Economic Impact Analysis
MN 371 • Brainerd Lakes Area
Brainerd Lakes Area Transportation Infrastructure Assessment

371 Economic Impact Analysis (Simple)

A simplified benefit-cost screening dashboard comparing interchange alternatives using travel time savings, safety benefits, vehicle operating cost (VOC) reductions, and maintenance costs, with results summarized using Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR).

Date: June 10, 2025
Discount Rate: 4%
Analysis Period: 30 years
Selected Alternative
Click a row in the table to change
Annual Net Benefit
$—M
Time + Safety + VOC − Maintenance
BCR (Screening)
NPV ÷ Construction Cost

Summary

This is a simplified screening tool intended for comparison across alternatives. It does not replace a full engineering, traffic, safety, or financial feasibility study.

Economic Framework

Alternatives are evaluated using a benefit-cost framework that summarizes annual net benefits and converts them into a discounted Net Present Value (NPV).

BCR = NPV of Benefits ÷ Construction Cost
  • Travel time savings
  • Safety improvements
  • Vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings
  • Maintenance costs (deducted from annual benefits)

Decision Emphasis

The corridor’s economic profile is used to contextualize disruption sensitivity and the value of reliability and safety. Baseline business and employment figures are summarized in the Business Context section.

Use the calculator to compare results under different discount rates and time horizons.

Comparative Assessment of Alternatives

Click column headers to sort. Click a row to select an alternative.

Alternative Travel Time (M/yr) Safety (M/yr) VOC (M/yr) Maintenance (M/yr) Construction Cost (M)
selected best by annual net benefit

Annual Net Benefit

Time + Safety + VOC − Maintenance

NPV + BCR Calculator

Adjust discount rate and analysis period. Results update for the selected alternative.

Selected Alternative
Annual Net Benefit
M/yr
NPV (Benefits)
M
BCR (Screening)
NPV = Σ AnnualNetBenefit / (1 + r)t
BCR = NPV / ConstructionCost

Interpretation

  • BCR > 1 indicates benefits exceed costs under the selected assumptions.
  • BCR < 1 indicates costs exceed benefits under the selected assumptions.
  • Higher values indicate stronger economic efficiency in the screening framework.
Results are dependent on input assumptions and the quality of underlying benefit estimates.

Business & Employment Context

Baseline business and employment figures provide local context for corridor sensitivity to access disruption and the scale of travel-time reliability and safety benefits. See methodology & sources.

ESRI Business Summary (Baseline)

Total businesses
Establishments
Total employees
Jobs located in place
Construction Employment Scale
Total jobs created
% of local employment
%

Source: ESRI Business Summary (Place geography).

Context in the Decision Narrative

  • Disruption sensitivity: retail and service corridors are access-sensitive during construction.
  • Reliability value: employee concentration increases the value of travel-time reliability.
  • Safety value: safety benefits apply across both workforce and customer flows.

Methodology & Sources

This screening framework summarizes annual benefits and costs and applies discounting to estimate Net Present Value (NPV) and a simplified Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR).

Inputs

  • Annual travel time savings (M USD)
  • Annual safety benefits (M USD)
  • Annual vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings (M USD)
  • Annual maintenance cost (M USD), treated as a negative benefit
  • Construction cost (M USD), treated as an upfront investment

NPV

NPV is calculated by discounting annual net benefits over the analysis period using the selected discount rate. Annual net benefits are defined as (Travel Time + Safety + VOC − Maintenance).

BCR (Screening)

The screening BCR is computed as NPV of benefits divided by construction cost. This is a simplified comparison metric.

ESRI Business Summary

ESRI business and employment figures are used only to provide baseline economic context (scale and sector mix) and to explain corridor sensitivity to disruption. These figures are not used to claim causality or guarantee job creation.

Notes

  • Results are dependent on input assumptions and the quality of underlying benefit estimates.
  • All values are presented in simplified form for comparative screening.