Proposed Highway Would Hurt Air, Congestion

D.C.-area Intercounty Connector would slice across wooded streams, pollute air - but not cut travel time

Posted: 16-Mar-2005; Updated: 14-Sep-2007

Anyone who commutes by car in the Washington D.C. area knows the headache of sitting for hours in gridlock and stop-and-go driving. D.C. drivers spend an average of 67 hours per year stuck in traffic, while Baltimore drivers waste 48 hours annually. A new highway might seem sensible. But building more roadways is seldom the answer to easing congestion and traffic.

A case in point is the proposed 18-mile Intercounty Connector (ICC), a six-lane tolled expressway to span two counties: Prince George's and Montgomery County, Maryland. The roadway would worsen air pollution and congestion. On top of that, the expressway would devastate some of the last remaining undisturbed headwaters of the Anacostia River.

The idea of a connector originated in the 1950s and was rejected several times since due to its environmental impacts and waste. Despite those caveats, Maryland officials have failed to consider other viable alternatives. 

Taking the High Road

There are faster, cleaner and cheaper options. Environmental Defense and other groups have proposed alternatives to the ICC. Our proposals use pricing incentives, innovative transit and transit-oriented development to reduce gridlock, including improved existing roads, smart growth policies, and toll and high-occupancy lanes.

We've calculated real benefits showing that our alternatives would win over the ICC on improving travel conditions, providing more travel options and producing less air pollution for the region -- enabling residents to spend less time in their car and breathe cleaner air. And all at a cost that is less than the ICC's $2-plus billion price tag, which would help to save taxpayer dollars and preserve transportation funds for other necessary projects. 

Find Out More

• News Release: Study Shows Maryland Intercounty Connector Would Violate New Federal Air Pollution Health Standard (June 2007) - Groups Call on Federal Officials to Order New Review to Protect Public Health
• Petition for Preparation of Supplemental EIS to Evaluate Environmental Impacts of Emissions From the ICC Not considered in the Final EIS or ROD [PDF] (June 2007)
• Summary of New Scientific Literature Documenting Adverse Health Effects in People Exposed to High-Traffic Roadways [PDF] (June 2007)
• Memo to Administrator, Federal Highway Administration [PDF] (June 2007) - Support for Petition requesting a Supplemental EIS to reconsider approval of the Intercounty Connector Project in Maryland
• Air Quality Modeling Analysis of PM2.5 Emissions from the Proposed Intercounty Connector (ICC) [PDF] (June 2007)
• Final Results: Numeric Scenarios for Intercounty Connector [XLS] (June 2007)
• Data by Link: Daily Traffic Volumes, Heavy-Duty Truck Percentages and PM2.5 Emissions Factors [XLS] (June 2007)Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Study for the ICC [PDF] - Environmental Defense and its partners (April 2006). (See also Attachment 1:Critique of the ICC Hot spot Study.)
• Report - Water Quality Impacts of the ICC Report [PDF] - Learn how the ICC and other, more environmentally friendly transportation and land use strategies will affect the local watersheds in this independent study by scientists at the University of Maryland (March 2005).
•  Report - Maryland's Intercounty Connector: Exacerbating Petroleum Dependence and Global Warming[pdf file]. Learn about how the ICC will make Marylanders more oil dependent and increase greenhouse gas emissions (2/24/2005).
• A PowerPoint presentation - Summary of our concerns with the ICC Draft Environmental Impact Statement and our report on alternatives to the ICC (pdf file)Comments - Environmental Defense's official comments on the ICC DEIS as submitted to the Maryland State Highway Administration (pdf file) (2/25/2005) 

• Report - The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives. Learn about options to this $2 billion expressway that will do a better job of cutting travel time, easing congestion and protecting public health. (1/18/05) (PDF files)
  Part 1 - Acknowledgments, Executive Summary, and Introduction
  Part 2 - The ICC and Related Studies
  Part 3 - Alternatives to the ICC and Methods of Analysis
  Part 4 - Results and Conclusion
  Part 5 - Appendices

• Short Report: The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives (1/18/04) 
• Press release: New Study Rates ICC as Worst Option, Finds Alternatives Perform Better (1/18/05)
• Peer Review Letters: Letters of support for our study from two of the nation's most respected transportation experts (PDF file)

Faster, Cheaper, Cleaner - How does the ICC compare with our five proposals?

• For all alternatives, less time would be spent in cars than with the ICC.
• All the alternatives would mean fewer hours of delay due to congestion.
• The ICC is the only alternative that would increase vehicle miles traveled and vehicles trips made each day.
• The ICC ranks second to last in removing traffic from local roads and major arterials.
• Three of the alternatives would increase average travel speed.
• All the alternatives, except the ICC, would result in lower air pollution emissions.