Laserfiche WebLink
Mark Olson <br />state Representative <br />Speaker Pro Tempore <br /> <br />District 16B <br />Sherburne County <br /> <br /> July 13, 2004 <br /> <br />INFORMATIO! <br /> <br />.11!1 1 5 <br /> <br />Minnesota <br />House of <br />Representatives <br /> <br />COMMITTEES: CAPITAL INVESTMENT; VICE-CHAIR, EDUCATION POLICY; <br /> <br />Joan SchlTlid~NVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY; TRANSPORTATION POLICY <br />City of Elk River <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />Elk River, MN 55330 <br /> <br />Dear Joan: <br /> <br />Thank you for taking the initiative to send a resolution of support for the new Northstar <br />Commuter Rail proposal during the recent legislative session and for allowing time on your <br />agenda to have a good discussion on the issue. I appreciate hearing from you and your <br />patience in allowing time for a more personal response. <br /> <br />Out of respect to all, the following letter and information is what I have been sending to both <br />supporters and opponents of this proposal. I do appreciate hearing more about your concerns <br />and would be happy to come back to hear any appeal that you would like to make. Good <br />public dialogue is essential for good policy. I have not always opposed the Northstar proposal <br />nor do I fault anyone for supporting it. Research has generally shown that the public stream <br />of information is often misleading. <br /> <br />The enclosed information identifies most of my concerns with the new proposal. There are, <br />however; a few additional points to consider. The first being: What is different about the new <br />shortened proposal to justify support over the 2003 proposal? <br /> <br />The 2004 Northstar rail service distance was cut in half. The rider-ship projections were <br />reduced by about half. In contrast, the total projected cost was only reduced by less than a <br />fourth. <br /> <br />These initial facts did not lead me to believe that this new Northstar proposal would be more <br />cost-effective and affordable than the previous one. The first one was not acceptable, these <br />factors only led to more research. Not to mention, we still do not have agreements with the <br />Burlington Northern SanteFe Railroad (BNSF). <br /> <br />Another concern came from the Federal Transit Authority's (FTA) new Cost Effective-ness <br />Index (CEI). This new index establishes the soft ceiling for a cost per passenger benefit of <br />$25.00. The current CEI is at $24.80. The difference in projected railroad <br />upgrade costs between BNSF and the state is over $50 million. For every million of increased <br />capital costs the CEI increases ten cents. In other words, a $3 million dollar increase will put <br />us over the FTA's $25.00 CEI, $50 million will put us way over. Failure to meet FTA's <br />standards would jeopardize Federal funding. <br /> <br />17085 - 142nd Street, Big Lake, Minnesota 55309 <br />State Office Building, 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1298 <br /> <br />FAX: (651) 296-4307 TTY: (651) 296-9896 Email: rep. mark.olson@house.mn <br /> <br />(763) 263-3500 <br />(651) 296-4237 <br /> <br /> <br />