Montgomery County council members pressed State Highway Administration officials during a contentious discussion Tuesday on how the Intercounty Connector could affect the environment and the health of county residents.
The road, once completed, is set to be an 18-mile controlled-access toll highway that will link activity centers on Interstate 270 and the Interstate 95/U.S. 1 corridors. Each of the five stages of the $2 billion-plus project, on the books for decades, is scheduled to be designed as it is constructed.
“There are responsibilities for our planning commissions and the state highway administration to ensure that this road meets the P.R. that has been put out about it in regards to the environmental issues,” Council President Marilyn Praisner said after identifying herself as an “ICC opponent” at the beginning of the meeting.
Rob Shreeve, manager of the ICC Environmental Stewardship Program for the state Highway Administration, told council members his team was involved in each step of the ICC design process to safeguard environmental concerns.
“This is very much an over-the-shoulder review process,” Shreeve said. “We make sure they understand, can you tuck in a little bit here and can you weave a lit bit there … we want to make sure they understand how we came up with the [environmental] commitments that we have.”
Nonetheless, council members challenged the statements of state highway officials at every turn.
“If environmental stewardship were the priority, this would be not be built,” Council Member Phil Andrews said. “Simply put, there is not a highway that can be built in an environmentally safe way.”
State officials said they expected to give notice to proceed with the first ICC construction sequence this fall, extending seven miles from Interstate 370 to just east of Georgia Avenue in Montgomery County.
Meanwhile, the Prince George’s County Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution explaining why it earlier this month backed a lawsuit challenging the legality of building the toll road, saying the project’s environmental-impact studies did not consider alternatives to the highway.
Council Vice Chair David Harrington on Tuesday said among the council’s reasons was that the highway would take jobs away from the county and the project’s environmental impact is being underestimated.
Staff writer Daniel Fowler contributed to this report.
