Prince George’s County Council
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050

Dear Councilmembers Bland, Campos, Dean, Dernoga, Exum, Harrington, Knotts, Olson and Turner:

On behalf of the undersigned organizations and individuals, we would like to draw your attention to the enclosed report released in March 2007 by the 1000 Friends of Maryland titledThe Intercounty Connector: Financial, Economic, and Regional Development Costs and Choices.  We are writing to ask you to vigorously oppose the construction of the ICC, as a costly, unnecessary and destructive diversion of resources from the needs of Prince George’s County and Maryland.  This report outlines many of the severe problems that will likely follow if the state proceeds with the $3.1 billion Intercounty Connector (ICC).   The report makes the following key points.

Cost of the ICC

The state would incur a debt of roughly $2.6 billion (including interest) for the construction of the ICC.  Of this, $750 million (plus interest) would be in the form of Grant Anticipated Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to be repaid from future federal transportation funds.  The remaining $1.2 billion (plus interest) would be in the form of toll-revenue bonds issued by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) to be repaid by all of the state’s toll facilities including the ICC.  Interest on the GARVEE and toll-revenue bonds could easily exceed $600 million.  The financing structure also requires the transfer of $265 million from the General Fund over four years and the transfer of $180 million from the Transportation Trust Fund over five years.

Developmental Costs to Prince George’s County

Highways induce and shift development.  The ICC development corridor would largely be in Montgomery County, with sprawl also being triggered farther out in the region’s radial corridors, shifting jobs and resources away from the inner core of Prince George’s County.  This induced suburban sprawl and the increased traffic that it would generate challenges the notion that the $3.1 billion ICC would provide significant congestion relief.  In fact, three major transportation studies in 10 years, including the 2006 Environmental Impact Statement, have found that the ICC would increase automobile use, provide no congestion relief on the Beltway, I-95, I-270 or most local roads, and worsen congestion on some major commuter routes, including the Beltway.

Effect on State’s Debt Capacity

The General Assembly’s Legislative Information Services has reported that the bonds issued toward the construction of the ICC would put the state at 93% of its debt capacity, precluding the state’s ability to finance capital needs at a time when the state faces a structural deficit of at least $1.5 billion dollars.  The deficit burden would be augmented by the planned transfer of $265 million from the General Funds to the ICC.

GARVEE Bond Repayment & TTF Surety

Projected deficits in the federal Highway Trust Fund beginning in FY 2009 creates uncertainty in the state’s portion of future federal transportation funds, which would be the means to repay the GARVEE bonds.   Federal law allows Maryland to flex most or all of these same dollars to transit or other priorities if the state chooses to do so.  The financing structure of the ICC makes Transportation Trust Fund dollars available as a surety for bond repayment in the event of a shortfall in federal or toll revenues; this is yet another way in which the state would mortgage our transportation future to this single highway project. 

Repercussions from Toll Bonds

The $1.2 billion MdTA toll bonds would bind toll revenues from all state toll facilities for repayment, impacting not only the maintenance and expansion of those facilities, but the ability to finance new transit projects, which can fall within the purview of MdTA.

Drawing a clear distinction between the use of transportation dollars for highways over transit, the report says:

“Every dollar invested in the ICC is simply one less dollar that is available for other needs in the state.  Yet every dollar made available for rail transit holds the potential to attract one new federal dollar to the state (the Federal Transit Administration shares project costs on a 50-50 basis, on average).”

Cost Overruns

The State Highway Administration’s estimated cost of $2.4 billion for the ICC does not include interest on the GARVEE or toll-revenue bonds and has remained unchanged for more than two years.  Even with contingencies built into the current ICC cost estimate, rising energy, materials and labor costs require a fresh estimate to enable a full understanding of the extent to which the state’s priorities would be further harmed in the current straitened fiscal times.

Environmental Impacts and Prince George’s County

While the report does not address environmental issues, the ICC’s environmental impacts on Prince George’s County would be significant.  To build the ICC, the State Highway Administration plans to clear-cut, bulldoze and pave over hundreds of acres of irreplaceable forests and wetlands in the headwaters of the Anacostia River, destroying vital storm buffers.  The state’s storm water plans for the ICC are designed to handle, at best, only the first 1.5” of rain storms.  The increased run-off and sedimentation that would result from the construction of the ICC could increase the frequency and magnitude of floods downstream, where many towns already face severe flooding problems, and increase sedimentation of the Anacostia.

In addition, the Washington and Baltimore regions already fail to meet the federal clean air standards for ground-level ozone (a major constituent of smog) and fine particle pollution.  Both of these pollutants pose significant public health threats, especially to children, senior citizens and people with asthma and other diseases, and they have been strongly linked to disease and premature death.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Montgomery and Prince George’s County also have some of the nation’s highest levels of toxic and carcinogenic air pollution generated by cars, trucks and other motor vehicles.  The ICC would probably worsen these problems.

We urge the Council to read the report and to carefully consider the analyses and recommendations contained in it.  This report presents serious negative implications to the community-development and transportation needs of Prince George’s County.

We would like to also draw your attention to our concern that by moving future jobs away from Prince George’s County as a consequence of building the ICC, we would widen the economic gap that is the subject of the 1999 Brookings Institute study titled, A Region Divided.  We must ensure that large transportation investments work to address this equity issue, not only for the sake of Prince George’s County, but for the well-being of the entire Washington Metropolitan Region.  We are aware of the unanimous stand against the ICC taken by the previous Council, and we urge the present Council to continue your vigorous opposition to the ICC.

Sincerely,

Mary Lehman

Linda S. Keenan

President, Adelphi Hills Community Association linda_s_keenan@yahoo.com
Adelphi, District 2

Suchitra Balachandran

President West College Park Civic Association
cp_woods@yahoo.com
College Park, District 3

Fred Tutman

Lisa Lincoln

Progressive Cheverly
lisa.lincoln@verizon.net
Cheverly, District 5

Chip Reilly

Chair, Prince George’s Group Sierra Club
chipreilly@mac.com
Upper Marlboro, District 6

Ken Vinson

Leader, Upper Watts Branch Watershed Group
VDK4950@aol.com
Capitol Heights, District 7

Bonnie Bick

Judith Allen-Leventhal

Past President, Greater Accokeek Civic Association judithal@csmd.edu
Accokeek, District 9

Up to Top