What's New
The Maryland General Assembly failed to pass legislation this year that would have reviewed the environmental impacts of the Intercounty Connector or cut its funding.
As the first stages of construction get underway, now is our last chance to cancel this destructive project.
How You Can Help
Gov. O'Malley should perform an honest review of how much the ICC would cost and how much it would increase pollution. Send an e-mail to the governor urging him to reconsider the ICC.
Brief Summary
The Intercounty Connector
is a proposed six-lane toll highway that would run 18 miles, connecting I-270
in Gaithersburg with I-95 in Laurel.
If built, it would constitute the first link in an outer beltway circling the Washington
metro area and facilitating extensive sprawl development. Originally proposed
in 1953, this contentious project has been rejected twice based on assessments
of the environmental impacts it would have.
The ICC would trigger 5000 more acres of sprawl, severely impacting 20 miles of streams that feed into the Potomac
and Anacostia rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.
The state’s own Final
Environmental Impact Study shows:
- More
cars would drive more miles, creating more global warming pollution. Vehicle
miles traveled in the ICC study area would increase by 20 percent.
- The
ICC would not relieve traffic on I-95, I-270 or I-495. More than half of local roads studied
would get more congestion or show no relief.
The ICC will cost a staggering $3
billion (including financing). Most of this will be in the form of debt
borrowed against federal transport funding to the state for years into the
future. If the ICC moves forward, we would not be able to afford crucial
projects such as Baltimore’s Red
Line, rail on the Wilson Bridge,
the Purple Line in the Washington
suburbs, or the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of BRAC-related
infrastructure needs in and around Ft.
Meade, Aberdeen,
and Bethesda.
Two serious and substantial
federal lawsuits against the ICC’s flawed environmental process have been
filed. Alternatives to the ICC that would reduce
sprawl, balance jobs and housing, and improve public transit have been ignored.
Nobody has adequately assessed the impacts of toxic
and carcinogenic car and truck emissions on nearby communities.
The ICC would be a major step backward for efforts to
reduce global warming pollution. Sensible land use patterns and transportation choices
are essential to the state’s commitment to long term solutions to global
warming.
