An Open Letter to Governor O'Malley

FAXED April 19, 2007

April 19, 2007

Governor Martin J. O'Malley
100 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1925

Dear Governor O'Malley,

I am writing in representation of the 4,000 members of the Montgomery Intercounty Connector Coalition (MICC), which since 1989 has opposed any manifestation of an intercounty connector (ICC).

Please halt the ICC process until you have read and responded to this letter.

Also, please do not refer this letter to Mr. John Porcari, your Director of Transportation; it is of vital importance that you reply directly to us to ensure that you have been fully apprized of the critical issues related to an ICC, and can demonstrate a thorough knowledge of an ICC and its consequences yourself.

You will understand, Governor O'Malley, how heartened we were when in 1999 Governor Glendening suspended the study of an ICC after learning of the enormous environmental destruction that it would wreak. You also will recognize our dismay when your predecessor Robert Ehrlich made an ICC his number-one transportation priority in 2002. For the past four years, we have combated Ehrlich's push for an ICC predicated upon his and other people's fiction that this highway would relieve traffic in Montgomery County, that it could be constructed in an environmentally acceptable way, that it would not affect the quality of life of county residents in a detrimental fashion, and that it could be built for a reasonable amount of state revenue without jeopardizing other more worthy projects.

Why We Supported You in 2006

In the 2006 gubernatorial election, we actively supported you, Governor O'Malley, for the following reasons:

1. Despite your public statements supporting an ICC, you made other statements that led us to believe that you might reconsider: In September, 2003, the Baltimore Sun reported your concern about the cost of an ICC. In March, 2006 at a campaign stop at Leisure World, you said that you originally were in favor of the ICC, but that was before it became a toll road. You said you do not favor a Lexus highway, that one road would not solve all of Maryland's transportation problems and with Ehrlich's plan there would be no more money to explore other transportation options.

2. Since Ehrlich staged four groundbreakings for an ICC during his reelection campaign, we determined that no possibility existed to change his mind, whereas the statements above suggested that you were more amenable to new thinking on this highway, which would be exorbitantly expensive and ineffective as reported by the State Highway Administration (SHA), an advocate of an ICC by professional definition.

Our support for you stemmed from belief in line with your general commitment to social investment in Maryland, and specifically your promise to protect our environment expressed on your campaign website. In concert with these tenets of yours, we felt that a complete briefing would persuade you to reverse your support for an ICC. So, we were very encouraged by your victory last November. Your victory over Ehrlich paralleled the unseating of other pro-ICC incumbents, most notably 32-year state senator Ida Ruben by Jamie Raskin, an out-front opponent to an ICC. From these results, you can infer that a significant role in your success was played by MICC's members and many other Montgomery County voters against the ICC. Indeed, the number of people who voiced their opposition to an ICC at your first pre-inaugural tour stop at Einstein High School this past January should have convinced you that the voters in Montgomery County do not want this toll road or the destruction that it would cause.

Therefore, you can understand our deep disappointment in learning that you have signed on your administration to the SHA's defense of the ICC against the current lawsuits, and the SHA has awarded the first contract for building the ICC. In doing so, you have elected to support the past governor's folly; now you own the burden of answering the question why we should build an ICC.

You Have Assumed Ownership of the ICC Now; Therefore You Must Defend It in Detail

Governor O'Malley, the ICC is indefensible, as has been proven again and again during the past 50+ years. In the 1980s and 1990s, four different federal agencies turned the ICC down on two different occasions because of the horrific environmental damage that it would cause. The 1997 impact statement preempted the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in saying that an ICC would not relieve traffic.

Again, please do not ask Mr. John Porcari to answer these questions in your stead.

Mr. Porcari might genuinely believe that an ICC is part of the solution to Montgomery County's transportation problems, but whenever he is asked by residents questions about the effectiveness and cost of an ICC, he relies upon the flawed answers of the previous administration in his responses. For example, when asked at your January 9, 2007 Einstein Town Hall Meeting about the $264.9 million from the general fund dedicated to an ICC, he explained it away by saying that it was to repay the Transportation Fund for money borrowed earlier. However, he neglected to say that in the ICC funding package that cited the $264.9 million from the general fund, right below it a line listing $180 million from the Transportation Fund for an ICC. Plainly, this is at least an inaccurate explanation of the impact that an ICC would have on both our general fund and our transportation fund.

An ICC Offers Little in Transportation Relief

The glaring omission of the last study was the early elimination of a road upgrade/transit combination that proved in the 1997 study to be more effective than an ICC at 2/3rds of the estimated cost. This effectiveness was confirmed in the 2002 Montgomery County Transportation Policy Task Force final report. Again, the FEIS revealed that an ICC would have no impact on congestion levels on the Capital Beltway, I-95, or I-270, while it would add 3,000,000 vehicles daily to Connecticut Avenue, Georgia Avenue, and Colesville Road.

When this information was publicized during the campaign, Governor Ehrlich claimed that the benefit of an ICC would be to take large, semi-tractor trailer trucks off of local roads. This reasoning was disingenuous in that it revised the fact that an ICC, which originally had been billed as a parkway, now required truck access so that they could help pay the heavy toll necessary to finance the highway. At a Greater Colesville citizens meeting about the ICC, an SHA representative admitted that an ICC would look more like the New Jersey Turnpike than the parkway promoted by ICC advocates.

The FEIS also reported that at peak rush hours, the number of daily trips to the Gaithersburg/Rockville to BWI and back totals only 29, less than 1% of those projected to use an ICC. The SHA FEIS also reveals that the Vehicle Miles Traveled would increase significantly with an ICC.

Considering This Information, Governor O'Malley, Please Quantify in Detail the Traffic Relief Benefits of an ICC.

Proposed Economic Benefits of ICC Need to be Vetted

The past administration's transportation director commissioned a report prepared by the University of Maryland that claimed great savings in money and time from an ICC, which considered traffic in the years 2010 and 2030. The report also said that 16,855 new jobs would be created, of which 6,242 would be in Prince George's County. The latter statistic was highly touted possibly as a way to counter the Prince George's County Council=s 9-0 vote against an ICC, which dubbed the ICC as the Prince George's Bypass.

The SHA released this report, however, without supporting data. When, without fanfare, the data was posted on their Internet site at a later date in 2004, they revealed major flaws in the original summary. Regarding the jobs forecast, 60% of them would be in the low-paying service sector of the economy. Also, the cost to create these jobs came in at $177,000 each, a high price to pay for any position. But the rosy job-creation scenario itself seems questionable, given the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's study of the economic impact the construction of I-270, which demonstrated a subsequent loss of 96,000 jobs in Prince George's County. The same situation would seem likely to happen with an ICC, given Montgomery County's commitment to increase jobs by 20% during the next 10 years despite an unemployment rate of just 2% for the past decade.

The report also cited a survey of business persons without establishing their credentials or authority. The newly published data reveals that the UMD MTI team surveyed only 15 persons, hardly a statistically valid segment. Even so, those reputedly expert in matters of freight movement on an ICC voiced concerns: "The representative for the trucking industry stated that the increase in tolls, registration fees and transport costs is a concern for businesses in the area that rely on transportation by trucks." Also, the entire study was conducted without including the critical factor that an ICC would be a toll road.

The true economic benefit of an ICC would accrue to a small segment of Maryland society, developers and road construction industries. The FEIS reported that a no-build scenario would result in @ 2,500 acres of new development by the year 2030. However, an ICC would spur an additional 4,996 acres of development on top of the previously predicted 2,500 acres.

Konterra was not included in this estimate: pp. IV-416-417 of volume 1 of the FEIS states, "The proposed town center and regional upscale mall proposed within Konterra are contingent upon the development of additional transportation facilities, for example, the ICC, and therefore are not included in the future planned development. However, they are considered as secondary development as a direct result of the ICC." With its heavy emphasis upon retail business, Konterra also could be the source of the 6,242 jobs created in Prince George's County, all in the low-paying service sector.

Sprawl, then, and its attendant traffic problems, would be the most prevalent economic consequence of an ICC. Instead, alternative economic scenarios created by transit emphasis most likely would be more productive for a larger part of the state's residents.

Considering the weak economic benefits of an ICC, Governor O'Malley, will you study the potential benefits of transit/land use scenarios?

The Current Cost Estimates for an ICC Are Seriously Out of Date

The most recent advocates of an ICC claim that the capital costs of an ICC will be between $2.1 and $2.4 billion. The range anticipates rising construction costs. However, this estimate dates from 2004, before the occurrence of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the consequent rise in construction materials. The cost of asphalt alone rose 26% in 2006, which certainly intimates a significant impact upon the estimated cost of an ICC. However, the SHA has not executed a revised estimate of the current capital cost of an ICC.

Governor O'Malley, Please Explain Why the SHA Has Not Re-calculated the Cost of an ICC?

The Cost of an ICC Compromises State Finances

Even using the current SHA figures for an ICC, what in 1997 was supposed to cost $960 million in federal funds only ten years later would cost in capital more than twice as much, which would make an ICC the most expensive highway project in Maryland's history. Ignoring the inherent inability to justify the benefits of an ICC, the state originally planned this highway as a federal project based upon federal transportation funding. However, as one of his campaign promises in 2002, former Governor Ehrlich vowed to drive upon the first section of an ICC by 2006, the year of his reelection bid.

In office, however, Governor Ehrlich suddenly faced the realities of the exorbitant cost of an ICC and the limited federal revenue that he could expect annually. As you know, to fulfill his campaign promise, Governor Ehrlich turned to state loans to jump start the ICC process, including risky GARVEE bonds (simply look at the bad experiences of other states). His final ICC finance plan called for $750 million in GARVEE bonds, $1.233 billion from other state bonds and from all of Maryland's toll facilities, including the ICC itself, for which a round-trip toll has been estimated as a $7.30 proposition. This truly would make an ICC the Lexus highway that you deplored during your own campaign, Governor O'Malley.

Because of these extreme measures, the state of Maryland is responsible for nearly $2 billion in bonds, including finance costs, which conservatively raise the bill to $3 billion. This 15-year, locked-in allocation of 12% of Maryland's transportation funds compromises much more promising initiatives, including the Corridor City Transitway, the Purple Line, and your own Baltimore's Red Line.

Returning to the $264.9-million drain upon the general fund, other vital priorities are at risk, including many of your education, health, and environmental interests.

Considering these detriments, Governor O'Malley, why did you endorse the past administration's politically-motivated, treacherous finance scheme for an ICC?

In light of these data, Governor O=Malley, will you review the inherited financial burden of an ICC before proceeding further?

The Environmental Cost of an ICC to Streams, Wetlands, and Forests

Mr. Neil Pedersen, head of the SHA, recently claimed in his Washington Post opinion piece that an ICC would actually improve the environment by allowing corrections to be made to flawed storm-water management systems along the way. What Mr. Pedersen neglected to report was the overwhelming damage that an 18-mile, six-lane highway would cause. You are aware, I'm sure, that storm-water management is designed to counter run-off from impervious surfaces that erodes stream and river beds. Indeed, the EPA gave the ICC an Unacceptable rating in the 1980s and 1990s based upon Section f (4) of the National Environmental Protection Act because of the destruction due to four stream valleys in the path of this highway.

In its most recent remarks on the current FEIS, the EPA again asserted that the current alignment of an ICC would be the most destructive due to its impact upon the same stream valleys. The 1997 study estimated 29,451 linear feet would be denigrated by an ICC on the on the selected alignment; the 2005 FEIS reports up to 46,204 linear feet, an increase in damage to stream valleys in linear feet by 17% over the impacts predicted in 1997 study. Mr. Pedersen is correct in saying that our storm-water management systems should be renovated, but not at the cost of the concurrent, greater damage created by an ICC.

Comparing wetland losses, the 2005 study says that as much as 67 acres 22-30 acres will be lost to an ICC, a dramatic increase from the projected loss of 19 acres of wetlands in the 1997 study.

Also, in reading the new FEIS and comparing it to the 1997 DEIS findings, the damage to forests, trees, and wetlands will be more extensive rather than less. For example, in the 1997 study, the loss of forest to an ICC would be 552 acres on the current ICC alignment, compared to 794 acres in the 2005 study. This also does not take into account the loss of specimen trees and champion trees. The SHA intends to replace these old growth stands with new trees on land far afield from the ICC. This kind of mitigation employs a numbers game, rather than ecological knowledge. The EPA recognizes that new growth cannot replace the benefits of old-growth forest as a habitat for wildlife and a buffer for stream valleys.

Thus, according to the EPA, the mitigations and measures touted by Mr. Pedersen will not compensate for the destruction that would be caused by an ICC.

This letter has referred to the EPA's objections to an ICC, and the fact that it was stopped twice by this agency and three others because of the severe environmental damage that it would do. However, when Governor Ehrlich reinitiated the ICC process, he asked President Bush to help him fast-track the environmental process for an ICC. The Bush administration complied.

Also, whereas in the past, the EPA was an active participant in the environmental impact process as required by NEPA, Ehrlich with the complicity of the Bush administration, the status of the EPA was reduced to a consulting agency. In other words, the EPA was severely constrained in its ability to stop the ICC upon its own authority, as it had in the past. Yet, considering of the greater environmental damage that can be expected if an ICC were to be built, what has changed in this equation that would warrant the demotion of the EPA other than the political ambition of former Governor Ehrlich?

The Impact of an ICC on Air Quality

The Metropolitan Washington area has been designated by the EPA as being in severe non attainment for ozone (a main ingredient of smog). A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that even a relatively small increase in ozone is directly linked to an increase in deaths from heart and lung ailments, and also premature births.

Tailpipe emissions from auto and truck traffic are already a major source of ozone and other pollutants in the Washington area. A recent Sierra Club report summarized 24 medical studies showing that people who live in close proximity to highways are at greater risk of developing asthma, cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. By increasing sprawl and long distance driving, an ICC would worsen our already bad air pollution and put more residents at risk of serious health problems.

The current FEIS documents that building an ICC would increase total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 20 percent compared to the no build option. This increase also would translate into a corresponding rise in carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, benzene, and other toxic emissions. The impact of these air pollutants specifically for an ICC were not studied in the FEIS.

Given their proven poisonous nature and the fact that they are emitted by internal combustion engines, it behooves you, Governor O'Malley, to conduct a complete analysis of the impacts of these and other known pollutants from an ICC before you continue its development.

Your study should take into account the ancillary medical costs that result from the increase in air pollution promised by construction of an ICC.

The United States Supreme Court, Global Warming, and the ICC

The above potential environmental impacts posed by an ICC were sufficient to have the EPA reject this highway in the past, Governor O'Malley, until the Ehrlich and Bush administrations imposed their political agenda. However, the encompassing threat of Global Warming raises the seriousness of environmental degradation to an almost unimaginable level.

The latest report of the vast majority of scientists research confirms that Global Warming is happening, and that human beings have exacerbated it due to the emissions from internal combustion vehicles and other fossil-fuel consuming activities, indicates that it is happening at a greater rate than expected, that 30% of the world's species could become extinct, and that the time to act with urgency has arrived.

The Bush administration has done its best to discredit the reality of global warming. Now, however, two ruling by the United States Supreme Court verify the conviction believed today. In concert with the scientific community, the Supreme Court said that the Clean Air Act embodies the authority to combat Global Warming, and that the Bush administration could not politicize the EPA to forward their anti-Global Warming agenda.

Governor O'Malley, building an ICC encourages greater emissions by humans through the use of their vehicles, enough to wipe out all of the gains that your Clean Cars legislation and more. In a time when everyone must consider every measure to slow down this fearsome phenomenon, building an ICC would be a profound mistake.

Considering your general, strong commitment to the environment, Governor O'Malley, shouldn't you stop the ICC to improve our air quality while also addressing Global Warming?

The Cost to Communities of an ICC

The SHA is now forcing residents to sell their houses along the alignment selected for an ICC. Many of these residents have lived in their homes for more than 30 years. In the Longmead Community, many bought their houses in 1983 after the Department of the Interior, under the direction of Secretary James Watt, turned down the ICC. And, again, in 1997, Governor Glendening stopped the new 1997 ICC study in 1999. The residents who purchased these homes had every reason to consider an ICC a closed matter.

Considering this history, and the number of major, unanswered questions about the current ICC process, it is unconscionable to coerce these Maryland residents into selling their property, as many as 50 homes. The communities affected include Derwood, Fairland, Harding Lane, Longmead, Norwood, Tanglewood, Spencerville, and Layhill. Not one more homeowner should be displaced until a full reassessment of an ICC on all levels has been conducted.

Governor O'Malley, will you stop all home acquisitions for the ICC until a thorough cost/benefit analysis has been conducted, including impacts to the environment, air quality, and alternative state transportation initiatives?

Despite the former governor's best efforts to promote this highly destructive highway, we and other Marylanders have been successful for the most part in opposing an ICC by educating the public. In 2001, a survey conducted by the Gazette showed that 66% of those polled favored an ICC. However, the results of a new poll released in March, 2006, showed that 60% of Montgomery voters preferred transit solutions to building an ICC. In fact, the cost of the Purple Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway, a Metrorail station at College Park, Metro improvements including new cars and buses, the Georgia Avenue Busway, and increasing capacity at our worst seven intersections altogether were estimated at $2.2 billion at the same time that the ICC capital costs had ballooned to $2.4 billion.

Considering how Montgomery County voted in 2006, both in local and statewide elections, and taking into account the growing nationwide awareness of the environmental impacts, especially Global Warming, you can see that the political pendulum is swinging back, Governor O'Malley. The disillusionment with the Jersey turnpike-like, six-lane toll road ICC is reaching critical mass. Three lawsuits alone have been mounted against the ICC as a result of the findings above.

In line with all of your commendable social initiatives and your strong environmental stand in general, you can take advantage of this time by suspending the ICC process now. It will save you transportation funds that can be used more equitably and effectively throughout the state; it will save you vitally needed revenue for the general fund so that you can move ahead on your social agenda; and it will establish your complete credibility on matters of transportation and the environment once and for all.

Governor O'Malley, please do not disillusion the MICC members and thousands of other Montgomery County voters who placed their faith in you in 2006; stop the ICC process now and perform a legitimate impact study that genuinely addresses all of the questions above.

The quality of life in Montgomery County and the entire state of Maryland is at stake.

On behalf of MICC's members, I appreciate your attention and look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely,

Dan Wallace
Cochair, MICC
Tel. (W) 202-651-5661(H)301-593-3120
daniel.wallace@gallaudet.edu