Fairfax BOS Chairman Bulova Response and County Auditor Recommendations re RCA Study of WIlbur Smith Associates Traffic and Revenue Forecasts, February 3, 2012

The following are the comments and recommendations from the County auditor's office:

The RCA study makes a critique of WSA’s traffic and revenue analysis, pointing to a national problem:  RCA referenced two main studies in their analysis.  The NCHRP study has been available for some time.  The study(s) by Bain were initially prepared for S&P so the rating agencies have been aware of it and apparently had earlier concerns.  In summary, this is probably not news to the highway or financial groups and I suspect they have compensated for it.  The two specific studies are:

•           National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP – est. 1962) is supported by state DOTs and FHWA.  Thus, DOTs and FHWA should be aware of the base analysis.  NCHRP report was 2006.

•           Bain papers were based on 2002-2005 projects for rating agency Standard and Poors, and then compiled in a 2009 research paper.    Thus, this is not news to the rating agencies, especially S&P.  MWAA’s 2010/2009 uninsured bonds were rated BBB+/BBB by S&P (last level before junk bond status).

 

RCA’s critique at a local level - Fairfax County Population and Employment:  RCA used population and employment as two data points to apply the above national reports to the DTR study.  This leaves out several other data points.  I tried to replicate what RCA did with the other data points but could not do it without access to the source data.  This is because the other data points are not as directly presented in the WSA report.  I’m sure RCA tried the same thing.  While the two data points are very critical, they are not the complete data set used by WSA.  Below are my observations as to what WSA should have done in 2009 and therefore should consider for the upcoming report.

•           It is important to note that RCA’s presentment of the numeric differences are factual and correct.  The differences are significant and would have an impact on the study results, especially in the 2020 and 2030 periods.

•           Why WSA used Woods & Poole data should have been explained.

•           Variance from MWCOG, GMU CRA and Linden Street projections should be addressed to better describe and make the WSA analysis transparent.  In other words what did Woods and Poole do to the regional data and why?

•           Population and employment, while significant, are not the only economic/socio/demographic indicators used in the analysis.  At least seven other main factors are used.  Then there are traffic specific factors.

•           Population and Employment are the only factors that could be easily cross referenced between MWCOG and Woods and Poole.  A greater examination of any differences in other data sets would be useful in drawing any further conclusions.

 

Prior Analysis:

OFPA already recommended that MWAA more fully disclose the potential divergence of commuters from the toll road to the Silver Line in future T&R studies (January 2011).

“This analysis has not addressed the impact of the potential Metrorail Project on DTR traffic.” Supporting Analysis for the Dulles Toll Road (DTR) Corridor Growth Assessment; Linden Street Associates, March 2008, p5.

 

Recommendations:

Starting a new T&R study is not a very practical consideration given the timing of Phase II decisions.  An outside consultant could be hired to critique the upcoming study and WSA should be aware of that possibility.  The RCA’s national recommendations have merit, but their consideration is outside of Fairfax County’s immediate needs or scope.

 

The next Traffic and Revenue Study should as a baseline explain the acquisition and use of data other than that from MWCOG and GMU CRA.  Adjustments to that data should be explained fully and transparently in the body of the study.  Clearly, the RCA paper will focus much attention on this issue for the upcoming WSA study.