The ICC would be a bad choice for
Maryland communities because:

AN ICC DOES NOT RELIEVE TRAFFIC

In November, 2004 the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) released their full study of the Intercounty Connector (ICC). Its findings supported similar data from past SHA studies of the toll-highway.

The study found the ICC would have no impact on congestion levels on the Capital Beltway, I-95, or I-270—perhaps the three biggest traffic nightmares in the region. More importantly, these roads—a long with various north-south routes not improved by an ICC—carry the vast majority of the trips people in the region take.

On the secondary, local roads in the area surrounding the ICC analysis found that some do improve. However more than half of the local roads the state studied either saw increases in traffic due to interchange tie-ups and other changes brought by the highway, or there was no change in congestion at all.

According to the state’s analysis, people who would benefit most—those who would use the ICC from end to end for long trips—represented just 1% of ICC users. Meanwhile, three quarters of potential ICC users travel only a short distance with little time savings. For a further explanation, read Walter Scott’s ICC study comments by clicking here (PDF File, 61KB).

Most people in the region wouldn’t use the ICC at all. While the ICC is projected to carry 80,000 daily trips, 750,000 use the Beltway, I-270, and I-95, not to mention hundreds of thousands of trips on other roads. This vast majority of drivers fail to see any congestion relief from an ICC. Remember, this is the Ehrlich administration’s own figures. Is this what we’re paying $3 billion for?

For a longer list of technical examples of the ICC’s lack of benefits click here.

An ICC would be an expensive Toll-Highway

The ICC would be a costly toll-highway. The actual toll levels are not known, but could easily be as high as $5 per round trip. The State Highway Administration is planning “managed toll lanes,” an untested technology in Maryland. Tolls would rise as congestion increases, actually discouraging use, sending more traffic back to local roads. In fact, there’s no guarantee that estimates of ICC use, and toll revenue, would be met—especially with rising gas prices.

AN ICC HURTS NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Paint Branch Park lies in the ICC's path

The Intercounty Connector would divide communities, and increase noise and air pollution in many neighborhoods. It would also cause irreparable damage to valuable wetlands, forests, streams, and threatened plants and wildlife.

According to the State Highway Administration’s 2004 ICC study the toll-highway’s impacts to forests, streams and wetlands are greater now than in past studies.

For example, compare the direct ICC footprint in the 1997 State Highway Administration ICC study and their current 2004 study:

• Forest loss:
  1997: 492-554 acres
  2005: 589-794 acres
• Streams impacted:
  1997: 29,451-31,427 (5.6-6 miles)
  2005: 35,517 and 48,920 feet (6.7-9.3 miles)
• Wetland loss:
  1997: 19-21 acres
  2005: 59-75 acres

Sources: State and Federal ICC DEIS, 2004: section IV, pages 230, 187-191, 145-149. State and Federal ICC DEIS, 1997: section IV, pages 221, 214.

According to the state’s study, in addition to the ICC’s direct footprint it would cause development which would not occur otherwise. Depending on which alignment is chosen, the total impacts would be:

• Forest loss: Between 4,070 and 4,298 acres

• Streams impacted:
  Between 153,017 (29 miles) and 168,420 feet (32 miles)

• Farmland loss: Between 2102 and 2,348 acres

• Wetlands loss: Between 268 and 291 acres

• Floodplain loss: Between 419 and 420 acres

• Reservoir impact: Between 313 and 659

Source: State and Federal ICC DEIS: section IV, page 373

Statistics only tell part of the story. The parks and natural areas impacted are a resource beloved by the entire region, particularly the families who live near by. Neighborhood access to parkland would be severely disrupted by an ICC.

In addition, people’s homes and businesses would be lost forever. To learn more about some stories of real people who would loose their homes, visit: http://home.comcast.net/~realpeople/

WE NEED TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
Without the ICC we have more options

What do we support to address traffic problems and mobility needs?

Save Our Communities advocates a wider range of transportation choices for how we get around, and also where we live and work. We need more options to address transportation problems. The ICC limits these choices and options.

3 Key Ways to provide more choices for more people:

1. Invest in transit.
2. Fix and improve our existing road network first.
3. Plan our development carefully. Put more homes and jobs near transit, and closer together to reduce long commutes and congested trips for basic errands.

Let’s get more specific

Numerous studies have shown that there are a variety of viable transportation options which can reduce congestion and enhance mobility without major highway expansion like the ICC.

In their current study, Maryland’s State Highway Administration (SHA) has steadfastly refused to consider these realistic alternatives. SHA is only willing to look at building highway or doing nothing to meet the region’s growing traffic problems. As a result, the ICC’s merits cannot be fairly judged. Without stacking all our choices up against the ICC, we have no idea whether Maryland’s biggest single transportation expenditure is the best investment.

In response, the environmental and smart growth community commissioned a study by a professional traffic modeling agency. Using the same computer models and background data the state used in their study, we compared the ICC with options previously analyzed by the Montgomery County Council.

The study, conducted by Smart Mobility, Inc., found that a package of alternatives performed better. Compared to building an ICC, alternatives resulted in:

• Fewer hours of travel
• Fewer hours of delay
• Fewer miles traveled on highways and secondary roads
• Better air quality
• More transit trips
• Lower cost

To read more about the study and alternatives, click here.

Another credible source for information about the performance of alternatives to the ICC is Montgomery County’s 2001 Transportation Policy Report. The minority findings in the study highlight the positive performance of alternatives.

If we invest in a wide range of transportation and development strategies, we get a variety of potential solutions working together to effectively meet the needs of the greatest number of people. The ICC is the opposite—it puts all our resources into a single project which serves the needs of a tiny minority, failing to address traffic and mobility problems.

AN ICC INCREASES REGIONAL DIVISIONS

The ICC would hurt important parts of Maryland's economy. It would concentrate even more development in the I-270 corridor at the expense of Prince George's County and Baltimore.

The ICC would exacerbate "a region divided" between east and west, and between Prince George's County and Montgomery County.

On June 10, 2003 the Prince George's County Council voted unanimously in favor of a resolution opposing the ICC. On November 14, 2003, Prince George's County Council Chair, Peter Shapiro released a statement further highlighting the negative effects the ICC would have on Prince George's County.

To read a press release about the June 10, 2003 resolution, click here.

Photo at right: Outer loop of the Capital Beltway backs up flowing out of Prince George's County. Over 60% of Prince George's residents leave the county to get to work each day, clogging the Beltway and other arteries. The ICC would only make this problem worse.

 

Official statement from Peter Shapiro, Prince George's County Council Chair

November 14, 2003 Why We Call the ICC a Prince George's Bypass Our region is a region divided. East vs. west, we are divided by race, divided by personal income level and severely divided by economic situation. We see the ICC as the Prince George's Bypass because it would exacerbate these regional divisions. The Governor and Montgomery County leadership have stated that the goal of the ICC is threefold 1) to relieve congestion on the beleaguered Beltway; 2) to open up opportunities for new businesses to relocate here from outside the region; 3) and to provide better access to BWI airport from the I-270 corridor. First, we support congestion relief on the Beltway, but we have seen no credible evidence that the ICC, a multi-billion dollar investment of tax-payer dollars, most of which is in Montgomery County, would provide even nominal relief. A more effective but less sexy solution would be substantial investment in technology to improve the management and operations of the existing roadways. Half the roadway congestion is caused by traffic accidents. Addressing this would have an immediate, measurable and long-term impact on reducing congestion. Another alternative, a comprehensive system of HOV and HOT (variably-priced toll) Lanes would not only reduce congestion but would raise revenue to pay for more improvements. Second, a new outer beltway such as the ICC would certainly encourage business development along its alignment, but likely at the expense of other communities in the region. According to a recent market analysis conducted by Scheer Partners Inc, Montgomery County has almost 59 million square feet of office space, average rents almost $24 a square foot and a vacancy rate of under 10%. While our prospects are good with new office development on the horizon in Bowie, Greenbelt, Hyattsville and Suitland among other places, Prince George's County has less than 19 million square feet of office space, average rents under $17 a square foot and a vacancy rate of over 12%. Study data has shown consistently that road widenings, and outer beltways, are engines of economic shifts within a region, not economic growth across the region. A study from Anita Kramer and Associates shows that if the techway were built, eleven to twenty-five percent of projected new jobs in Prince George's County would shift instead to the northwest part of the region. This study finds economic shifts similar to those experienced after I-270 was widened. According to 2000 census data, Montgomery County has 150,000 more jobs than Prince George's County but only 32,000 more households. That's five more jobs for every extra household. It's no wonder that roads in the county are congested with neighboring residents trying to get to Montgomery County jobs. It would benefit both counties to have a better balance of jobs and residents. Finally, it is irrefutable that an ICC would provide somewhat better access to BWI from the I-270 corridor. But at what cost? County Executive Duncan and a majority of the Montgomery Council are committed to the redevelopment of Silver Spring. This is done in recognition that a County divided along lines of race, class and economic opportunity is not healthy. The Prince George's County Council unanimously opposes the ICC because from history we know that the county would further lose jobs and prospects for increased economic vitality to the favored northwestern quarter of the region. According to the Brookings Institution, "All of the jurisdictions in the region, no matter what their social or economic condition, are linked... If our regional divisions widen as growth proceeds, it will be difficult if not impossible, to create a region that is competitive, prosperous and livable." We implore the Governor and the Montgomery leadership to join us in thinking regionally and reconsider the ICC. Peter Shapiro Chair of the Prince George's County Council

Why an ICC is bad for Baltimore

The local business community, city residents, and others concerned with the continuing success of Baltimore’s revitalization should be wary of the Intercounty Connector. The ICC is a major interstate toll-highway just 30 miles from Baltimore, which would be the first link in an Outer Beltway just 15 miles outside of Washington, DC. Why should this a concern Baltimore?

In a national study, Professor Robert Cervero concluded that, "the dominant effect of building roads is likely to reshuffle growth within a region, not to add jobs and households." According to the Washington Post and others, an ICC would encourage new development in far flung suburban areas outside of Maryland and D.C.’s major urban areas – particularly in the already successful western Montgomery County, I-270 corridor – taking jobs and economic development away from areas like Baltimore.

But there are simpler reasons for Baltimoreans to oppose an ICC – here are the top 3:

• An ICC would use tolls collected statewide to run up a $1.2 billion ICC debt, quadrupling the agency’s current debt. This would limit Maryland’s toll investments for many years to come.

• Currently, funding for Baltimore’s Red Line includes only “study” dollars – there are no commitments for construction. With rising ICC costs due to increases in gas, energy and construction prices, the $3 billion project threatens to suck up money we need for other, better projects.

• An ICC would cut federal highway funding to Maryland by 12-18% for the next 15 years. With federal highway aid to states expected to decline, this is a risky way to spend money we need for projects across the state.

Some might think the ICC is just another project, far from Baltimore. But the ICC’s dubious benefits and unprecedented cost put it in a unique category which deserves the attention of the entire state. To learn more about the ICC, click here.

Click here to find out what you can do.