4.3. SR 06-16-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Review of Benefit-Cost Analysis of Northstar Commuter Rail 2 · Parking cost savings; · Future value of depreciated capital stock. Nearly all of these supposed benefits are exaggerated due to errors in assumptions about costs and operations. The analysis also ignores the fact that most of these benefits accrue to only a few thousand people, while everyone in Minnesota will be asked to pay the costs. Time savings-A 1998 Parsons-Brinckerhoff study of a truncated Northstar commuter rail line estimated that people who use the commuter train woul~t actually spend at least six minuteS more en route than if they drove. In 2002, the state of Minnesota reduced this to a two-minute loss in 2007, but projected that train riders would save two minutes in 2022. In other words, the state estimates that traffic congestion on 1-94 and US 10 will slow driving on those routes, giving rail an advantage in 2022 that it would not have in 2007. This estimate is almost certainly wrong. It assumes, first, that the state will do nothing to relieve increasing congestion between 2007 and 2022. While the state in 2002 may have had a policy of discouraging auto driving by letting congestion increase, this policy is not likely to survive voter scrutiny. If any congestion relief is provided, a large portion of the supposed benefits of commuter rail will evaporate. A second implicit assumption is that people will respond to increasing congestion by simply living with the waste of their time. In fact, people respond to congestion in many ways, including changing their employment locations, their home locations, their work hours, and the routes they travel to work. When these options are available, it is unlikely that the average commuter will accept a four-minute loss in travel time between 2007 and 2022. On top of this, Ar~:~.ton, Lubov makes an additional estimate that the state did not make: that the commuter train would take enough cars off the road to save auto commuters an average of 3 minutes per trip in 2007 and 8 minutes per trip in 2022. This assumption accounted for nearly two thirds of the $92.3 million benefit attributed to time savings. Once again, this estimate presumes that the state will do nothing to relieve congestion on 1-94 and U.S.' 10. If the state does do something to relieve congestion other than run a commuter rail line, then this benefit will disappear. The estimate also presumes that commuter rail will lead no one to change their behavior other than, in a few instances, ride commuter rail. As noted, however, people respond to traffic congestion by changing their work hours, routes of travel, and work or home locations. If commuter rail leads some people to stop