Back to Press Room

$3.1 Billion InterCounty Connector Won’t Reduce Traffic Congestion
On Beltway, I-95 or I-270, So Why Are We Buying It?

Legislature Asked to Reconsider ICC in View of State Budget Crisis
and Project’s Ineffectiveness

“Maryland’s budget crisis raises the urgent question of why the state still proposes to spend more than $3 billion on the Intercounty Connector, when the state’s own transportation chief admits it will not relieve area highway congestion,” said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.  “The ICC should be on the table in the Special Session opening on Monday.”

Dru Schmidt-Perkins, Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Maryland stated, “It simply makes no sense with this serious budget crisis and the tremendous needs we have for bridge, road repairs and public transit to spend $265 million in general funds and billions in state and federal transportation revenues on a brand-new highway.

The groups highlighted letters from Maryland Secretary of Transportation John Porcari who stated, “…. the ICC is not designed or intended to relieve congestion on the Capital Beltway, I-95, or I-270”  (Secretary’s Letter to Ross, Louise and Thomas Capon, April 9, 2007)

Secretary Porcari confirms what two costly state studies and a Montgomery County study found, even as prior Maryland officials were publicly asserting that the ICC would relieve congestion on the Beltway.

• 1997 ICC Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):  “None of the ICC alternatives will have a substantial impact on the levels of service [congestion] experienced by motorists on the Capital Beltway, I-270, or I-95 within the study area.” (Volume 3, Page VI-23, Maryland Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation)
• 2006 ICC Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): "As expected, the construction of the ICC, under any build alternative, would have a negligible impact on freeway operations in the future. I-270 and I-95 are north-south oriented freeways and therefore demand in the future is not expected to be helped by an ICC. The Capital Beltway is at the lower boundary of the study area and as expected has its own travel market and would not be appreciably impacted by the construction of an ICC." (Environmental Consequences Page IV-343, Maryland Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation)

Phil Andrews, Montgomery County Councilmember argued, “Since the Maryland State Highway Administration has conceded that the ICC would not reduce congestion on the Beltway, I-270 or I-95, state officials should cancel this multi-billion dollar highway and invest Maryland’s scarce transportation funds in transit, maintenance and repair, and cost-effective road improvements.”

 The impact of revenue diversion for the ICC has been documented in a report The Intercounty Connector: Financial, Economic, and Regional Development Costs and Choices published by 1000 Friends of Maryland. The report illuminates many of the serious financial consequences of building the ICC including more than $160 million annually in new debt service costs, an amount that equates to what Maryland now collects each year with six cents of its gasoline tax. Key findings include:

1. General Funds Not Available for Education, Health Care, Environment
In addition to new debt, the ICC would divert significant funds from the General Fund, especially in the next few years, when $265 million would not be available for other priorities in the state, from education, to health care, to protecting the environment.  This commitment was made when the state budget was perceived to be in surplus, not deficit.

2. Toll Revenues Diverted
Tolls collected from drivers as they cross the Bay bridge and go through Baltimore tunnels would be diverted from maintaining those structures to paying for the ICC.  Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) debt ($1 billion) is a key component to the financing plan.  This debt is backed by current revenues from all of the state’s toll roads, bridges, and tunnels (and future users of the ICC). 

3. GARVEE Debt Financing Consumes Debt Capacity, Scarce Federal Revenues
GARVEE bonds, which would cover $1 billion of the cost, are based on “anticipated” (and quite uncertain) federal revenues, and would bring the state to 93% of its debt capacity. This could soon foreclose options for other long-term capital needs such as school construction and urgently needed transit projects.  According to the Department of Legislative Services this could “force] the State to choose between eliminating previously planned capital projects…or loosening decades-old fiscal standards and jeopardizing the AAA bond rating.”

“Some of the ICC’s environmental costs have been well-documented, as has been the state’s failure to consider a full-range of effective alternatives.  Both of these issues are under litigation.  When you add to this failure of the ICC to address traffic congestion, it is clear that it would be fiscally irresponsible to blindly continue with this $3 billion project, especially as Maryland grapples with how to combat global warming,” concluded Greg Smith, Sustainable Montgomery.

###