Misplaced Pages

Opposition to Maryland Route 200: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:13, 6 March 2011 editSchuminWeb (talk | contribs)95,920 edits Tag← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:40, 10 March 2018 edit undoThe Transhumanist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers302,857 edits Add template{{R to section}} to categorize redirect using AWB 
(18 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{rescue}}
{{mergeto|Maryland Route 200}}
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled -->
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Opposition to Maryland Route 200|timestamp=20110306045320|year=2011|month=March|day=6|substed=yes}}
<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=Opposition to Maryland Route 200|date=6 March 2011|result='''keep'''}} -->
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
The construction of ''']''', also known as the Intercounty Connector (ICC) has been '''opposed''' by a number of groups. Community and environmental groups<ref> {{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = ICC Action Alert
| work =
| publisher = Sierra Club
| date = 2007-05-23
| url = http://maryland.sierraclub.org/action/p0049.asp
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-06-14 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Proposed Highway Would Hurt Air, Congestion
| work =
| publisher = Environmental Defense
| date = 2005-03-16
| url = http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4220
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-06-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = STOP THE INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR (ICC)
| work =
| publisher = Anacostia Watershed Society
| date = 2008-03-13
| url = http://www.anacostiaws.org/Programs/ICC/StopTheICC.htm
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Save Our Communities, a campaign of the Audubon Naturalist Society
| work =
| publisher = Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc.
| date = 2007-06-28
| url = http://savecommunities.org/
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref> have vehemently opposed the selected alternative, and in some cases any configuration of the ICC. Financial contributions from the Prince Charitable Trusts supported at least some of the ICC opposition activities.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = IRS Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation, Frederick Henry Prince Testamentary Trust (for 2006)
| publisher =
| pages =
| url = http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/366/366009208/366009208_200612_990PF.pdf
| format = PDF
| date = 2007-08-14
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Prince Charitable Trusts - Washington, D.C. Community & Environment – Preserve and Protect the Piedmont Sample Grants
| publisher = Prince Charitable Trusts
| pages =
| url = http://foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/prince/dc_all_sample_grants.08.pdf
| date = 2008-09-10
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives
| publisher = Environmental Defense, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Sierra Club Maryland Chapter, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Solutions Not Sprawl
| pages =
| url = http://www.edf.org/documents/4272_ICC-1a.pdf
| date = 2005-01-21
| accessdate = 2009-03-29 }}</ref> Their reasons for the opposition were detailed in the conclusions of research and analysis conducted by one of the opposition groups.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives Report
| work =
| publisher = Coalition for Smarter Growth
| date = 2005-01-18
| url = http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/transportation/roads/outerbeltway/icc/study/index.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-09-27 }} </ref> 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. Longmead Crossing, for instance, was laid out with land along the proposed (and master-planned) route of the ICC reserved for a major highway,<ref> {{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Learning to Listen with Nancy Floreen
| work =
| publisher = Just Up the Pike
| date = 2007-02-05
| url = http://www.justupthepike.com/2007/02/montgomery-county-people-cannot-come-to.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-06-13 }}</ref> and the question of setting aside land for the ICC was raised when the Mill Creek South development in Derwood was considered by the Montgomery County Planning Board in 1978.<ref>{{Cite news
| last=Johnson
| first=Janis
| author-link=
| author=Janis Johnson
| title=Subdivision Backed on Major Road
| newspaper=]
| page=C1
| date=1978-07-24
| accessdate=2009-04-15
| url= }}
''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref>


{{R to section}}
ICC opponents scored a major (albeit temporary) victory when Governor ] announced that he had "reversed his longtime support of a proposed intercounty connector" in March 1998.<ref>{{cite news
| last = LeDuc
| first = Daniel
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Governor Abandons Road Plan
| author=Daniel LeDuc
| publisher = ]
| page=D01
| date = 1998-03-07
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/growth/transport/icc0307.htm
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-04-19 }}</ref>
==Opposition to the ICC in the Maryland General Assembly==
Members of the Maryland General Assembly stated opposition in the Spring 2008<ref>{{cite news
| title = Opponents Want Legislature to Halt Construction
| author=Katherine Shaver
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2008-03-18
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702426.html
| accessdate = 2008-10-15 }}</ref> and Spring 2009 sessions, the 1998 session,<ref>{{cite web
| title = County's legislative delegation takes public's pulse at hearings
| publisher = The Gazette
| date=1997-10-29
| url =http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1997/199744/montgomerycty/county/a63304-1.html
| accessdate=2008-12-05 }}</ref> and back to 1979, when a bill introduced in the General Assembly by Delegate ] proposed to eliminate funding for a study of the ICC and the never-built Rockville Facility highway project.<ref>{{Cite news
| author =Kathryn Tolbert
| title=Delegates to Join Highway Protest
| newspaper=]
| page=MD3
| date=1980-10-23
| accessdate=2009-04-16
| url= }}
''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref>
In 1980, a bill proposed by Delegate to forbid the Maryland Department of Transportation from even studying the matter of new highways running east and west between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties was tabled by the Montgomery County Delegation.<ref>{{Cite news
| title=Bill to Halt Study of Highway Rejected
| newspaper=]
| page=MD4
| date=1980-10-30
| accessdate=2009-04-14
| url= }}
''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref>

In the 1998 session, was introduced to prohibit the Maryland Department of Transportation from spending funds or granting approvals to the ICC project, and was intended to stop the operation of a toll highway altogether. Both bills failed to pass.

Legislative actions against the Intercounty Connector continued in the 2004 session, where proposed a similar statement to House Bill 817, extended to include the Maryland Transportation Authority. The 2007 Special Session saw the offering of : <blockquote>Requiring the Governor to include a specified appropriation to the Transportation Trust Fund under specified circumstances; prohibiting the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Maryland Transportation Authority from financing the Intercounty Connector; requiring the Authority to retire specified bonds secured by a pledge of future federal aid in a specified manner; making the Act an emergency measure; etc. </blockquote>
Both of these bills also failed to pass.

In the 2008 session, two bills proposing to cancel or delay the project were introduced – and . House Bill 1471 proposed to terminate all funding for the ICC (which was already under construction at the time that the bill was offered), and, if it had passed, would trigger "liquidated damage clauses that would require it to pay the contractors an estimated $80.0 million upon cancellation of the contracts," according to the Fiscal Note prepared by the state's Department of Legislative Services.<ref>{{cite web
| title = FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE - House Bill 1471
| publisher = Maryland
| pages =
| url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/fnotes/bil_0001/hb1471.pdf
| format = PDF
| author=Michael C. Rubenstein
| date = 2008-03-17
| accessdate = 2008-12-05 }}</ref> House Bill 1416 proposed: <blockquote>Requiring the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Department of the Environment to conduct a study on the impact the Intercounty Connector project could have on greenhouse gas emissions; requiring the study to quantify specified costs attributable to the project; requiring a specified public comment period; making financing of the project contingent on the publication and submission of the study to the Governor and the General Assembly; etc.</blockquote>

Both bills failed.

In the 2009 session, a bill proposing to cancel funding for the ICC was pre-filed by (D, District 21 (Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties)) – ''Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding''. In January 2009, the ''Gazette'' reported that had not attracted any co-sponsors nor had it been scheduled for a hearing.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Delegate: Maryland shouldn't fund ICC
| author=Kevin James Shay
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2009-01-21
| url =http://www.gazette.net/stories/01212009/burtnew213928_32480.shtml
| accessdate = 2009-01-25 }}</ref> A fiscal note for HB 27 was prepared by the General Assembly's .<ref>{{cite web
| title = Fiscal and Policy Note - House Bill 27 (Delegate Frush) - Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding
| author = Amanda Mock
| url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0007/hb0027.pdf
| format = PDF
| date = 2009-03-16
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref>. A similar bill, , was filed in the Maryland Senate by (R, District 36 (Caroline, Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne's Counties)) and others. A fiscal note for SB 753 was also prepared.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Fiscal and Policy Note - Senate Bill 753 (Senator Pipkin, ''et al.'') - Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding
| author = Amanda Mock
| url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0753.pdf
| format = PDF
| date = 2009-03-17
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref> The Maryland Politics Watch blog opined that Pipkin's co-sponsorship of SB 753 may be related to his possible desire to run again for the ] ] seat.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Pipkin’s ICC Gambit
| author=Adam Pagnucco
| publisher = Maryland Politics Watch
| date = 2009-03-12
| url =http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/03/pipkins-icc-gambit.html
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref>

Both bills failed in the 2009 session. received an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates Appropriations Committee on March 28, 2009; and no action was taken on prior to adjournment on April 13, 2009, though a hearing was scheduled on March 18, 2009 before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.

==Opposition by the Prince George's County Council to the ICC - but the ICC in Montgomery County ''only''==
The position of the County Council of ] in opposition to the ICC has been repeatedly cited by opposition groups, and its 2003 resolution on the subject, CR-32-2003, was adopted on June 10, 2003.<ref>Not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in ] format), can be found through a search of the for Resoution CR-32-2003</ref>

On the second page of the resolution, in the fifth paragraph, are the following words, which include an ''endorsement'' of the ICC in ] and as far west as ] in ]:
<blockquote>... supporting project planning for alternatives to the construction of the ICC between I-95 and I-270, ''including an East-West Link between US 29 and US 1'' and transit service improvements ...</blockquote>(emphasis added)
Stated differently, Resolution CR-32-2003 opposes the ICC, but ''only'' that part of the ICC ''in ]'' and west of ], where the Prince George's County Council does not have legal planning powers.

In 2007, the Prince George's County Council passed resolution CR-59-2007,<ref>Also not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in ] format), can be found through a search of the for Resoution CR-59-2007</ref> which repeats much of what was stated in CR-32-2003, including the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County, starting with the following words:
<blockquote>A RESOLUTION concerning the Inter County Connector

For the purpose of expressing and restating the Prince George’s County Council’s long-standing opposition to construction of the Inter County Connector (ICC) on the basis that the ICC will further sprawl development, and thus cause or exacerbate an increase in vehicle miles traveled, shift jobs away from Prince George's County, and cause substantial local and regional environmental impact and contribute negatively to climate change, and that there is a lack of need for the ICC, that the cost of it is too great and that there are reasonable and better transportation alternatives that will reduce sprawl development and its impacts.</blockquote>
On the sixth page of this resolution, in the fifth paragraph, the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County from CR-32-2003 is repeated almost verbatim. In spite of the resolutions passed by the Prince George's County Council, County Executive ] has long supported the ICC. In 2006, the county executive was quoted by '']'' (the independent student newspaper of the University of Maryland, College Park) as saying "I always supported the Intercounty Connector road."<ref> {{cite web
| author = Kevin Litten
| title = ICC road gets the green light
| publisher = ]
| date = 2006-06-08
| url = http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2006/06/08/NewsoffCampus/Icc-Road.Gets.The.Green.Light-2325629.shtml
| accessdate = 2009-04-23 }}</ref>

==Anti-ICC lawsuits in the federal courts, consolidation, a hearing and their dismissal==
In November 2006, environmental groups announced that they were preparing to file suit in order to delay or stop the project,<ref> {{cite news
| author = Eric M. Weiss
| title = Clean Air Act Cited In Expected Lawsuit
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2006-11-02
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103155.html
| accessdate = 2009-07-23 }}</ref> and
lawsuits aimed at halting construction<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.icc21dec21,0,6869717.story |title=Two lawsuits filed against ICC}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000931.html |title=Federal Agency Sued Over Environmental Study | work=The Washington Post | first=Katherine | last=Shaver | date=2006-12-21 | accessdate=2010-05-20}}</ref> were filed by environmental groups and affected residents, assisted in part by ] legal counsel from the .<ref> {{cite web
| author = Sean R. Sedam
| title = Intercounty Connector foes file intent to sue
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2006-11-08
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/110806/montcou174917_31939.shtml
| accessdate = 2009-04-16 }}</ref><ref> For an extensive summary of the legal issues raised by the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, see: {{cite web
| title = State & Federal Agencies Violated Law on Protecting Public Health, Environment and Communities, Charge Residents and Environmental Groups in Legal Challenge.
| publisher = PR Newswire
| date = 2006-12-20
| url = http://www.articlearchives.com/environment-natural-resources/pollution/1945302-1.html
| accessdate = 2009-04-22 }}</ref> One of those lawsuits was originally filed in the ] (possibly as part of a ] effort to avoid having the ] hear the case on appeal <ref>{{cite web
| title = Sierra Club’s ICC Lawsuit Moved To U.S. District Court for Maryland
| publisher = The Montgomery County Sierran
| date=June/July 2007
| pages =
| url = http://maryland.sierraclub.org/montgomery/sections/June_July_2007_newsletter.pdf
| format = PDF
| accessdate = 2008-07-01 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}} The article states, in part, "... some concern about having the matter heard in Maryland, ''because appeals of decisions reached by the District Court for Maryland are heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one of the most conservative in the country on environmental matters''" (emphasis added)</ref> - though the ], which would have heard any appeals from the D.C. federal court, had ruled against the Sierra Club and allied groups<ref>The City of Alexandria, Virginia had been the lead plaintiff in this case, but settled out of court on 1 March 1999, leaving the Sierra Club and several allied groups as the plaintiffs/appellees, see the settlement agreement here: http://www.wilsonbridge.com/pdfs/rodReport/Attachment%204%20-%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf.</ref> on similar legal issues in reversing a lower court on a case involving the proposal to reconstruct and widen the ] in 1999)<ref> {{cite court
| litigants= City of Alexandria, Virginia, et al., Appellees v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., Appellants
| vol=198
| reporter=F.3d
| opinion=862
| court=United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
| date=1999
| url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/99-5220a.txt }}, see also for a discussion of the Wilson Bridge case here: http://www.achp.gov/book/case153.html</ref> but ] of the D.C. federal court ordered the matter transferred to federal court in Maryland on May 17, 2007<ref>{{cite web
| title = One judge will hear both suits against new toll road project
| publisher = Examiner.com Washington DC
| date = 2007-07-18
| url = http://www.examiner.com/a-833779~One_judge_will_hear_both_suits_against_new_toll_road_project.html
| accessdate = 2007-11-20 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}} </ref><ref> {{cite court
| litigants= Environmental Defense and Sierra Club, Inc., v. United States Department of Transportation, et al.
| opinion=Civil Action No. 06-2176 (GK)
| court=U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
| date=2007-05-07
| url=https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv2176-39 }}</ref> and the suits were consolidated. After hearings in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news
| title = Agencies Accused of Wrongly Approving Md. Highway Study
| author=Katherine Shaver
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2007-10-02
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101993.html
| accessdate = 2008-07-08 }}</ref> both lawsuits were dismissed in their entirety on November 8, 2007 by ] of the ] in a 105-page memorandum opinion.<ref> {{cite court
| litigants= Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc., Environmental Defense, et al. v. United States Department of Transportation, et al.
| opinion=AW-06-3386 and AW-07-1480 (Consolidated)
| court=U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
| date=2007-11-08
| url=http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/06-3386%20Memo%20Op%20DENY%20PL%20MSJ.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| title = ICC Construction Can Move Forward
| publisher = Associated Press (via WTOP Radio website)
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1288826
| accessdate = 2007-11-09 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| title = Judge Rules ICC Construction Can Go Ahead
| publisher = NBC4
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.nbc4.com/traffic/14538852/detail.html
| accessdate = 2007-11-08 }} </ref><ref>{{cite news
| title = Judge Paves the Way For Long-Delayed ICC
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2007-11-09
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801537.html
| accessdate = 2007-11-09
| first=Katherine
| last=Shaver}} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| title = Court throws out enviros' suit to block start on Maryland Inter County Connector tollroad
| publisher = TOLLROADSnews
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3239
| accessdate = 2007-11-09 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| title = Court Rules Against Obstructionists Gives ICC Green Light
| publisher = Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?contentid=1598
| accessdate = 2007-11-20 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| title = ICC is a go, judge says
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2007-11-09
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/110907/montnew121442_32378.shtml
| accessdate = 2007-11-09 }} </ref><ref>{{cite news
| title = Judge rules against environmentalists, for Intercounty Connector
| publisher = Washington Business Journal
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/11/05/daily40.html
| accessdate = 2007-11-11
| first=Erin
| last=Killian}} </ref>

Judge Williams wrote the following:
<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>

==Aftermath of the dismissal of the consolidated lawsuit==
'']'' described the decision handed down by the court as a "victory for both Governor ], who backs construction of the road, and a measure of vindication for former Governor ], who made it the top transportation priority of his administration."<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Md. gets OK for intercounty highway
| work =
| publisher = Baltimore Sun
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-icc1108,0,3186913.story
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-11-09 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}} </ref>
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"<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Environmental Groups, Local Residents Express Disappointment in Court Ruling on Intercounty Connector, Vow to Consider Legal Options
| work =
| publisher = Environmental Defense
| date = 2007-11-08
| url = http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=7314
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-11-09 }}</ref>
and some homeowners near the selected route expressed disagreement with the ruling of the court.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = ICC neighbors decry ruling that allows road to proceed
| work =
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2007-11-14
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/111407/montnew63504_32356.shtml
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-11-15 }}</ref>

On January 7, 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club would appeal Judge Williams' decision to the ] in ], Virginia.<ref>{{cite news
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Environmentalists Plan an Appeal
| work =
| publisher = Washington Post
| author = Miranda S. Spivack
| date = 2008-01-08
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010703246.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-09-18 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Foes of ICC file appeal in U.S. court
| work =
| publisher = Baltimore Sun
| author = Michael Dresser
| date = 2008-01-09
| url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.br.icc09jan09,0,478331.story
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-06-01 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Environmental Groups Appeal Ruling on ICC
| work =
| publisher = Associated Press (via WTOP Radio website)
| date = 2008-01-07
| url = http://www.wtop.com/?nid=30&sid=1286119
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-01-07 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Environmental Defense Appeals Intercounty Connector Ruling
| work =
| publisher = Reuters
| date = 2008-01-07
| url = http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS213739+07-Jan-2008+PRN20080107
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-01-07 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Environmental groups appeal ICC ruling
| work =
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2008-01-09
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/010908/montnew84509_32363.shtml
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-01-11 }}</ref>

In April 2008, persons and groups opposed to the ICC held an "Irish wake" to draw attention to the impact of the ICC,<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Neighborhood 'wake' in Derwood will highlight impact of ICC
| work =
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2008-04-23
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/042308/burtnew210519_32363.shtml
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-05-05 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = St. George
| first = Donna
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Derwood Residents Rally Against Highway
| work =
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2008-04-27
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601983.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-05-05 }}</ref> and an op-ed in '']'' was printed which raised objections to the ICC.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Mass Trans***
| author=Matt Dernoga
| work =
| publisher = ]
| date = 2008-04-03
| url = http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/04/03/Opinion/Dernoga.Mass.Transhit-3299371.shtml
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-04-20 }} </ref>

In June 2008, protests against the ICC were held at Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School in Silver Spring. The participants claimed that ICC construction should be halted because of air pollution impacts on pupils at the school, though it was reported that Governor O'Malley has no plans to do so.<ref>{{cite news
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Students, Parents of School Next to Proposed Road Ask Governor to Halt Construction
| author=Katherine Shaver
| work =
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2008-06-25
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401150.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-06-30 }}</ref>

In August 2008, '']'' published a letter to the editor from the executive director of the ] calling on the ] to "cancel the ICC."<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Md. can't afford to build the ICC
| author=Stewart Schwartz
| work =
| publisher = Baltimore Sun
| date = 2008-08-07
| url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters07a0aug07,0,2152631.story
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-08-07 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>

In September 2008, '']'' columnist Dan Rodricks wrote an anti-ICC opinion piece<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = ICC? It's time to see to more urgent needs instead
| author=Dan Rodricks
| work =
| publisher = Baltimore Sun
| date = 2008-09-21
| url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/ideas/bal-id.rodricks21sep21,0,416278.column
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-10-10 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> asserting that the ICC was the "Intercounty Anachronism". Rodricks' column was first rebutted by a letter to the editor by Montgomery County Councilmember (D-At Large)<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Better mobility boosts economy
| author=Nancy Floreen
| work =
| publisher = Baltimore Sun
| date = 2008-09-29
| url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters29s10sep29,0,7001146.story
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-10-10 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> and then in a longer op-ed by SHA Administrator Neil Pedersen.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = A worthwhile investment
| author=Neil J. Pedersen
| work =
| publisher = Baltimore Sun
| date = 2008-10-10
| url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.icc10oct10,0,6616972.story
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-10-10 }}</ref>
Also in September 2008, '']'' published an op-ed by state delegate (D-District 20) suggesting that the ICC be canceled.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Scrap the ICC
| author=Heather R. Mizeur
| work =
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2007-09-25
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/09252008/princol144746_32471.shtml
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-10-16 }} </ref> The Mizeur op-ed was rebutted in a response (also published by '']'') by Neil Pedersen in October 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = SHA administrator responds to ICC criticisms
| author=Neil J. Pedersen
| work =
| publisher = The Gazette
| date = 2007-10-16
| url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/10152008/montlet175501_32474.shtml
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-10-16 }} </ref>

In November 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense had dropped its appeal with the ] of the decision handed down by Judge Williams of the ] about a year earlier. In exchange for dropping the suit, the State Highway Administration agreed to fund new emissions-reduction technology used by public school buses in Montgomery County; and the SHA will also "sponsor a three-year study that involves installing air quality monitors along a major highway selected for its similar characteristics to the ICC and I-95."<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Controversial ICC clears major legal hurdle
| author=Adam Tuss
| work =
| publisher = WTOP Radio
| date = 2008-11-17
| url = http://www.wtop.com/?nid=30&sid=1519733
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-17 }} </ref>
'']'' quoted SHA Administrator Neil Pedersen as saying:<ref>{{cite news
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Maryland, Environmental Groups Settle Last Lawsuit
| author=Eric M. Weiss
| work =
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = 2008-11-18
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111701312.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-18 }} </ref>
<blockquote>Rather than spending money on legal expenses, we are able to spend money in ways that will help the environment in addition to the extensive environmental stewardship package we already had with the Intercounty Connector.</blockquote>
opined that the agreement to end this litigation was a "A very cheap settlement!" and "Neil Pedersen who worked for Gov Glendenning as head of planning at MSHA and under later governors was elevated to state highway administrator has been an intelligent, courageous and tenacious advocate of the ICC throughout."<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Enviros give up law suits on Inter County Connector tollroad in Maryland
| author=Peter Samuel
| work =
| publisher = TOLLROADSnews
| date = 2008-11-18
| url = http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3843
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-18 }} </ref>

'']'' reported:<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Group ends legal challenge to ICC road, with conditions
| author=Kytja Weir
| work =
| publisher = Washington Examiner
| date = 2008-11-18
| url = http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Group_ends_legal_challenge_to_ICC_road_with_conditions11-18.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-20 }} </ref>
<blockquote>"This settlement will help offset some of the adverse effects of the ICC on public health," the nonprofit environmental group’s chief health scientist, Dr. John Balbus said in a written statement on Monday. "It also will provide important data on levels of fine particulate air pollution near high traffic volume roads like I-95."</blockquote>

Press releases were issued by the ]<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND SETTLE INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR APPEAL
| author=
| work =
| publisher = ]
| date = 2008-11-17
| url = http://www.sha.state.md.us/information/newsrel/oc/newstxt.asp?filename=08_11_17.76.z
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-20 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}} </ref> and ]<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Group Wins Public Health Benefits in ICC Suit Settlement
| author=
| work =
| publisher = ]
| date = 2008-11-17
| url = http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8820
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-20 }}</ref> discussing the details of the legal settlement.

== References ==
{{reflist|3}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Opposition To Maryland Route 200}}
]

Latest revision as of 02:40, 10 March 2018

Redirect to:

Opposition to Maryland Route 200: Difference between revisions Add topic