A detour in Maryland's climate change roadmap
In the laundry list of recommendations for curbing greenhouse gases put out this week by the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, one idea that didn't make it was halting construction of the long-disputed Intercounty Connector.
That's not surprising, perhaps, when you consider that the commission was appointed by Gov. Martin O'Malley. Despite an otherwise green record - he scored a record-high A-minus recently from the Maryland League of Conservation Voters - the governor has taken heat from environmentalists for his vow to complete the six-lane tollway through Washington's suburbs.
The issue divides environmentalists - not over its substance but over the political pragmatism of potentially angering a powerful patron. A lawsuit filed by environmental and community groups to stop the highway was thrown out, allowing construction to begin - though the groups have appealed.
"It was one of the most controversial topics discussed," said Brad Heavner, state director of Environment Maryland and a member of one of the climate commission's working groups.
It seems that ICC foes did briefly plant their flag during the climate commission's deliberations last fall, before being thwarted by supporters of the east-west highway. A small working group focused on transportation and land use issues reportedly put forward a recommendation to stop building the ICC in consideration of its impacts on climate change. They argued that that the $2.4 billion project would encourage more driving - and release more climate-warming greenhouse gases - than if the state expanded transit service and put tolls on existing roads to ease traffic congestion.
The Environmental Defense Fund, for instance, has estimated that building the 18.8-mile highway would boost gasoline consumption in the Washington region by 5 percent within a generation. And if the state invested instead in transit and other measures to reduce driving, the difference in fuel use could be as much as 11 percent, according to the group's analysis.
But the working group quickly backtracked amid protests from ICC backers, at least one of whom reportedly had been absent when the stop-work recommendation got the preliminary nod. Unable to resolve their differences over what to do about the ICC, the group did agree to recommend that the state weigh climate-change impacts of all big publicly funded transportation and land-use projects that may be proposed in the future.
"In the end, there was a move to weaken the recommendation, to be basically forward-looking and not focus on any particular project," said Michael A. Replogle, transportation director of the Washington-based Environmental Defense Fund and a member of the working group.
Replogle said he helped broker the fallback position. Although still firmly convinced that halting the ICC could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emission in that part of the state, he said he and others decided it wasn't worth a pitched battle over this one project.
"The reality is the ICC's under construction now," he said.
in global warming
| Permalink
| Comments (4)
I report on the environment and Chesapeake Bay. A native of West Virginia, I have focused mainly on Maryland's environment since moving here in 1983. Along the way, I've crewed aboard a skipjack in the bay, canoed under city streets up the Jones Fall from the Inner Harbor, and gone deep underground in a western Maryland coal mine. Recently, I have been covering the growth and development transforming the landscape. I love seafood, rambles in the country and good stories. I hope to share some here.
Comments
Thanks to Tim Wheeler for an eye-opening post. It is really sad that time and time again, so many environmental groups caved on what is clearly the most environmentally devastating project in the state.
According to the state's own study, the ICC would increase vehicle miles traveled in the study area by 20%, a HUGE contribution to global warming. This one project would overshadow every positive thing O'Malley has done to combat global warming.
Some groups really went all out to oppose the ICC, but many local and national environmental groups gave the governor a pass. For those of us who live on or near the right of way -- who will be paying the ultimate price for the disastrous highway -- we will remember the cowardice of so-called environmental leaders who failed to take a stand. "Morituri te salutant!"
Posted by: Michael Rubinstein | August 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Hey Rubenstein,
Paying the "ultimate price" usually means "killed". Quit with the over dramatic bloviating. No one will be killed by the ICC. How many others were killed on poor, over used local roads that would not have been killed had the ICC been built 40 years ago?
Now all we have to do is worry about the polar bears!
Posted by: secondcrossing Now | August 29, 2008 7:02 AM
Hey, Second Crossing.
Have the integrity to post your real name. Then have the integrity to read the official study published by the state and federal highway administrations. Then you'll understand that they found that the ICC would not reduce the annual number accidents in the ICC study area. Those agencies found that the number annual accidents on study area roads would be 5025 with the ICC and 5035 without -- an alleged reduction of .2 percent. That difference falls in the real of statistical noise in the highway agencies' cursory analysis. The ICC will cost at least $3 billion, including interest on the $2 billion in debt that the state plans to issue to build the ICC. At that rate, it would cost $15 billion to reduce accidents by one percent. Pretty spiffy cost-benefit ratio.... one that makes it clear that the ICC has been sold to the public and to elected officials on bogus grounds.
But it gets even better because the state also acknowledges that the ICC would trigger thousands of acres of new growth -- growth not currently programmed -- which would in turn trigger millions of miles of new driving each year. The highway agencies conveniently opted not to include those vehicle trips in its safety, congestion and air pollution models.
And Second Crossing, since you want to focus on ultimate sacrifices, the kinds of air pollutants emitted by cars, trucks and other vehicles have been linked by many studies to cancer, heart attack, stroke, asthma, neurological damage and premature death.
Posted by: Greg Smith | August 29, 2008 10:19 AM
These state-appointed panels are often manipulated by the governor, but in this case they got it right. It would be madness to stop even a mediocre project this far along, and this is a badly needed project. East-west mobility is incredibly important, especially for the land-locked (or gridlocked) middle part of Montgomery County and for residents of P.G. County who stream into MoCo each day. The economic health of Maryland depends on building connections, not obstacles. Economic justice says P.G. deserves much better access to MoCo jobs and better highways that will encourage employers to locate in P.G.. Have you noticed which way most Beltway users are headed in evening rush hour? But opponents never cared much about economics or east-west mobility beyond a line drawn in purple around the innermost suburbs. If the highway increases driving, it's only because people are squeezed off the roads by congestion today. And no net increase in fatalities despite 20% increase in VMT shows how much safer highways are than local roads (and congestion WILL go down overall on arterials, so it's a win-win).
I think the mistake environmentalists made in this area was spending so much time and money fighting a project supported by so many voters. To the residents in neighborhoods next to the ICC (except the shafted folks in Cashell estates), I assume you've found religion and will be taking transit everywhere? Or will you continue driving on highways through other peoples' neighborhoods?
Posted by: MD200 | August 29, 2008 12:41 PM