Snow and Ice Control Route Optimization Study Results

2018

Snow and Ice Control Route Optimization Study Results 2018 Snow & Ice Control Study Results 1.0 Executive Summary Providing a safe and efficient transportation system for motorists is an important outcome of the snow and ice control operations process. North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) team members work on our mission to safely move people and goods daily and always pursue advancements and efficiencies with snow and ice control operations. Through the years NDDOT has explored route and section optimization to meet the changing needs of state residents. Prior to the 1960s the department had approximately 135 section locations, excluding the District Headquarters for road maintenance. Over time and with the use of innovative equipment, material modifications and computer technology we have reduced our section locations throughout the state to 61. Senate Bill 2012 contained a provision that required NDDOT to study the manner in which it provides snow and ice control services and potential savings available in providing these services. In late 2017, NDDOT hired a contractor, C2Logix, to conduct a technical analysis of current snow and ice control routes. The department created a team to work with the contractor and provide information about current services and pertinent parameters to analyze routes plus level of service. Levels of service and cycle times were two important criteria used in analyzing the optimized routes. The contractor and NDDOT worked closely together and went through several iterations of optimizations before deciding on a final run showing the need for 327 routes to cover the highways that we are responsible for. The optimization model created uniform cycle times based on levels of service across the state. The model shows a 19% reduction in mileage and an 8% reduction in plowing time when comparing NDDOT’s previous cycle times and routes. The optimization model accomplished this by configuring more uniform cycles for routes. For example, it changed the cycle time of one route from 5 hours to 3 hours and then changed the cycle time for another route from 1 hour to 3 hours. See Attachment J for table on plow cycles NDDOT’s experience with snow and ice control operations requires 351 operators to cover the 327 routes. The 351 operators account for plowing the designated routes, overnight crews in metro areas (Fargo, Bismarck, Minot and proposed Grand Forks), as well as planned and unplanned absences. The analysis included reviewing a variety of existing section locations for possible reductions or consolidations and the addition of a new section location. In addition to this technical analysis, the NDDOT conducted a Public Survey on Snow and Ice Control to learn what level of snow and ice control services were acceptable to motorists on ND highways. The results from the first question indicated that the majority of drivers are satisfied with their current level of service. The survey also indicated that the majority of drivers expected the service provided should be the same for all 4-lane roads. For questions addressing roadways with snow covered and compacted snow, the survey results show drivers on 2-lane roads are less accepting of snow covered roads than 4-lane roads. See Attachment L for more information on the public survey. In reviewing the public survey results and historical data, NDDOT collaborated with the contractor to have the North Dakota highway network optimized for plowing. Using the modeled 327 routes, the optimization study shows long term savings on capital, employees and equipment while maintaining statewide uniformity in snow and ice control. The optimization study results are based on providing a uniform level of service identified by the subject matter experts and did not look at adding more services. The study shows the possibility of long term savings of $345,000/year through the reduction of operating costs and three employees. It also shows a 1 one-time cost saving of $634,000 through removal of three snowplows from the fleet. The study also looked at capital investments, reviewing long term options in which some section locations may be consolidated and an additional section location may need to be built, while many other existing section locations need to be improved to accommodate optimization needs. Consolidation may reduce capital assets by $5 million but approximately $4.6 million will be needed to invest in buildings for optimization improvements. Our next steps are to:  Evaluate and prove the technical study results by testing the optimized routes this winter season and verifying operational reliability.  Obtain additional public feedback by conducting focus groups across the state.  Review capital asset needs. This study showed the department that NDDOT’s current snow and ice control operations are efficient but there are also other techniques we can use to improve effectiveness. The technical data from the study and public input are tools that we will use to help make decisions for updating facilities, maximizing service levels and providing potential cost savings in the future. 2.0 Purpose The purpose of this study is to meet the legislative requirement that NDDOT study the manner in which it provides snow and ice control services and potential savings available in providing these services. This requirement comes from the Senate Bill 2012 passed during the 65th Legislative Assembly. See Attachment K. 3.0 Current Department Innovations In the past, studies were developed around staffing and the number of lane miles per operator. The rationale was to provide staffing and resources in order to provide an improved level of service. Now with the advancements being made in equipment and methods of operation, more efficiencies can be obtained and still provide an improved level of service. Some of those advancements are identified below:  The towplow is one of the newest advancements in equipment to bring efficiencies to the snow and ice control operation. The towplow is beneficial wherever you have multi-lane facilities like the Interstate system or wide shoulders. The towplow can assist in removing snow that would otherwise be needed to make a second pass on the roadway. The towplow can also directly apply liquid salt brine to the surface of the roadway in an anti-icing or de-icing application. The towplow and truck can be used to apply straight salt or liquid salt brine in a slurry application. The department currently has 32 towplows in the fleet.  The advancements made to the plow truck include an electronic spreader control that can meter straight salt at calibrated pounds of salt per lane mile, much like an agriculture crop spraying operation allowing for a more precise application rate. Tandem axle trucks spreading straight salt can cover more lane miles than the same truck with sand/salt mix. A tandem axle truck is capable of covering approximately 70 lane miles of roadway at a 300 pounds per lane mile application rate, which is a common application rate.  Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) in conjunction with a value added meteorologist has also advanced the efficiencies of snow and ice control. The weather forecast is used to measure the magnitude of the storm event while MDSS can provide the timing of the storm, how much and what type of precipitation is to be expected, when the best time would be to apply liquid or granular material, and provide the most cost effective treatment recommendation that should be used. 2

4.0 Department Analysis History Over time the department has reviewed the number of maintenance section locations statewide and consolidated service areas based on efficiencies. Prior to the 1960s the department had approximately 135 section locations which concentrated primarily on gravel road maintenance. Through the years as gravel roads transitioned to pavement and equipment evolved, the need for larger crew sizes grew and maintenance operations changed. This lead to the NDDOT plows optimization and consolidation of maintenance section locations. approximately Section optimization studies were completed in 1994, 2008, and 2017. The 2017 study focused on using the most efficient and cost 17,250 lane miles effective methods of snow and ice control such as using straight of state highways salt, pre-wetting, anti-icing, and towplows. As a result of the 2017 study, NDDOT reduced the number of section locations by eight going from 69 to 61. 4.01 Methodology of C2Logix Route Optimization Analysis The department was tasked with studying the manner in which it provides snow and ice control services. To meet the legislative requirements for 2018, NDDOT contracted with a route optimization consultant and conducted a public survey on snow and ice control. Using the information gained, the department analyzed current operations and will look at recommended efficiencies for the future. These recommendations can be found in Section 5.0 Conclusions and Discussion of this report. Background NDDOT is responsible for plowing approximately 17,250 lane miles of state highways. There is currently a total of 354 transportation technicians (trans techs) stationed in 61 section locations and eight NDDOT District Headquarters (see Attachment A). Out of these 354 trans techs, six are dedicated night-shift operators. This leaves a total of 348 trans techs who plow snow during the daytime hours. During planned and unplanned absences, other staff, such as sign shop personnel, engineering techs, or other employees with commercial driver’s licenses, help operate the plows during significant events. NDDOT is not a 24-hour snow plowing operation, generally providing service through a 14-hour day from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m., however there are three 24-hour snow plowing operations located in Fargo, Bismarck, and Minot metro areas. It is in these three locations where there are six dedicated winter night- shift operators.

Analysis team established NDDOT acquired the services of a consultant to analyze current snow plow operations and determined the current cycle times being performed. Working with the consultant the department set up a team of Subject Matter Experts to establish the needed inputs for the program. The team consisted of 3 representatives from the eight districts, the central office maintenance division, and the NDDOT executive office. Cycle times, plowing speeds and innovation analyzed The team decided on parameters to be used in the optimization study such as level of service, cycle times, plowing speeds, deadhead speeds, down time, working hours, and current department innovations. The modeling process used a statewide snow event to calculate the total time to clear all driving lanes with optimized routing. Other information included items such as how wide a plow could clear, how far a plow could travel on a tank of fuel, and delays associated with intersections and interchanges, to name a few. Level of Service Six Tier System utilized NDDOT used a six tier system to identify the level of service (LOS) for the different classifications of highways from urban Interstates to rural District Collectors (see Attachment B). The LOS was based on the Highway Performance Classification System passed by Legislature in 2003 (see Attachment C). The department grouped levels of service by plowing cycle times: urban Interstate goal was a two hour cycle time; rural Interstate, Interregional highways, and State Corridors goal was a three hour cycle time; and District Corridors and District Collectors goal was a four hour cycle time. A cycle consists of a plow starting at the section building, plowing its route, refueling and reloading as necessary, and getting back to the starting point ready to plow the route again, a full circle. A plow truck would be seen at any given point along the route approximately once every two, three, or four hours depending on the highway classification. Two cycles per day were required for all routes. The contractor then designed balanced, optimized routes based on the remaining section locations utilizing a commercially available route optimization software system. The software was capable of automatically determining the most efficient snowplow routes using multiple levels of service and storm scenarios and was programmable to account for future changes to section locations, salt sheds, lane miles, and equipment capacity. Although the department’s maintenance sections perform both summer and winter maintenance operations, the optimization study focuses on winter maintenance operations only. The department provided cost figures for labor and equipment to the consultant for use in the study summary. Population centers, public health facilities and school locations included The company then modeled NDDOT’s existing practices, coordinated with the department on adjustments to their work, and optimized the plow routes based on established criteria and NDDOT practices. This resulted in cycle times ranging from approximately a 1-hour cycle time to a 9-hour cycle time. In order to help determine where modifications could possibly be made to our existing operations the department looked at existing locations of population centers, public health facilities, schools (see Attachments E, F, G, and H), and applied a 25 mile radius around existing section locations (see Attachment I) to help identify redundancies. With this information the department identified potential areas of redundancy. The contractor performed multiple iterations of route optimization. As different optimized runs were completed, the department analyzed the results and verified the runs would meet our service criteria. Working through this process the department and the contractor agreed on an accepted optimized run. This run was labeled Run 3 and the results as prepared by the contractor are attached to this report as Attachment D. The results of the C2Logix route optimization model shows that daytime plow operations could cover the statewide highway network using 327 routes. All highways would be plowed with the parameters set by NDDOT and according to LOS. The model shows a 19% reduction in mileage and an 8% reduction in plowing time when comparing 354 routes to 327 routes. The optimization model accomplished this by 4 balancing cycle times and determining more uniform cycle times for routes. For example, it changed the cycle time of one route from 5 hours to 3 hours and then changed the cycle time for another route from 1 hour to 3 hours.

Historical NDDOT data shows there are about 39 winter events annually that require some treatment of the highway system. According to the National Weather Service, North Dakota averages ten winter storm events and four blizzard events every year. North Dakota is a large state with varying topography and weather. It is rare that the entire state experiences a winter event requiring all plows to work for the full 14-hour day. Where the optimization model does show consistent savings is with the reduced number of plow routes, therefore reducing equipment and staff costs over the entire year. The plowing model created by the contractor improves plowing uniformity across the state. Uniformity would be based on the highway performance classification system. The optimization model applied consistent level of service, cycle times, and hours of operation to the highway network. 4.02 NDDOT Public Survey on Snow and Ice Control 2018 NDDOT conducted a Public Survey on Snow and Ice Control to learn what level of snow and ice control services were acceptable on ND highways. The survey comprised of 43 questions and was conducted online as well as distributed in paper format at a couple of local public events in May. There were a total of 1,189 responses. The results from the first question indicated that the majority of drivers are satisfied with their current level of service. Questions 2 & 3 compared the service provided and service expected on Interstate four- lane versus Non-Interstate four-lane. The results indicated that the majority of drivers currently saw more service provided to the Interstate than Non-Interstate. The results also indicated that the majority of drivers expected that service provided should be the same for all four-lane roads, whether they are Interstate or Non-Interstate. In regard to NDDOT’s hours of operation the majority of survey respondents wanted no change to the plow start or stop times. The survey results support the idea that the traveling public has become accustom to NDDOT’s hours of operations. This is shown in the results of questions 4-8 as well as the Acceptability of Road Conditions questions. In general, the traveling public is more accepting of poor road conditions at 6 a.m. and less accepting of poor road conditions by 10 a.m. The traveling public generally knows the NDDOT is not a 24/7 operation and understands it will take some time in the morning hours to catch up with what snow fell over the night hours. Expectations through the evening hours are generally consistent. With plow crews finishing their operations around 5-7 p.m. nightly, the general public seems to understand there will not be significant improvements in road conditions between 8-10 p.m., hence their expectations remaining the same for the 8-10 p.m. time period.

For questions addressing roadways with snow covered and compacted snow, the survey results show drivers on 2-lane roads are less accepting of snow covered roads than four-lane roads. In other words, survey respondents expect 2-lane roads to be plowed more often than four-lane roads. All of the survey results are attached to this report as Attachment L. 5.0 Conclusions and Discussion In reviewing the public survey results and historical data, NDDOT collaborated with the contractor to have the North Dakota highway network optimized for plowing. The contractor modeled 327 routes to be the most optimized number of routes to accomplish plowing the state highway network given the parameters. The optimization reduced the necessary equipment and staff while still maintaining the highway network with similar plowing cycles per day as the current operation. A table showing the plow cycles per day for each district are shown in Attachment J. According to the optimization study, the 327 optimized routes would reduce costs and provide statewide uniformity, but there are known shortcomings with the final optimized routes. The optimized routes do not account for overnight staffing in the metro areas. The optimized routes do not account for planned and unplanned absences. NDDOT requires 24 more trans techs than the contractor accounted for to fill the overnight shifts in Fargo, Bismarck, and Minot, to create an overnight presence in Grand Forks, and to account for unavailable operators. These 24 operators would be added to the optimized 327, totaling 351 operators. This plan would allow 327 routes to be covered while accounting for unavailable staff, while also maintaining an overnight presence in the four metro areas. 351 operators is 0.8% less than the existing 354, but provides uniform service across the state based on highway classification. In order to meet the proposed optimization recommended by C2Logix and the reallocation of staff needed by NDDOT, many existing section buildings would require improvement. While some section locations may be closed or consolidated, an additional section location may need to be built and many other existing section locations would need to be improved to accommodate the reallocation of employees and staff. It is estimated by NDDOT that approximately 32,000 square feet of improvements would be needed for the existing section buildings. The department plans on testing the optimized routes this winter season to verify operational reliability. The department expects minor changes based on turn around points, staffing requirements, and existing section building sizes. It is anticipated that route optimization will be an ongoing process in the department and will be conducted by department staff. 6

6.0 Cost Summary Using the modeled 327 routes, the optimization study shows long term savings on capital, employees and equipment while maintaining statewide uniformity in snow and ice control. The optimization study results are based on providing a uniform level of service identified by the subject matter experts and did not look at adding more services. The study shows the possibility of long term savings of $345,000/year through the reduction of operating costs and three employees. It also shows a one-time cost saving of $634,000 through removal of three snowplows from the fleet. The study also looked at capital investments, reviewing long term options in which some section locations may be consolidated and an additional section location may need to be built, while many other existing section locations need to be improved to accommodate optimization needs. Consolidation may reduce capital assets by $5 million but approximately $4.6 million will be needed to invest in buildings for optimization improvements. Our next steps are to:  Evaluate and prove the technical study results by testing the optimized routes this winter season and verifying operational reliability.  Obtain additional public feedback by conducting focus groups across the state.  Review capital asset needs. This study showed the department that NDDOT’s current snow and ice control operations are efficient but there are also other techniques we can use to improve effectiveness. The technical data from the study and public input are tools that we will use to help make decisions for updating facilities, maximizing service levels and providing potential cost savings in the future. 7.0 Attachments  Attachment A: Current Section Locations  Attachment B: Level of Service (LOS)  Attachment C: Highway Performance Classification System (HPCS)  Attachment D: C2Logix – Run 3  Attachment E: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)  Attachment F: Population Density  Attachment G: Public Health Care Facilities  Attachment H: ND Schools and Higher Education  Attachment I: NDDOT Sections – 25 mile radius circles  Attachment J: Cycles Per Day  Attachment K: Senate Bill 2012  Attachment L: NDDOT Public Survey on Snow and Ice Control 2018

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! Legend !

! Wahpeton Fairmount ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ó ô ! !

! ó ö !

! !

! # # !

! Maintenance Section Material Site ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! Dwight ! ! ¡ ®

! Abercrombie

! ¡ ¬

! ! ! port Maps\Current Section Locations.mxd Section Maps\Current port ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Fargo ! !

! ! ! ! !

! BendGreat

! !

! Oxbow !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

j ! ! Q

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! North RiverNorth ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! Q P

! ! !

! Q P

! ! !

! !

l r ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

# ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Mooreton

F ! ! ! ! Harwood

! ! !

! ! ! F

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! # #

! ! !

! !

! ! !

Hankinson ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! Argusville

! !

! ! !

! !

! F

! !

! ! ! !

! Gardner !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ó õ

! ! !

¡ Í

! !

! ! ¡ ¬ ! Q P Kindred Horace

! ! ! !

! Grandin Colfax

West ! ! ! Fargo

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! Mantador

! !

! ! Davenport Barney

Richland

! ! !

Grand Forks ! ! ! ! THE BY PREPARED !

! Walcott Hillsboro

! !

! l r ! STATE OF STATE

! ! Buxton

! !

! ! ! ! !

! j ! ! Q ! !

! !

! ! ! !

¡ ² ! !

! ! ! Lidgerwood

! ! Reynolds !

! !

! ! Q P # # # Mapleton

! ! ! ¡ ²

! !

Date Saved: 8/31/2018 Saved: Date !

! #

! !

! ! !

! ! ! # ! ! ! ! # #

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! MAINTENANCE DIVISION ! !

# #

! ! ! #

! ! ! !

í ð ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! F ! !! !

! ¡ Ó

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Manvel !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ó õ ! Amenia

! Arthur

! ! ! ! Hunter

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! Drayton ! !

! Leonard ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ¡ ²

! ! !

! ¡ ² ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! #

# #

! ! !

! Traill Q P

! !

! ! !

NORTH DAKOTA NORTH !

# # !

# ! ! ! !

! ! !

! F

! ! !

! !

¡ ° ! ¡ Ø

Pembina

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Q P

! ! !

! !

! ! Thompson

! !

! ! Wyndmere

! !

! ! ¡ ì

! ! !

! Mayville

! !

l r ! !

¡ ¬

! ! ! Ardoch

! ¡ Ü

¡ ² !

! ! Cayuga

! !

! ! !

! Emerado

! !

! ! ! !

Minto !

! ! !

Cass

! !

¡ ® !

! !

! ! !

! !

! l r Grafton

! !

Galesburg !

Casselton

! !

! ! ¡ »

! !

! OFTRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT NORTH DAKOTA !

! !

¡ ²

Hatton !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Sheldon

! ! !

l m

! ! ! ! Rutland

! !

Ayr !

¡ Í

St ThomasSt

! ! ! !

! ! ! Hamilton

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! # #

# ! ! Milnor ¡ ²

! ! !

River

! !

! ! ! Buffalo

Gilby

! ! ! !

Forest !

l r

! ! !

! Bathgate

! Alice !

! Portland

Grand Forks

! ! !

Clifford

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! Page

Havana

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

Ransom

! ! !

Neche !

¡ ¦

! ! ! !

! !

Forman ! Northwood

! ! !

! !

! Enderlin

! ! !

¡ Å

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

Larimore

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ¡ ¿

! ¡ ²

! !

Lisbon

! ! !

Hoople

! ! # # #

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ¡ ¿

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

¡ ²

! !

! ó õ ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ¡ Å ¡ ²

! !

! ! !

Crystal ! Hensel ¡ ²

¡ ¿

! ! !

! ! #

# #

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! Hope

! !

! ! !

! !

Steele

! !

! ! ! ! # #

! !

! ! !

! !

! Tower City

ParkRiver !

! !

Fingal

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! Pillsbury # # l m

! ! ! Nome

! !

Pisek !

! !

! ! !

! !

Inkster ! ! !

! ! !

¡ ¿

! ! ! !

Gwinner

! ! ! ¡ ¿

! ! ¡ ¿

! Conway Fordville

! !

Finley

! ! !

Cavalier

! !

¡ °

! ! ! ! !

Cogswell !

F !

! !

Elliott

! ! !

! !

¡ ® ! Sargent

! !

¡ ¿ ¡ » !

Edinburg

! !

! ! ! ! Mountain

Pembina

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! Sharon

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ ¿

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Oriska ¡ ¿

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

¡ ¿ ! ! ! !

! ! Walhalla

Fort Ransom

! ! !

! ! ! ! Kathryn

! ! ! ! ó õ

! ¡ ¬

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! Niagara

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ Í

! !

! ! l m

! !

! ! !

! !!

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! Sibley

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Aneta !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ ¿ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ¡ ¿

! Petersburg

! ! !

¡ ì

! ! ! !

! ! ! Verona

! !

F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Re Route F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 !

! !

Milton !

! !

# !

! ! Lankin ¡ Ì

! !

! ! Luverne

Adams

! ! !

! !

Walsh !

! !!

! !

Ludden !

! !

¡ ¢

! !

! ! Valley City Valley

¡ ¢ !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ¡ º

! # #

! !

! ! # # ! #

! !

! ! !

Osnabrock

! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ Ì !

! !

! ! ! ¡ ¢

¡ Â !

! Cooperstown

¡ Ü !

Mc Ville !

Hannaford

! !

¡ ¦ ! # # # # # # Rogers

! !

Dazey !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Oakes

! !

! ! Michigan ¡ ¢

! ! !

¡ ¢

! ! !

! !

Fairdale

! !

! ! F ¡ Û Nelson

! !

! ! ! !

! !

Lamoure

! !

Litchville !

¡ ¢

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! Leal

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! !! Marion

! !

Binford

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lakota

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Barnes

! ! !

¡ ¢ !

! ! !

! Brocket

¡ ¬

! !

¡ ¢

! ! ! Lawton

Langdon !

! ¡ ¢

! ! ! Nekoma

! ! !

! ! ! # #

# ! Fullerton

! Sanborn

! !

! ¡ ¢ ¡ ®

! !

! ! ! ¡ °

¡ ¢ ! !

Griggs !

!! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ¡ ¢

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Tolna ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ ª ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! Wimbledon

Pekin !

Edmore ! !

! !

! ! ! !

Dickey

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # Berlin

! ! ó õ

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! Ellendale

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

Loma ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

v w

! !

Glenfield !

Courtenay

! ! j

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

l m !

Montpelier !

! # # #

! ! Monango Mc Henry

! ! !

! !

Wales

! !

Spiritwood Spiritwood Lake !

¡ ´ !

¡ ´

! !

¡ ´ !

!! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! F

Crary !

! ! ! ! ¡ Ü

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

Hampden

! ! ! v w

! !

¡ ì

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Jamestown

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! !

Hannah

! !

Edgeley ! !

Alsen

! !

Cavalier !

! !

Warwick

! !

¡ ´

! ! ! !

! ! !! !! Kensal

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! !

v w !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! # # #

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Forbes !

! !

! ! ! ! ¡ ¬

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! F

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ¡ ´

! !

Ramsey ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! # #

! ! # !

! ! ! ! Dickey

! !

! ! !

! !! !

Munich

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! Devils Lake Devils

! !

! ! !

! !

!! !

! Starkweather

! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

¡ ° ! ¡ ´ Jud

! !

! ¡ ®

! ! !

! ! ! l p

! ! ! Pingree

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

¡ ´ ! Calvin

Grace Grace City !

Kulm

ó õ !

! Calio ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ¡ ´

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! ¡ ª ¡ Í

! ! !

! !

! # # #

! !

! ! !

! Foster

! !

¡ ´

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ Õ ! ! ! ! LaMoure

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

F ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! Eddy ! !

! !

¡ Ü

¡ Ö

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Sarles

¡ ³ !! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ ì

! !

! Buchanan

l m

! ! ! !

! ! ¡ ¦

! !

Egeland !

! !

!! !

Fredonia ! l p

! ! Carrington

Sheyenne

! ! Cleveland

! New Rockford

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! Gackle

! !

v w

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! # # #

! !

Maza

! !

¡ Õ ! !

! ! ! Churchs Ferry

Cando !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! v w

! !

! ! Minnewaukan Rocklake

! ! v w

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! # # #

! ! Stutsman

! ! !

Towner !

! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

¡ °

! !

¡ Í !

! ! ! !

! ! Oberon

! !

v w

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ¡ Á

! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! Brinsmade

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! v w

Medina !

! ! Woodworth

! !

Hansboro !

! ! !

Lehr

! !

! ! !

! # #

# !

! Bisbee

! !

! ! Ashley !

! ! ! ¡ ½

! ! !

Sykeston ! ¡ ½

! !

! ¡ ¥

! ! Cathay ¡ ³

! !

! ! Leeds

! !

! ! !

¡ £

! !

! ! ! !

McIntosh !

! Perth

! !

! # #

# ! ¡ ½

! ¡ Ã !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

¡ Ü

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ £

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! Hamberg

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! F

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! Maddock

¡ ® ! !

Streeter

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !! ¡ ½

York ! ! ! !

! Pettibone

! !

! ! ! !

¡ ½

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! # # #

Rolla ! ! ¡ Á

! ! ! ! ¡ £

Mylo ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Fessenden !

! !

! ! Logan

! ! ! !

¡ ½ ! !

! ! !

Venturia

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! #

# !

! l p

! ! # # # Tappen

! ! ! !

Knox !

! !

¡ ½ !

Wolford

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Bowdon

! ! !

! !

! ! Esmond

! !

¡ ¬ !

Wishek

! ! !

Napoleon

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! Robinson

! !

Benson ! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

¡ ì

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! StJohn ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ £ Rolette

! ! !

! ¡ £

ó õ ! ! ! Belcourt

! ! !

! !

! ! !

vey

v w

! ! !

! ! ! ! Zeeland

! ! ! !

! !

! # # !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! Dawson

! ! ! !

! ! ! Wells

Kidder !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

Har ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Rolette ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !

! !

¡ Ü

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Rugby

! !

! ! ! !

Hurdsfield

! !

! ! ¡ £

Pierce !

! ! ! ¡ £ #

# # !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ £

! !

! # # F

! ! ! ! ! # #

Hague !

¡ £

! !

! ! ! Dunseith

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

v w !

! !

! ! !

¡ £ ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ¡ Á !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

¡ ® !

! !

Tuttle !

Steele

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

Martin ! ! !

¡ ³ !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Braddock !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ¡ ¦

Goodrich

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! l s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Balta

! !

¡ Ã ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l m ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

Strasburg

! !

Overly

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! Anamoose

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Emmons

! !

! ! ! !

Willow City

! ! ! ! Linton

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

¡ Ê !

¡ ¯ ! !

Wing

! !

! ! !

! ! Hazelton

! !

! # # #

! !

! ¡ Ù

! !

l p ! ¡ ¯

! !

! l s

Drake !

! !

! ! ! Bottineau

Towner ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ¡ ® # # #

! ! ! #

# # ! !

! !

¡ ¯

! ! !

Gardena

! ! !

! !

Kief ! # # #

! Mc Clusky

! !

Balfour

! !

! ! ! !

! ! Regan

! ! Sheridan

¡ Ã !

¡ ¯ !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! Bantry

! !

! ! !

j !

Q !

! !

¡ ¯ ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! í î ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ¡ ¦

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

l p

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! F

! !

! ! ! ! !

Burleigh !

! !

! í î

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Fort Yates Fort

Kramer ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Upham ! ! !

! ! Bergen

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Karlsruhe

í ï

! ! Mercer

! !

! Butte ! !

! ! Souris

! ! !

! McHenry ! ! ¡ ¸

! ! ! !

Lincoln !

! ! ! F !

¡ Ò ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

¡ È

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Wilton

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ¡ ¸

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! Solen

! ! ¡ ¦ !

! !

l s ! ! Voltaire

# # # !

! # !

! ! ! !

! !

Landa ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Newburg ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! F

! !

Bismarck !

Bottineau

! ! ! !

! ¡ §

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! Turtle Lake Velva !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! Ruso !

Granville ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! í î ¡ È

! !

¡ È !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ¡ È

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! Selfridge !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # #

# ! !

¡ § ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! l s !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ó õ

! ! ! !

Deering

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

í ï

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ¡ § ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! # # !

! #

! ! ! Washburn ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! F ! ! !

! ! !

l m ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! í ð

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! Maxbass !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ ¹ !

! ! ! !

Mandan

! !

Surrey

! ! ! ! ! ! Underwood

! l s

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ¡ Ò

! !

Benedict

! !

! l p

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ¡ µ ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! Glenburn

! !

Westhope

! !

! ! ! ! !

Sawyer

! !

! ! !

! # #

# !

! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! Coleharbor Antler

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

Sioux ! !

! !

! ! !

# ! !

! !

Minot

! !

! í ð ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Max

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ó ù ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! l s

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! l s

Morton !

Center !

! ! ! !

¡ Ï ! !!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! Flasher

! ! !

! !

# # ! !

# !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ¡ Ï

F ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

# #

! !

! ! !

! !

! Stanton ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! Riverdale

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !!

! ! New Salem

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ¡ ¾ ó õ

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ¡ ¾

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Mohall ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! # #

Burlington ! ! Lansford !

! !

! ! !

! ¡ ¾

! ¡ · !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ¡ ¾

! !

! ! ! ! Garrison Loraine

! !

! ! ! !

! !

¡ Ä

! ! !

! !

! # #

# #

! !

! ! F

! ! !

! !

! ! ! Almont

! !

Sherwood ! !

! !

! ! !

ó õ

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! l p !

Douglas

! !

F ! ! ! ckCity

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

McLean !

! !

Grano ! !

! ¡ ¼ !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !! l m Ward

! Pi

! !

! ! !

! ! Oliver ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! Ryder

! ! !

! !

Carpio ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Leith

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Carson

! !

¡ ¼

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

í ï

! !

! ¡ ¼

Des Des Lacs

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! Hazen

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

¡ ¼ !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

F !

! ! !

! !

Tolley !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Beulah

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! Makoti ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! Grant

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Renville

! ! ! ¡ µ

! !

! ! ¡ ¦ ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

¡ Ð

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! #

! !

! ! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

Glen Ullin Glen

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ó õ !

! ! !

Berthold ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

¡ Ä !

! ! ! !

! ¡ · !

# #

! !

! ! ! !

Plaza

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡ Ð

! ! ! !

! !

! Zap ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! í î ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! F

! !

Kenmare !

! !

! ! l p ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Elgin

! ! !

! !

! New Leipzig

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

# ! # ! !

# !

! l m

! !

! ! !

Mercer ! ! ! !

! ! ¡ Ð

! Hebron

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Donnybrook

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

Parshall !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Bowbells !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ Ä ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

# # ! #

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ¡ Ñ !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! Palermo !

l p !

! ! ! ! !

! !

¡ © !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! Dodge

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! Valley Golden !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! # # ! ! # #

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

anley

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ¡ © !

! ! !

! ¡ ©

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

Halliday

! !

! ! !

! Richardton

! !

¡ © ! ! !

! !

! ! Mott

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! Flaxton

! ! ¡ ©

¡ ©

! ! !

ATTACHMENT A # ! # #

CurrentSection Locations

! ! ! ! # #

! !

! ! ! F ! ! !

! !

Portal

! !

! ! ! ! !

Adams # # !

# !

! ! Hettinger

! ! ! ! Mountrail

! Lignite

! !

! ! ! l p

! !

¡ Ñ ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ¡ ©

! !

! ! #

# #

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! Taylor ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! ¡ æ !

! ó õ

! ! l o

! ! !

Haynes

! ! ! !

Burke ! !

! j

Q ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

New Town New ! !

! ! !

Ross !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

Powers Lake !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ¡ ©

! ! !

! ! ! !

¡ ¦ ! í î !

¡ ·

! !

Regent !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

Dunn ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

l m

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! Dunn Center !

! ! !

! White Earth !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

¡ Ç

Gladstone

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ ¶

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! Killdeer

! ¡ µ

! !

Columbus !

Manning

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ¡ © !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! #

# #

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ¡ Ç

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! Dickinson

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # # # ! ! #

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ¡ ß !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ¡ ¶

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! í ï

¡ ¶

! !

! ¡ ¶ ! !

! #

# !

Bucyrus

! !

¡ Ç !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

New England

! !

! # ! #

! !

! ! ! !

¡ Ç ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ · !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! Hettinger

! ! !

Noonan !

! !

Tioga !

! ! !

! !

! ¡ ¶

¡ Ñ !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ó õ

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

Stark ! Wildrose

! !

! ! ! !

Ray ! ¡ ·

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! Reeder

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ¡ ¶

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ¡ µ

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! F

! ! !

! ! ¡ ¦

! !

South HeartSouth !

! !

! ! l o

! !

! ! !

Crosby

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! í ï !

! ! ! !

! !

Belfield !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ¡ Ý

! ¡ É

! ! l m

! Watford City Watford # #

! !

! ! !

! !

l t

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! Gascoyne

! ! !

Epping !

! ! ! l t

l t !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

# ! # # !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

Ambrose !

! ! # ! #

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! Alamo !

! !

Spring BrookSpring ! ! ! ¡ É

! !

í î

! !

! Williams ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! Divide

Scranton !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! Amidon

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

¡ Ñ !

l t !

! !

! ! !

l t !

! !

! Billings

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

l t !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! l t

! !

! ! Medora

! !

l m

! ! Arnegard

! ! # #

# !

Alexander

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! # #

! Fortuna !

! !

l t !

McKenzie !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ¡ Þ ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

l t ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! Bowman

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! Rhame

! ! Williston

! !

! ! !

Slope

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

¡ Ñ ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! j

! Q

! ! ! Grenora

! !

ó õ

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ¡ ¦

! !

! ! !

! ! í î

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! l m ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Sentinel Butte Sentinel

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! l o !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ¡ ± ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ¡ Þ

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! Marmarth ! !

! ! ¡ ×

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Beach

! !

Golva

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Bowman

! ! !

! !

! ! Golden Valley !

! !

¡ ± ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

# # #

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! lt É¡ Ø¡ Maintenance Ç¡ lp ls Westhope ²¡ *# ¦¡ ##Y ©¡ Ê¡ *¦¡ ¦¡ óù ¯¡ ½¡ ¥¡ ´¡ ¢¡ PEMBINA QP Section CROSBY ¼¡ BOTTINEAU vw ¿¡ æ¡ lp FBOTTINEAU #Y TOWNER DIVIDE RENVILLE *# CAVALIER CAVALIER ¦¡ lr BOWBELLS #Y MOHALL ¦¡ ¦¡ *##Y LANGDON #Y lt É¡ Ç¡ *# ¦¡ vw ROLLA ¦¡ *# Material Site BURKE ¦¡ ##Y ½¡ *##Y ¦¡ * £¡ ROLETTE vw F ©¡ ´¡ lr QP *#KENMARE Ü¡ ¿¡ ²¡ Level of Ñ¡ lp Ù¡ Ü¡ Ü¡ Ü¡ Ü¡ Ñ¡ Ñ¡ Ç¡ ¼¡ Ü¡*# DRAYTON Ñ¡ Ñ¡ Service CANDO ¢¡ GRAFTON Ç¡ ls ì¡ *##Y ì¡ ADAMS WILLIAMS ¯¡ ¿¡ *##Y TIOGA *# ì¡ 1 TOWNER RUGBY ì¡ ì¡ *# Berthold ¼¡ vw lm lp *#Y WALSH *##Y lm Leeds lm lm *##Y lm lm 2 STANLEY F MINOT F ´¡ RAMSEY ¢¡ lr #Y lm Ó¡ WILLISTON MOUNTRAIL *# £¡ ½¡ Â¡ ²¡ lm *##Y íî MCHENRY vw lm ¿¡ 3 íî ©¡ WARD È¡ DEVILS LAKE BENSON *##Y lp ³¡ LAKOTA ¯¡ PIERCE MINNEWAUKAN íî #Y íï ls *#VELVA ³¡ ´¡ lm #Y GRAND FORKS 4 lt PARSHALL ³¡ *# lm GRAND FORKS íï ·¡ *# Ö¡ MICHIGAN ×¡ *# ·¡ ·¡ lp Drake *# vw ¢¡ lm lm *##Y NEW TOWN È¡ MADDOCK NELSON *# 5 õó ·¡ ¶¡ lp £¡ ´¡ LARIMORE lr Ä¡ FUS 83 RP 178 F ½¡ ¿¡ ²¡ lt *##Y ·¡ ß¡ ¼¡ Ò¡ Ò¡ °¡ HARVEY *# °¡ 6 WATFORD CITY NEW Þ¡ *# PEKIN °¡ Þ¡ Ä¡ ROCKFORD GARRISON MCKENZIE #Y °¡ QP íî Ä¡*# È¡ ¯¡ #Y °¡ EDDY ¢¡ ²¡ F Buxton MCLEAN SHERIDAN £¡ WELLS Ì¡ ¿¡ Û¡ ¶¡ Ï¡ lp vw ´¡ #Y óõ ²¡ óõ ©¡ UNDERWOOD Hurdsfield ½¡ FOSTER FINLEY lt DUNN #Y ¢¡ Ì¡ HILLSBORO íï óõ *# *##Y TRAILL *# óõ *##Y óõ óõ ¢¡ óõ STEELE ²¡ *##Y KILLDEER Halliday MC CLUSKY óõ CARRINGTON COOPERS- F GRIGGS TOWN íð óõ óõ *# MERCER óõ íð È¡ lp ´¡ ±¡ óõ F ND 200 & ND 200A ls ¾¡#Y STANTON WASHBURN ª¡ óõ #Y ¢¡ ¿¡ MANNING *# F Å¡ #Y COURTENAY íð Wilton BEULAH ¾¡ Ï¡ F º¡ Å¡ CASS QP ¶¡ CENTER F Ã¡ Ã¡ Ã¡ GOLDEN lt ©¡ *##Y lp ´¡ ª¡ ¿¡ ²¡ VALLEY Buchanon ¬ BILLINGS Ð¡ OLIVER F Oriska ¯¡ £¡ Buffalo BEACH Qj ¾¡ ¹¡ íî ¢¡ ##Y MEDORA BURLEIGH KIDDER STUTSMAN VALLEY CITY * #Y DICKINSON New Salem ls MEDINA #Y lr RICHARDTON West Mandan íï #Y *# F F Qj #Y #Y FARGO *# *##Y Sterling *# Qj *# WEST *#Qj ±¡ Qj *# BISMARCK *# CASSELTON BELFIELD *##Y JAMESTOWN BARNES ¿¡ FARGO *# F F #Y Qj ²¡ STARK MANDAN *##Y F STEELE vw ¢¡ lt GLEN ULLIN ½¡ Leonard ¶¡ Ð¡ MORTON US 281 & ND 46 LITCHVILLE ©¡ GACKLE £¡ Í¡ Í¡ F Í¡ §¡ Í¡ Í¡ F F íï sl ND 34 & ND 30 FÕ¡ AMIDON ¿¡ µ¡ FLASHER Á¡ #Y #Y Á¡ HETTINGER Elgin # LISBON Á¡ *NAPOLEON F #Y »¡ QP SLOPE CARSON *# µ¡ Cannon Ball íî LAMOURE »¡ *# RICHLAND µ¡ MOTT #Y LOGAN RANSOM µ¡ EDGELEY Mooreton *##Y £¡ ½¡ #Y ²¡ lt Ý¡ ©¡ F ¸¡F ®¡ *# ®¡ ¿¡ WYNDMERE West Linton Kulm ¢¡ Gwinner óö LAMOURE *# F ®¡*##Y WAHPETON lo LINTON ®¡ ®¡ #Y ¶¡ GRANT *# ®¡ *# ®¡ vw ®¡ #Y F F Hankinson BOWMAN *# Reeder §¡ ¸¡ WISHEK óô ©¡ Ð¡ ¾¡ EMMONS OAKES FORMAN QP MCINTOSH Õ¡ #Y BOWMAN lo DICKEY *# ¬¡ F ADAMS ND 11 & ND 56 *# ¬¡ *# ¬¡ ¬¡ lt HETTINGER SIOUX #Y £¡ F ASHLEY ELLENDALE SARGENT LIDGERWOOD ¶¡ *# FORT West Hague £¡#Y ¬¡ ¿¡ ²¡ *##Y íî ¬¡ *# F *##Y ¬¡ ©¡ lo SELFRIDGE §¡ YATES Fls £¡ vw ¢¡ STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA PREPARED BY THE

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTACHMENT B MAINTENANCE DIVISION Date Saved: 8/31/2018 Level of Service (LOS) F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Report Maps\Level of Service (LOS).mxd $77$&+0(17&

ATTACHMENT C Legend Ø¡ lt É¡ Crosby *# Maintenance Section ¦¡ *# Ç¡ lp ©¡ ls Ê¡ ²¡ ¦¡ ¦¡ óù ¯¡ ½¡Rolla ¥¡ ´¡ ¢¡ QP æ¡ ¼¡ Bottineau vw ¿¡ *# Potential Added Bowbellslp *# Cavalier lr lt *# Mohall ¦¡ ¦¡ *# Langdon ¦¡ Section É¡ Ç¡ ¦¡ vw ¦¡ ¦¡ *# ¦¡ *# £¡ ½¡ *# Kenmare vw ´¡ lr QP *# Potential Consolidation ©¡ *# Ü¡ ¿¡ ²¡ Section Ñ¡ Ù¡ Ü¡ Ü¡ Drayton Ñ¡ Ñ¡ lp Ü¡ Ü¡ Ü¡ *# Ç¡ Ñ¡ ¼¡ Ñ¡ Cando ¢¡ Grafton Ç¡ ls ì¡ *# ì¡ Adams Park River Tioga ¯¡ ¿¡ ì¡ *# *# *# ì¡ *# ¼¡ Towner Rugby vw ì¡ lm Stanley lp *# lm *# lm lm *# lm lm ´¡ ¢¡ lr Williston Minot Ó¡ *# lm £¡ ½¡ Â¡ ²¡ lm *# íî vw lmDevils Lake ¿¡ íî ©¡ È¡ lp ¯¡ ³¡ *# íî Velva Michigan íï ls # ³¡ ´¡ lm lt New Town Parshall * Maddock *# lm Grand Forks íï ·¡ ³¡ Larimore ×¡ *# *# ·¡ ·¡ lp *# vw Ö¡ lm lm *# È¡ ¢¡ *# õó ·¡ ¶¡ lp £¡ ´¡ lr Watford City Ä¡ ¿¡ ²¡ lt ½¡ Pekin *# ·¡ ß¡ ¼¡ Ò¡ Ò¡ Harvey °¡*# °¡ °¡ Þ¡ Þ¡ Ä¡ *# Garrison °¡ QP íî Ä¡*# È¡ ¯¡ °¡ ¢¡ ²¡ £¡ Ì¡ ¿¡ lp vw Û¡ óõ ²¡ óõ ¶¡ ©¡ Ï¡Underwood Mc Clusky ½¡ Carrington ´¡ Cooperstown lt íï óõ *# ¢¡ *#Ì¡ Hillsboro *# óõ óõ *# óõ óõ ¢¡ óõ ²¡ *# Killdeer óõ óõ *# óõ íð È¡ lp ´¡ íð ±¡ óõ ¾¡ ls ª¡ Beulahóõ ¢¡ ¿¡ *# íð Tex t Å¡ ¾¡ Ï¡ º¡ Center Ã¡ Å¡ QP lt ¶¡ ©¡ *# Ã¡ Ã¡ lp ´¡ ª¡ ¿¡ ²¡ Ð¡ Beach ¯¡ £¡ ¢¡ Qj ¾¡ ¹¡ íî Valley City *# Belfield Dickinson Jamestown Casselton Fargolr Richardton íï ls Medina *# *# *# Steele #* Qj *# Qj *#Qj ±¡ Qj *# Glen Ullin *# ¬ *# Bismarck Qj *# ¿¡ ²¡ *# ¢¡ lt ½¡ vw ¶¡ Ð¡ ©¡ £¡ Í¡ Í¡ Í¡ §¡ Í¡ Í¡ íï sl Õ¡ µ¡ Napoleon Á¡ ¿¡ Flasher # Á¡ Lisbon µ¡ íî Á¡ * »¡ *# »¡ QP µ¡ Mott *# *# µ¡ Edgeley ²¡ lt Ý¡ ©¡ ¸¡ £¡ ½¡ ®¡ *# ®¡ ¿¡ Wyndmere Wahpeton ¢¡ ®¡*#óö lo Linton Wishek ®¡ *# Bowman ¶¡ ®¡ # ®¡ *# *# ®¡ * vw ®¡ ©¡ Ð¡ §¡ ¸¡ Oakes QP óô lo ¾¡ Õ¡ *# Forman Lidgerwood ¬¡ *# ¬¡ *# ¬¡ ¬¡ lt Hettinger Selfridge £¡ Ashley ¶¡ Ellendale ²¡ *# *# íî ¬¡ £¡*# ¬¡ *# ¬¡ ¿¡ ©¡ lo §¡ ls £¡ vw ¢¡

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ATTACHMENT D PREPARED BY THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE DIVISION C2Logix - Run 3 Date Saved: 8/31/2018 Path: F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Report Maps\C2Logix - Run 3.mxd Annual Average Daily Traffic (2015) $77$&+0(17( NECHE lt ¡É PORTAL ¡ØPEMBINA FORTUNA SHERWOOD ST JOHN AMBROSE HANNAH ¡Ç lp ANTLER ls HANSBORO WALHALLA ¡² LARSON COLUMBUS FLAXTON ¡© ¡¦ ¡Ê SARLES WALES PEMBINA BATHGATE ¡¦ WESTHOPE LANDA SOURIS ¡½ ¡¥ ¡¦ LORAINE óù ¡¯ vw ¡´ ¡¢ PQ NOONAN ¡¼ BELCOURT ¡¿ ¡æ LIGNITE TOWNER CALVIN DIVIDE lp BOTTINEAU CAVALIER RENVILLE ROCKLAKE ¡¦ lr lt ¡É ¡¦ ¡¦ ¡¦ DUNSEITH vw HAMILTON ¡Ç BURKE MOHALL ¡¦ ¡¦ ¡¦ MAXBASS ¡½ MOUNTAIN HENSEL ¡£ ROLETTE PERTH NEWBURG GARDENA vw PQ KENMARE TOLLEY KRAMER ¡´MUNICH OSNABROCK lr GRENORA WILDROSE ¡© RUSSELL OVERLY ROLETTE ¡¿ ¡² ST THOMAS LANSFORD ¡Ü EGELAND CALIO ALSEN LOMA MYLO BISBEE CRYSTAL ¡Ñ ALAMO GRANO ¡Ù ¡Ü lp ¡Ü ¡Ü ¡Ü MILTON ¡Ñ ¡Ñ UPHAM WILLOW NEKOMA ¡Ü ¡Ç ¡¼ CITY DRAYTON ¡Ñ HAMPDEN POWERS LAKE ¡Ñ EDINBURG HOOPLE BANTRY FAIRDALE GRAFTON WOLFORD ¡¢ ¡Ç DONNYBROOK ls GLENBURN ¡ì WILLIAMS ¡ì STARKWEATHER ¡¯ ADAMS ¡¿PARK RIVER TIOGA CARPIO ¡ì WHITE EARTH DEERING ¡ì ¡ì RAY vw EDMORE ¡¼ MAZA PALERMO PISEK lm ROSS lp KNOX WALSH lm YORK LAWTON MINTO EPPING lm lm lm BURLINGTON LEEDS lm CHURCHS FERRY LANKIN FOREST BERTHOLD GRANVILLE CONWAY SURREY RAMSEY RIVER lr SPRING BROOK ¡´ ¡¢ ARDOCH BROCKET FORDVILLE ¡Ó WILLISTON DES LACS lm ¡£ ¡½ BRINSMADE ¡Â MOUNTRAIL MCHENRY vw lm ¡¿ ¡² lm íî MINOT BALTA WARD DEVILS LAKE GILBY íî ¡È INKSTER ¡© lp BENSON ¡³ ¡¯ CRARY MANVEL íî KARLSRUHE PIERCE VELVA PETERSBURG PLAZA ls SAWYER ¡³ ¡´ lm NIAGARA íï VOLTAIRE lt lm GRAND FORKS GRAND FORKS íï ¡· BERGEN ¡³ ESMOND MICHIGAN ¡· ¡· MADDOCK vw ¡Ö lm ¡× NEW TOWN PARSHALL lp lm DRAKE ¡¢ EMERADO MAKOTI ¡È BALFOUR ¡´ NELSON LARIMORE óõ ALEXANDER ANAMOOSE lr ¡· ¡¶ RYDER lp ¡£ OBERON DOUGLAS WARWICK ¡¿ ARNEGARD ¡Ä BENEDICT RUSO KIEF TOLNA ¡² BUTTE MARTIN ¡½ THOMPSON SHEYENNE lt ¡· ¡¼ MAX ¡Ò ¡ß ¡Ò ¡° MC VILLE ¡° ¡Þ HARVEY HAMBERG PEKIN ¡° ¡Þ ¡Ä NORTHWOOD REYNOLDS ANETA GARRISON ¡° HATTON PQ MCKENZIE BUXTON íî ¡Ä ¡È ¡¯ ¡° EDDY ¡¢ SHARON ¡² SHERIDAN ¡£ WELLS BINFORD MCLEAN COLEHARBOR MC HENRY ¡Ì ¡¿ CATHAY GRACE CITY ¡Û óõ MAYVILLE RIVERDALE lp vw óõ ¡¶ PICK CITY ¡Ï ¡´ ¡² ¡© MERCER FOSTER PORTLAND TURTLE LAKE GOODRICH ¡½ lt BOWDON GLENFIELD ¡¢ ¡Ì DUNN íï óõ TRAILL UNDERWOOD óõ ¡¢ óõ

(14) óõ óõ óõ SYKESTON STEELE ¡² KILLDEER CLIFFORD HURDSFIELD DUNN CENTER óõ HALLIDAY óõ GRIGGS íð óõ MERCER íð ¡È lp ¡´ HOPE ¡± óõ DODGE HAZEN ls ¡ª HANNAFORD ¡¾ LUVERNE GALESBURG óõ KENSAL ¡¿ GRANDIN ¡¢ HUNTER GOLDEN VALLEY ZAP BEULAH COURTENAY íð DAZEY SIBLEY PAGE GARDNER PINGREE ¡º PILLSBURY ¡¾ ¡Ï ARTHUR REGAN WIMBLEDON WING TUTTLE ROBINSON ¡Å PQ ¡¶ WILTON ¡Ã ¡Ã ¡Ã WOODWORTH LEAL ARGUSVILLE GOLDEN lt ¡© lp ¡´ ¡ª ¡¿ AYR ¡² PETTIBONE ROGERS VALLEY ¡Ð AMENIA BILLINGS OLIVER BUCHANAN CASS HARWOOD ¡¯ ¡£ SPIRITWOOD LAKE ¡¢ VALLEY CITY REILE'S ¡¹ TOWER NORTH RIVER Qj ¡¾ íî ORISKA ACRES KIDDER STUTSMAN SANBORN CITY BUFFALO BURLEIGH MAPLETON lr SENTINEL BUTTE DICKINSON TAYLOR ls CASSELTON HEBRON íï FARGO RICHARDTON MEDINA CLEVELAND Qj BELFIELD Qj Qj WEST Qj ¡± SOUTH HEART BISMARCK JAMESTOWN PRAIRIE ROSE GLADSTONE TAPPEN BARNES ¡¿ FARGO FRONTIER DAWSON NEW SALEM Qj ALICE ¡² HORACE BRIARWOOD STARK GLEN ULLIN MANDAN FINGAL GOLVA ¡¢ ALMONT ¡½ vw DAVENPORT lt LINCOLN MONTPELIER KATHRYN ¡¶ ¡Ð MORTON LEONARD KINDRED OXBOW LITCHVILLE ENDERLIN ¡© ¡£ STREETER NOME ¡Í ¡Í ¡Í GACKLE ¡Í ¡Í ¡§ íï ls MARION SHELDON CHRISTINE BRADDOCK ¡Õ DICKEY WALCOTT ¡µ NEW ENGLAND FORT RANSOM ¡¿ ¡Á JUD ¡Á ABERCROMBIE COLFAX SLOPE HETTINGER ¡Á ¡» PQ REGENT ¡µ íî HAZELTON LAMOURE ¡» ¡µ FLASHER LOGAN ELLIOTT RANSOM RICHLAND ¡µ EDGELEY BERLIN VERONA ¡² lt ¡© ELGIN ¡¸ ¡£ ¡½ DWIGHT ¡Ý NEW LEIPZIG LEITH ¡® ¡¿ MOORETON SOLEN ¡® ¡¢ FREDONIA WYNDMERE óö WAHPETON KULM ¡® lo RHAME ¡® WISHEK MILNOR ¡® BARNEY ¡¶ ¡® LEHR ¡® GRANT ¡® vw GWINNER MANTADOR GREAT ¡§ FULLERTON ¡© ¡Ð ¡¸ EMMONS BEND óô GASCOYNE COGSWELL PQ SCRANTON ¡¾ STRASBURG MONANGO LIDGERWOOD lo MCINTOSH ¡Õ OAKES ¡¬ CAYUGA FAIRMOUNT BOWMAN REEDER DICKEY ¡¬ ADAMS ¡£ ¡¬ ¡¬ lt SIOUX RUTLAND HANKINSON BUCYRUS SELFRIDGE SARGENT ¡¶ HAGUE ¡¬ ¡£ ¡¬ ¡¬ ¡¿ ¡² íî LUDDEN HAVANA ¡© lo ¡§ ZEELAND VENTURIA ¡£ FORBES ¡¢ HAYNES ls vw

Planning & Asset Management Division Notes: - Data from 2015 highway components segments. Annual Average Daily Traffic Traffic Data Section - The AADT for longer sections are an average of the traffic 1 - 349 2000 - 3999 December 2015 segments. - Data for the four lane roadways are AADT for both directions 350 - 749 4000 - 6999 (either north and south or east and west). 750 - 1999 7000 and greater ® Cities Portal Neche Pembina Ambrose 126 Hannah 371 592 Antler 26 Sherwood 15 2010 Population Fortuna Hansboro Sarles Walhalla Crosby 242 27 St John 22 12 28 996 #1070 Columbus 341 Bathgate * Noonan Flaxton Westhope Souris Wales & 4 - 999 133 Lignite Landa 121 66 429 58 31 43 155 Loraine 38 BelcourtRolla Calvin 9 *#1280 20 Hamilton 2078 Bowbells Bottineau# Cavalier 61 * Dunseith *#336 2211 Rocklake 1302 773 # Langdon * Mohall 101 *# *#1878 To ll ey 783 Maxbass 47 Newburg Perth Mountain Hensel 1000 - 9999 84 9 45 Kenmare 110 Kramer Gardena Overly Munich Osnabrock 92 29 134 & Grenora Wildrose 1096# 29 Rolette 210 St Thomas * 18 Milton 244 Calio Alsen Loma 110 Lansford 594 Mylo Bisbee Egeland 58 Crystal 331 Alamo Grano 22 35 16 245 Willow City 20 126 28 138 Drayton 57 7 Nekoma *# Powers Lake Upham 163 824 50 Hoople 280 130 Hampden 242 48 Edinburg Donnybrook Glenburn Fairdale Bantry Wolford 196 59 380 Cando 38 14 36 *#1115 Starkweather Grafton Carpio Adams *# 117 4284 Tioga 157 Edmore *#127 Park*# River *#1230 White Earth Deering 182 1403 Maza Ray 80 98 Rugby 592 Palermo # Lankin 10000 - 29999 2876* To w ner Knox Pisek Ross Stanley 74 # * Minto Berthold 533 25 Yo rk Lawton 98 106 Epping 97 #1458 * 604 Spring Brook100 454 23 Leeds 30 & Burlington Churchs Ferry Conway 27 Des Lacs Granville 427 1060 241 12 Fordville 23 Forest RiverArdoch 204 Minot Surrey Brocket 212 125 67 40888*# 934 57 Williston*# Brinsmade Inkster 14716 Balta 35 50 65 *#Devils Lake Gilby Manvel 7141 Sawyer Karlsruhe 237 360 Minnewaukan Crary 357 82 Velva 224 142 Lakota Esmond MichiganPetersburg Plaza *#1084 672 Niagara Vo lt ai re *#294 171 100 192 New Town 40 Bergen 53 1925 7 Grand Forks *# Parshall Makoti Maddock*# Emerado *# *# Balfour 52838 903 154 382 Larimore 414 Ryder Oberon # 26 * Drake 1346 85 105 Alexander 275 Anamoose Warwick 223 Douglas Kief 227 Arnegard 65 To lna Watford City 64 Benedict Ruso Butte 13 Sheyenne 115 Max Martin 166 Thompson 30000 - 59999 *#1766 66 4 68 204 Pekin 334 75 986 *#70 Mc Ville Northwood Harvey Hamberg 349 1783# 945 * 21 Reynolds & Aneta New Rockford 301 222 Hatton 1391 Garrison Fessenden 777 Buxton *#1453 479 Sharon 323 96 Mc Henry Binford Grace City 56 Cathay 183 Coleharbor 43 63 Finley PortlandMayville Pick City 79 Tu rt le Lak e 445 6061858 Riverdale 123 581 Mercer Mc Clusky 205 Goodrich Bowdon Sykeston Glenfield Underwood 94 *#380 Carrington Cooperstown *# Hillsboro *# 98 Hurdsfield 131 117 *# 91 984 778 2065 # *1603 84 Killdeer Clifford 751 Dunn Center Halliday *# Hope 44 146 188 Hannaford Stanton 258 Dodge Kensal 131 Golden Valley Hazen Galesburg 87 Zap 366 Washburn 163 Luverne Grandin 182 2411 108 237 Beulah 1246 31 173 Manning #3121 Hunter * Courtenay Sibley Pillsbury 74 45 261 Dazey 30 12 Gardner Wimbledon 104 Page Pingree 232 74 Wilton Regan 60 216 Arthur Wing Tu tt le Robinson Woodworth 711 43 337 Center 152 80 37 Pettibone 50 Leal Argusville 60000 - 105549 *#571 70 Buchanan Spiritwood Lake 20 Rogers 475 90 90 46 Ayr 17 Amenia 94 Harwood 718North River Reile's Acres56 Beach Sentinel Butte Sanborn & Oriska *#1019 Medora Valley City To w er C it yBuffalo Casselton 513 56 192 Mapleton 112 118 253 188 West FargoFargo Jamestown 6585 2329 762 Belfield Ta yl or Hebron *# 25830 105549 Dickinson Medina Cleveland 15427 # *# Richardton *# * *#800 South Heart 148 747 Tappen *# 17787 Gladstone *#529 Dawson 308 83 Prairie Rose 301 # * Frontier Steele 197 239 New Salem 61 Briarwood73 *#715 214 Glen Ullin 946 Mandan Horace 73 #807 18331Bismarck * Alice Fingal Golva 61272*# 2430 40 61 Lincoln 97 Davenport Almont 2406 252 Oxbow 122 Montpelier Kathryn Nome 305 Leonard Kindred 87 52 62 Litchville 223 692 Level of Service Streeter 172 Enderlin 170 886 Gackle Marion Sheldon Christine 310 133 116 Walcott 150 1 235 New England Braddock Dickey 600 21 Jud Fort Ransom 42 Colfax Amidon 72 77 2 Napoleon 121 Abercrombie 20 Hazelton *#792 Lisbon 263 235 Flasher *#2154 3 Regent *#232 Elliott Carson 160 25 Elgin 293 New Leipzig Berlin Verona #Mott 642 Solen Lamoure * 34 4 600 Leith Edgeley 85 Dwight 721 83 # 889 Marmarth * 16 Fredonia 563 82 136 BarneyMooreton Wahpeton 46 Kulm Wyndmere# * 7766 Milnor 197 *# 52 Lehr 354 5 Rhame 653 429 Linton Wishek 80 Gwinner 169 1097*# *#1002 753 Bowman Mantador 6 *# Scranton 64 Great Bend 1650 Monango 281 Fullerton 60 36 54 Oakes 1856 Cogswell Forman Reeder Strasburg # Lidgerwood Hankinson Gascoyne * 99 504 Cayuga Fairmount 162 409 # 919 * 652 16 27 *# 367 Bucyrus Fort Yates Rutland 27 184 163 Selfridge Ashley Hague Ludden Hettinger #160 Ellendale *# * *#749 71 Venturia *# 23 1226 Haynes 1394 Havana Zeeland 10 23 71 86 Forbes 53 ¬

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ATTACHMENT F PREPARED BY THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Population Density MAINTENANCE DIVISION Date Saved: 8/27/2018 Path: F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Report Maps\Population Density.mxd Y#Portal Y#Neche #Pembina 6 6 Ambrose Hannah YØ¡ lt É¡Y# Antler Y# Sherwood Y# 3 3 Hansboro Sarles 12 Fortuna 6 7 7 Y# 24 St John Walhalla 14 Y# 8 Crosby Ç¡ lp 7 ls Y# Y# Y# ²¡ Y# ©¡ Y# Maintenance Section ¦¡ 15 10 11 12 Ê¡ 15 14 Bathgate # Noonan Y# Flaxton 10 17 * 8 Westhope Souris Wales # Y# Lignite Y# # Landa ¥¡ Y# *¦¡ Columbus Y Y# # ½¡ Y ¦¡ Y# 7 óù Y# ¯¡ 10 ´¡ ¢¡ QP Crosby 16¼¡ Loraine 10 vw 11 13 Y# 16 Belcourt Rolla Calvin ¿¡ æ¡ 10 Y# Y# Y# 17 4 5 Hamilton 4 lp 8 7 Y# Bowbells10 17 14 Bottineau # Cavalier lr * Y# Potential Added Section Dunseith ¦¡ Y# Y# Y# 15 12 10 # *# Rocklake * lt ¦¡ ¦¡ 20 3 24 É¡ # 18 ¦¡ vw Rolla Y# 22 Langdon * 3 Bottineau Ç¡ Mohall15 9 13 21 ¦¡ Y# # 23 * 17 Y# 14 ¦¡ 23 Bowbells ¦¡ Tol le y ½¡ 6 # 6 # * * 13 23 Y# Maxbass Newburg £¡9 Perth CavalierHensel 14 Y# # vw Langdon Mountain9 Y# QP Y# 17 Gardena Y 11 ´¡ 9 Y# lr Potential Consolidation Section Kenmare Mohall Kramer Y# Osnabrock # Overly Munich * ©¡ Y# Y# 20 9 Y# Grenora Wildrose Y# Rolette Y# ¿¡ ²¡ St Thomas Y# 20 Y# Ü¡ Y# 23 Milton # # 2 17 Calio Alsen Loma Y# 8 Y * Mylo Lansford 18 Bisbee Egeland # Y# Y# 211Crystal Ñ¡ Alamo 11 Grano Y# Ù¡ Y# Y# Y# Y Ü¡ Ü¡ Y# 3 18 7 lp # Ü¡ Ü¡ 2 12 Drayton Y# 20 Y Willow City 22 Y# Assisted Living Ñ¡ 23 Y# 12 Nekoma Ü¡ Ñ¡ Powers Lake17 ¼¡ Upham Y# # Ç¡ 30 * Y# 21 Y# 12 Hoople Ñ¡ 10 Hampden Y# 37 Y# Drayton11 Ñ¡ 15 16 Edinburg Quick Response Units Donnybrook Glenburn 38 Fairdale Y# 13 11 16 Y# Y# Bantry Wolford Cando 15 ¢¡ Y# 16 Ç¡ ls Y# ì¡ Y# Y# 14 ì¡ Starkweather Grafton 15 Carpio # 5# 10 10 2 * Y Adams ¿¡ # ¯¡23 Y# Skilled Nursing Homes Y 11 24 Edmore 12 Y# Park River # ì¡ Cando 12 * Tioga # Y# Y #Y# 1 White Earth ì¡ # * Deering *ì¡ 14 Y# Y# 11 32 Ray *# ¼¡ vwMaza Starkweather 9 Rugby Y# Y# Tioga 26 Palermo lp #Y 16 Park River 16 15 lm Y# Tow ne r 22 Knox Lankin Pisek Ambulance Service Stanley Y# lm *# Y# Y# Y# Minto # Berthold10 19 Lawton # 7 Epping Y Y# # Yor k # Y # * Y lm Y# lm lm Y 4 Rugby Y# Spring Brook Ross# lm Leeds 21 * 32 Y# Y# Burlington Churchs Ferry Conway 13 Y# Granville Towner Y# lr Stanley Des Lacs 17 Y# 24 ´¡ Y# Forest River Y# 12 ¢¡27 27 27 Fordville Ardoch 70 Minot Surrey Brocket #Y Y# Y# 7 Y# Y# Ó¡ Trauma Centers 2 26 13 lm £¡ ½¡ Y# Â¡ 12 3 Williston # 23 17 Brinsmadevw 23 ¿¡ ²¡Inkster 9 * # lm lm *#Y# íî Balta Y 11 Y# 12 Minot # Y 20 31 Williston North íî ©¡ È¡13 27 Devils Lake Gilby Manvel 16 2 lp 22 ³¡ #Y# Y# Y# Karlsruhe¯¡ * 16 # 3 Minnewaukan Crary íî Y Y# 21 12 Devils Lake West Y# 11 Hospitals 6 Sawyer Velva Y# 5 Lakota ls Y# Esmond ³¡ ´¡ Y# Michigan 5 Plaza Devils Lake East lm Y# íï #Y Voltaire Y# 11 Y# Niagara #4 Y# 26 10 6 PetersburgY# * Bergen lm lt 7 *# 19 New Town7 # ³¡ 13 Y# 18 Y 25 íï ·¡ Makoti Michigan Grand Forks Parshall Velva 14 Maddock Ö¡ Emerado Y# 11 # 10 Y# ·¡ Y# ·¡ Balfour Y# vw 13 lm Level of Service * Y# 26 # 25 lm * ×¡ 9 21 lp Y# *# 28 18 Larimore # 17 ¢¡ * Oberon New Town Ryder 12 Drake10 21 Y# Grand Forks Y# # 30 Y# # Parshall È¡ Y * õó 15 11 Maddock ´¡ lr Alexander ·¡ 16 4 £¡ Larimore 11 1 5 Y# ¶¡ 16 lp Anamoose 14 19 Y# Warwick ¿¡ Douglas Kief Y# 13 Ä¡ Y# 28 Y# 18 4 3 Ruso Butte ½¡ Sheyenne Tol na ²¡ Y# Watford City 13 12 17 Benedict Martin Y# Y# Max Y# Y# Y# 18 Y# Thompson ltArnegard 3 ·¡ ¼¡ Y# 1 Ò¡ Y# Pekin 19 Y# 2 # ß¡ Ò¡ °¡ Y# °¡ * Mc Ville 8 6 5 21 13 17 Northwood 17 Harvey Hamberg *# Y# 20 Y# Y# 11 Þ¡ Watford City West Y# °¡ Ä¡ 12 # 8 16 3 * Reynolds Þ¡ 7 Harvey 15 Aneta Y# 17 8 New Rockford Y# Y# °¡ Hatton 21 25 17 10 Y# 19QP Garrison18 24 Fessenden6 4 14 3 Buxton 4 íî Y# È¡ ¯¡ Y# °¡ ¢¡ Sharon13 Y# Ä¡*# 16 Y# ²¡ 28 Mc Henry 15 37 £¡ Y# Binford9 Ì¡ ¿¡ 5 Garrison 12 21 Fessenden13 Cathay Grace City Y# 11 18 Y# 14 Y# Finley 11 Coleharbor Û¡ óõ PortlandMayville 32 Y# lp 13 vw Y# Y# Y# ¶¡ Pick City16Ï¡ Turtle Lake ´¡ 7 ²¡ óõ ©¡10 Y# Y# 9 5 7 Y#Riverdale 8 Mercer Mc Clusky 16 ½¡ 10 6 4 Y# 9 ¢¡ lt 4 9 13 Y# Goodrich Bowdon Sykeston 26 Glenfield12 6 Ì¡Cooperstown Finley 62 óõ Underwood Y# Y# # Carrington Y# Hillsboro 42 íï Y# 2 Y Y# *# Hurdsfield 15 Y# óõ ¢¡*# óõ Mayville Y# # óõ Y# 10 óõ 14 9 ²¡ * 14 *# 3 óõ 15 # 9 Cooperstown * 8 Mc Clusky 9 8 Killdeer Carrington Clifford Hillsboro Y# 20 Underwood óõ Halliday óõ19 12 11 È¡ Y# íð óõ Y#Dunn Center Y# íð lp 23 ´¡ Hope 20 *# 17 Hannaford Y# óõ 2 ±¡ Dodge Stanton ls 25 18Y# 9 Y# 14 Y# ª¡ Kensal Galesburg Golden Valley Hazen ¾¡ 24 Y# # Killdeer Y# Zap Y# Washburn Y Grandin Y# Luverne 9 Y# óõ Beulah Y# 21 12 Y# ¿¡ 27 Y# 3 8 7 ¢¡ Manning 5 Courtenay Sibley Å¡ Hunter Y# Pillsbury # 15 Y# Y# # Y# * Y íð Dazey Beulah 9 Y# 21 Page Gardner Wimbledon º¡ Y# Y# 32 Ï¡ Pingree Y# 34 ¾¡ 9 Wilton Regan Y# Courtenay 6 Arthur Y# Y# Wing 15 Tuttle Robinson Woodworth 2 Y# 19 23 26 Å¡ Y# QP 30 Y# Y# Y# Pettibone Leal 20 6 Center Ã¡ Ã¡ Ã¡ # 35 ¶¡ Y# 12 12 31 Y# Y 36 Argusville lt lp ´¡ Rogers ²¡ Y# ©¡32 Buchanan21 Spiritwoodª¡ Lake Y# ¿¡ Ayr # Y# # * # Y 23 30 Y Amenia Ð¡ 29 20 13 Y# Harwood Center East Y# ¯¡ £¡ North River 2 17 21 20 ¢¡ Y# Qj ¾¡ ¹¡ íî Reile's Acres Beach Sentinel Butte Sanborn Y# Y# Y# Medora Oriska Buffalo Y# Va ll ey C i ty Y# Casselton 26 Y# Y# Y# 12 Y# Mapleton lrFargo # ls 5 Y# Y# 18 West Fargo * Jamestown 16 19 Tower City # Y# Belfield 23 Tayl or Hebron íï Y# 25 14 Y Y# Dickinson Y# Richardton Y# Medina Cleveland Qj 14 South Heart # 20 # Beach Y # * 15 Y# 8 Tapp en Y Y# Qj # # Gladstone 25 * # * 17 # Qj Y * # 18 # * Y# Qj 7 Y # * Valley City West # Y ±¡ # New Salem 3 23 Steele Y# 30 FargoFrontier * Dawson # # # Prairie RoseY Belfield Y * Dickinson Y# Jamestown Casselton Briarwood Glen Ullin Mandan 6 ¿¡ Y# 20 Y# # Medina Horace # * 20 Y Bismarck Qj ²¡ Y# 6 Y# Fingal Alice Golva 26 # Steele 17 Y# * Y# # Y 26 #Lincoln 18 ¢¡ Davenport ¬ Glen Ullin * 17 Y# vw 20 18 Y# lt Almont ½¡ Oxbow Y# Bismarck Montpelier Y# # Kathryn Nome Kindred ¶¡ Ð¡ Y Y# Y# Leonard 15 Litchville 21 Y# 5 Y# ©¡ £¡ Streeter 30 Y# 13 6 Enderlin Í¡ 32 25 26 Y# 10 21 Y# Í¡ 24 Gackle Marion Í¡ Christine Y# Sheldon 35 Í¡ Í¡ Y# Y# Y# §¡ 7 Walcott íï sl 8 Litchville 13 13 Y# 4 New England 50 Braddock 12 Y# Y# GackleÕ¡ Dickey 13 Fort Ransom 12 Jud Y# Y# 25 µ¡ 19 Y# ¿¡ Colfax Amidon Y# Y# Napoleon 1 Á¡ 19 Abercrombie 40 Hazelton 26 Y# Á¡ 26 Y# 9 New 8England 19 Y# Lisbon Flasher Á¡ *# Y# »¡ QP Y# »¡ 21 Regent 13 µ¡ íî 16 Elliott*# # 19 13 Y Carson # Y# * 7 27 µ¡ Elgin 14 Y# 5 Y# 15 17 Berlin Verona Lisbon 8 Mott 17 New Leipzig µ¡ Solen 17 Y# 11 Y# Y# Flasher Y# Lamoure Y# Leith ½¡ Edgeley 19 # ²¡ Dwight # 18£¡ Y# Y lt * 7 # Marmarth Ý¡ ©¡ Y# ¸¡ ®¡ Y Y# 24 21 Fredonia ®¡ # ¿¡ Wahpeton Mott * ¢¡ 15 Y# 15 Barney 10 óöY# Kulm 10 WyndmereY# Y# Y# Milnor # Mooreton ®¡ Edgeley # #Y Lehr Y * # 7 * Rhame 23 13 # 14 lo # 33 Linton Wishek Y 1 ®¡ Y 21 Y# 10 21 Gwinner ®¡ 23 Y# 13 Y# 25 Wahpeton ¶¡ 26 ®¡ ®¡ 13 ®¡ *#11 26 Mantador 15 15 Bowman *# vw 8 Y# Y# 35 Y# Wishek Monango 13 Great Bend *# Scranton §¡ ¸¡ Y# Fullerton óô Linton 9 Y# ©¡ Ð¡ 17 20 Y# Oakes QP 10 30 ¾¡ 28 19 Y# Cogswell Forman Bowman Y# Reeder4 Y# Hankinson # Y#Strasburg Õ¡ Y# 1 Lidgerwood Gascoynelo Y # ¬¡ 23 Cayuga Y# 15 Y# 10 * Y# Y# Bucyrus Fort Yates 22 *# Rutland ¬¡ 3 ¬¡ ¬¡Fairmount2 # # Y# Y# Y * lt £¡ Oakes10 16 13 6 10 Selfridge 9 Ashley 22 21 18 Ludden Hankinson 8 8 Y# Hague 27 8 Y# 8 ¶¡ Hettinger Y# £¡ ¬¡ Ellendale Y# ²¡9 12 Y# *# ¬¡ Venturia Y# ¬¡ ¿¡ # 5 6 * # Haynes * íî Y# *# Havana 6 Hettinger©¡4 Y# 6 Zeeland £¡ 5 Y# lo Selfridge§¡ ls Y# 7 Forbes vw ¢¡ Y#

STATE OF ATTACHMENT G NORTH DAKOTA 0212.5 550 PREPARED BY THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Public Health Care Facilities Miles MAINTENANCE DIVISION Date Saved: 8/31/2018 Path: F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Report Maps\Public Health Care Facilities.mxd Higher Education Portal Neche Pembina Y# Y# # 6 6 Ambrose Hannah YØ¡ lt É¡Y# Antler Y# Sherwood Fortuna Y# 3 3 Hansboro Sarles 12 6 8 7 7 7 Y# 24 St John Y# Walhalla 14 Y# Crosby Ç¡ lp ls # Y# Y# ²¡ Y# ©¡ Ê¡ Y ND Schools ¦¡ 15 Noonan 10 Y# 11 Flaxton 12 10 15 14 Bathgate 8 Crosby Westhope Souris Wales 17 Y# ¦¡ Y# Columbus Lignite Y# Y# Landa Y# ¯¡ ½¡ ¥¡ Y# ¦¡ Y# 7 óù Y# vw 10 ´¡ ¢¡ QP 16¼¡ Loraine 16 10 Rolla 11 Calvin ¿¡ 13 Y# Belcourt # æ¡ 10 Y# Y Y# 17 4 5 Hamilton 4 Sections lp 8 7 Cavalier Y# Bowbells10 17 14 Bottineau # Y# lr Dunseith * Y# BottineauY# ¦¡ 10 lt ¦¡ ¦¡ Y# Rocklake 15 20 3 12 24 É¡ # 18 ¦¡ vw Rolla Y# 22 Langdon * 3 Ç¡ Mohall15 9 13 21 ¦¡ Y# # 23 * 17 Y# ¦¡ Maintenance Section ¦¡ ½¡14 6 Langdon # 23 Tol le y * Bowbells 6 # * 13 23 Y# Maxbass £¡ Perth CavalierHensel 14 Y# Newburg 9 vw Mountain # Y# 17 Gardena Y# 11 ´¡ 9 Y#9 Y lr QP Kenmare Mohall Kramer Y# Overly Munich Osnabrock ©¡ Y# Y# 20 9 # Y# Grenora Wildrose Y# Rolette Y ¿¡ ²¡ St Thomas Y# # 23 Milton 20 Y # Ü¡ Y# 2 17 Calio Alsen Loma Y# 8 Y# * Mylo Lansford 18 Bisbee Egeland # Y# Y# 2 11 Crystal Potential Added Section Ñ¡ Alamo 11 Grano Y# Ù¡ Y# Y# Y# Y Ü¡ Ü¡ Y# 3 # 7 12 * 18 lp Y# Ü¡ Ü¡ 2 Drayton Y# 20 Willow City 22 Y# Ñ¡ 23 Y# 12 Nekoma Ü¡ Ñ¡ Powers Lake 17 Upham Y# Drayton Ç¡ Y# ¼¡ Y# 30 Hoople Ñ¡ 21 10 12 Hampden Y# 37 Y# 11 Ñ¡ 15 16 Edinburg Donnybrook Glenburn 38 Fairdale Y# 13 11 Potential Consolidation Section Y# Y# Bantry Wolford Cando Y# # 15 ¢¡ * 16 16 Ç¡ ls Y# ì¡ Y# Y# 15 14 Cando ì¡ 5Starkweather 10 Grafton10 2 Carpio ¯¡23 Y# Adams ¿¡ Y# Y# 11 24 Edmore 12 Y# 12 Park River # ì¡ Starkweather * Tioga Y# #Y# Y# * 1 Level of Service White Earth Deering ì¡ *#ì¡ 14 32 Tioga Y# Y# vwMaza 11 Ray ¼¡9 Rugby Y# Y# 26 Palermo Y# 16 16 15 lm Y# lp Tow ne r Rugby 22 Knox Lankin Pisek Ross Stanley Y# lm Y# Y# Y# Minto 1 Berthold10 19 Lawton Y# 7 Epping Y# Y# # Yor k Y# lm # * Y# lm Y 4 Y# lm Spring Brook Stanley lm Leeds 21 Y# 32 Burlington Y# Churchs Ferry Conway 13 Y# Granville Towner Y# Des Lacs 17 Y# 24 ´¡ #Y lr Y# ¢¡ 27 27 Fordville Forest RiverArdoch Minot Surrey 12 Brocket27 Y# Y# Y# 2 7 70 Y# Y# # Ó¡ 2 26 13 lm £¡ ½¡ Y Â¡ 12 3 Williston Minot 23 17 Brinsmadevw lm23 ¿¡ ²¡Inkster 9 lm *#Y# íî Balta Y# 11 Y# 12 Y# 3 20 31 Williston North íî ©¡ È¡13 27 Devils Lake Gilby Manvel 16 2 lp 22 ³¡Devils LakeY# West Y# Y# 16 Karlsruhe¯¡ Crary íî Y# Y# 21 12 3 Minnewaukan # Y# 11 # * 6 Sawyer Velva Y 5 Lakota 4 ls Y# Esmond ³¡ ´¡ lm Y# Michigan 5 íï Plaza Y# Devils Lake East Y# Y# Niagara #Y Voltaire 11 26 # *#4 Y# Bergen 10 Michigan6 Petersburglm Y lt 7 19 New Town7 18 Y# ³¡ 13 Y# 25 Grand Forks íï ·¡ Parshall Makoti 14 Maddock Ö¡ 5 New Town ·¡ Y# Velva vw 13 Emerado Y# 26 11 10 Y# ·¡ Balfour Y# lm lm Y# Grand Forks ×¡ 9 Parshall 21 25 lp Y# *# 28 18 Larimore Ryder 17 10 21 Oberon ¢¡ Y# Y# 12 Drake 30 Y# Larimore õó 11 È¡ Y# Maddock ´¡ lr Alexander ·¡15 16 4 £¡ 11 5 # ¶¡ 16 lp Anamoose 14 6 19 Y Y# Warwick ¿¡ Douglas Kief # 13 Y# 28 Y# Y 18 4 3 Ä¡ Ruso Butte ½¡ Sheyenne Tol na ²¡ Y# Watford City 13 12 17 Benedict Martin Y# Y# Max Y# Y# Y# 18 Y# Thompson ltArnegard 3 ·¡ ¼¡ Y# 1 Ò¡ Y# Pekin 19 Y# # ß¡ Ò¡ °¡Y# °¡ * Mc Ville 8 6 5 21 13 17 Northwood 17 Harvey Hamberg # Y# * # 20 Y# Y 11 Þ¡ Watford City West Harvey Y# °¡ Ä¡ 12 8 16 Reynolds Þ¡ 7 15 Aneta Y# 17 8 New Rockford Y# Y# °¡ Hatton 21 25 17 10 Y# QP Garrison18 24 Fessenden6 4 14 3 19 Buxton íî Y# È¡ ¯¡ Y# °¡ ¢¡ Sharon13 Y# Ä¡*# Fessenden 16 Y# ²¡ 28 Mc Henry 15 37 £¡ Y# Binford9 Ì¡ ¿¡ Garrison 12 21 13 Cathay 14 Grace City Y# 11 18 Y# Y# Û¡ Finley PortlandMayville 11 Y#Coleharbor lp 13 vw Y# óõ Y# Y# 32 ¶¡ Pick City Ï¡ Turtle Lake ´¡ 7 Finley ²¡ óõ ©¡10 Y# 16 Y# 9 5 7 Y#Riverdale 8 Mercer Mc Clusky 16 ½¡ Mayville 10 lt 4 Y# 13 Y# 9 Bowdon Glenfield ¢¡ Ì¡ 4 9 Y#Goodrich Sykeston 26 12 6 Cooperstown 62 42 íï óõ Underwood Y# Y# Carrington Y# Y# Hillsboro Y# *# 2 Hurdsfield 15 Y# óõ Cooperstown óõ Y# # óõ Y# 10 Carrington óõ ¢¡ 14 9 ²¡ * 14 óõ 3 15 Hillsboro 9 Killdeer 8 Mc Clusky 9 8 Y# 20 Underwood Clifford óõ Halliday óõ19 12 11 È¡ Y# íð óõ Y#Dunn Center Y# íð lp 23 ´¡ Hope 20 *# óõ 17 Hannaford Y# 2 ±¡ Dodge Stanton ls 25 18Y# Y# 14 Y# ª¡ Kensal Galesburg 9 Golden Valley Hazen ¾¡ 24 Y# # Killdeer # Zap # Washburn Y Grandin Y Y# Y Luverne 9 Y# óõ Beulah Y# 21 12 Y# ¿¡ 27 Y# 3 8 7 ¢¡ Manning 5 Courtenay Sibley PillsburyÅ¡ Hunter Y# Beulah 15 Y# Y# # Y# íð Dazey Y Courtenay Y# 21 Gardner 9 Page Y# Pingree Wimbledon º¡ Y# 32 Ï¡ # Y# 34 ¾¡ Wilton Regan Y Arthur ¬ 9 Y# Y# Wing 15 Robinson Woodworth 6 Tuttle Y# 23 26 Y# QP 30 2 Y# Y# Y# Pettibone 19 Leal 20 Å¡ 6 Center Ã¡ Ã¡ Ã¡ Y# 35 ¶¡ Y# 12 12 31 Y# 36 Argusville lp ´¡ Rogers ²¡ Y# lt ©¡32 Buchanan21 Spiritwoodª¡ Lake Y# ¿¡ Ayr # # Y# Y# * Y 23 30 Amenia Ð¡ 29 20 13 Y# Harwood Center East Y# ¯¡ £¡ North River 2 17 21 20 ¢¡ Y# Beach Qj ¾¡ ¹¡ íî Reile's Acres Sentinel Butte Sanborn Y# Y# # Oriska Buffalo Y Medora Y# Va ll ey C i ty Y# Casselton 26 Y# Y# Y# 12 Y# # ls Jamestown 5 16 Y# Y# 18 West FargolrFargo * 19 Tow er C i t y Y# Y# Belfield 23 Tayl or Hebron íï Y# 25 14 Mapleton Y# Dickinson Y# Richardton Y# Medina Cleveland Qj 14 South Heart Y# 20 Valley City West Fargo Beach 15 # Gladstone Y# 25 8 Tapp en Y# Y# Qj Belfield Y# * 17 *# Qj # 18 Y# Jamestown Y Qj 7 Steele Y# 30 Y#Frontier ±¡ *# New Salem 3 23 Dawson Medina Y# Y# Prairie Rose Dickinson Y# Casselton #Briarwood Glen Ullin Mandan 6 ¿¡ Y 20 Y# Steele 20 Horace Y# Bismarck Qj ²¡ Y# 6 # Fingal Alice Golva Glen Ullin Y 17 Y# # 26 Y# Y 26 #Lincoln 18 ¢¡ Davenport * 17 Y# vw 20 18 Y# lt Almont ½¡ Oxbow Y# Bismarck Montpelier Y# # Kathryn Nome ¶¡ Ð¡ Y Y# Y# Leonard Kindred Litchville Y# 5 Y# 15 ©¡ Streeter Y# 13 6 Enderlin21 32 25 £¡ Y# 21 30 Y# Í¡ 24 26 10 Gackle MarionLitchville Í¡ Christine Y# Í¡ Sheldon Í¡ Y# Y# Y# 35 Í¡ 7 Walcott §¡ sl 8 Gackle 13 Y# New England íï 50 Braddock 13 4 12 Y# Y# Õ¡ Dickey 13 Fort Ransom 12 Jud Y# Y# 25 µ¡ Y# ¿¡ Colfax Amidon New England 19 Y# Y# Napoleon 1 Á¡ 19 Abercrombie 40 Hazelton 26 Y# Á¡ 26 Y# 9 8 19 Y# Lisbon Flasher Á¡ *# Y# »¡ QP Y# »¡ 21 Regent 13 µ¡ íî 16 Elliott*# Y# Carson # 7 19 Y# 13 # * 5 27 µ¡ Elgin 14 Y Y# Berlin 8 Mott 17 New Leipzig Solen15 17 17 Y# 11 Verona Lisbon Y# Y# µ¡ Flasher Y# Edgeley 19 Lamoure Y# Mott Leith 18£¡ ½¡ Y# ²¡ Dwight Marmarth lt24 Ý¡ ©¡ 7 Y# ¸¡ Y# ®¡ ¿¡ Y# Y# 21 Fredonia ®¡ *# Wahpeton Y# 15 ¢¡ 15 Barney 10 # Kulm 10 WyndmereY# Y# óöY Y# Milnor Y# Mooreton ®¡ Edgeley Y# # Lehr * # 7 * Rhame 23 13 # 14 lo 33 Linton Wishek Y 1 ®¡ Y# 21 Y# 10 13 21 Gwinner 25 ¶¡ ®¡ 23 Y# ®¡ Y# Wahpeton 13 26 ®¡ Wishek11 26 ®¡ Mantador 15 15 Bowman *# vw 8 Y# Y# 35 Y# Monango 13 Great Bend *# Scranton §¡ ¸¡ Y# Fullerton óô 9 Y# ©¡ Ð¡ Linton 17 20 Y# Oakes QP 10 30 ¾¡ 28 19 Y# CogswellForman Bowman Y# 4 Strasburg Y# Y# Lidgerwood Hankinson Gascoynelo Y# Y# Õ¡ 1 23 Cayuga 15 # Reeder # ¬¡ Y# Y 10 Y# * # Y Bucyrus Fort Yates 22 *# Rutland ¬¡ 3 ¬¡ ¬¡Fairmount2 # Y# # Y Y# * £¡ Oakes10 16lt 13 Selfridge6 9 Ashley 22 21 10 Hankinson 8 Y# Hague 27 8 Y# 18 Ludden 8 8 ¶¡ Hettinger Y# £¡ Ellendale Y# ²¡9 12 HettingerY# # ¬¡ Venturia ¬¡ Y# ¬¡ ¿¡ * # 5 Haynes6 # * íî Y *# Havana 6 ©¡4 Y# 6 Zeeland 5 Y# lo Selfridge§¡ ls Y# £¡7 Forbes vw ¢¡ Y#

STATE OF ATTACHMENT H NORTH DAKOTA 0255012.5 PREPARED BY THE Miles NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ND Schools and Higher Education MAINTENANCE DIVISION Date Saved: 8/31/2018 Path: F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Report Maps\Schools.mxd *# Maintenance Section

25 Mile Radius Portal Neche Pembina AmbroseCrosby Hannah Ø¡ lt É¡ Antler Sherwood Hansboro Fortuna Ç¡ lp St John Sarles Walhalla Columbus ©¡ ls ²¡ ¦¡ # Noonan Flaxton Westhope Ê¡ Rolla Bathgate * Souris ¦¡ Lignite Landa Bottineau ¥¡ Wales ¦¡ Bowbells óù ¯¡ vw ½¡ ´¡ ¢¡ QP ¼¡ Belcourt Calvin ¿¡ Cavalier æ¡ Hamilton lp Mohall *# Langdon *# Dunseith ¦¡ lr lt *# ¦¡ ¦¡ Rocklake É¡ Ç¡ *# ¦¡ vw ¦¡ *# ¦¡ *# Kenmare ¦¡Tolley ½¡ Maxbass £¡ Perth Hensel Newburg Gardena vw Mountain lr QP Kramer Overly ´¡Munich Osnabrock Grenora ©¡ Drayton Wildrose *# Rolette Milton ¿¡ ²¡ St Thomas Ü¡ Alsen Loma Lansford Mylo Bisbee Egeland Calio Crystal Ñ¡ Alamo Grano Ù¡ Ü¡ Ü¡ lp Willow City Ü¡ Ü¡ Nekoma *# Ñ¡ Ñ¡ Powers Lake Upham Ü¡ Ç¡ ¼¡ Hoople Ñ¡ Cando Hampden Ñ¡ Edinburg Donnybrook Glenburn Fairdale Grafton Ç¡ ls Bantry ì¡ Wolford ¢¡ Adams Tioga *# ì¡ Starkweather Carpio ¯¡ ¿¡ *# Rugby Edmore *# Park River ì¡ *# White Earth Deering Towner ì¡ ì¡ Ray Stanley ¼¡ vwMaza Palermo lm lp *# Knox Lankin Pisek Ross *# lm Lawton Minto Epping lm # lm Berthold York * Leeds lm Spring Brook lm Minot Churchs Ferry Conway Des Lacs Granville lr Williston ´¡ ¢¡ Fordville Forest RiverArdoch *# Surreylm £¡ ½¡ Brocket Â¡ Ó¡ *# Minot vwBrinsmade lm ¿¡ ²¡Inkster lm íî Balta Devils Lake íî ©¡ È¡ ³¡ *# Gilby Manvel lpSawyerVelva Karlsruhe¯¡ Michigan íî Crary New Town Plaza ls EsmondMaddock³¡ ´¡ lm Petersburg Grand Forks íï Parshall *# Voltaire *# Niagara lt Bergen ³¡ lm Larimore Makoti íï ·¡ *# Ö¡ Emerado *# *# ·¡ ·¡ Balfour *# vw lm lm ×¡ Ryder lp Oberon ¢¡ õó È¡ Drake ´¡ *# lr AlexanderWatford City ·¡ ¶¡ lp Anamoose £¡ Douglas Kief Warwick Pekin ¿¡ Arnegard Ä¡ Butte Tolna ²¡ Benedict Ruso Martin ½¡ Sheyenne lt *# ·¡ ß¡ ¼¡ Max Ò¡ Harvey Thompson Ò¡ °¡*# Mc Ville °¡ Þ¡ *# Hamberg °¡ Northwood Ä¡ Reynolds Þ¡ Garrison Aneta °¡ Hatton QP Buxton íî Ä¡*# È¡ ¯¡ °¡ ¢¡ Sharon Mc Henry ²¡ £¡ Binford Cathay Grace City Ì¡ ¿¡ Mc Clusky CooperstownÛ¡ óõ PortlandMayville Underwood Turtle Lake lp vw ¶¡ ©¡ Pick CityÏ¡ Carrington ´¡ ²¡ Hillsboroóõ Riverdale Mercer ½¡ Goodrich Bowdon Glenfield ¢¡ Ì¡ lt íï óõ *# Sykeston *# Killdeer *# óõ Hurdsfieldóõ *# óõ óõ ¢¡ óõ ²¡ *# Clifford óõ Dunn Center Halliday óõ íð óõ *# íð È¡ lp ´¡ Hope ±¡ óõ Hannaford Dodge Beulah ls Kensal Galesburg Zap Hazen ¾¡ ª¡ Luverne Grandin Golden Valleyóõ ¢¡ ¿¡ *# Courtenay Sibley PillsburyÅ¡ Hunter íð Dazey Page Gardner Ï¡ Pingree Wimbledon º¡ ¾¡Center Wilton Regan Arthur Wing Tuttle Robinson Woodworth Å¡ QP Ã¡ PettiboneÃ¡ Leal ¶¡ Ã¡ Argusville ´¡ Rogers lt ©¡ *# lp Buchanan Spiritwoodª¡ Lake ¿¡ Ayr ²¡ Ð¡ Amenia Beach ¯¡ £¡ Harwood ¢¡Valley City SentinelQj Butte Dickinson ¾¡ ¹¡ íî Casselton Fargo Belfield Jamestown Sanborn Oriska Buffalo *# Richardton Medina Mapleton ls Tower City lr Taylor ¬ Hebron íï Steele *# Cleveland *# # Qj *# South Heart * # Tappen * Gladstone Glen Ullin *# Qj Qj *# Dawson *# Qj ±¡ New Salem Bismarck Prairie Rose Frontier Mandan # * ¿¡ Briarwood Horace Qj Alice ²¡ *# Fingal Golva *# vw ¢¡ Davenport lt Almont ½¡ Oxbow Montpelier Kathryn Nome Leonard Kindred ¶¡ Ð¡ Litchville ©¡ £¡ Streeter Enderlin Í¡ Gackle Í¡ Í¡ Marion Í¡ Sheldon Christine §¡ Í¡ Walcott New England íï sl Braddock Õ¡ Dickey Napoleon Jud Fort Ransom µ¡ Lisbon¿¡ Colfax Flasher Á¡ Abercrombie Hazelton Á¡ Mott Á¡ *# *# »¡ QP Regent *# µ¡ íî Edgeley »¡Elliott Elgin µ¡ Berlin *# New Leipzig µ¡ Solen Verona Wyndmere Wahpeton Leith ½¡ ²¡ Marmarth lt Ý¡ ©¡ ¸¡ £¡ *# ®¡ Fredonia ®¡ ¿¡ Dwight ¢¡ Barney Wishek Kulm # Mooreton óö Linton Milnor * *# Lehr ®¡ lo RhameBowman ®¡ ¶¡ ®¡ *# ®¡ Gwinner # ®¡ Mantador * ®¡ vw Oakes Great Bend *# Monango Scranton Ð¡ §¡ ¸¡ Fullerton Forman Lidgerwood óô Gascoyne ©¡ QP ¾¡ Cogswell Reeder Strasburg # Hankinson Õ¡ * Fairmount lo ¬¡ *# Cayuga Bucyrus Selfridge Rutland¬¡ *# ¬¡ lt Hettinger £¡ Ashley Ellendale ¬¡ Ludden ¶¡ *# Hague £¡# ¬¡ ²¡ *# ¬¡ Venturia * *# ¬¡ ¿¡ Haynes íî Havana Zeeland ©¡ lo §¡ ls £¡ Forbes vw ¢¡

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA $77$&+0(17,NDDOT Section Locations PREPARED BY THE NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE DIVISION 25 Mile Radius Map Date Saved: 8/29/2018 Path: F:\MAINT\GIS\Section_Efficiency\2017-2018 Route Optimization\Report Maps\SectionLocations_CropCircles.mxd ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT J

The optimization study model created uniform plowing cycles based on levels of service across the state. The table below shows optimization cycles with existing similar plowing cycles per day.

Average Cycles/Day* Optimization NDDOT District: Existing Cycles Optimization Run 3 Run 3 Average Levels of Service (LOS) Average Cycles FINAL Cycles FINAL Bismarck: 1 5.9 Bismarck: 2, 3 & 4 3.2 3.4 3.6 Bismarck: 5 & 6 2.9 Valley City: 1 - Valley City: 2, 3 & 4 3.7 3.4 3.1 Valley City: 5 & 6 2.6 Devils Lake: 1 - Devils Lake: 2, 3 & 4 4.1 3.5 3.2 Devils Lake: 5 & 6 2.7 Minot: 1 6.1 Minot: 2, 3 & 4 3.5 3.6 3.5 Minot: 5 & 6 2.9 Dickinson: 1 - Dickinson: 2, 3 & 4 3.7 3.5 3.3 Dickinson: 5 & 6 2.7 Grand Forks: 1 6.1 Grand Forks: 2, 3 & 4 3.4 3.6 3.5 Grand Forks: 5 & 6 2.9 Williston: 1 - Williston: 2, 3 & 4 4.3 3.6 3.4 Williston: 5 & 6 2.7 Fargo: 1 5.0 Fargo: 2, 3 & 4 3.4 3.4 3.7 Fargo: 5 & 6 2.9 $77$&+0(17.

ATTACHMENT L

2018

NDDOT Public Survey on Snow and Ice Control

Overview

The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) conducted a Public Survey on Snow and Ice Control to learn what level of snow and ice control services were acceptable on ND highways. The survey comprised of 43 questions and was conducted online as well as distributed in paper format at a couple of local public events in May. There were a total of 1,189 responses. The results from the first question indicated that the majority of drivers are satisfied with their current level of service. Questions 2 & 3 compared the service provided and service expected on Interstate four-lane versus Non-Interstate four-lane. The results indicated that the majority of drivers currently saw more service provided to the Interstate than Non-Interstate. The results also indicated that the majority of drivers expected that service provided should be the same for all four-lane roads, whether they are Interstate or Non-Interstate. In regard to NDDOT’s hours of operations the majority of survey respondents wanted no change to the plow start or stop times. The survey results support the idea that the traveling public has become accustom to NDDOT’s hours of operations. This is shown in the results of questions 4-8 as well as the Acceptability of Road Conditions questions. In general, the traveling public is more accepting of poor road conditions at 6 a.m. and less accepting of poor road conditions by 10 a.m. The traveling public generally knows the NDDOT is not a 24/7 operation and understand it will take some time in the morning hours to catch up with what snow fell over the night hours. Expectations through the evening hours are generally consistent. With plow crews finishing their operations around 5-7 p.m. nightly, the general public seems to understand there will not be significant improvements in road conditions between 8-10 p.m., hence their expectations remaining the same for the 8-10 p.m. time period. For questions addressing roadways with snow covered and compacted snow, the survey results show drivers on 2-lane roads are less accepting of snow covered roads than four-lane roads. In other words, survey respondents expect 2-lane roads to be plowed more often than four-lane roads. The NDDOT plans to obtain additional public feedback on snow and ice control by conducting focus groups across the state next year.

1. How satisfied are you with the service currently provided by NDDOT snow and ice control efforts for each type of state maintained rural highway listed below, not including local, city, or county road?

Overall, relatively high satisfaction with 4-lane efforts (both interstate and non-interstate). Satisfaction drops with rural 2-lane but remains higher in more “urban” counties like Cass and Burleigh.

Note: There were no submissions from Kidder County

1 NOTE: There were no submissions from Kidder County 2

2. Do you currently see the same service provided on Interstate 4-lane (I-29, I-94) as on Non- Interstate 4-lane (US-2, US-83)?

Respondents currently feel that more service is provided to interstate than non-interstate but think it should be equal.

Current Service Provided on Interstate 4-lane vs. Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

48% 46% 49% 46% 36% 30% 32% 29% 29% 23% 23% 21% 15% 17% 13% 10% 8% 10% 6% 8%

Same on Interstate as Non- More on Interstate than Non- Not Applicable, I don’t drive on Less on Interstate than Non- Interstate Interstate both types of these roads Interstate

3. Would you expect to see the same service provided on Interstate 4-lane (I-29, I-94) as on Non-Interstate 4-lane (US-2, US-83)?

Expected Servcie on Interstate 4-lane vs. Non-interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

74% 69% 67% 66% 55%

35% 28% 25% 20% 16% 10% 6% 7% 6% 5% 4% 1% 1% 3% 2%

Same on Interstate as Non- More on Interstate than Non- Not Applicable, I don’t drive on Less on Interstate than Non- Interstate Interstate both types of these roads Interstate

4. Snow plow drivers are typically out plowing roads from 5am – 7pm during winter storm events. Choose your level of satisfaction with the current hours of plowing for each type of state maintained rural highway listed below, not including local, city, or county roads.

Satisfied with current plowing hours:  86% Interstate 4-lane  82% Non-interstate 4-lane  72% Rural 2-lane

Current Satisfaction with Plowing Hours Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

57% 55% 50% 53% 53% 35% 34% 33% 31% 33%

14% 7% 9% 8% 10% 8% 2% 3% 1% 4%

Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Current Satisfaction with Plowing Hours Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

57% 58% 58% 56% 50%

30% 31% 24% 23% 26% 18% 16% 12% 14% 9% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3%

Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Current Satisfaction with Plowing Hours Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

56% 51% 50% 44% 46%

27% 27% 22% 23% 19% 20% 19% 18% 22% 20% 13% 6% 6% 5% 7%

Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

5. Should snow plow drivers change when they start plowing in the morning? Currently the plowing starts at 5am.

Three in four respondents say no change.

Change Plowing Start Time Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

82% 80% 76% 74% 72%

27% 25% 23% 19% 17%

1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Start plowing earlier No change Start plowing later

Change Plowing Start Time Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

85% 79% 77% 78% 70%

29% 20% 21% 21% 14% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

Start plowing earlier No change Start plowing later

Change Plowing Start Time Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

76% 78% 74% 69% 72%

28% 26% 22% 21% 24%

3% 2% 1% 2% 2%

Start plowing earlier No change Start plowing later

If you answered to change the time earlier or later, then please specify what time should plowing start.

When Plowing Should Start Interstate 4-lane

29% 21% 16% 11% 9% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 9:00 24/7 When Before Sunrise As After When N/A snow rush needed rush snow begins ends

When Plowing Should Start Non-Interstate 4-lane

26% 23% 18% 8% 8% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 1%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 9:00 24/7 Before When Before As As able When N/A snow snow rush needed snow begins begins begins ends

When Plowing Should Start Rural 2-lane

27% 23% 19% 6% 5% 7% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%

0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 20:00 24/7 As able As Before When When N/A needed rush snow snow begins begins ends

6. Should snow plow drivers change when they stop plowing at night? Currently the plowing stops at 7pm.

More than one in four respondents say to extend plowing hours.

Change Plowing Stop Time Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

73% 67% 65% 63% 61%

37% 31% 34% 32% 25%

2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Stop plowing earlier No change Extend plowing hours later

Change Plowing Stop Time Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

77% 73% 66% 69% 61%

36% 30% 26% 28% 21%

3% 4% 2% 1% 3%

Stop plowing earlier No change Extend plowing hours later

Change Plowing Stop Time Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

76% 70% 73% 71% 65%

31% 26% 25% 26% 21%

4% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Stop plowing earlier No change Extend plowing hours later

If you answered to change the time earlier or later, please specify what time should plowing stop:

When Plowing Should Stop Interstate 4-lane

17% 15% 20% 18% 3% 1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 10% 3% 7% 2% 2% 0.4%

When Plowing Should Stop Non-Interstate 4-lane

17% 16% 19% 18% 2% 0.4% 1% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 9% 3% 7% 3% 3% 0.4% 0.4%

When Plowing Should Stop Rural 2-lane

18% 22% 19% 10% 14% 3% 2% 0.5% 1% 1% 0.5% 2% 4% 2% 3%

0:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 24/7 As able As Sundown N/A needed

7. Should the same hours of plowing be provided on weekdays and weekends?

Over 80% say same to use the same hours on weekdays as weekends.

Weekday vs. Weekend Plowing Hours Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

88% 86% 86% 83% 86%

17% 13% 12% 12% 13% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%

Less on weekdays than weekends Same on weekdays as weekends More on weekdays than weekends

Weekday vs. Weekend Plowing Hours Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

84% 86% 86% 82% 84%

16% 16% 11% 13% 14% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2%

Less on weekdays than weekends Same on weekdays as weekends More on weekdays than weekends

Weekday vs. Weekend Plowing Hours Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE Total

85% 80% 81% 79% 81%

25% 24% 25% 19% 21% 13% 14% 16% 8% 3%

Less on weekdays than weekends Same on weekdays as weekends More on weekdays than weekends

The next set of questions pertain to an Interstate 4-Lane Highway, not including local, city, or county roads (example: I-29, I-94). If you do not drive on the Interstate you can skip this section. Interstate 4-Lane (example: I-29, I-94) - Snow Covered and Compacted

8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34. For the road condition shown above, if this 3 to 4-inch snowfall ended at 3am in the morning, and the wind had died down, how acceptable would this road condition be at: 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35. For the road condition shown above, if this 3 to 4-inch snowfall ended at 6pm in the evening, and the wind had died down, how acceptable would this road condition be at:

Very little difference between ‘bare between wheel paths’ and ‘fully bare.’ Acceptability of Road Conditions

Acceptability of Road Conditions Interstate 4-Lane

Snow covered and compacted 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered Bare Bettween the Wheel Paths Fully Bare 93% 94% 92% 93% 91% 87% 90% 89% 78% 76% 69% 71% 63% 65% 57% 52% 47% 45%

25% 28%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 13

Acceptability of Road Conditions Non-Interstate 4-lane

Snow covered and compacted 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered Bare Bettween the Wheel Paths Fully Bare 93% 93% 91% 92% 91% 86% 90% 88% 77% 77% 71% 71% 65% 65% 57% 51% 50% 50% 46%

26%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Road Conditions Rural 2-lane

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 98% 97% 95% 93% 97% 97% 89% 92%

61% 54% 49% 44% 39% 36% 33%

17%

Snow covered and compacted 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Bare Bettween the Wheel Paths Fully Bare

Interstate 4-lane by Driver Type

Acceptability of Snow covered and compacted Interstate 4-Lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

64% 59% 64% 57% 55% 59% 53% 51% 45% 46% 51% 51% 46% 46% 40% 38% 22% 23% 27% 27%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Farmers slightly more accepting of snow-covered roads on interstate

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Interstate 4-Lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

82% 77% 71% 75% 73% 70% 71% 71% 64% 64% 64% 58% 58% 57% 52% 45%

27% 29% 30% 22%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered Interstate 4-Lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

78% 77% 73% 73% 72% 72% 64% 65% 65% 67% 61% 64% 59% 63% 53% 50% 55% 44% 45% 48%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between the Wheel Paths Interstate 4-Lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

94% 95% 94% 93% 93% 88% 86% 91% 89% 87% 91% 86% 90% 89% 91% 82% 82% 80% 73% 68%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare Interstate 4-Lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

100% 94% 96% 93% 93% 94% 93% 94% 98% 93% 88% 90% 89% 86% 90% 91% 82% 76% 64% 67%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Farmers are slightly more accepting of snow covered roads on Interstate.

Non-Interstate 4-lane by Driver Type Acceptability of Snow Covered and Compacted Non-Interstate 4-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

73% 56% 57% 59% 50% 53% 52% 49% 48% 49% 45% 38% 39% 41% 36% 41% 25% 27% 18% 22%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Non-Interstate 4-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

82% 77% 74% 71% 71% 75% 67% 63% 61% 67% 55% 48% 47% 50% 48%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM

Acceptability of Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered Non-Interstate 4- lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

80% 78% 72% 76% 72% 71% 70% 70% 65% 68% 65% 67% 60% 55% 56% 58% 55% 49% 53% 42%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between the Wheel Paths Non-Interstate 4-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

94% 93% 94% 94% 87% 87% 88% 92% 89% 88% 89% 91% 81% 83% 85% 85% 81% 82% 71% 71%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare Non-Interstate 4-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

100% 100% 95% 96% 98% 93% 88% 93% 89% 92% 92% 91% 93% 80% 85% 85% 80% 83% 71% 71%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Rural 2-lane by Driver Type Acceptability of Snow Covered and Compacted Rural 2-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

44% 47% 46% 41% 38% 39% 37% 42% 39% 36% 31% 37% 30% 29% 26% 20% 22% 18% 14% 16%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Rural 2-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

63% 63% 61% 61% 57% 54% 54% 51% 54% 44% 46% 46% 50% 49% 48% 50% 33% 30% 35% 35%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between Wheel Paths Rural 2-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

100% 100% 95% 95% 92% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% 87% 89% 87% 87% 91% 81% 85% 85% 85% 74%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare Rural 2-lane

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Law Enforcement Farming/ranching Personal travel

100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 98% 93% 94% 93% 93% 91% 89% 89% 85%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Interstate 4-lane by Region

Acceptability of Snow Covered and Compacted Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

64% 60% 56% 53% 55% 54% 49% 52% 46% 45% 48% 39% 33% 28% 26% 18%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Respondents from the NE are more accepting of snow covered, but respondents of the SW most accepting of fully bare.

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

81% 83% 78% 76% 74% 75% 72% 67% 61% 65% 62% 64% 57% 52% 52% 41%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

78% 81% 74% 74% 74% 71% 74% 67% 68% 66% 66% 56% 58% 48% 50% 37%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between Wheel Paths Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

95% 94% 94% 93% 93% 92% 92% 92% 91% 90% 90% 88% 87% 87% 87% 86%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

96% 95% 94% 93% 94% 94% 94% 93% 92% 92% 91% 91% 90% 90% 87% 87%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Non-Interstate 4-lane by Region

Acceptability of Snow Covered and Compacted Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

64% 59% 55% 53% 56% 48% 47% 49% 47% 48% 48% 41% 32% 26% 27% 21%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

83% 80% 79% 78% 74% 72% 72% 69% 65% 69% 67% 56% 56% 53% 51% 44%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered Non-Interstate 4- lane

NW SW NE SE

84% 79% 74% 75% 76% 73% 70% 69% 67% 65% 68% 59% 57% 52% 52% 44%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between Wheel Paths Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE 93% 93% 95% 94% 94% 93% 91% 89% 92% 89% 90% 91% 89% 83% 81% 85%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare Non-Interstate 4-lane

NW SW NE SE

95% 94% 94% 93% 93% 93% 93% 92% 92% 91% 91% 92% 90% 90% 89% 88%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Rural 2-lane by Region

Acceptability of Snow Covered and Compacted Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE

53% 44% 41% 42% 38% 38% 39% 36% 36% 36% 39% 32% 20% 18% 16% 14%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE

72% 60% 59% 59% 56% 55% 56% 56% 53% 49% 48% 44% 40% 32% 33% 26%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between Wheel Paths Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE 96% 95% 95% 94% 94% 92% 95% 94% 96% 94% 94% 93% 89% 90% 87% 81%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare Rural 2-lane

NW SW NE SE

98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 97% 98% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

95% 95%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Road Conditions by Road Type

Acceptability of Snow Covered and Compacted

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane

57% 57% 51% 50% 44% 45% 46% 39% 36% 24% 27% 17%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM Respondents were less accepting of rural 2-lane roads to be snow covered on one or two intermittent paths.

Acceptability of 1 or 2 Intermittent Wheel Paths

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane

78% 78% 69% 71% 65% 61% 62% 54% 49% 50% 49%

33%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Right Lane Bare; Left Lane Snow Covered

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane

76% 77% 71% 71% 63% 65% 51% 47%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Bare Between Wheel Paths

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane

92% 93% 94% 91% 91% 93% 92% 86% 85% 89% 87% 88%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM

Acceptability of Fully Bare

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane 97% 97% 97% 96% 93% 93% 90% 89% 92% 92% 91% 91%

6:00 AM 10:00 AM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM Respondents were less accepting of rural 2-lane to be snow covered or 1 or 2 intermittent paths.

Overall Acceptability of Road Conditions

Acceptability at 6:00 AM

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane 97% 92% 93% 94% 93% 93%

78% 78% 76% 77% 61% 57% 57% 44%

Snow covered and 1 or 2 intermittent wheel Right lane bare; left lane Bare between wheel paths Fully bare compacted paths snow covered

One- or two-wheel paths is acceptable to more than three of four respondents. Respondents were less accepting of poor road conditions on rural 2-lane roads.

Acceptability at 10:00 AM

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane 97% 90% 89% 86% 85% 89%

50% 51% 49% 47% 33% 24% 27% 17%

Snow covered and 1 or 2 intermittent wheel Right lane bare; left lane Bare between wheel paths Fully bare compacted paths snow covered

Acceptability at 8:00 PM

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane 97% 91% 91% 93% 92% 92%

69% 71% 71% 71% 54% 51% 50% 39%

Snow covered and 1 or 2 intermittent wheel Right lane bare; left lane Bare between wheel paths Fully bare compacted paths snow covered

Acceptability at 10:00 PM

Interstate 4-lane Non-Interstate 4-lane Rural 2-lane 96% 92% 87% 88% 91% 91%

62% 65% 63% 65% 49% 45% 46% 36%

Snow covered and 1 or 2 intermittent wheel Right lane bare; left lane Bare between wheel paths Fully bare compacted paths snow covered

Demographics

36. Age:

Age

29% 25% 16% 17%

2% 2% 4% 4%

0-17 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 +

37. Residency:

Residency 96%

3% 1%

In-state Out-of-state (US) Other

38. If In-State, what is your county of residence?

Burleigh County 17.3% Cass County 10.2% Ward County 7.1% McIntosh County 5.1% Grand Forks County 5.0% Morton County 5.0% Stark County 3.9% Ramsey County 3.2% Williams County 2.9% Stutsman County 2.6% Walsh County 2.2% McLean County 2.1% Benson County 1.7% McKenzie County 1.7% Logan County 1.7% Emmons County 1.7% Barnes County 1.7% Mountrail County 1.6% Pembina County 1.5% Richland County 1.3% Adams County 1.3% Rolette County 1.2% 34

McHenry County 1.2% Bowman County 1.2% Hettinger County 1.1% Towner County 1.0% Bottineau County 1.0% Mercer County 1.0% Foster County 0.9% Traill County 0.9% Dunn County 0.9% Golden Valley County 0.9% Cavalier County 0.7% Wells County 0.6% Renville County 0.6% Dickey County 0.6% LaMoure County 0.6% Eddy County 0.5% Pierce County 0.5% Steele County 0.5% Burke County 0.5% Ransom County 0.5% Sheridan County 0.4% Sargent County 0.4% Sioux County 0.4% Nelson County 0.2% Griggs County 0.2% Oliver County 0.2% Slope County 0.2% Billings County 0.2% Grant County 0.2% Divide County 0.1% 2Kidder County 0.0%

2 NOTE: There were no submissions from Kidder County 35

39. Are you a licensed driver?

Licensed Driver 99%

Yes No

40. Choose how you most often use the state maintained rural highways, not including local, city, or county roads.

Type of Driver

45% 39%

8% 6% 3%

Commercial trucking Daily commuter for work Emergency Responder / Farming/ranching Personal travel Law Enforcement

41. Choose the type of vehicle you most often drive during winter storm events?

Storm Event Vehicle

66%

25%

8% 2%

4 Wheel Drive (pickup, SUV) Commercial Truck (semi tractor 2 Wheel Drive (car, minivan) Other trailer, straight truck)

42. How often do you drive on state maintained rural highways during the winter season, not including local, city, or county roads?

State Maintained Rural Highway Frequency of Use

64%

23%

8% 4% 0.4%

Daily Weekly Monthly Only a few times per year I don't drive in the winter

43. General Comments - Please provide any other comments you have about snow and ice control provided by NDDOT.

Coded Response Type

32%

18% 16% 11% 10% 5% 4% 3% 1%

General Applied Not Location General Workforce Timing Road Snow handling comments – treatments categorized specific – comments – conditions / positive negative negative reporting Examples of Coded Response Types:

General Comments – Positive

 I think the NDDOT Snow and Ice Control Maintenance Team is the best in the nation. The service they provide is above and beyond. Thank you for the outstanding service you provide.  The ND Dot has substantially stepped up its winter road maintenance in recent years and this past winter was the best yet. I do feel however, winter road maintenance declines substantially west of Hwy 83. Especially on hwy 85 and hwy 2 west of Stanley, Tioga areas. It also seems like a section of hwy 52 between Velva and Carrington gets somewhat neglected. Overall, as a state all road maintenance has greatly improved and from a commercial truck driver, I appreciate all that the state has done to improve safety across the state. Thanks.

Applied Treatments

 A very good job plowing all roadways. I do not like the corrosive salts & sugar beet solution used on roadways. It makes the roads a sloppy mess, deteriorates concrete & vehicles are continually in need of being washed.  I feel the solution that was used through the Fargo area does more harm than good. This past winter roads would be in pretty decent shape out of town, for going through town on the interstate was worse than the roads that were not pretreated. I think it gets icier than if nothing was done to pretreat not to mention the messiness. Lets just go back to putting salt/gravel down when it is needed rather that pretreating with the sugarbeet stuff or whatever is used to pretreat.

Location Specific – Negative

 Highway 83 between Max and junction at Hwy 23 is treacherous and largely unplowed compared to 83 from Minot to highway 23. It is night and day and the traffic crossing the highway is scary. I have come to a dead stop twice this year as semis cross 83 or pull out in front of me.  The service you provide in our area is very good on I-29 and US-2. But each snow event should be judged on it's own merits as each one is different in their own ways. Our biggest concern on US-2 is usually the crossover's which can be very hard for some vehicles to navigate when having to cross. Not everyone has four wheel drives (even the farmers).

General Comments – Negative

 Roads were really bad this winter. Had a couple of incidents where I had to follow a snow plow for 15 miles at 20 mph because they would not pull over to let me around. Was very nervous about being rear-ended due to traveling so slow. One of the times, a pickup passed 3 vehicles and the snow plow. Very unsafe.  I work in public health and travel the entire county. We were def hurting with roads this past winter being down a worker. I worry about our elderly population a lot who have to go see specialists out of town and need good roads.

Workforce

 ND snow removale crews put in long days to keep our roads maintained and safe, they need to be able to get plenty of rest between shifts to allow them to safely do their job. Maybe we as the public should be a little more self-sufficient, if we do not have winter tires, proper vehicles for getting around in adverse weather conditions we should stay home until the weather clears and the road maintenance employees have finished their job to allow us to safely travel. (I'm a non-gov. employee)  Private contractors and municipalities are our plowing shortly after a snow event. It's a service people pay for and expect snow removal as soon as possible. We should expect the same for the main and minor arteries between cities from our state. Higher pay and good drivers are needed to get the job done. There’re very capable people working for the state. Higher wages are needed to get better people that can get the job done. Allow overtime to get the job done in a timely manner. Have enough of a work force to so you don't burn out these people with the long hours. Higher pay will get better people in those trucks who can do the job quicker and better.

Timing

 I know it is a challenge to get the rural highways cleaned off after a snow event, but I think starting even an hour earlier would help. Have a concern about icy roads not being addressed sometimes for several days, especially hilly areas. Thanks for doing what you do. It is a tough job.

 Snow needs to be removed as it's coming down, so it doesn't get compacted & icy from all the traffic. Deicer makes roads icy during blowing snow as it catches the snow which then freezes on the roadway as ice.

Road Conditions/Reporting

 More cameras that show road conditions throughout 4 lane highways and interstates. Road map is very good.  I feel that you are not giving enough information in your pictures such what is the outside temps. and what are they going to be what time of the year is it what is the road temps a person needs more information and weather the section with two lane roads also have interstate road sections in them also how long the operators route is.

Snow Handling

 Stop pushing the snow into the center lanes on US85 especially in front of cities like Alexander and Arengard. People can't bust through these rows. At least leave a path at the major intersections like Co33 or 133rd Ave NW. All-in-all the winter of 2018 was the best snow removal I have seen out here in the last 5 years.

Appendix: Region Key

Region County Divide County Burke County Renville County NW Bottineau County Williams County Mountrail County Ward County

McHenry County McKenzie County McLean County Billings County Dunn County Mercer County Oliver County Burleigh County Emmons County Sioux County SW Grant County Morton County Stark County Hettinger County Adams County Bowman County Slope County Golden Valley County Rolette County Towner County Cavalier County Pembina County Pierce County Benson County NE Ramsey County Walsh County Nelson County Grand Forks County Traill County Steele County Griggs County 42

Eddy County Foster County Wells County Sheridan County Kidder County Stutsman County Barnes County Cass County Logan County SE LaMoure County Ransom County Richland County McIntosh County Dickey County Sargent County