The Eyes of Paint Branch - Fall 2002 Newsletter
Volume: 8 Issue: 2

A Short History of the ICC:
An Idea Whose Time is Past



Proponents of the ICC often say that it should be built because it has been in the county’s master plan for many decades. What they don’t say is how it got there.

The concept of an outer circumferential freeway originated in the early 1950s. Planners picked a radial distance from the inner city and charted a route that linked the least developable areas. In general the high, dry areas are the first to be developed, and the low, wet areas (like stream valleys) are the last to be developed. Consequently, the resulting route cut through the middle of stream valleys and across six different watersheds.

Two generations of volunteers planting trees next to the ICC Master Plan Aligment.

In the 1960s this route was identified as the Outer Beltway and was included in the state's 20-Year Highway Needs Inventory. But as scientists learned more about the importance of protecting natural areas, laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 instituted prohibitions against building roads through parks, wetlands, and sensitive resources. In the 1970s, the concept of an Outer Beltway was dropped from planning documents, but the portion of such a facility between I-270 and the Baltimore Washington Parkway known as the Inter-County Connector (ICC) was retained. No studies to justify the need for this road or determine its effectiveness were conducted, nor was there any public process.

In the 1980s a Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed for the proposed ICC along the Alternate G (Modified) route. The federal regulatory agencies clearly stated this route was unacceptable because of unavoidable severe environmental impacts to sensitive stream valleys, wetlands, and wooded areas. Further, they suggested that a more northerly route along the ridgelines rather than through the stream valleys should be considered.

In the early 1990s proponents tried once again to dust off this old relic. Another ICC study was initiated which included a northern route. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with the northern route as an option was issued in 1997. Federal environmental agencies again expressed their concerns about the environmental and social impacts of the old Alternate G (Modified) route, now labeled the "Master Plan Alignment." The Environmental Protection Agency gave the Master Plan Alignment their worst possible rating. The Army Corps of Engineers stated that they would never approve the needed permits for construction of the ICC on the Master Plan Alignment. The U.S. Department of the Interior and the Fish & Wildlife Service responded similarly.

Based on this response, the Maryland State Highway Administration announced that it would no longer pursue construction of a new roadway on the Master Plan Alignment between MD 197 (Georgia Avenue) and U.S. 29, the area through the Northwest Branch and Paint Branch Stream Valley Parks. The Federal Highway Administration concurred with this decision. Soon thereafter, the Montgomery County Council voted against all DEIS alternatives.

In the spring of 1998, Governor Glendening put the ICC on indefinite hold and appointed a panel of nationally renowned transportation and land use experts and local stakeholders, the Transportation Solutions Group (TSG), to take a fresh look at short- and long-term solutions to the transportation needs in the area. In July 1999 the TSG stated that priority should be given first to vehicle travel reduction, and unanimously recommended a package land use, transit, and travel demand management measures. This included economic incentives for taking mass transit or car pooling and living close to jobs, reclaiming brownfields (old industrial sites), building bicycle and pedestrian amenities, improving bus service, and studying the possibility of a Metrorail purple line. The TSG voted against building the ICC at one point, but later endorsed the concept of a value-priced, parkway-like roadway between I-270 and I-95 on a split vote. The Group could not agree on a route for this roadway. A TSG Minority Report pulled together the integrated land use and transportation strategies that were unanimously endorsed by the TSG.

On September 22, 1999, Governor Glendening announced his long-awaited decision on the ICC. The Governor stated "I will not build the InterCounty Connector. As far as I am concerned, there is no ICC!" He stated that he would sell the properties the state has acquired for the northern alignment to prevent the road from ever being built there, and would recommend that the property along the master plan alignment be reserved for parkland and mass transit. He also proposed building two new parkway roads, one at the west end of the proposed ICC route and the other at the east end. The state would also pay for major intersection improvements throughout Montgomery County in an effort to ease traffic congestion. Governor Glendening also stated that "With regard to the Master Plan Alignment, specifically the section including the Northwest Branch and Paint Branch, again, the Federal environmental agencies have made it very clear to us that because of the severe environmental impacts, they will never approve a roadway in this area… Also, the Transportation Solutions Group's studies show that building such a connector would have a minimal -- I repeat minimal -- impact on Beltway traffic in any significant way. It would not relieve Beltway traffic."

A fully functional wetland, as indicated by vegetation, in the Good Hope sub-watershed, near the ICC Master Plan Alignment.

On March 5, 2002, the Montgomery County Council voted against supporting a non-binding state legislative resolution to restart the draft environmental impact study (DEIS) for the Inter-County Connector. "This Council agrees with Governor Glendening and with our colleagues on the Prince George's County Council. The ICC would be very destructive to the environment -- however it is built -- and would do precious little to relieve traffic congestion."

In August 2002 the county cable channel featured an interview with Governor Glendening. Excerpts on the ICC include:

"We have a disproportionate amount of investment in roads over transit…Let's use really good land use to build communities, then figure out the roads we need -- not the other way around..."

"We've looked at the InterCounty Connector -- and seen that it would be a disaster. Candidly, when we were first looking at it a decade ago, when I was first elected Governor, I supported it. But the more I got into the analysis of it, I said it made no sense. The environmental impact cannot be mitigated, it will be very serious. It's just not cost-effective. You are talking about at least a billion and a half dollars and the best analysis I've seen shows it will reduce about six minutes for people coming from central Montgomery County and going to BWI Airport…"

"I know people are out there running for various offices saying, 'Oh, I'll build the ICC.' But I think when they come to grips with what it really means, including the environmental impact, they'll realize it'll never be approved by the federal government. They'll understand we need to look at alternatives -- alternatives like better land use, more mass transit, and better utilization of our existing roads network -- including carefully thought-out and designed road construction.”