The Eyes of Paint Branch - Spring 2003 Newsletter
Volume: 9 Issue: 1
Q&A on the ICC
It’s costly, it’s destructive, and it won’t provide traffic relief. Nevertheless, the ICC is back. Here is a summary of what’s happening, what’s at stake, and what you can do about it.
What is fast-tracking?
Fast-tracking is the popular term for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) new program of “accelerated environmental review.” In late February, DOT announced that it had selected the ICC as one of 13 projects slated for fast-tracking nationwide. These projects had been nominated by governors and local officials. Eyes of Paint Branch, along with many other groups, does not believe that the ICC meets the criteria for fast-tracking and had written to the DOT Secretary to request that the ICC not be so designated. Our letter, which is posted on our Web site at www.eopb.org, provided strong justification for our position, but it failed to persuade the DOT Secretary.
What is the usual process for building a road?
The process of building a road involves a number of phases and takes many years, particularly if federal funds are used. These phases include planning, preliminary design, final design, and construction. The planning phase involves assessing the purpose and need, soliciting public comment, and, if federal funds are used, preparing a formal environment impact statement. When the project potentially impacts wetlands and parkland, as the ICC does, then a number of federal environmental agencies must be involved. These include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior, in addition to the Federal Highway Administration and the Maryland State Highway Administration. The preliminary design phase involves consideration of alignment issues and required lanes, identification of alternatives, and selection of a preferred alternative. The final design phase involves completing the design, acquiring right of way, and completing cost estimates. The construction phase involves bids and contract awards, actual construction, and delivery.
Why is fast-tracking a concern?
The prescribed process outlined above has, in the past, given voice and consideration to multiple perspectives and provided some level of checks and balances. The significance of fast-tracking is not yet known, since this program is so new. However, it is likely that any changes that result will reduce the level of checks and balances available in any future ICC study. Eyes of Paint Branch and other groups are concerned that the push to build the road may overwhelm this process and cause important considerations, including non-road-building alternatives that would reduce congestion, to be brushed aside. In announcing the fast-tracking, the DOT Secretary said, “President Bush asked that we facilitate the environmental review process for transportation investments so that they could be completed more quickly, at less cost, and without damaging the environment.” The emphasis in this statement seems to be on completing the projects, and here the concern is that federal agencies may feel compelled to do so.
Can the ICC be built without damaging the environment?
No. Federal agencies have stated that the impacts would be unavoidable and severe, no matter what road-building technology was used. The ICC would cut across and severely degrade six watersheds, including fragile headwaters of the Anacostia River; add sediment, heat, and chemicals to the streams, greatly reducing their biodiversity; destroy over 100 acres of wetlands; devastate over 1,000 acres of increasingly rare forest habitat for 21 species of forest-interior-dependent songbirds; and eliminate the last-remaining east-west wildlife corridors in eastern and central Montgomery County.
Wasn’t the ICC killed a few years ago?
Yes. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1997. After having gathered exhaustive amounts of data, it said that “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.” The Environmental Protection Agency gave the Master Plan Alignment of the ICC, which goes through the Paint Branch, the agency’s worst possible rating. The Army Corps of Engineers stated that it would never approve the permits needed for construction on the Master Plan Alignment. The Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service responded similarly. SHA stated that “the Master Plan Alignment would have adversely impacted large portions of the Paint Branch and Northwest Branch parks. Proceeding with this option would simply not reflect the Administration’s commitment to environmental preservation.” Then-Governor Glendening was persuaded by this overwhelming evidence to kill the ICC. And, according to the Washington Post (September 10, 1997, p. A1), “[Montgomery] County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) praised the state’s action, which killed the stretch of the master plan route east of Georgia Avenue and west of U.S. Route 29. That stretch is where the major environmental problems were,” Duncan said. “The state did the right thing.”
What has changed since then?
The environmental issues have not gone away. But over the past couple of years, the ICC issue has been successfully framed in a well-coordinated and well-financed publicity campaign by development interests in terms of “traffic gridlock.” Simultaneously, many of the federal rules that govern the process described above and have provided protection in the past are being rolled back. For example, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s January 2003 report, Rewriting the Rules, “In early January 2003, the EPA announced plans for new policies to greatly reduce the number of wetlands and waterways protected by the Clean Water Act.” The report also states that the current administration has “moved to undercut the grandfather of environmental statutes, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires public participation in key environmental decisions, and mandates the preparation of environmental impact statements for federal actions with potentially important environmental repercussions. In recent proposals, the Bush administration has sought to scale back long-standing requirements for environmental reviews and public participation applying to highway construction.”
Why is public participation important?
EOPB members have participated in all three previous ICC studies and have first-hand knowledge that public participation has been essential to ensure a fair, open, and honest assessment of the facts. (All three previous ICC studies resulted in decisions by federal and state agencies to not build the ICC.) Expediting the environmental review process can only reduce public participation, decrease the disclosure of information, and limit the evaluation of any new facts.
Do new or improved road-building techniques exist?
None that we are aware of. If the State Highway Administration has new or improved construction and mitigation techniques, then there needs to be fair, open, and honest evaluation of its approach. An evaluation of mitigation strategies and technologies is detailed work, and it is absolutely critical that there is enough time to do this properly.
Would the ICC provide relief from traffic congestion?
No. Government studies have shown that the ICC would not appreciably reduce traffic on Rte 29, I-270, or the Beltway. In fact, if the ICC is built and (currently stalled) development proceeds as the ICC would permit, the average Beltway speed would drop from 27 mph to 22 mph. And studies have shown that because the ICC would be a limited-access highway there would be more travel, not less, on local roads.
What is the BLU alternative?
The Balanced Land Use scenario (BLU) is a less costly, non-road-building alternative to reduce traffic congestion that would have fewer adverse impacts on the environment. It would direct growth into compact, balanced mixed-use communities in a pattern closely oriented to the transit system. This approach was thoroughly tested as part of MNCPPC’s Transportation Policy Report of January 2002 and shown to provide a real alternative to the ICC. EOPB believes the BLU alternative should be studied, but it may require a major lobbying effort to persuade decision-makers to include it in the new ICC study. See Pam Lindstrom’s article elsewhere in this issue.
What are some of the transit projects that could help provide true congestion relief?
Examples include the Corridor Cities Light Rail project, which would connect Clarksburg with Shady Grove Metro via Germantown, Gaithersburg, and Rockville; and the Inner Purple Line, which would connect Silver Spring to Bethesda.
Where can I learn more?
More detailed information on the fast-tracking program is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/index.htm. For information on the ICC and the damage it would cause, visit http://www.eopb.org. For information on true solutions to traffic congestion, see the Solutions Not Sprawl Web site at solutionsnotsprawl.org.
What can we do?
The best way to ensure that the next study is conducted fairly is to get involved. While the details of the fast-tracking decision are not yet clear, the meaning for those who value the local environment and want a real solution to traffic congestion is plain. It is going to take more work by more people to ensure that the anticipated ICC study process is fair, equitable, and factual. Citizen participation was critical in the past, and will be even more important in the next study. EOPB plans to continue to work to make the facts known. Bring your questions to any of our upcoming public forums on the ICC, or just come and listen to the discussion. Write letters to your elected officials that express your opposition. And if you send us your e-mail address through our Web site, we’ll include you in important alerts and notifications.