4.4. SR 03-17-2003River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
MEMORANDUM
Item#
/4.4.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlicker, Senior Plann~{~
March 17, 2003
Northstar Corridor Update
At the NCDA meeting held on March 6th the Authority listened to an overview of the
briefing for Governor Pawlenty. By all accounts the meeting went well and attached is a
copy of the presentation. Representatives Oberstar and Kennedy are working together on
federal funding. The FTA recommendation has been downgraded from recommended to
not recommended because of the lack of state funding. Should the state provide funding, the
FTA could re-evaluate their recommendation. The Authority also received an update on
what is being done regarding public relations.
Phone: 763.441.7420
Fax: 763.441.7425
www. ci.elk-fiver, mn.us
NCDA
Agenda
March 6, 2003
4:30 p,m.
Sherburne County Government Center
Elk River, MN
Action Requested
Minutes of the January 9, 2003 Meeting (attached)
Approval
Executive Committee Report Approval
a. Contract Amendment with Lubov, Anton and Associates, Inc.
State Update
a. Report on Briefing of Governor Pawlenty
b. Legislative Activities
Discussion
Federal Update Discussion
a. FY 2003 Appropriations*
b. FY 2004 Appropriations Request and Reauthorization Request
c. Report on Congressional Visits
Other
a. Next Meeting: April 3, 2002
DRAFT DRAFT DI:k4FT DRAFT
NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Regular Meeting Minutes
January 9, 2003
The Northstar Corridor Development Authority met on January 9, 2003, in regular
session at the Sherburne County Govermnent Center, Elk River, Minnesota.
The following members, alternates and citizens were present: Lynn George, Mary
Richardson, Steve Billings,.Dan Lieser, Scott Harlicker, Lewis Stark, Tom Gamec,
Dennis Berg, Robert Kirchner, Tom Wenzel, John Himle, Ken Stevens, Jay McLinden,
David Loch, Paul Ostrow, Duane Grandy, Tim Yantos, John Norgren, Ewald Peterson,
Terry Nagorski, Arne Engstrom, Woody Bissett, Bob Johnson, John Ellenbecker, Greg
Bruestle, Kaye Bechtold, Patrick Cairns, Dan Erhart, Jean Keely, L.W. Schumacher, Paul
McCarron, Luci Botzek, Rick Speak, Jim Barton, Mike Schadauer, Steve Apanian, Dean
Michalko, Jeff Dehler, Brian Bensen, Peggy Aho, Jeff Dehler, Steve Novack, Bill
Schreiber
1. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Paul Ostrow, Vice-Chairperson.
Patti Ostrow, Vice-Chairperson, called for nominations for the election of the
2003 Chairperson.
Lewis Stark nominated Duane Grandy for chairperson. No further nominations
were made. Paul Ostrow closed Chairperson nominations. A motion was made
by Lewis Stark, seconded by John Norgren and carried unanimously to cast a
unanimous ballot for Duane Grandy as 2003 Chairperson to the Northstar
Corridor Development Authority for the period of January 9, 2003 to January 8,
2004.
Chairperson Duane Grandy expressed his gratitude 'for his appointment.
Introductions were made by those present.
A motion was made by Ewald Peterson, seconded by Lewis Stark and carried
unanimously to approve the agenda of January 9, 2003, and the minutes of
December 5, 2002, as amended indicating that Patrick Cairns was present.
5.. Executive Committee Report:
a. A motion was.made by Patti Ostrow, seconded by Arne Engstrom and carried
unanimously to approve the following professional services contracts:
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes
January 9,2003
Page ~
Authorize Chair to finalize negotiations and execute an agreement
with Paul McCarron and Associates for the term January 1. 2003 to
December 31, 2003 with a contract amount of $22,000 to be paid in equal
monthly payments of $1,666.66 pitts expenses tbr professional services
relating to the Northstar Commuter Rail Project.
Authorize Chair to finalize negotiations and execute an agreement with
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Incorporated for the term January 1, 2003
through March 31, 2003 for a not to exceed contract amount of $7,500.00
for professional services relating to the economic analysis of activities
related to the Northstar Commuter Rail Project.
Bill Schreiber discussed 2003 House and Senate Committee assignments pertinent
to the Northstar Corridor project. A copy of the 2003 Committee Assignments
Directory was distributed.
John Himle, Himle Horner, presented a public information update and reviewed
proposed strategies fbr 2003 legislative session. Mr. Himle noted that the
Northstar Corridor residents and others indicate significant support for the project.
The following goals remain for the project:
a) Keep all corridor residents informed of progress
b) Provide communication support to assist and inform policymakers
c) Continue to elevate public discussion of the project
With these goals in mind, the project can be completed and a success within 4
years.
John Himle provided an update on the meeting with Governor Pawlenty which
will be rescheduled for early February. He noted that Lt. Governor Carol Molnau
has been appointed Commissioner of Department of Transportation
Paul McCarron announced that Mr. Rick Speak, Benton County, has made the
decision to retire. Mr. McCm-ron presented a plaque, on behalf of the Northstar
Corridor Development Authority, extending their appreciation for his contribution
to the Corridor.
10.
Tim Yantos infbrmed members that the Federal Transportation Administration
(FTA) released a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the Final Environmental
Impact Statement concluding that the Northstar commuter rail would have no
significant negative impact on the environment.
Northstar Corridor Development Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes
January 9. 2003
Page 3
I1.
12.
13.
14.
Lewis Stark, Haven Township, amlounced that lie will be retiring at the end of
March, 2003. A replacement will be appointed.
M~v'DOT Update: A new M~z/DOT administration has been appointed, but no
actions have been taken yet.
The next meeting of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority is scheduled
for Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. at the Sherburne County
Government Center.
A motion was made by Patti Ostrow, seconded by Pat Cairns and carried
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 5:15 p.m
Duane Grandy, Chairperson
Date
H:\Admndata\COMMITTE\Comdor NCDA\2003\Mint, tcs\010903 NCDA Draft.doc
FY2003 Appropriations
Sabo Allocates $164.16M for MN Projects
Funding Included in FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Agreement
February 13, 2003
Washington, D.C. -- Congressman Martin Olav Sabo (D-MN), ranking Democrat on the House
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and a member of the Defense and Interior Subcommittees,
announced today $164.16 million in federal funding for Minnesota. The funding was included at the
direction of Congressman Sabo.
"Every year l fight hard in the annual Appropriations process to make sure that Minnesota gets its fair
share," explained Sabo. "Providing for our state and my district's many interests is one of my most
important responsibilities, and I am proud to be able to support so many important projects in 2003."
Below is a list of over 35 projects that will receive federal funds at Sabo's request. Detailed information
follows for items in bold.
Transportation i~ ¢'.~ ,~. ¢V'~-¢"¢'~
1. $60 millirm - Hi~w2fh~ail Transit ~ --0~/'~'~-% c/
L~'~..2. $5 million - Northstar Commuter Rail ~
~585 m~lllon - ivietro 7ransk ~uses, ~ncluding $2 million for Downtown Minneapolis Circulator
4. $1 million - 63rd Avenue Park & Ride, Robbinsdale
5. $2.5 million - Northwest Bus Corridor, Hennepin County
6. $1 million - Cedar Avenue Buses
7. $500,000 - Rush Line Buses
8. $3.8 million - Greater Minnesota Bus Systems
9. $9 million - 1-35W at Lake Street, Minneapolis
10. $3 million - Lyndale Avenue Bridge spanning 1-494, Richfield
11. $2.9 million - Hiawatha Avenue at 28th Street Pedestrian/Bicycle crossing, Minneapolis
12. $750,000 - Pedestrian Bridge over County 81 at 36th Avenue, Robbinsdale
13. $500,000 - Highway 212, Carver County
14. $1 million - Trunk Highway 13, Savage
15. $1 million - Highway 52, Dakota County
16. $9.8 million- Other Greater Minnesota Highway Projects
17. $1 million - Metropolitan Council Job Access/Reverse Commute program
18. $1 million - Hennepin County Community Works
19. $9.1 million - Minnesota Guidestar Intelligent Transportation Systems/University of Minnesota
20. $2 million - Minneapolis College - Aviation Center, MARC Air Traffic Control School
21. $6 million - De-icing pad to protect groundwater at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
22. $15 million - FAA/NASA aircraft noise reduction research (national program)
23. Low frequency aircraft noise study (national program)
Interior
24. $750,000 - Explore options to restore Bureau of Mines property to community use,
Minneapolis
25. $1 million - Minnesota Historical Society for exhibits at the Mill City Museum on the
Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis
26. $250,000 - Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board for the Mill Ruins Park, downtown
Minneapolis
Energy & Water Development
27. $2 million - The Green Institute to build biomass power plant co-operative, Phillips
neighborhood, Minneapolis
28. $1 million - Restore Lower St. Anthony Falls on Mississippi River, Minneapolis
Justice
29. $1.2 million - Council on Crime and Justice's Racial Disparity Initiative, Minneapolis
30. $1.7 million - Hennepin County for CriMNet (Minnesota's integrated criminal database)
31. $1.0 million - State of Minnesota for CriMNet
32. $1.5 million - Metropolitan Radio Board radios
Education
33. $600,000 - Reuben Lindh Family Services' Family Focus Preschool Program, Minneapolis
34. $1.1 million - Jewish Family and Children's Service's Naturally Occurring Retirement
Communities Program ($250,000 of total from Housing and Urban Development), St. Louis Park,
Golden Valley, Hopkins
35. $300,000 - Plymouth Christian Youth Center's after-school programs, Minneapolis
36. $200,000 - Artspace, Inc.'s Collaborative Arts Education Project with Shubert Center,
Minneapolis
37. $600,000 - Minnesota State Colleges and University's Program to Support Emerging Curriculum for
the 21st Century (an e-learning project)
Housinq and Urban Development
38. $425,000 - Southside Family Nurturing Center facility rehabilitation, Minneapolis
Agriculture
39. $500,000 - Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development (Minneapolis) and Northern Great
Plains, Inc. for agriculture diversification project
40. $300,000 - University of Minnesota Center for Farm Financial Management to create comprehensive
farm financial information database
41. $300,000 - Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council research
(Details on items in bold follow)
17. Access to Jobs Proqram/Reverse Commute
Sabo said the bill includes $1 million for the Metropolitan Council's Access to Jobs program, which helps
Iow-income workers transition more smoothly from welfare to work by providing them with various
transportation services. These include access to public transportation to or from work sites; transportation
to areas of high job demand for new job seekers; and access to transportation routes with child care drop
offs for low-income working parents. Sabo provided $2.5 million for this program in previous years.
18. Hennepin County Community Works
Sabo again set aside $1 million for the Hennepin County Community Works program underscoring his
commitment to quality transportation that moves people and helps to renew neighborhoods. Over the past
six years, Sabo has provided a total of $6 million to this vital urban renewal program in Hennepin County
for projects such as the Humboldt Greenway and the 29th Street/Midtown Greenway. The program helps
create good jobs, provide access to employment and build long-term value to the community by investing
in infrastructure, public works, parks and the natural environment.
19. Minnesota Guidestar/University of Minnesota
Sabo also provided $9.1 million for Minnesota's Guidestar program. With Sabo's support, this program
has become a national leader using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology such as satellite
bus tracking, ramp meters, and freeway electronic message boards to direct traffic and ease congestion
on the 250 miles of Twin Cities' freeways. Including the FY03 appropriation, Sabo has secured over $68
million for Guidestar since 1993. The University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies and
Humphrey Institute are important partners in this program.
20. Minneapolis Colleqe-Aviation Center MARC Air Traffic Controller School
Sabo also included $2 million for the MARC air traffic controller training school. This program, initiated by
Sabo in 1989, has become the FAA's sole provider of air traffic controllers in the nation for eh-route
facilities. The program has already benefited from over $23 million in federal funds secured by Sabo.
22. FAA/NASA Quiet Aircraft Technoloqy Research
Continuing on his landmark allocation of $20 million last year, Sabo championed $15 million for national
research to reduce the environmental impacts of airplanes. Of this amount, Sabo earmarked $15 million
for continued joint FAA/NASA research to spur development of the next generation of quieter aircraft
technology. Sabo also directed the FAA to conduct further research on the impact that Iow frequency
aircraft noise poses to communities near airports.
23. Low Frequency Aircraft Noise Research
Sabo directed the Federal Aviation Administration to review and improve upon a study on the impact of
Iow frequency noise, which affects Richfield and South Minneapolis homes and businesses.
24. Explore options to restore Bureau of Mines prop~_.~.y_to community use, Minneapolis
~abo provided $750,000 to explore options for the former Bureau of M~nes prope~inneapolis
near Fort Shelling. In an agreement forged by Sabo with the U.S. Department of Interior, the property will
be restored to community use, preserving and protecting the Camp Coldwater Spring.
25. Minnesota Historical Society's Mill City Museum. Minnea~
Sabo also included $1 million for the Minnesota Historical Society to acquire exhibits for the Mill City
Museum within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. The Mill City Museum is emblematic
of Minneapolis' rich milling history, and is on the National Register of Historic Places.
~ Park & Recreation Board for Mill Ruins Park
Sabo earmarked $250,000 for the Minneapolis Park & Recreatio~ Minne~lpolis
become the Mill Ruins Park on the Mississippi River. Board-to ex(~avate the rand that will
~7: The G~'een Institute's biomass power plant co-operativ~
Sabo provided $2 million for the Green Institute to build a biomass power plant co-operative in the
Minneapolis Phillips neighborhood. Endeavors like this Green institute biomass project are critical to the
development of new alternative renewable fuels.
2_9. Council on Crime and Justice's Racial Disparity Initiativ,!
Sabo provided $1.2 million for the Minneapolis-based Council on Crime and Justice's Racial Disparity
initiative. The Racial Disparity Initiative is a comprehensive study of racial disparities throughout
Minnesota's criminal justice system, which will also examine the extent to which those disparities inflict
direct and indirect costs on offenders, families, businesses, and communities. The solutions reached
under this initiative would be shared throughout Minnesota and across the nation.
~n Radio Board Radios
The Metropolitan Counc-~s Metropolitan Radio Board will receive $1.5 million to purchase radios for law
enforcement agencies to better communicate with one another. In the wake of September 11th, it was
clear that coordinated radio communications are of the utmost importance in responding successfully to
any large-scale incident that crosses iurisdictional boundaries and this funding will bring the Twin Cities
metropolitan area closer towards that'goal. '
33. Reuben Lindh Famil_~Services, Family Focus Prescl~ool Pro.qram, Nort~
Sabo earmarked $600,000 for educational services at the Family FoCus Preschool, a program of Reuben
L/ndh Family Services based in North Minneapolis. The Preschool is a multicultural therapeutic preschool
program with support services for inner-city children and their families. The preschool's programs help
children overcome generational and cultural gaps that may hinder their ability to learn and be prepared to
start school.
34. Jewish Family a~nd Childr___~en's Service, St. Louis Park, Golde, l Valle_y_~Hopkins
Sabo included $1.1 million in program funding and facility rehabilitation for Jewish Fam}ly and Children's
Service of Minneapolis to develop a new concept in service delivery to seniors living in Naturally
Occurring Retirement Communities (NORC) housing. This project will improve the quality of Iife of seniors
living in predominantly elderly neighborhoods of Saint Louis Park, Hopkins, and Golden Valley, while
serving as a national model for centralizing health and human services in such neighborhoods.
~stian Youth Center, Minnea op~
Sabo, who has long supported quality after-school programs, provided $300,000 for Plymouth Christian
Youth Center's educational programs in North Minneapolis, such as their art and theater education and
after-school programs.
~c.'s Collaborative Arts Education p · · . .
Sabo, a strong supporter of arts educatio m~rbcar~°?~ct with S_h, u_b, ert Center MInnea oils
n ear ......... ¢~u0 0~---"."'~.: ,v,,nnea oils
00 for tecnnolog~ca ~mprovements at
Artspace, Inc., which will allow students throughout Minnesota to connect to education programs at the
Shubert Center in Minneapolis through the use of technology.
38. Southside Family Nurturin~
~abo earmar~ed $425,0~'~o rehabilitate facilities of Southside Family Nurturing Center (SFNC) in the
Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis. SFNC provides intensive, therapeutic early childhood education
services, conducts home visits focusing on disciplinary techniques and family support, and offers support
for fathers and male caregivers to families in the Phillips neighborhood of South Minneapolis.
The Phillips neighborhood is home to the second largest urban American Indian population in the nation.
KEY POINTS
Conclusions of local economist Paul Anton:
> Benefits of Northstar commuter rail outweigh cost
· $2.97 of benefits for every $1.00 invested by the state
· $1.15 of benefits for every $1.00 invested by state,
governments
· Benefits can be delivered to the public by late 2006
local and federal
Northstar commuter rail is the most cost-effective transportation choice for
this corridor
· Cost comparison: Construction and 15 years of operations
· Northstar: $502 million
· Hwy. 10 upgrade: $1.02 billion
· Busway: $749 million
· Less expensive to add additional capacity to commuter rail
Conclusion of national, conservative rail advocate Paul Weyrich:
> "It's as sound a piece of work as I have seen in
examining projects."
many years of
~ LU
Northstar Corridor Development Authority:
The Northstar Corridor needs transportation improvements · Fastest growing corridor in Minnesota
· Growth in population, housing and jobs outstrips the transportation system
· High accident rate and longer travel times affecting corridor residents and
businesses
· No scheduled, funded highway solution in the 20-year plan from the Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Northstar
·
·
commuter rail will work
77% of residents support Northstar - 82% would use the service
Northstar line moves people to where they want to go: - Jobs
- Higher education
- Shopping and entertainment
- Medical care
Commuter rail provides value to the public: - Clean, safe vehicles
- Convenient park and ride lots
- Reasonable cost of service
- Travel not delayed by weather or traffic congestion
3
4
5
1Rice
St. Cloud
Stations
Becket
· : L~e
Elk River
Riverdale ·
s·
Fridlevll
NE Mnmeapolts ·
l')owntown Mumeapolis ·
6
7
How many people will be moved by
Northstar?
APProximately 5,000 commuters per day
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Economic Analysis
Anton, Lubov, & Associates, Inc.
Economic Analys/s
What can economists contribute?
· Analyze the financial/economic
implications of the project
· Apply a market-based approach
· Economic, not an engineering
perspective
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Economic Analysis
Today's topics
Benefit-cost analysis
· Cost-effectiveness
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Benefit Cost Analysis
Three Studies
· Parsons-Brinckerhoff (1998)
· MnDOT (2002)
· Anton, Lubov (2003)
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
2
Benefit Cost Analysis
Parsons-Brinckerhoff (1998)
· Comparative analysis of 6 proposed rail routes
· Northstar route analyzed was 41 miles long
(only 50 percent of current proposed route)
· 15-year horizon
· Northstar was best-scoring alternative
Benefit / cost ratio = 0.26
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Benefit Cost Analysis
MnDOT (2002)
· Based on 30% of engineering completed
· Analyzed 82-mile route, adding to cost
· Used ridership forecast based on full corridor
· Added in value of capital stock after 15 years
Benefit / cost ratio = 0.84
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
3
Benefit Cost Ana/ysis
Anton, Lubov (2003)
· Validated/added to MnDOT study
· Updated discount rate to current OMB rate
· Based on MnDOT inter-regional corridor study of
TH 10
· Added conservative estimate of time saved by
highway travelers
· Added cost of linkage to Hiawatha LRT
· Did NOT perform a comprehensive new BC
analysis
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Benefit Cost Ana/ysis
Benefits vs. Proposed Total Cost
(PV in 20075)
Benefits
$579 million
Costs
Capital cost
All operating costs
$302 million
$200 million
$502 million
Benefit Cost Ratio = 1.15
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
4
Benefit Cost Analysis
Benefits vs. Proposed State Cost
(PV in 20075)
Benefits
State costs
Capital costs
Operating subsidies
$579 million
$123 million
$ 72 million
$195 million
Benefit / cost ratio = 2.97
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Benefit Cost Ana/ys/s
NOT INCLUDED in these benefits
· Separate analysis of time saved for truck traffic in
corridor
· Benefits from linking Northstar to Hiawatha
Corridor
· Benefits to economic development
· Benefits to college students, V.A. patients
· Benefits beyond 15 years (2022)
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Benefit Cost Analysis
Rate of return on total investment
Real internal rate of return
2.3%
IRR is the interest rate received for an
investment consisting of payments and
benefits that occur at regular periods
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Benefit Cost Analysis
Conclusions
· Benefits of Northstar Rail outweigh costs
· Northstar Rail offers state good remm on
investment
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
6
Cost-Effect/veness
What is "cost-effectiveness?"
· Accomplishing a given objective at
lowest cost
Objective: Reduce congestion and
move more people at peak rush hour
periods in the corridor
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Cost Effectiveness
Alternatives Comparison
· Highway
· Bus rapid transit (BRT)
Anton~ Lubov & Associates, Inc
Cost Effectiveness
Commuter rail vs. highway
Ca~)ital Co~t and Peak Capacity
Peak Hour Capacity Capital Cost
1,800 seats/hour
1,210 psgr./hour
Rail
3 trains x 600 seats
Expressway
1,100 x 1.1 passenger/car
Limit-access/super highway lane
2,300 x l. 1 passenger/car 2,530 psgr./hour
$ 302 million
$832 million
Far more
Commuter rail carries as many people as 1-1/2 lanes of
expressway at lower cost.
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Cost Effectiveness
Total cost for 15 years
(PV in 2007 $)
Capital cost
Operating cost
Commuter rail
$302 million
$200 million
($15.2 million/w)
$502 million
Add one lane of
highway
$1,000 million
$22 million
($1.7 million/w)
$1,022 million
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Cost Effectiveness
Commuter rail vs. busway
Capita/cost and peak hour capacity
Peak hour capacity Capital cost
Rail
3 trains x
600 seats
1,800 seats/hour
$302 million
Bus rapid transit
36 buses x
50 seats
1,800 seats/hour
$525 million
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Cost Effectiveness
Total cost for 15 years
(PV in 2007 $)
Capital cost
Operating cost
Commuter rail
$302 million
$200 million
($15.2 million/w)
$502 million
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Bus rapid transit
$525 million
$224 million
($17 million/w)
$749 million
Cost Effectiveness
Adding to Capacity
Commuter rail
· Add cars (up
to 4 per train)
Bus rapid transit
· Add buses and
drivers
Highway
· Build
another
lane
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
Cost Effectiveness
Total Cost to Add 25 % to Capacity
(PV in 2007 $)
Capital cost
Operating cost
Commuter rail
$11.7 million
$ 13.3 million
($1.1 million/w)
$ 25.0 million
Bus rapid transit
$ 3.6 million
$ 35.6 million
($2.9 million/F)
$ 39.2 million
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
10
Other issues
Will people switch to train from cars?
Economic factors affecting the decision to switch
.$ Costs
Transit fares
VS.
operating costs
and parking costs
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc
11
Economic Perspectives
On
Benefit and Costs
of
Northstar Commuter Rail
A Preliminary Summary
February 28, 2003
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc.
15 South Fifth Street, Suite 765
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
612-371-0364
Anton, Lubov & Associates, Inc.
Voice:
15 South Fifth Street, Suite 765
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1058
612-371-0364 FAX: 612-371-0269
e-mail: pareto@usinternet.com
MEMO
Date:
February 28, 2003
To: Tim Yantos
From: Paul Anton
Subject: Northstar Commuter Rail Benefit/Cost Analysis
In January, 2003, our firm was hired as an independent consultant to use our best professional
judgment to assess the methodologies and assumptions used in benefit/cost analysis of Northstar
Commuter Rail and to consider other aspects of the cost effectiveness of the project. We
presented some of the results of that analysis before Governor Pawlenty on February 19, 2003.
The enclosed document is a summary that explains the basis for the benefit/cost analysis that we
presented that day and responds to the Governor's request to compare our calculations with those
of MnDOT in 2002 and a study of a line to Elk River done by Parsons-Brinckerhoff in 1998. We
hope this will prove useful to you and others evaluating the Northstar Commuter Rail.
Executive Summary
The estimated benefits of the Northstar Commuter Rail are $579 million while the
estimated total costs of building and operating the rail line are $502 million, both
measured in 20075.
Thus the benefit/cost ratio is estimated as 1.15, or $1.15 for every dollar of total cost.
For this analysis, the total costs consist of the estimated construction cost of $302 million
and the present value of the stream of operating costs over 15 years that is calculated to
be $200 million.
The benefits consist of time savings by commuters, vehicle operating cost savings,
vehicle accident cost savings, pollution cost savings, and urban parking cost savings.
The total costs to be bom by the State on Minnesota for construction and operation are
estimated to be $195 million.
Therefore, the return to the State of Minnesota is $579 million/S195 million or $2.97 for
every state dollar.
This study improves on an earlier calculation of the benefits and costs of the Northstar
Corridor made by the MiImesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in 2002.
· That study calculated an overall benefit/cost ratio of 0.84,
· implying a return of $2.10 for every state dollar.
In addition, some people erroneously cite calculations contained in a 1998 study by
Parsons-Brinckerhoff (PB) as though they apply Northstar Commuter Rail. In fact, that
study considered a proposed route of approximately 30 miles from Minneapolis to Elk
River.
· PB calculated an overall benefit/cost ratio of 0.26 for the rail line they
analyzed, but
· PB could not calculate a return on state spending because no financing
proposal had been made for the route they analyzed.
This report sets forth the results of the calculations done by Anton, Lubov & Associates.
It first describes the benefits and costs of the Northstar commuter rail project and
estimates the return to the State of Minnesota for its investment. The report then
compares the ALA estimate with two previous studies, the Mn/DOT 2002 study showing
a ratio of 0.84 and the Parsons Brinckerhoff 1998 study showing a ratio of 0.26. The
final section of the report summarizes and quantifies the differences in assumptions that
explain most of the difference in the three benefit cost ratios. This report will
demonstrate that the ALA estimate of a benefit cost ratio of 1.15 for the Northstar
commuter rail project represents a reasonable and thorough analysis of the data, as well
as a sound basis for a policy decision regarding the Northstar Corridor commuter rail
project.
Introduction
In January, 2003, Anton, Lubov & Associates was hired by the Northstar Corridor
Development Authority to assess and comment on the future benefits and costs of the
Northstar Commuter Rail project and to undertake economic and financial analyses
pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of commuter rail as a solution to the traffic congestion
within the Northstar Corridor. This preliminary document provides information on the
benefit/cost analysis assessment. A more detailed report is being prepared and will be
made available at a later date.
Background on Benefit/Cost Analysis
Benefit/cost analysis is a method for comparing altemative policy or investment options
by attempting to quantify and compare the various public and private impacts of those
policies. The different benefits (many of them in the future) are listed, valued in
monetary terms, and then reduced to a present value. In like manner, the different costs
associated with the policy or project, both current and future are enumerated, valued in
dollars, and converted to a present value. Then the present value of the total benefits can
be compared to the present value of the total costs. The difference of the two quantities is
referred to as the net present value of the project; the ratio of the two quantities is referred
to as the project's benefit/cost ratio.
Benefit/cost analysis is used to compare alternative projects being considered for public
investment. Roughly speaking, the higher the net present value and the benefit cost ratio
the better the project. Of course, there are other policy considerations involved in any
decision, but this method allows policymakers to make a more complete and objective
analysis than when they only have cost figures and must rely on their own qualitative
assessment of the relative benefits of two projects.
Benefits and Costs of Northstar Commuter Rail
The benefits and costs of the Northstar Commuter Rail were calculated using the most
current information available on ridership forecasts, technical specifications, operating
plans and capital costs as set forth in the Northstar Corridor Final Environmental Impact
Statement (March 2002) and the Northstar Corridor Rail Project New Starts Criteria
(August 2002), documents prepared by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for
the Federal Transit Administration. Based on that information and other data provided by
MnDOT, the U. S. Office of Management and the Budget and other sources, the
estimates in Table 1 below were calculated.
Total benefits were estimated to have present value of $578.9 million in 20075 while
total costs were estimated to have a present value of $501.4.
The benefits were divided into several categories as shown in the Table 1. The two
largest items, vehicle operating cost savings and time savings to commuters accounted
for roughly half of the expected benefits. The time savings to commuters include time
saved by riders of the train who switch from commuting by auto, time saved by train
riders who switch from slower bus services, and time saved by drivers on the roads who
make better time because congestion is lessened with fewer cars on the road during
morning and evening rush hours.
Other categories of benefits include vehicle accident cost savings, pollution cost savings,
and urban parking cost savings by train commuters who switch from auto commutes.
Table 1
Northstar Commuter Rail
Benefits and Costs
(Present values in million of 20075)
Benefits
Amount
Time savings to commuters
Vehicle operating cost savings
Vehicle Accident Cost Savings
Pollution cost savings
Parking cost savings
Future value of depreciated capital stock
$ 92.3
$195.9
$ 64.0
$33.4
$58.9
$134.4
Total Benefits $578.9
Costs
Capital Costs
Operating and Maintenance Costs
$ 301.9
$199.5
Total Costs $501.4
Net present value=
+ $ 77.5
Benefit/cost ratio=
1.15
Source: Anton, Lubov & Associates
The total cost of the rail line is composed of two elements: capital cost and operating
costs. Capital costs include all of the estimated costs of making improvements to the
existing railroad track bed, the costs of building stations and parking lots, the cost of the
rolling stock and the maintenance facilities that will service the equipment of the line. In
addition, the capital cost component includes $24 million that will be needed to extend
the line so that it connects with the Hiawatha LRT currently being built in the Twin
Cities.
4
The operating and maintenance cost component is the present value of those costs over
the first 15 years of operation. Beginning in 2007, the operation of the line is expected to
cost roughly $15 million per year in 20075.
Thus, the net present value of the project is estimated to be a positive $77.5 million and
the benefit/cost ratio is 1.15 (578.9/501.4). This means that the project will produce
$1.15 cents for every dollar of cost, in present value terms.
Return to the State of Minnesota
This benefit/cost ratio of 1.15 is based on the total costs of the proposed rail line. From
the point of view of the State of Minnesota, a more interesting calculation might be to
compare the benefits generated by the project with the monies that the state will have to
provide for the construction and operation of the line.
Current funding proposals involve the sharing of capital costs among three entities: the
State of Minnesota, the Federal Transit Administration, and the NCDA, an organization
of thirty cities, townships, and counties located along the proposed rail line. The state is
being asked to provide roughly 40 per cent of the $302 million in capital costs, the
Federal government 50%, and the local governments 10%. Thus Minnesota's portion of
the capital bill will be $123 million.
The current operating plan involves splitting the expected annual operating cost of $15
roughly into thirds. One-third would be paid by Federal funds, one-third by the State of
Minnesota, and the last third would be covered by fare-box receipts. The present value of
Minnesota's share over 15 years would be 72 million.
Table 2
Northstar Commuter Rail
Benefits Compared to State Costs
(Present values in million of 20075)
Total Benefits
State Costs
Capital Costs
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Total State Costs
Benefit/cost ratio=
Source: Anton, Lubov & Associates
$123.1
$ 72.5
$578.9
$195.6
2.97
If we compare the total benefits provided by Northstar Commuter Rail to the state's share
of the costs, the benefit/cost ratio is 2.97 ($578.9/$195.6). This means that the project
will return a present value of $2.97 for every state dollar. The value ofleveraging state
dollars with local contributions and Federal transit funds clearly shows through in this
calculation.
Comparison with Earlier Estimates
The estimate of a benefit cost ratio of 1.15 is higher than 0.84 estimate made by MnDOT
in 2002. It also higher that the 0.26 that Parsons-Brinckerhoff estimated for the shorter
Elk River line in 1998. What assumptions underlie the three calculations and how do
they differ?
Before considering individual assumptions in detail, it is helpful to display the estimates
of the three studies in side-by-side fashion. The estimates of all three studies are included
in Table 3.
Table 3
Northstar Commuter Rail Benefits and Costs
Comparison of Three Studies
(Present values in million of constant $)
PB MnDOT Anton, Lubov
(in 19985) (in 20015) (in 20075)
Elk River Northstar Northstar
Benefits
Time savings to commuters $ 8.5
Vehicle operating cost savings $ 35.7
Vehicle Accident Cost Savings $ 3.6
Pollution cost savings $ 3.8
Parking cost savings $ 1.6
Future value of depreciated capital stock $ 0.0
$20.7
$125.3
$ 41.0
$ 21.5
$ 18.5
$ 67.8
$ 92.3
$195.9
$ 64.0
$33.4
$ 58.9
$134.4
Total Benefits $ 53.2 $ 294.7 $578.9
Costs
Capital Costs
Operating and Maintenance Costs
$144.0
$ 62.3
$ 213.2
$124.0
$ 301.9
$199.5
Total Costs $206.3 $ 337.2 $501.4
Net present value= - $153.1
- $ 42.4
+ $ 77.5
Benefit/cost ratio= 0.26
Source: Anton, Lubov & Associates, MnDOT, Parsons-Brinckerhoff
0.84
1.15
6
Table 3 shows a side-by-side comparison of the dollar magnitudes of the costs and
benefits in the Parsons-Brinckerhoff study of the Elk River line and the ALA and
MnDOT studies of the Northstar Commuter Rail. While this table makes it clear how the
benefit/cost rations were calculated, it is hard to trace the difference in the three studies
because the dollar magnitudes are denominated in dollars of different years, and hence,
are not easily comparable. Though it is also not obvious from the table, there is another
incomparability in that the three studies used different discount rates. The discount rate
assumptions will be discussed later. In order to make the line item comparisons
understandable, Table 4 includes the quantities from all three studies converted to present
values in 20075 using the appropriate current real discount rate, 2.5 % as recommended
by the U. S. Office of Management and Budget in February, 2003.
Table 4
Northstar Commuter Rail Benefits and Costs
Comparison of Three Studies
(Present values in million of 20075)
Benefits
Time savings to commuters
Vehicle operating cost savings
Vehicle Accident Cost Savings
Pollution cost savings
Parking cost savings
Future value of depreciated capital stock
Total Benefits
Costs
Capital Costs
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Total Costs
PB MnDOT Anton, Lubov
(in 20075) (in 20075) (in 20075)
Elk River Northstar Northstar
$ 10.5 $ 33.1
$ 43.9 $195.9
$ 4.4 $ 64.O
$ 4.7 $33.4
$ 2.0 $ 24.3
$ 0.0 $134.4
$ 92.3
$ 195.9
$ 64.O
$ 33.4
$ 58.9
$ 134.4
$ 65.4 $ 485.1 $ 578.9
$ 177.1 $ 277.9
$ 76.6 $ 199.5
$ 253.7 $ 477.4
$ 301.9
$ 199.5
$ 501.4
Source: Anton, Lubov calculations
7
This table makes it clear that the MnDOT and Anton, Lubov studies are really very
similar in their assumptions. Only three line items are different between the two studies.
ALA changed four assumptions that had been made by MnDOT. These had the effect of
raising the estimated benefits for commuters time and parking cost savings and raised the
capital cost by the $24 million needed to connect the Northstar Rail to the Hiawatha light
rail.
On the other hand, the PB study of the Elk River line differs very substantially from the
two studies of the Northstar Commuter Rail. The benefits for the Elk River line were
estimated as about one-eighth of the benefits estimated for Northstar while the costs are
about half of the costs for the longer rail corridor. The key assumptions that produced
those differences are discussed in the next section.
Differences in Assumptions
These calculations involve many different assumptions and parameters. However there
are a small number of key assumptions that can explain most of the differences between
the three studies. The MnDOT and Anton, Lubov studies differ only in a few
assumptions but the differences between the PB study of the Elk River line and the two
Northstar studies are many. It is easiest to discuss the differences between by
considering the differences between the PB and MnDOT studies first and then discussing
the differences between the MnDOT and ALA studies.
Parsons-Brinckerhoff vs. MnDOT
There are a number of differences in the assumptions underlying these two calculations:
Not the same corridor
The most obvious difference is that the two calculations were made for different train
routes. PB analyzed a corridor from Minneapolis to Elk River while MnDOT study is of
the full Northstar Corridor from Minneapolis to Rice. The Northstar corridor is 82.2
miles long. The PB calculations assume that the distance to Elk River is 41.2 miles even
though their maps indicate the distance as about 30 miles. ( The distance to the Elk River
station included in the Northstar proposal is 28.2 miles, but the station is located south of
the end of the line analyzed by PB.) This distance has the effect of lowering the cost of
the Elk River line relative to the full Northstar line. It also leads to the second difference.
Different ridership forecasts
The PB study used a ridership forecast that predicted that there would be only 3,453 trips
per day on the Elk River line. In contrast, the ridership forecast prepared for the
Northstar line following the standard methodology endorsed by FTA shows 9,594 daily
trips. That is, roughly 3 times as many people are expected to ride the Northstar
Commuter Rail to and from Saint Cloud as PB expected to ride the Elk River line.
Roughly speaking, tripling ridership can be expected to triple the benefits of a project
other things being held equal.
Different capital costs
MnDOT used the actual estimate of $278 million generated from the engineering studies
of the Northstar corridor. PB used per mile cost estimates of the much shorter Elk River
line to estimate a total capital cost of $144.
Weekend Operation
Parsons-Brinckerhoff assumed that the Elk River line would not operate on weekends.
The current plan is for the Northstar Commuter Rail to provide limited weekend service.
9
Adding weekend service has the effect of raising the benefits of the Northstar relative to
the shorter line.
Time saved by rail commuters
Parsons-Brinckerhoff assumed that commuters who took the train would get to work
more slowly than if they drove their cars, both at the beginning of operation of the Elk
River line and after 15 years in 2020. Accordingly, their calculations actually had
negative benefits to commuters who switched from cars. The correct comparison for
these commuters is to compare the total cost of train riding time, plus waiting and
walking time with the time to drive. Even so, this assumption seems very pessimistic
given the current and projected future congestion in the corridor. The train is projected to
travel at 47 miles per hour on average (including stops) while traffic in the corridor is
projected to slow to between 20 and 40 miles per hour in 2025.
In contrast, MnDOT assumed that total trip time for auto-to-rail switcher on the Northstar
line would be 2 minutes slower in the first year and the situation would improve until the
average rider saved two minutes for the whole trip. This is also probably very
conservative in light of the results of recent traffic projections on Highway 10. Using
MnDOT's assumption raises the benefits from those PB estimated for the Elk River line.
Different auto operating cost and average trip lengths
MnDOT used a slightly higher average trip length for the 82.2-mile Northstar corridor
than PB used for the shorter Elk River line (22.1 miles vs. 18.5 miles). MnDOT also
used an updated average operating cost per mile for autos as recommended by the
MnDOT Office of Investment Management. The MnDOT figure was about 10 per cent
higher, adding to benefits.
Different accident frequencies and average costs
MnDOT used actual accident frequency rates from Minnesota while PB used figures
from a standardized model. The rate of accidents per mile was a little higher in the
MnDOT study leading to an increase in the benefits associated with fewer accidents.
MnDOT also used figures for average cost of property-damage accidents and fatal
accidents that were recommended by the MNDOT Office of Investment Management. It
is not clear where the PB numbers came from, but they wer lower than the MnDOT
figures.
Value of the capital stock
MnDOT's analysis assigned a value to the physical capital of the Northstar line after 15
years. This is appropriate since useful life of the stations, roadbed and rolling stock is
longer than 15 years. In it study of the Elk River line, PB did not include this quantity.
Adding this quantity increased the net present value of the Northstar line as compared to
the Elk River line.
10
Discount rate
PB used a real discount rate of 3.0 % in 1998 to present value future benefits and costs to
1998 dollars. MnDOT used a higher discount rate of 4.5% for its present value
calculations. Using a higher discount rate as MnDOT did has the effect of reducing the
value of a Project (and it's benefit/cost ratio) in cases like this one where there are a lot of
up-front costs and net benefits (benefits greater than costs) in future years.
These are the main differences in the PB study of the Elk River line and the MnDOT
study of the Northstar Line. To trace the magnitude of the changes to the calculated costs
and benefits in the two studies, ALA redid the PB calculations in detail and then changed
one assumption at a time to show how much the costs and benefits changed at each step.
The results of that analysis are included in Table 5 appended to the end of this report.
Not surprisingly the tripling the ridership had the greatest dollar impact on benefits
followed by adding in the value of the capital stock. Large changes in costs came from
using the capital costs and operating costs for the 82-mile corridor compared to the
shorter Elk River route.
11
Table 5
Northstar Commuter Rail
Benefit/Cost Comparison
Parsons-Brinckerhoff (1998) Study of "Route B"
VS.
MnDOT(2002) Study of Northstar Commuter Rail
(Present Values in Smillions)
Benefits Costs
Parsons-Brinckerhoff Study of Route B in 1998 $ $ 53.2
Assumptions made by MnDOT
Change to 20015
Change real discount rate from 3.0% to 4.5%
Use capital cost estimate for Northstar
Use operating cost estimates for Northstar
Include depreciated value of capital stock
Use Ridership forecast for Northstar Rail
Update auto operating cost per mile and avg
trip length
Update accident frequency and cost of
accidents
Other assumptions
Total Changes
MnDOT Study (2002) in 2001 $
Source: Anton, Lubov calculations
$ 206.3
+$3.9 +$15.1
-$6.4 -$5.O
+$58.7
+$62.1
+ $ 67.8
+ $ 95.2
+ $ 32.5
+ $ 33.0
$+ 15.5
+ $ 241.5
$ 294.7
+$130.9
$337.2
Net Present
Value
- $153.1
-$42.4
12
MnDOT vs. Anton, Lubov
The MnDOT and Anton, Lubov studies differ on only four points.
Discount rate
The Anton, Lubov study uses a real discount rate of 2.5%. This is the value currently
recommended by the OMB in Washington in its Circular A-94 as being the appropriate
real discount rate for projects of this length. MnDOT had used a rate of 4.5% which had
the effect of reducing the value of both future costs and benefits. Changing to the rate
used by Anton, Lubov raised the present value benefits by $81 million and the present
value of total costs by $43 million.
Cost of connection to Hiawatha LRT
The Anton, Lubov study adds in the $24 million of capital cost needed to connect the
Northstar line with the Hiawatha LRT as required by FTA for its financing. This raises
the capital cost from $278 million to $302 million in 20075.
Time saved by commuters in autos
The Anton, Lubov study adds in a conservative estimate of the value of the time saved by
drivers who remain on the road after roughly 5,000 people per day switch to the train.
The ALA study assumes initially that 6,000 drivers a day save three minutes on both their
morning and evening commutes. After 15 years those number rise to 9,000 drivers
saving 8 minutes each way. Given traffic volumes and projected speeds, we believe that
these numbers probably significantly understate what a more detailed traffic simulation
would show. This calculation adds $59 million to the present value of benefits.
Saved parking costs
The MnDOT study included $18 million in benefits from the avoided cost of not needing
to build additional parking spaces in Minneapolis as a result of fewer commuters driving
to town. Anton ,Lubov took an alternative approach and estimated, instead, the saved
parking costs for individuals over 15 years and present valued that stream. This added
$35 million to benefits.
Table 6 below includes these effects.
13
Table 6
Northstar Commuter Rail
Benefit/Cost Comparison
MnDOT(2002) vs. Anton, Lubov (2003)
(Present Values in Smillions)
MnDOT Study (2002) in 2001 $
Changes made by Anton, Lubov
Change real discount rate from 4.5% to 2.5%
Change units and present value to 20075
Add estimate of time saved by auto
commuters
Add estimate of saved parking costs
Add cost of connection to Hiawatha LRT
Total Changes
Anton, Lubov Study (2003) in 2007 $
Source: Anton, Lubov
Benefits Costs
Net Present
Value
$ 294.7 $ 337.2 - $ 42.4
+ $ 81.3 + $ 43.5
+ $ 109.1 + $ 96.7
+ $ 59.3
+ $ 34.9
+ $ 24.0
+ $ 284.2 + $ 164.2
$ 578.9 $ 501.4
+ $ 77.5
14