts

  • Early Coordination
  • "Detour Days"
  • "Open for Business – Surviving and Thriving During Construction" Workshop

slide notes:

None.



slide 18: Where will the Traffic Go?

  • 1/3 Rule
  • Local road System
  • EB Detour
  • WB Detour
 Map of construction area showing regional impacts on interstates and major arterial routes.

slide notes:

None.



slide 19

Map of the closed section if Route 35 with the detour/alternate routes highlighted.

slide notes:

None.



slide 20

Map of the project area with 13 locations highlighted. Notes indicate that the pre-construction period began October 25, 2006, the construction period began June 26, 2007, and the post construction period began June 27, 2008.

slide notes:

None.



slide 21: HOW MANY TRIPS WENT LOCAL?

  • Westbound AM Peak Hour
    • 876 Vehicles needed detour
    • 245 went to County Road C (#4)
    • 204 went to County Road B (#11)
    • 51% of traffic

slide notes:

None.



slide 22: HOW MANY TRIPS WENT LOCAL?

  • Eastbound PM Peak Hour
    • 1,279 Vehicles needed detour
    • 163 went to County Road C (#3)
    • 346 went to County Road B (#13)
    • 51% of traffic

slide notes:

None.



slide 23: HOW MANY TRIPS WENT LOCAL?

  • Not all increase traffic from Detour
  • Access closures are redirecting traffic (10-20%)
  • AM Peak probably 32-42% (vs 50%)
  • PM Peak probably 20-30% (vs 40%)

slide notes:

None.



slide 24: AFTER CONSTRUCTION LOCAL TRAFFIC

slide notes:

None.



slide 25

Map of project area with locations 4 (WB 272) and 11 (WB 216) highlighted.

slide notes:

None.



slide 26

Map project area with locations 3 (EB 191) and 13 (EB 431) highlighted.

slide notes:

None.



slide 27: Local Trips Summary

  • Slight decrease in local trips
  • Increase in trips on TH 36 due to improvements
  • 1/3 rule to local streets applied
  • Heavy commercial traffic on local street – County B experienced 76 heavy commercial vehicles in peak hours and 86 heavy commercial vehicles in a day

slide notes:

None.



slide 28: TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO THE STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY SYSTEM

slide notes:

None.



slide 29: Where will the Traffic Go?

  • 1/3 Rule
  • Local road System
  • EB Detour
  • WB Detour
 Map of construction area showing regional impacts on interstates and major arterial routes.

slide notes:

None.



slide 30: Planning for Detour

  • Improve I-94
  • Log pre-existing travel times
  • Intersection Improvements
  • Police Officers at 4-way Stops

slide notes:

None.



slide 31: Detours / Alternative Routes

  • 694/35E Under Construction
  • Minimal impact to travel times and speeds on detour routes
Time Period TH 36 I-694 I-94 CR C CR B Other Routes
6-10 AM -9740 3120 2900 1300 2380 40
2-9 PM -20050 5400 3650 2060 3250 6590

slide notes:

None.



slide 32: Westbound Detour AM

Outline of the roadway system in the construction zone highlighting the decision point for drivers opting to take the westbound detour around the construction zone.

slide notes:

AM Detour Route was I-694 South, but 45% went north. Only 23% went south. Went through construction zone and signals versus the longer freeway option.



slide 33: Westbound Detour AM

Outline of the roadway system in the construction zone highlighting the traffic count for the eastbound detour during the a.m. period around the construction zone where it merges back onto TH 36.

slide notes:

Most Traffic came back to TH 36 after I-35E.



slide 34: Eastbound Detour PM

Outline of the roadway system in the construction zone. The traffic count for the eastbound detour in the a.m. period shows that traffic started diverging before the detour route.

slide notes:

Traffic started diverging before the detour route. Not following the detour



slide 35: Eastbound Detour PM

Outline of the roadway system in the construction zone. The traffic count for the eastbound detour in the a.m. period shows that traffic started diverging before the detour route. A green marking higlights the movement from TH 36 eastbound onto TH61 northbound.

slide notes:

Traffic started diverging before the detour route. Not following the detour



slide 36: Freeway / Detour Summary

  • Not everyone followed the signed detours
  • Preferred to deal with shorter routes even though there were construction and signal delays
  • No major traffic impacts on detour routes

slide notes:

None.



slide 37: Travel Time Systems

  • Goal – Provide travel times for WB TH 36 Traffic on detour routes
  • Challenge – Implementing reliable data into the RTMC

slide notes:

None.



slide 38: REDUCING IMPACTS BY REDUCING CONSTRUCTION TIME

slide notes:

None.



slide 39: Accelerated Construction

  • A+B Contracting
    • Open to 2 Lanes of Traffic
    • Bid Between 145 and 210 Days
    • RUC = $15,000 per Day
  • Awarded Contract – 195 Days
  • Range of Bids – 145 to 195 Days
 Repaving operations below the overpass. Photo credit: R. Kent Barnard, MnDOT.

slide notes:

None.



slide 40: Accelerated Construction

  • Lane Rental
    • "No Excuse Bonus"
    • Open to 1 Lane of Traffic
    • 145 Days = $350,000
    • Addition $75,000 for every 5 days earlier
    • Capped at $650,000

slide notes:

None.



slide 41: Post Closure Market Research

  • 92% Residents
  • 84% Businesses
  • 89% Commuters
  • Faster, Safer and Lower Cost
  • "Biggest non-event of the year"

slide notes:

None.



slide 42: Lessons Learned

  • Early Discussion (1+ Year)
  • Cost Savings ~ 15%
  • Time Savings ~ 1+ Year
  • Start Detour on Tuesday
  • No closure during winter months

slide notes:

None.



slide 43: Moving Forward

  • Closing interchanges "no big deal" anymore
  • Full road closures – more receptive
  • $$ is driving everything
  • Tools for full closure:
    • Innovative Contracting
    • Very Early Coordination
    • ITS Systems
  • Are we utilizing full closures too much?

slide notes:

None.



slide 44: Special Thanks

Phil Forst – FHWA Minnesota

Chris Roy – Mn/DOT Area Manager

Steve Kordosky – Mn/DOT Project Manager

Questions?

slide notes:

None.

Return to List of Presentations
Office of Operations