4.3. SR 06-16-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

As a representative of the Thoreau Institute, Mr. O'Toole has also been published as a strong supporter of roads and automobiles. In our review of his publications, Mr. O'Toole consistently opposes commuter rail projects regardless of their economic value. O'Toole's Analysis of Northstar In reviewing O'Toole's work, it is clear he has not studied the specifics of the Northstar commuter rail project or the growth issues faced by residents of the corridor. Specifically, his analysis falls short in the following areas: General Methodology. O'Toole's analysis selectively uses national data where Minnesota- specific data is available, cherry-picking the information to prove his thesis. His lack of knowledge of the Northstar project is further evidenced by his statement on page 3 that 1-94 is "the principle [sic] alternative to Northstar commuter rail," when US-10 is the primary alternative. He also believes that the rail system will not carry freight, meaning he is unaware that the tracks are already in place and currently carry up to 70 freight trains each day. Benefits of vehicle operating cost savings. O'Toole wants to reduce the value of saved vehicle operating costs by $106.8 million, claiming that the proper measure of saved cost is only about 13 cents per mile instead of the 28.8 cents used in the study. His version of saved costs includes the variable cost of items like tires and gasoline but excludes costs of ownership like insurance and depreciation. While this may sound plausible initially, it flies in the face of standard transportation analysis and accounting/tax practices. The higher figure is the proper measure because it accounts for how a car is actually used: a car that is driven more miles will wear out faster and will need to be replaced sooner Parking cost savings benefit. He argues that the total benefits should be reduced by an additional $34.6 million, reflecting his belief that the capital cost of providing new parking facilities should be used for the parking benefit rather than the avoided cost of parking fees. Mr. Anton believes his method is preferable in this case because parking fees cover both capital and operating costs of additional parking facilities. If you used the method recommended by Mr. O'Toole, the benefit-cost ratio would only be reduced from 1.15 to 1.08. Future value of depreciated capital stock. O'Toole wants to eliminate the present value of the end-of-period capital stock of Northstar rail from total benefits. Including the capital stock is a standard practice and Mr. O'Toole's approach is equivalent to assuming that all of the cars, stations, switches, and track improvements disappear at the end of 15 years when their useful lives are actually much longer. In a subsequent analysis comparing expected costs and benefits over 30 years with the end value of the capital stock assumed to be zero, the benefit-cost ratio was actually 1.32, compared to 1.15 in the 15-year calculations included in the original Anton study. Operating costs. He argues that the operating costs should be increased by $137.7 million to reflect the present value of the operating costs of Northstar Commuter Rail for the second