ICC Study Full of Riddles

by Quon Y. Kwan

The draft environmental impact statement (referred to as “ICC Study”) on the InterCounty Connector (ICC) was released to the public on November 22. The ICC Study is highlighted by a number of riddles, some of which are ironic.

Let’s start with homeland security, which the ICC Study says serves as a need for the ICC. The ICC would facilitate evacuation and emergency response. If terrorists were to pick a target, they would most likely pick downtown DC where they could cause the most harm because population is densest. Evacuation leading out of downtown would be most effective by radial highways, and emergency response would be most effective by the same highways leading into downtown. The ICC would only help if evacuees and responders wanted to go in circles around downtown.

Let’s look at safety, which the ICC Study argues is a need for the ICC. If the ICC Study were serious about safety, it would not have discarded transit alternatives when statistics show riding transit is safer than driving. The lack of an ICC was “blamed” for several east-west road fatalities: a school bus colliding with a trailer on MD 115 and the accident on MD 108 that killed the husband of the Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Maryland Department of Transportation. Yet, the true causes of these fatalities were unsafe commercial vehicles [i.e., improper coupling and improper load securement]. Commercial vehicle safety enforcement and inspection would be less costly and more effective at saving those lives than an ICC.

Now comes the high point in the parody. On one hand, the ICC Study claims highways, like the ICC, are safer because they obviate intersections where most people-vehicle conflicts occur. On the other hand, the ICC Study proposes ICC express transit bus stops at interchanges with major arterials. Such places are the worst possible for bus stops in that they expose people to conflict with vehicles while crossing on-ramps and off-ramps. Due to highway speeds, people-vehicle conflicts are much more deadly.

Let’s look at congestion relief, which the ICC Study states as a need for the ICC. The congestion that needs relief could be fantasy because a panel of experts found flaws in the travel demand model that forecasts too many trips. A case in point is daily transit trips forecasted for the ICC: 9,100 – 11,500 to occur 25 years after groundbreaking. Compare these numbers to the numbers on Metrobus route 14, a Beltway express route, which provided intercounty service comparable to that proposed for the ICC – this was 600. Now take into account that this 600 number occurred about 40 years after the Beltway groundbreaking, it was so low that route 14 was cancelled, and the Beltway has two more lanes than the ICC. Is it credible that forecasted trips on the ICC will be 15 times that on the Beltway? On one page, the ICC Study states buses need the ICC to avoid congestion. However, didn’t the ICC Study also reject transit alternatives? It did so claiming intercounty transit trips would be too low. However, didn’t the ICC Study forecast such trips to be 15 times that on the Beltway? Are you totally perplexed now?