Credibility questioned in UMD study on ICC

Suspending ethical norms, state officials withheld study data & methodology

The State Highway Administration released a study claiming economic benefits if an ICC were built. In a breach of standard procedural and ethical norms, over 800 pages of supporting methodology or data were not released to the public. This and other problems call into question the credibility of this report.

What you can do to help:

• Write a letter to the Washington Post or the Gazette detailing the problems with the report. Letters can be e-mailed to letters@washpost.com or editor@gazette.net.

• Write to your state representative in the General Assembly. Ask them to demand a fair, complete economic assessment of transportation alternatives to the proposed ICC. You can find out your legislator's contact info by visiting: http://mdelect.net/lookup.asp

Highlights of the report's weaknesses:

• The study ignores all other transportation and land use alternatives, and provides economic data only for an ICC. It fails to show whether other options costing less than the ICC's $3 billion dollar price tag could provide greater economic benefits.

• According to the numbers published in the report, 60% of the jobs supposedly "created" are in the low-paying service and retail sectors.

• The analysis ignores the many studies showing that building new roads is one of the least cost-effective ways of creating new jobs, and that new roads primarily shift jobs already coming to a region to different locations. In the case of the ICC, it would move jobs to places where people are forced to drive more and have longer commutes.

• According to experts, the analysis relies on questionable statistics and surveys and flawed traffic model forecasts, resulting in "faith-based" projections, dependent on faith in the ICC.

**For more in-depth background and references, see points below.

Now that state officials have dropped all claims that an ICC would reduce traffic congestion on the Beltway, and other major highways (as reported by the Washington Post, 9/17/04), they are focusing on claims of economic benefits. The State Highway Administration (SHA) commissioned the Univ. of Md. to perform a $300,000, taxpayer-funded study to examine the economic impacts of an ICC.

This limited study--focused on only what SHA is promoting--is riddled with problems, which call into question its legitimacy as a supporting document to any study of a proposed ICC. Below is a more detailed account of problems with the report.

Extensive Problems with the report

• The vehicle operating cost projections do not appear to account for the cost of tolls, which are essential to the financing plan for the ICC. Peak, one-way tolls of $5.40 have been proposed.

• The time savings projections are questionable given the recent serious criticism of the Transportation Planning Board traffic model by the National Academy of Sciences ("A Citizen Guide to Critiques of the Metropolitan Washington Area Travel Model: What Does it All Mean?" June 15, 2004, Norm Marshall, Smart Mobility, Inc.). In addition to flawed modeling, the study's time savings compare doing nothing to building the ICC. Viable alternatives which have been shown by Montgomery County planners to perform just as well are not considered.

• The study ignores the environmental costs of the ICC, including impacts on parks, recreation, wildlife, and air and water quality.

• The study ignores the costs of longer commutes for those outside the study area in Prince George’s County who have access to too few jobs, and may actually have longer commutes as a result of an ICC.

• The survey of 15 unnamed business leaders is hardly scientific and the process used to select those leaders needs to be disclosed.

• The on-line survey section does not specify the size and statistical accuracy of the sample.

• The study cites business leaders “belief” in a “Diversion Effect,” where the ICC diverts and reduces traffic on other roads. This unscientific belief is completely contrary to the weight of research indicating that new roads induce additional traffic without relieving existing roads (The next two bullets cite two examples.). A federal and state Draft Environmental Impact Study of an ICC in 1997 also found an ICC would increase miles driven on local roads.

• The study’s assumption of a net economic gain, ignores the conclusion of Professor Robert Cervero, a professor of city and regional planning at the Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley, following analysis of the full range of transportation studies on induced traffic. His conclusion: "The dominant effect of building roads is likely to reshuffle growth within a region, not to add jobs and households."  (http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/2003/ftp050803.htm).

• The study assumes a net economic gain because it ignores the diversion of economic investment from other locations including Prince George’s county, the District of Columbia and Baltimore. The Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board analysis of the expansion of I-270 concluded that this highway's expansion shifted jobs and population to the I-270 corridor that would have otherwise located in the District of Columbia and Prince George’s County (http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/9F5WXg20030415103348.pdf).

• Freight shipment has been a major argument used by proponents of the ICC, yet the report states that, “those interviewed believe that the economic benefit of the ICC to regional carriers and shippers is likely to be only incremental.” (p. 12). Specific analysis of FedEx delivery from Rockville to Bethesda showed that any time savings would only be 4-6 minutes, the equivalent of the time it takes to serve just one customer. Furthermore, “the majority of the day is spent loading and unloading vehicles or making multiple stops within a small area.” (p. 13). The latter information actually helps to confirm the efficiency provided by compact development patterns for the collection and delivery of a higher volume of packages to a greater number of customers.