Maryland Route 200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains information about a planned or expected future road. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change as the road's construction or completion approaches and more information becomes available.

MD Route 200
Intercounty Connector Maintained by MdTA
Length:	13.8 mi[1][2][3] (22.2 km)
Formed:	2010 (projected)
West end:	I-370 in Gaithersburg
Major junctions:	MD 97 MD 182 MD 650 US 29 I-95
East end:	US 1 in Laurel
Highways in Maryland < MD 198 MD 201 > State highways - Minor - Former - Turnpikes

Maryland Route 200, also known as the Intercounty Connector or ICC, is a controversial toll freeway under construction in Maryland. When completed, it will run between Gaithersburg in Montgomery County and Laurel in Prince George's County. The highway was originally proposed in the 1960s as part of the Washington Outer Beltway. While other parts of the Outer Beltway were canceled, the ICC and the Fairfax County Parkway remained on master plans. The road's long history as an unbuilt proposed road stems from the controversy that has surrounded it over the years.

Proponents of the highway have claimed that it will improve the flow of interregional traffic, relieving traffic congestion on local roads. Opponents of the highway, however, have claimed that the road will (with a few limited exceptions) harm significant traffic flow characteristics (such as increasing drive times, congestion, and costs in the form of tolls), will negatively harm the environment (with air, sea and land impacts), and disrupt established communities that it passes through.^[1]

Fulfilling a 2002 campaign promise, then-Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich pushed to begin construction of the road, and conducted a formal groundbreaking in October, 2006.^[2] With additional support from his successor, Governor Martin O'Malley,^[3] construction began on November 13, 2007.^[4]

[edit] Counties traversed

• Montgomery - 11.0 miles (17.7 km) [4]
• Prince George's - 2.8 miles (4.5 km) [5]

[edit] Cities and towns

• Gaithersburg
• Norbeck
• Fairland
• Laurel

[edit] Route description

The 13.8-mile highway will begin at Interstate 370 near Gaithersburg, and run east to Interstate 95 and U.S. Route 1 in Laurel. It will carry the route designation MD 200, as shown in the Maryland State Highway Administration's 2005 Highway Location Reference for Montgomery County [6] and Prince George's County [7], and will be a toll road. The $2.4 billion project is being financed by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) and, upon its completion, will be operated as a toll facility of MdTA.

[edit] Junction list

County	Location	Mile	#	Destinations	Notes
Montgomery	Gaithersburg			I-370 - Gaithersburg, Shady Grove Metro Station	Contract A, Exit projected to open in 2010
	Norbeck			MD 97 / Georgia Avenue - Olney, Aspen Hill	Contract A, Exit projected to open in 2010
				MD 182 / Layhill Road - Wheaton	Contract B, Exit projected to open in 2011
				MD 650 / New Hampshire Avenue - Cloverly, Colesville	Contract B, Exit projected to open in 2011
	Fairland			US 29 / Columbia Pike - Columbia, Washington	Contract C, Exit projected to open in 2011
				Briggs Chaney Road	Contract C, Exit projected to open in 2011
Prince George's	Laurel
				Future Road A-59 - Laurel	Opening year not known[5]
				I-95 - Baltimore, Washington	Contract C, Exit projected to open in 2011
				Virginia Manor Road - Laurel	Contract E, Exit projected to open in 2011
				US 1 - Laurel, Beltsville	Contract E, Intersection projected to open in 2011

[edit] History

In 1980, the state of Maryland dropped the Outer Beltway from its plans, with the exception of the Intercounty Connector.^[6] Before Governor Parris N. Glendening declared the ICC "dead" before leaving office in January 2003, two explorative studies had been conducted in 1983 and 1997. The 1983 study came to the conclusion that the ICC's effects on the environment outweighed its possible benefits in reducing traffic; the 1997 study pointed to a similar conclusion, though it was never completed. In 2003, Governor Ehrlich followed through with his campaign promise to resurrect the ICC study and was allowed a fast track review process by the United States Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta.

On July 11, 2005, Governor Ehrlich announced the state's preference to build the ICC along Corridor 1. Corridor 1 (approximately 80% of which is the Master Plan Alignment) has been on the books for decades; Corridor 2, also known as the Northern Alignment, was designed to reduce Corridor 1's impact on the environment. While the EPA gave Corridor 2 a higher environmental rating, it was eventually rejected by the state due to the increased number of homes and businesses that would have to be removed for its construction, and because it was not consistent with several approved and adopted Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission master plans in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.

In December 2005, controversy arose over the ICC's proposed toll rate. At a proposed 17 cents per mile, an end-to-end driver would have to pay about $6 a day for a round-trip (about $1,500 per year).^[7]

On May 30, 2006, the Federal Highway Administration gave approval to the Corridor 1 plan, meaning that Maryland had satisfied "all environmental, economic and community requirements and that it can build the highway".^[8] The Baltimore Business Journal wrote, "Federal approval for the $2.4 billion connector came after Ehrlich made a direct request to President George W. Bush, who named the ICC as one of his priority projects. The president's direct attention prompted federal resource agencies to give the project a more timely environmental review."^[9]

[edit] Construction schedule

Construction of the ICC in Redland

The ICC will be constructed in five phases, all of which will use the design-build project delivery mechanism.^[10]

• A. I-270/I-370 to east of Md. 97
• B. East of Md. 97 to west of U.S. 29
• C. West of U.S. 29 to east of I-95 interchange, and I-95 Collector/distributor road improvements along I-95 from Md. 212 to just north of the ICC
• D. Collector/distributor road improvements along I-95 from just north of the ICC to north of Md. 198
• E. East of I-95 interchange to U.S. 1

Requests for statements of qualification were issued for Phase A in December 2005,^[11] for Phase D in August 2006,^[12] and for Phase B in August 2007.^[13]

The first of the five contracts was awarded on March 27, 2007. The contract, worth $478.7M, was awarded to Intercounty Constructors, a joint venture of Granite Construction Company, Corman Construction Inc. and G.A. & F.C. Wagman, Inc. It is expected that construction on the seven mile section between I-370 and MD-97 will begin in the fall of 2007.^[14]

State officials plan to finish the project by late 2011, with the first section of the highway opening in 2010.

In August 2007, it was announced that some slight changes may be made to construction plans in order to reduce impacts on forested land.^[15]

The selection of the second of the five contracts was announced on November 20, 2007. The contract, worth $513.9M, was awarded to IC3, a joint venture of Shirley Contracting Company, LLC; Clark Construction Group, LLC; Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC; Facchina Construction Company, Inc. and Trumbull Corporation. This work includes the ICC from a point west of U.S. 29 to I-95, and interchanges with those routes.^[16]

In December 2007, it was reported that construction on the ICC is officially under way.^[17]

In March 2008, WTOP Radio reported (as part of a story about shifts in traffic along Redland Road) that Contract A is about 15% percent complete.^[18]

There is an extensive Minority Business Program for the ICC.^[19]

[edit] Opposition

Community and environmental groups^[20][21] have vehemently opposed the selected alternative, and in some cases any configuration of the ICC. Their reasons for the opposition were detailed in the conclusions of research and analysis conducted by one of the opposition groups.^[22] In general, they believe that the ICC will not improve travel times or congestion, and will result in significant social and environmental damage (e.g., increase air pollution and oil consumption due to the longer travel times with more congestion, negatively impact wetlands, stream-valley forests, and parks). Additionally, the ICC's route will take a disruptive path through some existing neighborhoods, including Cashell Estates and Longmead Crossing. Some developments, however, were planned with the ICC in mind, so as to prevent or minimize the disruptions. Longmead Crossing, for instance, was laid-out with land along the proposed (and master-planned) route of the ICC reserved for a major highway.^[23]

Lawsuits aimed at halting construction^[24][25] were filed by environmental groups and affected residents. One of those lawsuits was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but that court ordered the matter transferred to federal court in Maryland on May 17, 2007.^[26][27] After hearings in October 2007, both lawsuits were dismissed in their entirety on November 8, 2007 by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a 105-page memorandum opinion.^{[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]}

Judge Williams wrote the following:

On the contrary, the Court believes that the Defendants have complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements and cannot conclude that Defendants’ approval of the ICC was outside the bounds of “reasoned decision-making,” especially considering the extensive record and the agencies’ level of technical expertise and experience. Although Defendants’ actions, in some instances, may not have been a paragon of perfection, the Court, nonetheless, cannot find anything that rises to the level of a meaningful violation. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that there is no legal or equitable basis to prevent the Inter-County Connector from moving forward.

The Baltimore Sun described the decision handed down by the court as a "victory for both Gov. Martin O'Malley, who backs construction of the road, and a measure of vindication for former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, who made it the top transportation priority of his administration."^[37] After the opinion was released, environmental groups opposed to the ICC stated that they would "consider their legal options before deciding whether to continue their battle" ^[38] and some homeowners near the selected route expressed disagreement with the ruling of the court.^[39]

On January 7, 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club will appeal Judge Williams' decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.^{[40][41][42][43][44]}

In April 2008, persons and groups opposed to the ICC held an "Irish Wake" to draw attention to the impact of the ICC.^[45][46]

[edit] Environmental mitigation

A major component of the ICC is environmental mitigation.^[47]

In a letter to the editor of the Baltimore Sun, David Marks, a former official with the Maryland Department of Transportation, wrote that the Maryland State Highway Administration project team "...had the foresight to require substantial environmental improvements as part of the project, and they insisted on broad public input..."^[48]

One component of the mitigation is the replacement of parkland taken for the ICC with new land.^[49] Replacement lands intended to compensate for these losses include a large parcel of land in the Boyds area of Montgomery County owned by the Eugene B. Casey Foundation. However, the trustees of the Casey Foundation did not agree to the purchase of this parcel,^[50] so the State Highway Administration acquired the land by condemnation and the matter was reported as resolved in June 2008.^[51]

In the February 2008 edition of the Successes in Stewardship newsletter, the Federal Highway Administration stated:^[52]

Since environmental impacts were the major barrier to prior ICC planning efforts, the third EIS team redefined the project-development approach to explicitly include environmental stewardship as part of the project's stated purpose and need. In order to fulfill the ICC's stated purpose "to help restore the natural, human, and cultural environments in the project area from the adverse effects of past development," lead-agency staff used context-sensitive design approaches to minimize or altogether avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and streams in the development of project alternatives.

At least one section of the ICC was re-routed from the master-planned route to reduce environmental impact, though the re-routing led to additional residences having to be condemned as a result.^[53]

[edit] Archaeological digs in the path of the ICC

As part of construction work, several archaeological sites have been found in the path of the ICC, including a Native American site near Georgia Avenue and Norbeck Road that contains artifacts dating to the Stone Age.^[54]; and near U.S. 29, the 19th century homestead of a freed slave, Melinda Jackson, containing numerous artifacts.^[55] NewsChannel8 reported:^[56]

"This site is very significant because it hasn't been plowed, pilfered or developed." From the artifacts, the Jackson's can trace their roots in America back seven generations to Melinda Jackson. She was a freed slave who paid $64 for nearly nine acres at the site in 1869. A small hole in the ground was her small, two story stone home.

[edit] As part of the Washington Outer Beltway

The Intercounty Connector, alongside other proposed freeway projects such as the Western Transportation Corridor (WTC) in Virginia between Loudoun County and Prince William County, and the Techway bridge linking the ICC and the WTC, would form a large portion of the long-proposed Washington Outer Beltway around the Washington, D.C. area. However, neither the Techway nor any other related bridge appears on any master plan document in Montgomery County, Maryland. Furthermore, the Transportation Plan section of the Potomac Subregion Master Plan^[57] (approved and adopted in March 2002 by the Montgomery County Council and in April 2002 by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission) states, "This Master Plan does not recommend a new river crossing within the Subregion".

[edit] See also

• Maryland Route 100 a similar "outer beltway segment" around Baltimore

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Maryland Route 200

• Maryland State Highway Administration Intercounty Connector (ICC) project website
• Maryland Transportation Authority
• The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
• Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the ICC
• Record of Decision for the Intercounty Connector
• Examiner editorial: Enough already — build the road
• Washington Post ICC Map
• Starts and Stops on the ICC, The Washington Post
• For Ehrlich, Connector Highway Issue Is Promising but Low-Risk, The Washington Post
• Washington Post editorial endorsing Ehrlich, with specific reference to the ICC: For Governor in Maryland: A second term for Mr. Ehrlich
• One judge will hear both suits against new toll road project
• ICC: The Selling of a Road, WTOP
• TOLLROADSnews: Maryland ICC gets FEIS approval
• TOLLROADSnews: EPA's Comedy Central spoof with brown trout
• TOLLROADSnews: Brown trout can be invasive pest or treasure - trout enthusiast takes issue with us
• TOLLROADSnews: Maryland's new ICC has first build contract awarded