General Assembly members in Annapolis passed a financing plan this session for the proposed Intercounty Connector (ICC), which threatens not only our air and water quality, forests, farms and parks, but many other more important transportation projects.

A proposed stream crossing for the $3 billion Intercounty Connector, a proposed six-lane 18-mile toll-highway carrying heavy truck traffic from I-270 in Gaithersburg to I-95 in northern Prince George’s County.

The new Intercounty Connector (ICC) funding plan (Senate Bill 255 & House Bill 1352) passed by the General Assembly sheds light on the giant sucking sound of the $3 billion ICC draining $265 million from General Fund programs and eliminating quality transportation projects across the state.

In January, Gov. Ehrlich set out to slide a squeaky clean ICC funding plan past lawmakers that would have borrowed $1 billion from future federal transportation dollars, allowing him to side-step choosing which projects get cut for the ICC. House and Senate leaders responded by setting a limit of $750 million in GARVEE bonds—the loans that borrow from future federal transportation dollars. This level of borrowing is an improvement on Ehrlich’s plan, but is still risky and irresponsible use of scarce transportation money. Only a few other states have ever borrowed this much in GARVEEs—only one for a single project. Devoting so much to one project limits investment in other projects the state really needs. And with future federal revenues on uncertain ground, heavy GARVEE use jeopardizes the overall financial security of Maryland’s transportation program.

Legislators also directed the Governor to take $265 million dollars out of the state’s General Fund to pay for the ICC over the next five years. Under the Ehrlich administration many programs have seen steep budget cuts in the last three years. Locking in $265 million for the ICC means more difficulty funding important programs like Thorton, school construction, medicaid, prescription drug coverage, and much more.

But that’s not all—the ICC funding plan also takes $180 million out of the Transportation Trust Fund through 2010. While running up a $750 million credit card bill against our federal transportation aid through 2025, Ehrlich and Legislators plan to drain money that is urgently needed for transit, road improvements, and new capital projects that can provide better congestion relief and more transportation choices to a greater number of Marylanders.

But that’s still not all. The plan also condones a $1.2 billion drain on the Md. Transportation Authority—who fund transportation projects primarily by using toll revenues from around the state. Between now and 2010 the Authority will run up $1.7 billion in debt, 70% of it for a single project—the ICC. Between 2007 and 2010, Authority revenues dedicated to debt service would jump from 7% to 25%, primarily sucked up by the ICC. That doesn’t leave much for other investments.

The real question is how the ICC became the state’s number one priority. A close look shows the mega-project toll-highway is a big under-performer. It is widely accepted that the ICC would have no impact on Beltway congestion. The Maryland State Highway Administration’s own study affirms this. The study also states, “I-270 and I-95 are north-south oriented freeways and therefore demand in the future is not expected to be helped by an ICC,” (Page IV-50 of ICC DEIS). It’s time to lay to rest the myth that the ICC will ease regional traffic congestion.

When the ICC funding plan is criticized, lawmakers often ask, “Then how should we fund transportation?” They are missing the point. We’re not against spending money on quality transportation solutions that increase Marylanders’ transportation choices. We’re highlighting the unparalleled resources funneling into a single mega-project which helps very few people. Using the $2.4 billion funding package the House passed Maryland could fund a comprehensive transportation improvement program that would serve far more people, far more effectively than building the ICC.

Good projects that make transportation easier for a lot of people are out there, we just need to prioritize them. In a transportation study conducted by a nationally recognized traffic modeling firm, the ICC was compared to a set of four alternative packages of transportation projects. The alternatives outperformed the ICC in congestion relief, total miles traveled on highways and local roads, time spent traveling, air quality, travel speed, and cost. To learn more, check out the study at www.SaveCommunities.org. Let’s get our priorities straight. Our region needs good transportation solutions, not the giant sucking sound of the ICC.