View source for Maryland Route 200

{{short description|Toll highway in Maryland, United States}}
{{About|the current Maryland Route 200|the former highway|Maryland Route 200 (former)}}
{{Use American English|date=April 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2015}}
{{Infobox road
|state=MD
|type=MD-Toll
|route=200
|alternate_name=Intercounty Connector
|maint=[[Maryland Transportation Authority|MDTA]]
|map={{maplink|frame=yes|plain=yes|type=line|frame-align=center|frame-width=290|frame-height=260|raw={{Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Maryland Route 200}}}}
|map_custom=yes
|map_notes=Maryland Route 200's routing highlighted in red
|length_mi=17.468
|length_ref=<ref name="Maryland HLR">{{Maryland HLR|year=2015|county1=Montgomery|county2=Prince George's|access-date=August 10, 2016}}</ref>
|length_notes=
|established=February 23, 2011
|history=Completed on November 7, 2014
|direction_a=West
|direction_b=East
|terminus_a={{jct|state=MD|I|370}} near [[Gaithersburg, Maryland|Gaithersburg]]
|terminus_b={{jct|state=MD|US|1}} near Laurel
|junction={{plainlist|1=
*{{jct|state=MD|MD|97}} in [[Norbeck, Maryland|Norbeck]]
*{{jct|state=MD|MD|182}} in [[Aspen Hill, Maryland|Aspen Hill]]
*{{jct|state=MD|MD|650}} in [[Colesville, Maryland|Colesville]]
*{{jct|state=MD|US|29}} in [[Fairland, Maryland|Fairland]]
*{{jct|state=MD|I|95}} in [[Laurel, Maryland|Laurel]]
*{{jct|state=MD|MD|206}} in [[Konterra, Maryland|Konterra]]}}

|counties=[[Montgomery County, Maryland|Montgomery]], [[Prince George's County, Maryland|Prince George's]]
|previous_type=MD
|next_type=MD
|previous_route=198
|next_route=201
}}

'''Maryland Route 200''' ('''MD 200'''), also known as the '''Intercounty Connector''' or '''ICC''', is an {{convert|18.8|mi|km|adj=mid}} [[controlled-access highway|controlled-access]] [[toll road]] in the U.S. state of [[Maryland]]. It connects [[Gaithersburg, Maryland|Gaithersburg]] in [[Montgomery County, Maryland|Montgomery County]] and [[Laurel, Maryland|Laurel]] in [[Prince George's County, Maryland|Prince George's County]], both of which are suburbs of [[Washington, D.C.]] The ICC was one of the most controversial Maryland road projects; opposition to the highway stalled the project for decades, and construction did not begin until 60 years after the highway's initial approval.

The highway was originally proposed in 1950, was {{convert|32|mi|km}} in length, and part of the [[Washington Outer Beltway]]. While other parts of the Outer Beltway were canceled, the ICC and the [[Fairfax County Parkway]] remained on [[Comprehensive planning|master plans]]. The road's long history as an unbuilt proposed road stems from the controversy that has surrounded it over the years, including the cost of about $2.38 billion<ref name="2017 MDOT Consolidated Transportation Program (MDTA section)">{{cite web |title = Final FY 2017–2022 Consolidated Transportation Program |publisher = Maryland Department of Transportation |date = September 20, 2016 |url = http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/CTP/CTP_17_22/Documents/MDTA.pdf#page=26 |access-date = June 4, 2017 }}</ref> to complete the highway and related environmental mitigation.

Proponents of the highway claimed that it would improve the flow of interregional traffic, relieve [[traffic congestion]] on local roads, spur economic development, and enhance access to [[Baltimore-Washington International Airport]].<ref>{{cite news |last1 = Meyer |first1 = Eugene |date = September–October 2013 |title = The Road Less Traveled |url = http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Magazine/September-October-2013/The-Intercounty-Connector/ |work = Bethesda Magazine |access-date = July 30, 2015 }}</ref> Opponents of the highway claimed that the road would instead harm significant traffic flow characteristics, harm the environment, and disrupt established communities through which it passes.<ref name="EnvironmentalDefense">{{cite web |title = Proposed Highway Would Hurt Air, Congestion |publisher = Environmental Defense Fund |date = March 16, 2005 |url = http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4220 |access-date = September 27, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070813232355/http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4220 |archive-date = August 13, 2007 }}</ref> They also argued that "[[environmental degradation]] would immediately occur from the construction (loss of forests, wetlands, and animal habitats), [and instill] long-term consequences (air pollution and carbon emissions from additional driving, more sprawl development, less money to fund mass transit projects, etc.)."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |url = https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/maryland-residents-resist-highway-construction-intercounty-connectormd-200-1980-2011 |title = Maryland residents resist highway construction (Intercounty Connector/MD 200), 1980–2011 |last = Blocker |first = Alexander |date = November 23, 2011 |website = nvdatabase }}</ref>

Fulfilling a 2002 campaign promise, [[Governor of Maryland|Maryland Governor]] [[Robert Ehrlich]] pushed to begin construction of the road and conducted a formal groundbreaking in October 2006.<ref>{{cite news |last1 = Sedam |first1 = Sean R. |first2 = C. Benjamin |last2 = Ford |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/101806/montcou185937_31942.shtml |title = Ehrlich declares ICC under way—again |work = [[The Gazette (Maryland)|The Gazette]]. |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = October 18, 2006 |access-date = May 16, 2007 }}</ref> With additional support from his successor, Governor [[Martin O'Malley]],<ref name="WTOP">{{cite news |last = Brandus |first = Paul |url = http://wtopnews.com/?sid=958713&nid=226 |title = ICC: The Selling of a Road |publisher = [[WTOP-FM]] |location = Washington, DC |date = November 3, 2006 |access-date = May 16, 2007 }}</ref> construction began on November 13, 2007.<ref>{{cite news |last = Shaver |first = Katherine |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112801186.html |title = With Obstacles Overcome, Highway Work Begins |newspaper = [[The Washington Post]] |date = November 29, 2007 |access-date = December 6, 2007 }}</ref> The first segment, from [[Interstate&nbsp;370]] (I-370) to [[Maryland Route 28|MD 28]], opened on February 23, 2011, while the extension to [[Interstate 95 in Maryland|I-95]] opened on November 22, 2011. The final segment to [[U.S. Route 1 in Maryland|U.S. Route&nbsp;1]] (US&nbsp;1) opened on November 7, 2014. MD&nbsp;200 uses [[all-electronic tolling]], with tolls payable through [[E-ZPass]] or [[toll-by-plate|Video Tolling]].

==Route description==
[[File:2016-10-14 12 28 32 View east along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) at Shady Grove Road in Redland, Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|MD 200 eastbound in Redland near its western terminus at I-370|left]]
MD&nbsp;200 begins at a [[trumpet interchange]] with MD&nbsp;200A (Metro Access Road), which heads south to provide access to Shady Grove Road and the [[Shady Grove station]] serving [[Washington Metro]]'s [[Red Line (Washington Metro)|Red Line]], near [[Gaithersburg, Maryland|Gaithersburg]] in [[Montgomery County, Maryland|Montgomery County]]; west of this interchange the freeway continues as [[Interstate 370|I-370]] toward [[Maryland Route 355|MD&nbsp;355]] and [[Interstate 270 (Maryland)|I-270]]. Several new ramps and [[collector-distributor road]]s were built between this interchange and MD&nbsp;355. MD&nbsp;200 continues northeast from there as a six-lane freeway through Redland Station, turning east to pass over Shady Grove Road, and then under Redland Road, paralleling Mill Creek. This is the location of the eastbound toll gantry. MD&nbsp;200 shortly curves to the east on the approach to the six-lane overpass for Olde Mill Run, which was built wide enough for a fourth lane in the eastbound direction. The Olde Mill Run overpass is the only section of MD&nbsp;200 with full {{convert|12|ft|m|1|adj=on}} shoulders on each side. After the overpass, MD&nbsp;200 turns southeast, passing over [[Rock Creek (Potomac River tributary)|Rock Creek]] and the [[Rock Creek Trails#Upper Rock Creek Trail|Upper Rock Creek Trail]] and under Needwood Road, before turning sharply back to the east as it passes under [[Maryland Route 115|MD&nbsp;115]] (Muncaster Mill Road). The route, now running slightly to the southeast, begins the approach to [[Maryland Route 97|MD&nbsp;97]] (Georgia Avenue).[[File:2019-09-25 10 13 54 View west along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) from the overpass for Needwood Road in Redland, Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|MD 200 westbound in Redland]] MD&nbsp;200 then turns more eastward, running towards North Branch Stream Valley Park and passing over the North Branch Rock Creek and a second stream over a bridge. This is the location of the westbound toll gantry. The route enters the [[Norbeck, Maryland|Norbeck]] area and passes under Emory Lane. Just east of there is where a hybrid [[cloverleaf interchange]] with MD&nbsp;97 (Georgia Avenue) is located. A [[park and ride]] lot serving [[MTA Maryland]] commuter buses is located southwest of this interchange along MD&nbsp;97. When the road opened in February 2011, it temporarily came to an end at a traffic light located just east of MD&nbsp;97 at [[Maryland Route 28|MD&nbsp;28]] (Norbeck Road).<ref name="gazette" />

The route then curves southeastward, passing under MD&nbsp;28 and Longmead Crossing Drive, running parallel to Wintergate Drive/Park Vista Drive. MD&nbsp;200 then curves slightly more eastward toward [[Aspen Hill, Maryland|Aspen Hill]], where the freeway intersects [[Maryland Route 182|MD&nbsp;182]] (Layhill Road), shortly after entering the Northwest Branch Recreational Park.  The route travels through the park for a stretch, bridging the [[Northwest Branch Anacostia River]] three times (the second bridge also carries MD&nbsp;200 over Bonifant Road), exits the park, and then turns eastward, passing under Notley Road.  MD&nbsp;200 then turns slightly to the northeast near [[Colesville, Maryland|Colesville]] and meets [[Maryland Route 650|MD&nbsp;650]] at a [[single-point urban interchange]].

[[File:2016-09-09 13 06 02 View west along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) just west of U.S. Route 1 (Baltimore Avenue) in Konterra, Prince Georges County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|left|View west from the east end of MD 200 at US 1 in Laurel]]
MD&nbsp;200 then continues eastward, passes through Upper Paint Branch Park and bridges several creeks, including the namesake [[Paint Branch]], and passes between several neighborhoods upon exiting the park. The route then passes under Old Columbia Pike with no access to this local road.<ref name=fairland-sound-barrier>{{cite news |first = Amber |last = Parcher |title = Neighborhood may not get ICC sound barrier |publisher = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = June 26, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/062508/wheanew194048_32369.shtml |access-date = July 27, 2008 }}</ref> Just beyond, MD&nbsp;200 reaches a large interchange with [[U.S. Route 29 in Maryland|US&nbsp;29]], combining cloverleaf and stack elements.  This interchange also adds connections to Fairland Road with both MD&nbsp;200 and US&nbsp;29. The route continues eastward, featuring a partial interchange with Briggs Chaney Road (westbound exit and eastbound entrance), and then, just after crossing the border into [[Prince George's County, Maryland|Prince George's County]], it passes over the Little Paint Branch just south of the Fairland Recreational Park.  The route then passes under Old Gunpowder Road.

The route then enters [[Calverton, Maryland|Calverton]], where the expansive interchange with [[Interstate 95 in Maryland|I-95]] is located. The interchange, marked as Exit 31 on I-95, is mostly a cloverleaf hybrid, and features several collector-distributor roads built along I-95, stretching from Old Gunpowder Road south of the interchange to [[Maryland Route 198|MD&nbsp;198]] north of it. The community of [[Konterra, Maryland|Konterra]] is planned for construction near this interchange.

Beyond I-95, MD&nbsp;200 narrows to four lanes.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.iccproject.com/contract-d-e-project-details.php |title = Contract D/E Modified |work = Intercounty Connector |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |access-date = November 3, 2011 }}</ref> MD&nbsp;200 curves sharply, first to the south then to the east, and meets a diamond-interchange providing access to Konterra Drive ([[Maryland Route 206|MD&nbsp;206]]). MD&nbsp;200 then turns gradually to the southeast and ends at a [[continuous flow intersection]] at [[U.S. Route 1 in Maryland|US&nbsp;1]] (Baltimore Avenue) in [[Beltsville, Maryland|Beltsville]].

MD 200 is a part of the main [[National Highway System (United States)|National Highway System]] for its entire length.<ref name="Maryland HLR"/><ref name="National Highway System">{{cite map |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |title = National Highway System: Washington, DC-VA-MD |url = http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/maryland/washington_dc.pdf |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140111235430/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/maryland/washington_dc.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-date = January 11, 2014 |date = October 1, 2012 |format = PDF |access-date = June 16, 2013 }}</ref>

==Tolls==
[[File:2016-09-09 13 00 00 View east along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) between Briggs Chaney Road and Old Gunpowder Road in Calverton, Prince Georges County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|right|Toll gantry along eastbound MD 200 between US 29 and I-95 in Calverton]]
The Intercounty Connector uses [[all-electronic tolling]], with tolls payable through [[E-ZPass]] or [[toll-by-plate|Video Tolling]], which uses [[automatic license plate recognition]]. ICC users without E-ZPass are mailed a bill to pay the toll along with a 50% surcharge for non-E-ZPass use (minimum of $1).<ref name=sun>{{cite news |last = Dresser |first = Michael |title = First phase of ICC to open Feb. 22 |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = February 7, 2011 |url = http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/02/fiirst_phase_of_icc_to_open_fe.html |access-date = February 7, 2011 }}</ref> The tolls along the full length of the road (between I-370 and I-95) vary by time of day, ranging from $1.60 overnight to $3.20 in off-peak daytime, and $4 at rush hour (for E-ZPass users; for others toll rates will be approximately 50% higher).<ref>{{cite web |title = 2-Axle Toll Rate Card |publisher = Maryland Transportation Authority |date = November 14, 2011 |url = http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/ICC/toll_tables/Two_Axle_Rate_Card.pdf |access-date = January 27, 2013 }}</ref> Tolls were waived along the road between February 23 and March 7, 2011, and again between November 22 and December 4, 2011.

==History==
===Washington Outer Beltway===
{{Main|Washington Outer Beltway}}
The Intercounty Connector can be traced to plans developed in the 1950s for the proposed {{convert|122|mi|km|adj=on}} Washington Outer Beltway.<ref name= mcs>{{cite journal |title = The Long and Winding Road: A History of the Intercounty Connector, 1950–2006 |first = John |last = Spiers |journal = The Montgomery County Story |volume = 54 |number = 1 |date = Summer 2011 }}</ref> The original Outer Beltway had been planned to pass south of the corporate limits of the [[Rockville, Maryland|City of Rockville]].<ref>{{cite news |first = Chalmers |last = Roberts |title = Need of Belt Highway Shown, With D.C. Hub |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = B4 |date = June 14, 1951 }}</ref> The original proposed routing was south and east of the current alignment.<ref>{{Cite news |title = New Routes Proposed for Beltway in County |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = B3 |date = August 7, 1965 }}</ref> The new route was motivated in part by a desire to move the routing of the proposed bridge over the Potomac River upstream from the area of River Bend to Watkins Island.<ref>{{Cite news |title = Watkins Span Backed for Outer Belt |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = C3 |date = May 17, 1969 }}</ref> Virginia residents and the [[United States Department of the Interior]] objected to the proposed bridge over the Potomac River because they wanted to create state and federal parks along the river in order to protect sugar maple trees, vegetation, and bald eagles. Because of these concerns, the [[Maryland State Roads Commission]] moved the proposed Outer Beltway to a route north of Rockville and eliminated a new bridge crossing the Potomac River.<ref name="mcs" />

The Montgomery County Planning Board accepted the state's newly proposed route in 1970, but the [[Montgomery County Council (Maryland)|Montgomery County Council]] rejected it, and Prince George's County and Virginia dropped it from their plans.<ref name= mcs/>  In 1975, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board of the [[Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments]] endorsed a request from the [[Maryland State Highway Administration|State Highway Administration]] "for federal support of a $1.1 million planning and engineering study of the first {{convert|8|mi|km|adj=on|disp=sqbr}} segment of the road",<ref name="mcs" /> which was to "run from the Baltimore-Washington Parkway near [[Beltsville, Maryland|Beltsville]] westward to a point near [[Interstate 270 (Maryland)|Interstate Rte 70S]] at [[Gaithersburg, Maryland|Gaithersburg]]."<ref>{{cite news|last=Eisen|first=Jack|date=February 24, 1975|title=Segment of Outer Beltway is Endorsed by COG Board|page=C6|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>  By 1976, Maryland's Secretary of Transportation no longer supported state financial support of the Outer Beltway, although Montgomery County still supported it in concept.<ref name="mcs" />

===Initial Intercounty Connector plan===
[[File:2019-09-18 09 33 11 View west along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) at Exit 16B-A (U.S. Route 29, Columbia, Silver Spring) on the edge of Fairland and Calverton in Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|right|MD 200 westbound at US 29 in Fairland]]
In 1980, the state of Maryland dropped the Washington Outer Beltway from its plans except for the Intercounty Connector.<ref>{{cite book |chapter = Transportation |title = Aspen Hill Master Plan |publisher = [[Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission]] |date = April 1994 |page = 84 |url = http://www.mc-mncppc.org/community/plan_areas/georgia_avenue/master_plans/aspen_hill/transport_aspen.pdf |access-date = June 15, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070710004740/http://www.mc-mncppc.org/community/plan_areas/georgia_avenue/master_plans/aspen_hill/transport_aspen.pdf |archive-date = July 10, 2007 }}</ref> Meanwhile, the State Highway Administration was studying constructing a {{convert|22|mi|km|adj=on}} Intercounty Connector with a {{convert|10|mi|km|adj=on}} spur called the [[Matthew Henson State Park|Rockville Facility]].<ref name= mcs/>

After six days of public workshops, the Maryland State Highway Administration released its first report about the Intercounty Connector and the Rockville Facility in January 1980. The majority of participants supported the highway, although almost everyone said they would prefer building more east–west public transportation instead.<ref name= mcs/>

In 1983, the federal National Capital Planning Commission formally requested that the eastern end of the Intercounty Connector be shortened by {{convert|4|mi|km|spell=in}} so that the eastern terminus of the road would be at [[Interstate 95 in Maryland|I-95]] rather than the [[Baltimore–Washington Parkway]].<ref>{{Cite news |last = Melton |first = R.H. |title = U.S. Urges Shortening of Connector Road |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = B6 |date = October 7, 1983 }}</ref> In 1984, Maryland Secretary of Transportation Lowell K. Bridwell designated land in Montgomery and Prince George's counties as the future site of the Intercounty Connector so that the right-of-way would be preserved,<ref>{{Cite news |last = Melton |first = R.H. |title = Intercounty Highway Designated |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = B1 |date = July 28, 1984 }}</ref> even though Montgomery County Executive [[Charles W. Gilchrist]] had voiced very critical comments about the Intercounty Connector as it was envisioned in 1983—at least in part because he felt that construction of the ICC by the year 2000 was "infeasible", and advocated construction of a "shorter and less-costly" east–west highway instead.<ref>{{Cite news |last = Melton |first = R.H. |title = Gilchrist Levels Acerbic Attack on Proposed Connector Highway |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = C9 |date = December 13, 1983 }}</ref>

[[File:Intercounty Connector Rock Creek crossing 2021b.jpg|thumb|left|MD 200 crosses Rock Creek and the Upper Rock Creek Trail via an arch bridge]]
Prior to Governor [[Parris N. Glendening]] declaring the Intercounty Connector "dead" before leaving office in January 2003, two environmental impact studies had been conducted, the first being a draft document in 1983.<ref name="1983DEIS">{{cite book |publisher = [[Federal Highway Administration]] and [[Maryland State Highway Administration]] |title = Intercounty Connector/Rockville Facility From Interstate 270 to Baltimore/Washington Parkway – Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland – Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Report Number FHWA-MD-EIS-83-04-D) |date = October 8, 1983 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RqA1AQAAMAAJ&q=intercounty+connector+rockville+facility }}</ref> In 1977, the [[Patuxent Wildlife Research Center]] expressed concerns about the impact that the ICC would have on its experiments.<ref>{{cite news |last = Conway |first = Sharon |title = Citizens, Builders Unhappy with P.G. Growth Plan |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = MD5 |date = December 22, 1977 }}<!--1977 is the earliest mention of the phrase "Intercounty Connector" in the [https://web.archive.org/web/20070607100529/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/search.html?hpid=bottomnav online archives] of the [[The Washington Post]]--></ref> An initial environmental study was undertaken in the late 1970s, and extended into the 1980s, with a draft published in 1983.<ref name="1983DEIS" /> A second study was initiated around 1992, and a draft environmental impact statement was issued in 1997. The final environmental impact statement was drafted by 1989 but did not receive federal approval, leading to the abandonment of the study until a new study began in 1992; the 1992–1997 study pointed to a similar conclusion, though it was never completed. By 1997, millions of dollars had been spent on planning and preliminary engineering, but the only segments of the road that had been built were [[Interstate 370|I-370]] between [[Interstate 270 (Maryland)|I-270]] and the [[Shady Grove (WMATA station)|Shady Grove Metrorail]] station on WMATA's [[Red Line (Washington Metro)|Red Line]].<ref>{{cite news |last = Vick |first = Karl |title = Md. Tollway Remains a Road Not Taken |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = A1 |date = February 3, 1997 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/growth/transport/icc.htm |access-date = April 18, 2009 }}</ref>

===Glendening rejects Transportation Solutions Group recommendations===
After the 1997 Intercounty Connector Draft Environmental Impact Statement process was put on hold by Governor Glendening, much controversy resulted between groups and persons in favor of the ICC and those opposed.<ref>{{cite news |title = ICC backers, opponents clash |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = October 29, 1997 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1997/199744/montgomery/news/a63112-1.html |access-date = December 9, 2008 }}</ref> The Intercounty Counnector became a political issue in 1998,<ref>{{cite news |title = Unbuilt Road Becomes Political Path |first = Alice |last = Reid |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = August 29, 1998 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/mdelect/statewide/road0829.htm |access-date = November 8, 2008 }}</ref> an election year in Maryland. A blue-ribbon committee entitled the Transportation Solutions Group was formed in 1998 to tell the Governor's Smart Growth Sub-Cabinet about intermodal transportation that complied with state and regional goals.<ref>{{cite book |type = Report |author = Transportation Solutions Group |title = Giving Suburban Marylanders More Travel Choices: Steps to Improve Mobility and Quality of Life in a Growing Region |page = i |date = May 29, 1999 }}</ref> The Transportation Solutions Group, chaired by Thomas B. Deen, former executive director of the [[Transportation Research Board]], met at a series of meetings over about 14 months in 1998 and 1999.<ref>{{harvp|Transportation Solutions Group|1999|loc=p. 48, figure A2|ps=.}}</ref> Policy suggestions and recommendations made by the Transportation Solutions Group included that most of the group supports "providing high-speed bus transit, HOV and SOV access through a new east-west, value priced, limited-access parkway", with some opposition to the parkway<ref>{{cite news |first = Peter |last = Samuel |title = Maryland ICC First Dynamically Priced Pike Pushed |work = TollRoadsNews |date = February 4, 1999 |url = http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/2195 |access-date = July 18, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080517120046/http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/2195 |archive-date = May 17, 2008 |df = mdy-all }}</ref> and that the group had a divided opinion on a freeway, with most supporting it.<ref>{{harvp|Transportation Solutions Group|1999|p=37|ps=.}}</ref> The Transportation Solutions Group had initially voted to oppose the Intercounty Connector on its master planned route,<ref>{{cite news |first = Andrew J. |last = Scott |title = Task force rejects ICC master plan |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = December 16, 1998 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1998/199850/silverspring/news/a44709-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> but voted 10 in favor and 4 opposed in February 1999 to endorse a highway alternative with the condition that single-occupant vehicles be charged a toll.<ref>{{cite news |first = Jen |last = Beatty |title = ICC vote revives Master Plan alignment |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = February 24, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199909/burtonsville/news/a25758-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> At its final meeting in June 1999, the Transportation Solutions Group held a public hearing in College Park and voted 12 to 4 in favor of a "parkway-like highway from I-270 to I-95, following the general path of the ICC."<ref>{{cite news |first = Andrew J. |last = Scott |title = Intercounty Connector makes a comeback |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = June 4, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199922/montgomerycty/county/a34930-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref>

The Transportation Solutions Group also made a recommendation that a system of [[high-occupancy toll]] lanes (with variable pricing) be implemented on major freeways of the region, including the Intercounty Connector, [[Interstate 95 in Maryland|I-95]], [[Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway)|the Capital Beltway]], [[Interstate 270 (Maryland)|I-270]] and [[U.S. Route 50 in Maryland|US&nbsp;50]].<ref>{{cite news |last = Goldreich |first = Samuel |title = Maryland Task Force Considers New Kind of Toll Road |work = The Washington Times |date = January 10, 1999 }}</ref>

On September 22, 1999, Glendening chose to reject the Transportation Solutions Group recommendation, asserting that the project was "wrong", "inconsistent with Smart Growth doctrine",<ref>{{cite news |title = Glendening kills plan for ICC |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = September 24, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199939/princegeorgescty/state/a21642-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> and an "environmental disaster".<ref name= mcs/> ''[[The Washington Post]]'' quoted Glendening quoted as saying, "It is a proposal that has fractured our communities. It has pitted neighbor against neighbor. And it has created political gridlock while traffic gridlock has only worsened."<ref>{{cite news |title = Glendening Kills Intercounty Connector |first = Alan |last = Sipress |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = September 23, 1999 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/1999/09/23/AR2005041901024.html |access-date = September 19, 2008 }}</ref>

Even though Glendening chose to ignore the Transportation Solutions Group's primary recommendation, its work was not entirely in vain, as its efforts were to be cited prominently some years later in the Intercounty Connector's Final Environmental Impact Statement .<ref>{{cite book |title = ICC Final Environmental Impact Statement |publisher = Maryland Department of Transportation |date = January 3, 2006 |page = S–5 }}</ref> The concept of a regionwide network of HOT lanes (to be called "variably priced highway lanes") was further developed by [http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/tpb/ the Transportation Planning Board], and a regional network (including the Intercounty Connector) was described in a report published in February 2008.<ref>{{cite web |first1 = Michael D. |last1 = Eichler |first2 = Gerald K. |last2 = Miller |first3 = Jinchul |last3 = Park |title = Evaluating Alternative Scenarios for a Network of Variably Priced Highway Lanes in the Metropolitan Washington Region |publisher = National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board |date = February 2008 |url = http://www.mwcog.org/TPB/VPTF/docs/RVPS_Final_Report.pdf |access-date = February 9, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101229032050/http://www.mwcog.org/TPB/VPTF/docs/RVPS_Final_Report.pdf |archive-date = December 29, 2010 |df = mdy-all }}</ref>

After rejecting the Intercounty Connector, Glendening and opponents of the Intercounty Connector then examined the possibility of selling its right-of-way, but proponents of the Intercounty Connector would have been able to stop such a sale at the Board of Public Works,<ref>{{cite news |title = Glendening may back away from plan to sell ICC land |first = Josh |last = Kurtz |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = October 8, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199941/montgomerycty/state/a15482-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> which must approve transactions involving the sale of state-owned real estate.

===Montgomery County steps in===
[[File:2019-09-25 11 33 52 View west along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) from the overpass for Notley Road on the edge of Cloverly and Colesville in Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|right|MD 200 westbound in Colesville]]
[[File:Intercounty Connector Northwest Branch 3rd crossing 2021a.jpg|thumb|The upstreammost of three crossings of the Northwest Branch Anacostia River]]

In 1999, staff to the Montgomery County Planning Board said that the Intercounty Connector could be removed from master plans, but that such an effort would take "six or seven years" to accomplish.<ref>{{cite news |first = Candace |last = James |title = Planners say ICC can be removed from master plan |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = July 16, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199929/montgomerycty/county/a16299-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> In November 1999, the Montgomery County Council discussed removing the Intercounty Connector from master plans, and while five of the nine members were opposed to the Intercounty Connector, the District 4 member, Marilyn Praisner, declined to agree to removal of the master-planned route, for fear that the so-called Northern Alignment (Corridor 2 in the 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement) would become a ''de facto'' Intercounty Connector in the future.<ref>{{cite news |title = Council votes to take ICC out of Master Plan |first = Steven T. |last = Dennis |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = November 3, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199945/montgomerycty/county/a11987-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> The effort by Montgomery County politicians to remove the Intercounty Connector from its plans irritated powerful members of the [[Maryland General Assembly]] (notably Senate President [[Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.|Thomas V. "Mike" Miller]]), who discussed legislative measures that could be taken in the General Assembly to thwart such a move.<ref>{{cite news |title = Council's ICC plan irks Miller |first = Josh |last = Kurtz |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = November 10, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199946/montgomerycty/county/a10982-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Miller, Assembly may block county's plans for ICC route |first = Josh |last = Kurtz |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = November 17, 1999 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1999/199947/montgomerycty/state/a20566-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> In February 2000, an agreement between Montgomery County's politicians and members of the General Assembly reached an agreement "memorialized in two letters but not cast in stone" that the "... Council agreed not to take any action to kill the ICC during the next three years."<ref>{{cite news |title = General Assembly, council members call truce on ICC |first = Josh |last = Kurtz |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = February 4, 2000 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2000/200006/montgomerycty/county/a4832-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref>

In 2000, Montgomery County Planning Board established the Transportation Policy Report and then the more-inclusive Transportation Policy Report II Task Force "... in an effort to establish a framework for future Master Plans and to help set priorities for future infrastructure."<ref>{{cite book |type = Report |title = Transportation Policy Report, Introduction |publisher = Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission |date = January 15, 2002 |url = http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/tpr_final/intro.pdf |page = 1 |access-date = November 19, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=January 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The Transportation Policy Report II Task Force had 33 members, including persons in favor of the Intercounty Connector and those opposed.<ref>{{cite news |title = Fragmented TPR's reports emerge |first = Steven T. |last = Dennis |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = December 7, 2001 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2001/200149/weekend/a_section/83162-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> The Transportation Policy Report II Task Force listed the Intercounty Connector in its recommended network, following a caveat that "If they are found feasible and ultimately judged desirable to implement, the priority of implementation could be established at that time.<ref>{{cite book |type = Report |title = Transportation Policy Report, Priorities |publisher = Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission |date = January 17, 2002 |url = http://www.mcparkandplanning.org/transportation/tpr_final/priorities.pdf |page = 55 |access-date = November 19, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=January 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> When the Montgomery County Council was briefed on the report, discussions quickly shifted to the Intercounty Connector and the controversy associated with it.<ref>{{cite news |title = Council picks fight over ICC |first = David |last = Abrams |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = January 23, 2002 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2002/200204/montgomerycty/county/88757-1.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> The Intercounty Connector's Final Environmental Impact Statement makes specific reference to the work done by the Transportation Policy Report II Task Force.<ref>{{cite book |title = ICC Final Environmental Impact Statement |publisher = Maryland Department of Transportation |date = January 3, 2006 |page = S–7 }}</ref>

The Maryland State Senate, in its 2002 session, passed [http://mlis.state.md.us/2002rs/billfile/sj0008.htm Senate Joint Resolution 8], which asked Glendening to restart the Intercounty Connector Environmental Impact Statement that had been put on hold in 1997. The Maryland House of Delegates passed an accompanying resolution, [http://mlis.state.md.us/2002rs/billfile/hj0010.htm House Joint Resolution 10] with essentially similar provisions. The Intercounty Connector study was not to be restarted until Glendening left office at the end of 2002.

===Revival===
[[File:Intercounty Connector logo.png|thumb|200px|right|Logo used for the Intercounty Connector for public relations]]
In 2003, Governor Ehrlich followed through with his campaign promise to resurrect the Intercounty Connector study,<ref>{{cite news |first = Peter |last = Samuel |title = Intercounty Connector to toll |work = TollRoadsNews |date = October 19, 2003 |url = http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/382 |access-date = July 18, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090317032611/http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/382 |archive-date = March 17, 2009 |df = mdy-all }}</ref> and he was allowed a fast-track review process by the [[United States Secretary of Transportation]], [[Norman Mineta]]. In addition to the election of Ehrlich, the Montgomery County Council that was seated at the end of 2002 had a 6–3 majority of members in favor of the project. Prior to the 2002 election, a majority had been skeptical, if not outright opposed, to the project.<ref>{{cite news |last = Kiehl |first = Stephen |title = Disputed connector road finds momentum |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = January 28, 2003 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/bal-te.md.icc28jan28,0,1537215,full.story |access-date = April 19, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110604161334/http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/bal-te.md.icc28jan28,0,1537215,full.story |archive-date = June 4, 2011 |df = mdy-all }}</ref> The Montgomery County Council and County Executive [[Douglas M. Duncan]] issued a resolution endorsing the Intercounty Connector in December 2002.<ref name= mcs/>

On April 21, 2004, the Transportation Planning Board voted to include the Intercounty Connector in future networks of the Washington region's transportation system for purposes of forecasting changes in air quality.<ref>{{cite web |title = TPB Votes to Include ICC and Other Projects in Region's Transportation/Air Quality Analysis |first = John |last = Swanson |publisher = Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments |date = May 18, 2004 |page = 1 |url = http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents//FxfXw20041109145310.pdf |access-date = April 9, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071214051019/http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents//FxfXw20041109145310.pdf |archive-date = December 14, 2007 |df = mdy-all }}</ref> On November 17, 2004, the Transportation Planning Board endorsed regional transportation plans which included the Intercounty Connector, determining that the proposed plans met air quality goals and that funding for the project was adequate.<ref>{{cite press release |title = Transportation Planning Board Gives Green Light To Intercounty Connector (ICC) |first = Steven |last = Kania |publisher = Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments |date = November 17, 2004 |url = http://www.mwcog.org/news/press/detail.asp?NEWS_ID=119 |access-date = April 9, 2009 }}</ref>

On July 11, 2005, Governor Ehrlich announced the state's preference to build the Intercounty Connector 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 [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] gave Corridor 2 a higher environmental rating,<ref>{{cite news |first2 = Rona |last2 = Kobell |first3 = David |last3 = Nitkin |first4 = Tom |last4 = Pelton |title = EPA has objection to ICC route plan |first1 = Michael |last1 = Dresser |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = March 2, 2005 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.icc02mar02,1,4332275.story |access-date = May 11, 2009 }}</ref> 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, because of negative environmental impacts on the [[Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission|Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission's]] [[Rocky Gorge Reservoir]] on the [[Patuxent River]]<ref>{{cite news |last = Paley |first = Amit R. |title = One Connector Route Is Opposed by WSSC |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = February 25, 2005 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51560-2005Feb24.html |access-date = December 16, 2008 }}</ref> (which is a source of [[drinking water]] for much of the WSSC service area),<ref>{{cite news |title = Roads and Drinking Water |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = February 25, 2005 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/graphics/icc_022505.html |access-date = December 16, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title = Protecting Your Drinking Water Supply |publisher = [[Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission]] |date = April–June 2005 |page = 1 |url = http://www.wsscwater.com/INFO/pipeline/AprJun05.pdf |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060509123736/http://www.wsscwater.com//info/pipeline/AprJun05.pdf |archive-date = May 9, 2006 |access-date = December 16, 2008 }}</ref> 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.

On August 31, 2005, the [http://www.bpw.state.md.us/ Board of Public Works] gave its approval to the Corridor 1 alternative, which allowed state funding of the project<ref>{{cite book |type = Report |title = Board of Public Words: After Meeting Agenda Summary |publisher = Maryland Board of Public Works |page = 8 |url = http://www.bpw.state.md.us/static_files/meetings/archives/2005/8-31-05.pdf |access-date = December 19, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110318151621/http://www.bpw.state.md.us/static_files/Meetings/Archives/2005/8-31-05.pdf |archive-date = March 18, 2011 |df = mdy-all }}</ref> in accordance with Maryland's provisions (established by statute) for funding a "growth-related project" that is not entirely within Priority Funding Areas.<ref><!--''See'' Subtitle 5-7B of the State Finance and Procurement Article, in particular § 5-7B-04 and § 5-7B-05, available online from Michie's Legal Resources--> {{cite web|url=http://michie.lexisnexis.com/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=mdcode|title=Maryland Code|publisher=Michie's Legal Resources|access-date=December 16, 2008}}</ref>

In December 2005, controversy arose over the Intercounty Connector's proposed toll rate. At a proposed {{convert|17|cent/mi}}, an end-to-end driver would have to pay about $6 a day for a round-trip (about $1,500 per year).<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-te.md.icc28dec28,0,4803701.story |title = Planned ICC tolls too high, foes say |access-date = June 15, 2007 |last = Dresser |first = Michael |date = December 28, 2005 |work = The Baltimore Sun |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070930044303/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-te.md.icc28dec28%2C0%2C4803701.story |archive-date = September 30, 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

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".<ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053000634.html |title = Intercounty Connector Gets Final Approval |access-date = June 15, 2007 |last1 = Ginsberg |first1 = Steven |first2 = Matthew |last2 = Mosk |date = December 28, 2005 |newspaper = The Washington Post }}</ref> 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 Intercounty Connector as one of his priority projects. The president's direct attention prompted federal resource agencies to give the project a more timely environmental review."<ref>{{cite journal |url = http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2006/05/29/daily3.html |title = Intercounty Connector gets federal green light |access-date = June 15, 2007 |last = Harlan |first = Heather |date = May 30, 2006 |journal = [[American City Business Journals|Baltimore Business Journal]] }}</ref>

As approved, the Intercounty Connector would be {{convert|18|mi|km}} long, running from I-370 in Gaithersburg to I-95 in Beltsville. It would be a controlled access toll-highway with eight interchanges, and two [[park-and-ride]] lots would be built as well.<ref name= mcs/> The project included $370 million for mitigation and environmental stewardship activities in order to address the impact of communities, wetlands, streams, wildlife, forests, air quality, historic resources, and parklands.<ref name= mcs/>

===Construction===
[[File:2008 04 03 - 200@Redland - ICC Construction 1.JPG|thumb|right|Construction of MD 200 in [[Redland, Maryland|Redland]]]]
The [[Maryland State Highway Administration|SHA]] constructed the ICC using separate design-build contracts for five phases.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/businesswithsha/contBidProp/ohd/constructContracts/pdf/5_06_ContractC_Packaging.pdf |title = ICC procurement process update letter |access-date = June 15, 2007 |date = May 8, 2006 |first = Robert P. |last = Gay |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration }}</ref>
* A. I-270/I-370 to east of MD&nbsp;97
* B. East of MD&nbsp;97 to west of US&nbsp;29
* C. West of US&nbsp;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, including a new exit on the interstate at Konterra Drive
* E. East of I-95 interchange to US&nbsp;1

The first of the five contracts was awarded on March 27, 2007. The contract, worth $478.7 million, was awarded to Intercounty Constructors, a joint venture of Granite Construction Company, Corman Construction Inc. and G.A. & F.C. Wagman, Inc. Construction on the {{convert|7|mi|km|spell=in|adj=on}} section between I-370 and MD 97 began in November 2007.<ref name="first contract">{{cite press release |url = http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/first-contract.pdf |title = Maryland selects contractor to design and build first segment of the Intercounty Connector |access-date = March 5, 2011 |date = March 27, 2007 |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration }}</ref> Contracts for three other phases are completed and the fifth phase involving collector-distributor lanes along I-95 has been completed.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.iccproject.com/project-schedule.php |title = Project Schedule |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |access-date = March 5, 2011 }}</ref>

Requests for statements of qualification were issued for Phase A in December 2005,<ref>{{cite web |url = http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/businesswithsha/contBidProp/ohd/constructContracts/textview.asp?filename=05_11_28.AT376A21.ads.z&selection=ads&contract=AT376A21 |title = Contract AT376A21 information |access-date = June 15, 2007 |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration }}</ref> for Phase D in August 2006,<ref>{{cite web |url = http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/businesswithsha/contBidProp/ohd/constructContracts/textview.asp?filename=06_08_07.AT3765C60.ads.z&selection=ads&contract=AT3765C60 |title = Contract AT3765C60 Notice to Contractors |access-date = June 15, 2007 |date = August 8, 2006 |first = Neil J. |last = Pedersen |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration }}</ref> and for Phase B in August 2007.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/businesswithsha/contBidProp/ohd/constructContracts/textview.asp?filename=07_08_13.AT3765B60.ads.z&selection=ads&contract=AT3765B60 |title = Contract AT3765B60 Notice to Contractors |access-date = August 28, 2007 |date = August 13, 2007 |first = Neil J. |last = Pedersen |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration }}</ref>

The selection of the second of the five contracts was announced on November 20, 2007. The contract, worth $513.9 million, 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 US&nbsp;29 to I-95, and interchanges with those routes.<ref>{{cite press release |url = http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/news-release-c-award-1107.pdf |title = Maryland selects contractor to design and build second segment of the Intercounty Connector |access-date = November 24, 2007 |date = November 20, 2007 |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration }}</ref>

On September 4, 2008, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' reported that the Contract B construction contract had been awarded on July 22, 2008, to a joint venture of Kiewit, Corman Construction, and G.A. & F.C. Wagman, at a total cost of about $559.7 million—reportedly 22% higher than previous estimates. The ''Post'' story went on to say that a protest of this contract award was filed on July 30, 2008, by a joint venture that was not selected, though the bid price from the rejected group was lower. This protest may have delayed the start of construction on Contract B.<ref>{{cite news |title = Connector Segment Will Cost 22% More |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = September 4, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR2008090303564.html |access-date = September 4, 2008 }}</ref> On October 15, 2008, the ''[[The Washington Post|Post]]'' reported that the protest was denied by state procurement officer Robert P. Gay and that the losing proposer would file an appeal with the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals.<ref>{{cite news |title = Protest From Companies That Lost Bid Denied |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = October 15, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR2008101402890_2.html |access-date = October 15, 2008 }}</ref>

On September 12, 2008, the ''Post'' reported that Contract D ran into funding issues which had delayed its construction.<ref>{{cite news |title = Md. Delays Portion of Connector Project |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = September 12, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103365.html |access-date = September 12, 2008 }}</ref> Contract D is associated with the proposed new interchange of I-95 and Contee Road (not part of the ICC). [[Maryland State Highway Administration|SHA]] Former Administrator Neil J. Pedersen stated that the "service roads can be delayed until the I-95 interchange has been built at Contee Road."

[[File:MD200 Ends@MD28 Sign.png|thumb|right|Sign indicating that MD&nbsp;200 ended at MD&nbsp;28 (Norbeck Road)—since November 22, 2011 this is no longer the case]]
The first segment opened on February 23, 2011,<ref name=gazette/> ahead of its projected spring 2011 opening.<ref name="The Washington Post">{{cite news |title = Connector Road Inches Along |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = October 26, 2009 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102606836.html |access-date = December 6, 2010 }}</ref> No tolls were charged on the date of opening to March 6, 2011.<ref>{{cite press release |title = Discover what the ICC/MD 200 means to you |publisher = Maryland Transportation Authority |date = February 7, 2011 |url = http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/TollFacilities/ICC.html |access-date = February 7, 2011 }}</ref> On the opening morning, over 10,000 vehicles used the highway,<ref name=gazette>{{cite news |title = More than 10,000 vehicles travel on first stretch of the ICC Wednesday morning |first = Mimi |last = Liu |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/02232011/montnew133326_32547.php |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = February 23, 2011 |access-date = February 23, 2011 |archive-date = February 27, 2011 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110227020919/http://www.gazette.net/stories/02232011/montnew133326_32547.php |url-status = dead }}</ref> and it went on to draw in 30,000 vehicles per day. During the first week of May, the tollway drew 11,490 vehicles per day, which is much less than the 21,000 projected (though by 2014, this section of highway was averaging almost 40,000 vehicles per day on average<ref>{{cite book |chapter = Montgomery County |title = 2014 Highway Location Reference |publisher = [[Maryland State Highway Administration]] |date = December 31, 2014 |page = 147 |url = http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Location/2014%20Montgomery_HLR_web.pdf |access-date = November 22, 2015 }}</ref>). As a result, the state launched a $1.4 million advertising campaign to promote the new highway.<ref>{{cite news |title = ICC traffic increasing silightly; ad campaign aims to lure more |first = Kytja |last = Weir |work = Washington Examiner |date = May 10, 2011 |page = 10 }}</ref> The second segment of the highway, from [[Maryland Route 97|MD&nbsp;97]] to [[Interstate 95 in Maryland|I-95]] opened on November 22, 2011.<ref name=sun1122>{{cite news |title = ICC opens second segment, connecting Laurel to Gaithersburg |first = Dan |last = Schwind |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/community/ph-ll-newsbriefs-icc-20111122,0,5885612.story |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = November 22, 2011 |access-date = November 24, 2011 }}</ref>  The highway was opened between I-95 and US&nbsp;1 on November 7, 2014.<ref>{{cite news |title = Final section of ICC to Laurel, new I-95 interchange to open this weekend |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = November 5, 2014 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-icc-opening-20141105-story.html |access-date = November 9, 2014 }}</ref>

===Funding===
The $2.56-billion project was funded from several sources, including $1.23 billion of [[Maryland Transportation Authority]] revenue bonds (50%), $0.75 billion of [[GARVEE|Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle]] bonds (31%), $0.26 billion from the Maryland General Fund (11%); $0.18 billion from the Maryland Transportation Trust Fund (7%); and $0.18 billion from Special Federal Funds (1%).<ref>{{cite web |title = Wall Street Gives ICC a AAA Vote of Confidence |publisher = [[Maryland State Highway Administration]], [[Maryland Transportation Authority]], [[Federal Highway Administration]] |date = Summer 2007 |page = 1 |url = http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/ICC_NL_Summer07.pdf |access-date = September 8, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title = Fact Sheet: Intercounty Connector |publisher = [[United States Department of Transportation]], The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act |url = http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/fs13.cfm |date = September 2, 2008 |access-date = December 10, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090315024359/http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/fs13.cfm |archive-date = March 15, 2009 }}</ref>

===Opposition===
[[File:ICC Route 200.jpg|thumb|right|Route Marker for ICC]]
MD 200 has gained opposition from several groups, including the [[Maryland General Assembly]] and the Prince George's County Council. 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 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 harm the environment (with air, sea and land impacts), and will disrupt established communities through which it passes.<ref name="EnvironmentalDefense"/>

====Government====
Members of the Maryland General Assembly stated opposition in the Spring 2008<ref>{{cite news |title = Opponents Want Legislature to Halt Construction |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = March 18, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702426.html |access-date = October 15, 2008 }}</ref> and Spring 2009 sessions, the 1998 session,<ref>{{cite news |title = County's legislative delegation takes public's pulse at hearings |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = October 29, 1997 |url = http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/1997/199744/montgomerycty/county/a63304-1.html |access-date = December 5, 2008 }}</ref> and back to 1979, when a bill introduced in the General Assembly by Delegate [[Robin Ficker]] proposed to eliminate funding for a study of the ICC and the never-built Rockville Facility highway project.<ref>{{Cite news |first = Kathryn |last = Tolbert |title = Delegates to Join Highway Protest |newspaper = The Washington Post |page = MD3 |date = October 23, 1980 }}</ref> In 1980, a bill proposed by Delegate [[Idamae Garrott]] 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 = The Washington Post |page = MD4 |date = October 30, 1980 }}</ref>

In the 1998 session, House Bill 817 was introduced to prohibit MDOT from spending funds or granting approvals to the ICC project, and House Bill 905 was intended to stop the operation of a toll highway altogether.<ref name=hb817>{{cite web |title = House Bill 817 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/hb0817.htm |year = 1998 |publisher = [[Maryland House of Delegates]] |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref><ref name=hb905>{{cite web |title = House Bill 905 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/hb0905.htm |year = 1998 |publisher = Maryland House of Delegates |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref> Both bills failed to pass. In 2004, House Bill 732 proposed a similar statement to House Bill 817, extended to include the MdTA.<ref name=hb732>{{cite web |title = House Bill 732 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2004rs/billfile/hb0732.htm |year = 2004 |publisher = Maryland House of Delegates |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref> The 2007 Special Session saw the offering of House Bill 37 to prevent construction of the road. Both of these bills also failed to pass.<ref name=hb37>{{cite web |title = House Bill 37 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2007s1/billfile/hb0037.htm |year = 2007 |publisher = Maryland House of Delegates |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref> In the 2008 session, two bills proposing to cancel or delay the project were introduced—House Bill 1416 and House Bill 1471.<ref name=hb1416>{{cite web |title = House Bill 1416 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/hb1416.htm |year = 2008 |publisher = Maryland House of Delegates |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref><ref name=hb1471>{{cite web |title = House Bill 1471 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/hb1471.htm |year = 2008 |publisher = Maryland House of Delegates |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref> House Bill 1471 proposed to eliminate funding for the road, 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 book |type = Report |title = Fiscal and Policy Note: House Bill 1471 |publisher = Maryland Department of Legislative Services |page = 7 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/fnotes/bil_0001/hb1471.pdf |first = Michael C. |last = Rubenstein |date = March 17, 2008 |access-date = December 5, 2008 }}</ref> Both bills failed.

In the 2009 session, a bill proposing to cancel funding for the ICC was pre-filed by Delegate Barbara A. Frush—House Bill 27.<ref name=hb27>{{cite web |title = House Bill 27 |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/hb0027.htm |year = 2009 |publisher = Maryland House of Delegates |access-date = March 7, 2011 }}</ref> This bill had not attracted any co-sponsors nor had it been scheduled for a hearing.<ref>{{cite news |title = Delegate: Maryland shouldn't fund ICC |first = Kevin James |last = Shay |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = January 21, 2009 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/01212009/burtnew213928_32480.shtml |access-date = January 25, 2009 }}</ref> A similar bill, Senate Bill 753, was filed in the Maryland Senate by Sen. E. J. Pipkin and others.<ref>{{cite book |type = Report |title = Fiscal and Policy Note: Senate Bill 753 (Senator Pipkin, ''et al.'')—Transportation—Intercounty Connector—Elimination of Funding |first = Amanda |last = Mock |url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0753.pdf |date = March 17, 2009 |access-date = March 28, 2009 }}</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 [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Maryland's 1st congressional district|Maryland District 1]] seat.<ref>{{cite web |title = Pipkin's ICC Gambit |first = Adam |last = Pagnucco |publisher = Maryland Politics Watch |date = March 12, 2009 |url = https://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/03/pipkins-icc-gambit.html |access-date = March 28, 2009 }}</ref> Both bills failed in the 2009 session. House Bill 27 received an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates Appropriations Committee on March 28, 2009; and no action was taken on Senate Bill 753 prior to adjournment on April 13, 2009, though a hearing was scheduled on March 18, 2009, before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.

The position of the County Council of [[Prince George's County, Maryland|Prince George's County]] 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, where it called for alternatives to the road.<ref>Not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in [[Microsoft Word]] format), can be found through a search of the [http://egov.co.pg.md.us/lis/default.asp?File=&Type=SearchBill Prince George's County Government Legislative Information System]{{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} for Resolution CR-32-2003</ref> 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 [[Microsoft Word]] format), can be found through a search of the [http://egov.co.pg.md.us/lis/default.asp?File=&Type=SearchBill Prince George's County Government Legislative Information System]{{dead link|date=June 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} for Resolution 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.

====Environmental groups====
[[File:2016-10-14 12 48 17 View west along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) just west of U.S. Route 29 (Columbia Pike) in Fairland, Montgomery County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|right|MD 200 westbound past US 29 in Fairland]]
In November 2006, environmental groups announced that they were preparing to file suit in order to delay or stop the project,<ref>{{cite news |first = Eric M. |last = Weiss |title = Clean Air Act Cited In Expected Lawsuit |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = November 2, 2006 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103155.html |access-date = July 23, 2009 }}</ref> and lawsuits aimed at halting construction<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.icc21dec21,0,6869717.story |title = Two lawsuits filed against ICC |work = The Baltimore Sun |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193208/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.icc21dec21,0,6869717.story |archive-date = September 27, 2007 |df = mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000931.html |title = Federal Agency Sued Over Environmental Study |newspaper = The Washington Post |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |date = December 21, 2006 |access-date = May 20, 2010 }}</ref> were filed by environmental groups and affected residents, assisted in part by [[Pro bono publico|''pro bono'']] legal counsel from the Institute for Public Representation of the Georgetown University Law Center.<ref>{{cite news |first = Sean R. |last = Sedam |title = Intercounty Connector foes file intent to sue |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = November 8, 2006 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/110806/montcou174917_31939.shtml |access-date = April 16, 2009 }}</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 = December 20, 2006 |url = http://www.articlearchives.com/environment-natural-resources/pollution/1945302-1.html |access-date = April 22, 2009 }}{{dead link |date=January 2018}}{{cbignore}}</ref> One of those lawsuits was originally filed in the [[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia]] (possibly as part of a [[forum shopping]] effort to avoid having the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals]] hear the case on appeal<ref>{{cite journal |title = Sierra Club's ICC Lawsuit Moved To U.S. District Court for Maryland |journal = The Montgomery County Sierran |date = June–July 2007 |page = 4 |url = http://maryland.sierraclub.org/montgomery/sections/June_July_2007_newsletter.pdf |access-date = July 1, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081030064833/http://maryland.sierraclub.org/montgomery/sections/June_July_2007_newsletter.pdf |archive-date = October 30, 2008 }}<!--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>&nbsp;– though the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]], 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 March 1, 1999, leaving the Sierra Club and several allied groups as the plaintiffs/appellees, see the settlement agreement here: {{cite web |url=http://www.wilsonbridge.com/pdfs/rodReport/Attachment%204%20-%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2011-03-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060317183426/http://www.wilsonbridge.com/pdfs/rodReport/Attachment%204%20-%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf |archive-date=March 17, 2006 |df=mdy-all }}.</ref> on similar legal issues in reversing a lower court on a case involving the proposal to reconstruct and widen the [[Woodrow Wilson Bridge]] 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 [http://www.achp.gov/book/TOC2.html Federal Historic Preservation Case Law] for a discussion of the Wilson Bridge case here: http://www.achp.gov/book/case153.html--></ref> but [[Gladys Kessler|Judge Gladys Kessler]] of the D.C. federal court ordered the matter transferred to federal court in Maryland on May 17, 2007 and the suits were consolidated. After hearings in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news |title = Agencies Accused of Wrongly Approving Md. Highway Study |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = October 2, 2007 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101993.html |access-date = July 8, 2008 }}</ref> both lawsuits were dismissed in their entirety on November 8, 2007 by [[Alexander Williams, Jr.|Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.]] of the [[United States District Court for the District of Maryland|U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland]] in a 105-page memorandum opinion.<ref>{{cite court |litigants = Audubon Naturalist Society of The Central Atlantic States, Inc. 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 = November 8, 2007 |url = https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mdd-8_06-cv-03386/content-detail.html }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = ICC Construction Can Move Forward |agency = [[Associated Press]] |publisher = WTOP-FM |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1288826 |access-date = November 9, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Judge Rules ICC Construction Can Go Ahead |publisher = [[WRC-TV]] |location = Washington, DC |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.nbc4.com/traffic/14538852/detail.html |access-date = November 8, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Judge Paves the Way For Long-Delayed ICC |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = November 9, 2007 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801537.html |access-date = November 9, 2007 |first = Katherine |last = Shaver }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Court throws out enviros' suit to block start on Maryland Inter County Connector tollroad |work = TOLLROADSnews |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3239 |access-date = November 9, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080703211821/http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3239 |archive-date = July 3, 2008 |df = mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title = Court Rules Against Obstructionists Gives ICC Green Light |publisher = Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?contentid=1598 |access-date = November 20, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080122123820/http://www.nvta.org/content.asp?contentid=1598 |archive-date = January 22, 2008 |df = mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = ICC is a go, judge says |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = November 9, 2007 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/110907/montnew121442_32378.shtml |access-date = November 9, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title = Judge rules against environmentalists, for Intercounty Connector |journal = Washington Business Journal |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/11/05/daily40.html |access-date = November 11, 2007 |first = Erin |last = Killian }}</ref>

''[[The Baltimore Sun]]'' described the decision handed down by the court as a "victory for both Governor [[Martin O'Malley]], who backs construction of the road, and a measure of vindication for former Governor [[Robert L. Ehrlich]], who made it the top transportation priority of his administration."<ref>{{cite news |title = Md. gets OK for intercounty highway |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-icc1108,0,3186913.story |archive-url = https://archive.today/20070813222125/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-icc1108,0,3186913.story |url-status=dead |archive-date = August 13, 2007 |access-date = November 9, 2007 }}</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 press release |title = Environmental Groups, Local Residents Express Disappointment in Court Ruling on Intercounty Connector, Vow to Consider Legal Options |publisher = Environmental Defense Fund |date = November 8, 2007 |url = http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=7314 |access-date = November 9, 2007 }}</ref> and some homeowners near the selected route expressed disagreement with the ruling of the court.<ref>{{cite web |title = ICC neighbors decry ruling that allows road to proceed |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = November 14, 2007 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/111407/montnew63504_32356.shtml |access-date = November 15, 2007 }}</ref> On January 7, 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club would appeal Judge Williams' decision to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit]] in [[Richmond, Virginia|Richmond]], Virginia.<ref>{{cite news |last = Spivack |first = Miranda S. |title = Environmentalists Plan an Appeal |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = January 8, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/07/AR2008010703246.html |access-date = September 18, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last = Dresser |first = Michael |title = Foes of ICC file appeal in U.S. court |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = January 9, 2008 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.br.icc09jan09,0,478331.story |access-date = June 1, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080512000407/http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.br.icc09jan09%2C0%2C478331.story |archive-date = May 12, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Environmental Groups Appeal Ruling on ICC |agency = Associated Press |publisher = WTOP-FM |location = Washington, DC |date = January 7, 2008 |url = http://www.wtop.com/?nid=30&sid=1286119 |access-date = January 7, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Environmental Defense Appeals Intercounty Connector Ruling |publisher = Reuters |date = January 7, 2008 |url = https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS213739+07-Jan-2008+PRN20080107 |access-date = January 7, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090318163014/http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS213739+07-Jan-2008+PRN20080107 |archive-date = March 18, 2009 |df = mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Environmental groups appeal ICC ruling |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = January 9, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/010908/montnew84509_32363.shtml |access-date = January 11, 2008 }}</ref> In April 2008, persons and groups opposed to the ICC, including the Shady Grove Woods Homeowners Association, held an "Irish wake" to draw attention to the impact of the ICC.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite news |title = Neighborhood 'wake' in Derwood will highlight impact of ICC |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = April 23, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/042308/burtnew210519_32363.shtml |access-date = May 5, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last = St. George |first = Donna |title = Derwood Residents Rally Against Highway |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = April 27, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601983.html |access-date = May 5, 2008 }}</ref> The Derwood event was attended by approximately 100 people, all of whom wore green t-shirts to show their support for the trees.<ref name=":0" /> The event's planners also named the event "O'Malley's March" after Governor Martin O'Malley's former rock band in the hopes that this would encourage him to cancel the project.<ref name=":0" /> An op-ed in ''[[The Diamondback]]'' was printed which raised objections to the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |last = Dernoga |first = Matt |title = Mass Trans*** |work = [[The Diamondback]] |location = [[University of Maryland, College Park]] |date = April 3, 2008 |url = http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/04/03/Opinion/Dernoga.Mass.Transhit-3299371.shtml |archive-url = https://archive.today/20110808160043/http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/04/03/Opinion/Dernoga.Mass.Transhit-3299371.shtml |url-status = dead |archive-date = August 8, 2011 |access-date = April 20, 2009 }}</ref>

In June 2004, protests against the ICC were held at Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School in Silver Spring, where the State Highway Administration was simultaneously holding a public ICC workshop.<ref name=":0" /> This event was more heavily attended than the Derwood event and featured multiple speeches by people opposing the highway, which included Phil Andrews, a Montgomery County Council member.<ref name=":0" /> The participants claimed that ICC construction should be halted because of air pollution impacts on pupils at the school; however, it was clear that Governor O'Malley had no plans to do so.<ref>{{cite news |last = Shaver |first = Katherine |title = Students, Parents of School Next to Proposed Road Ask Governor to Halt Construction |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = June 25, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401150.html |access-date = June 30, 2008 }}</ref> In August 2008, ''[[The Baltimore Sun]]'' published a letter to the editor from the executive director of the [[Coalition for Smarter Growth]] calling on the [[Maryland Department of Transportation]] to "cancel the ICC."<ref>{{cite news |last = Schwartz |first = Stewart |title = Md. can't afford to build the ICC |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = August 7, 2008 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters07a0aug07,0,2152631.story |type = Editorial |access-date = August 7, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> In September 2008, ''[[The Baltimore Sun|The Sun's]]'' columnist Dan Rodricks wrote an anti-ICC opinion piece<ref>{{cite news |last = Rodricks |first = Dan |title = ICC? It's time to see to more urgent needs instead |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = September 21, 2008 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/ideas/bal-id.rodricks21sep21,0,416278.column |access-date = October 10, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> asserting that the ICC was the "Intercounty Anachronism". Rodricks' column was first rebutted by a letter to the editor by Montgomery County Councilmember [[Nancy Floreen]] (D-At Large)<ref>{{cite news |last = Floreen |first = Nancy |title = Better mobility boosts economy |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = September 29, 2008 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.letters29s10sep29,0,7001146.story |type = Letter to the Editor |access-date = October 10, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> and then in a longer op-ed by SHA Administrator Neil Pedersen.<ref>{{cite news |last = Pederson |first = Neil J. |title = A worthwhile investment |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = October 10, 2008 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.icc10oct10,0,6616972.story |type = Editorial |access-date = October 10, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=February 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Also in September 2008, ''[[The Gazette (Maryland)|The Gazette]]'' published an op-ed by state delegate [[Heather Mizeur|Heather R. Mizeur]] (D-District 20) suggesting that the ICC be canceled.<ref>{{cite news |last = Mizeur |first = Heather R. |title = Scrap the ICC |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = September 25, 2007 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/09252008/princol144746_32471.shtml |access-date = October 16, 2007 }}</ref> The Mizeur op-ed was rebutted in a response (also published by ''[[The Gazette (Maryland)|The Gazette]]'') by Neil Pedersen in October 2008.<ref>{{cite news |last = Pedersen |first = Neil J. |title = SHA administrator responds to ICC criticisms |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = October 16, 2007 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/10152008/montlet175501_32474.shtml |access-date = October 16, 2007 }}</ref>

In November 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense had dropped its appeal with the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]] of the decision handed down by Judge Williams of the [[United States District Court for the District of Maryland|U.S. District Court for Maryland]] 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 news |last = Tuss |first = Adam |title = Controversial ICC clears major legal hurdle |publisher = WTOP-FM |location = Washington, DC |date = November 17, 2008 |url = http://www.wtop.com/?nid=30&sid=1519733 |access-date = November 17, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last = Weiss |first = Eric M. |title = Maryland, Environmental Groups Settle Last Lawsuit |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = November 18, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111701312.html |access-date = November 18, 2008 }}</ref> Press releases were issued by the [[Maryland State Highway Administration|State Highway Administration]]<ref>{{cite press release |title = Maryland State Highway Administration and the Environmental Defense Fund settles Intercounty Connector Appeal |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |date = November 17, 2008 |url = http://www.sha.state.md.us/information/newsrel/oc/newstxt.asp?filename=08_11_17.76.z |access-date = November 20, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090315005823/http://www.sha.state.md.us/information/newsrel/oc/newstxt.asp?filename=08_11_17.76.z |archive-date = March 15, 2009 }}</ref> and [[Environmental Defense Fund|Environmental Defense]]<ref>{{cite press release |title = Group Wins Public Health Benefits in ICC Suit Settlement |publisher = Environmental Defense Fund |date = November 17, 2008 |url = http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8820 |access-date = November 20, 2008 }}</ref> discussing the details of the legal settlement.

===Environmental mitigation===
{{Update|section|date=December 2011}}
A major component of the ICC is [[environmental mitigation]]<ref>{{cite news |type = Letter to the Editor |title = A Highway That Could Help a River |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = February 25, 2007 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301516.html |access-date = November 24, 2007 }}</ref> and aesthetics.<ref>{{cite news |title = ICC aesthetics: Earth tones, arches and more that motorists might not notice |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = February 23, 2011 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022207236.html |access-date = May 10, 2015 |first = Katherine |last = Shaver }}</ref> In addition to work taking place near and in the right-of-way of the ICC, there are over 50 "off-site environmental and community improvement projects" that will be funded as part of the ICC engineering and construction budget.<ref>{{cite web |title = Information on ICC Off-Site Environmental and Community Improvement Contracts |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |date = October 22, 2008 |work = Intercounty Connector |url = http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/mitigation-stewardship-contract-info.pdf |access-date = January 30, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title = Environmental Stewardship and Mitigation Sites |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |work = Intercounty Connector |date = September 5, 2008 |url = http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/mitigation-stewardship-contract-info.pdf |access-date = January 30, 2009 }}</ref>

In a letter to the editor of ''[[The Baltimore Sun]]'', David Marks, a former official with the [[Maryland Department of Transportation]], wrote that the SHA project team "...had the foresight to require substantial environmental improvements as part of the project, and they insisted on broad public input..."<ref>{{cite news |type = Letter to the Editor |title = ICC approval shows Ehrlich's foresight |work = The Baltimore Sun |date = November 15, 2007 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/letters/bal-ed.le.15nnov15,0,4223296.story |access-date = November 15, 2007 }}{{dead link|date=June 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

[[File:2019-09-25 13 14 50 View east along Maryland State Route 200 (Intercounty Connector) from the overpass for Maryland State Route 206 (Konterra Drive) in Konterra, Prince George's County, Maryland.jpg|thumb|right|MD 200 eastbound past MD 206 in Konterra]]
One component of the mitigation is the replacement of parkland taken for the ICC with new land.<ref>{{cite web |title = Environmental Programs |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |work = Intercounty Connector |url = http://www.iccproject.com/environment-programs.php |access-date = November 24, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071008161730/http://www.iccproject.com/environment-programs.php |archive-date = October 8, 2007 }}</ref> Replacement lands intended to compensate for these losses include a large parcel of land in the [[Boyds, Maryland|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,<ref>{{cite news |title = Casey Foundation Fights Md. Over Land Seized for Highway |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = November 23, 2007 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201260.html |access-date = November 23, 2007 |first = Katherine |last = Shaver }}</ref> so the State Highway Administration acquired the land by condemnation and the matter was reported as resolved in June 2008.<ref>{{cite news |title = State Will Pay Extra $3 Million For 405 Acres |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = June 8, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/07/AR2008060701802.html |access-date = June 8, 2008 }}</ref> In July 2008, controversy was reported on a similar subject. A {{convert|118|acre|km2|adj=on}} parcel of land near the intersection of [[Maryland Route 198|MD 198]] and Peach Orchard Road which had been condemned by the SHA in 1997 for possible use as the so-called Northern Alignment (Corridor 2) was conveyed to the [[Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission]] to compensate for parkland which will be taken by the ICC. The former owner, Winchester Homes, filed a lawsuit contending that the SHA must offer to sell this land back to Winchester, and in May 2008, Judge S. Michael Pincus of the Montgomery County Circuit Court ruled that "the SHA was contractually obligated to offer Winchester Homes the chance to buy back the property." It was further reported that the state filed an appeal in June 2008.<ref>{{cite news |title = State cannot use property in ICC plan, judge says |first = Meghan |last = Tierney |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = July 9, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/070908/burtnew210326_32356.shtml |access-date = July 10, 2008 }}</ref>

In the February 2008 edition of the ''Successes in Stewardship'' newsletter, the [[Federal Highway Administration]] stated:<ref>{{cite journal |first1 = Daniel W. |last1 = Johnson |first2 = Marlys |last2 = Osterhues |title = Maryland's Intercounty Connector: Using Environmental Stewardship to Redefine Project Management |journal = Successes in Stewardship |publisher = Federal Highway Administration |date = February 2008 |url = http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/newsletters/feb08nl.pdf |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090320044334/http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/newsletters/feb08nl.pdf |url-status = dead |archive-date = March 20, 2009 |access-date = March 5, 2008 }}</ref>
<blockquote>
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.</blockquote>

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.<ref>{{cite news |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |title = In Md., a Neighborhood Vanishes |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = May 24, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302981.html |access-date = May 24, 2008 }}</ref>

Eastern box turtles (''[[Terrapene carolina carolina]]'') that were in the path of the ICC were located with the aid of dogs trained to find them by scent<ref>{{cite press release |title = State Highway Administration Collects Nearly 100 Box Turtles to Tag for Relocation This Fall |date = October 2, 2007 |url = http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/1002-press-release.pdf |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |access-date = May 18, 2009 }}</ref> and were moved to other locations in Montgomery County near [[Boyds, Maryland|Boyds]] and [[Brookeville, Maryland|Brookeville]].<ref>{{cite news |first = Meghan |last = Tierney |title = Turtles in path of ICC getting a second chance |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = June 11, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/061108/burtnew222358_32363.shtml |access-date = June 13, 2008 }}</ref>

In a letter to the editor of ''The Gazette'', [[Maryland State Highway Administration|SHA]] Administrator Neil Pedersen enumerated a list of environmental mitigation and community enhancements that SHA is funding as part of constructing the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |first = Neil J. |last = Pedersen |title = ICC will benefit more than motorists |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = June 18, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/061808/montlet170222_32362.shtml |access-date = June 28, 2008 }}</ref>

The ICC is likely to force changes to the 14th hole of the Cross Creek Golf Club, which straddles the border between Montgomery County and Prince George's County. However, it was reported that the 14th hole was surveyed incorrectly, and part of it was mistakenly located on land set aside for the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |first = Jonah |last = Schuman |title = ICC may pave over golf area |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = June 19, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/061908/greenew174148_32363.shtml |access-date = June 30, 2008 }}</ref>

In January 2009, it was reported that [http://www.eopb.org/ Eyes of Paint Branch] (a group that has opposed the ICC<ref>{{cite press release |title = Do you want an outer beltway? – Rally To Stop The ICC |publisher = Eyes of Paint Branch |date = June 19, 2004 |url = http://www.eopb.org/event/event_archive_year.php?year=2004 |access-date = January 16, 2009 }}</ref>) had recently demanded of the SHA that the contractors working to build the ICC comply with Montgomery County's regulations for the Upper [[Paint Branch]] Special Protection Area, which the State of Maryland has no legal obligation to follow.<ref name="The Gazette">{{cite news |title = A long and muddy road to completion |first = Robert |last = Dongu |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = January 14, 2009 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/01142009/burtnew23228_32471.shtml |access-date = January 16, 2009 }}</ref>

Construction of the ICC has forced the [[National Capital Trolley Museum]] to relocate its car barns, shops, visitors center, and part of its track a short distance to the north. In 2006, the museum's development director made a public plea for relocation help and coordination in a ''Washington Post'' op-ed column.<ref>{{cite news |title = On a Collision Course With the ICC |first = Wesley |last = Paulson |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = September 17, 2006 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/15/AR2006091500938.html |access-date = March 6, 2009 }}</ref> The museum suspended operations for relocation in December 2008 and resumed trolley rides in January 2010.<ref>{{cite press release |url = http://www.dctrolley.org/moving.htm |title = The Trolley Museum is relocating |publisher = National Capital Trolley Museum |date = September 27, 2008 |access-date = November 4, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://archive.today/20120730204448/http://www.dctrolley.org/moving.htm |archive-date = July 30, 2012 |df = mdy-all }}</ref> In August 2009, the SHA held a public forum at the new and relocated [[National Capital Trolley Museum|trolley museum]] to describe the environmental mitigation aspects of the ongoing ICC construction project.<ref>{{cite news |title = As Md. Praises the Green Amid the Blacktop, Skeptics Continue to See Red |newspaper = The Washington Post |first = Katherine |last = Shaver |date = August 30, 2009 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/29/AR2009082902008.html |access-date = September 4, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = ICC officials work to calm fears about toll road's impact on environment |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |first = Amber |last = Parcher |date = September 2, 2009 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/09022009/burtnew213259_32527.shtml |access-date = September 4, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = ICC Open House |publisher = [[WTTG-TV]] |location = Washington, DC |date = August 30, 2009 |url = http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/maryland/083009_ICC_Open_House |access-date = September 2, 2009 }}</ref>

A major environmental concern along the entire ICC project is the impact of [[stormwater]] [[urban runoff|runoff]] on [[Stream|creek]]s and [[stream]]s, during and after construction. Techniques and technologies to treat such water are known as [[best management practice for water pollution|best management practices (BMPs)]]. State-of-the-art BMPs used along the ICC's construction project were described in an article in ''Land and Water'' magazine.<ref>{{cite journal |date = January–February 2009 |title = Stormwater Treatment on the Maryland Intercounty Connection Project |journal = Land and Water |volume = 53 |issue = 1 |page = 8 |url = http://www.landandwater.com/features/vol53no1/vol53no1_2.html |issn = 0192-9453 }}</ref> Some of the methods being used to control runoff were described in a ''[[The Baltimore Sun]]'' "On the Outdoors" column, published after the writer toured several work areas along the ICC's right-of-way:

<blockquote>The ICC project employs teams of "stormbusters" to put down straw and grass seed and erect plastic silt fences in construction areas before it rains to prevent erosion. Solar-powered stream monitors give Baker and enforcement personnel a real-time reading of water conditions. Paved storm-water ditches in older neighborhoods abutting the highway will be replaced by grass-lined swales that will filter and cool the water before it enters tributaries.</blockquote>

The ''Sun'' column went on to describe financial incentives that will be paid to construction contractors that meet environmental goals and requirements.<ref>{{cite news |title = Engineers keep wildlife in mind in Intercounty Connector: Steps being taken to ensure protection, but challenge remains |work = The Baltimore Sun |first = Candus |last = Thomson |date = April 12, 2009 |url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/outdoors/bal-sp.thomson12apr12,0,5572025.column |archive-url = https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20110412144710/http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/ |url-status=dead |archive-date = April 12, 2011 |access-date = April 17, 2009 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news |last = Hendrix |first = Steve |title = History Unearthed in Road's Path |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = November 1, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102769.html |access-date = May 5, 2008 }}</ref> and near US&nbsp;29, the 19th century homestead of a freed slave, Melinda Jackson, containing numerous artifacts.<ref>{{cite news |last = Otto |first = Mary |title = Make Way for Tomorrow |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = April 24, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303637.html |access-date = May 5, 2008 }}</ref>

==Associated construction projects==

===ICC Trail===
The ICC Trail is a combination multi-use trail and on road route along the general path of the ICC. It includes about 7 miles of trail and 11 miles along parallel roads. A [[bicycle trail]] had long been identified in County master plans as part of the proposed ICC,<ref>{{cite web |title = Intercounty Connector Bicycle Route |url = http://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/transportation/bicycle-planning/icc-bike-route/ |access-date = 24 May 2017 }}</ref> both in Montgomery County<ref>{{cite web |title = Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for the National Capital Region |publisher = [[Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments]] |date = July 11, 2007 |at = Appendix A, p. 8 |url = http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/v1ZfWl020070726155118.pdf |access-date = August 21, 2008 }}</ref> and Prince George's County.<ref name="mncppc.org">{{cite web |title = Subregion I Preliminary Master Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment—Infrastructure Element |publisher = [[Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission]] |date = August 2007 |page = 55 |url = http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/SubRegionOne/pdfs/Infrastructure_33-62.pdf |access-date = August 21, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=February 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

However, in 2004, the SHA announced that it was dropping the ICC bike trail from its own plans due to cost and environmental footprint.<ref>{{cite news |title = Md. Drops Bike Path From Intercounty Connector |first = Steven |last = Ginsberg |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = December 16, 2004 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3449-2004Dec15.html |access-date = April 5, 2009 }}</ref> This move was unpopular, with comments sent to the state's ICC web page overwhelmingly in favor of a bike trail; the Montgomery County Council voted 8–0 in favor of the trail and the state said it would consider five unconnected segments that would run along 40 percent of the ICC.<ref>{{cite news |last1 = Titus |first1 = James |title = Speaking Up for Spokes Along the ICC |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2005/03/19/speaking-up-for-spokes-along-the-icc/9f99fc91-b56b-4ac6-8f65-0efee4b5dcda/ |access-date = 24 May 2017 |date = 19 March 2005 }}</ref> When the State Highway Administration published its final plan for the ICC in May 2006, it recommended seven miles of the 18-mile trail be built as part of the highway and the remaining 11 miles be constructed separate from the highway project.<ref>{{cite news |last = Brachfeld |first = Melissa J. |title = Planners suggest route for ICC hiking-biking trail |work = The Gazette |location = Gaithersburg, MD |date = May 28, 2008 |url = http://www.gazette.net/stories/052808/gaitnew205628_32395.shtml |access-date = August 21, 2008 }}</ref> The state later agreed to build 11.4 miles of a trail in separate segments in Prince George's and Montgomery counties.<ref>{{cite news |last = Shaver |first = Katherine |title = Planners May Alter Highway Bike Path |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = August 21, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003756.html |access-date = August 21, 2008 }}</ref>

In response, Montgomery County began the process of amending the ICC limited functional Master Plan to include the new design for the bike path in October of 2007. One proposal was to keep a mostly parallel route by utilizing county park lands for the trail, but the County Council voted against that because it would be too harmful to some county parkland.<ref>{{cite news |last = Shaver |first = Katherine |title = Board Rejects Bike Path Site Near Connector |newspaper = The Washington Post |date = September 19, 2008 |url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803386.html |access-date = September 19, 2008 }}</ref> The amendment was approved in April 2009, and it proposed a bikeway near the Intercounty Connector as well as a plan that would divert bike traffic along New Hampshire Avenue, Route 29, East Randolph and Fairland roads. The council approved the options with the idea that one or both would be exercised.<ref>{{cite web |title = ICC Project History |url = http://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/transportation/bicycle-planning/icc-bike-route/project-history/ |access-date = 24 May 2017 }}</ref>

[[File:ICC Trail at Muncaster Mill Road.jpg|thumb|right|View of the ICC Trail at Muncaster Mill Road]]
Construction of the ICC Trail began alongside construction of MD&nbsp;200. The first segment to open was the westernmost section, from Needwood Road to [[Maryland Route 28|MD&nbsp;28]] (Norbeck Road), mostly following the MD&nbsp;200 right-of-way except for a portion that follows Emory Lane to Georgia Avenue. This section opened on July 30, 2011, shortly after the first part of the ICC opened,<ref name="mdsha bike path">{{cite press release |url = http://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/release.aspx?newsId=962 |title = State Highway Administration Opening ICC Bike Path in Montgomery County |date = July 28, 2011 |publisher = Maryland State Highway Administration |access-date = December 7, 2011 }}</ref> and was later extended to [[Maryland Route 182|MD&nbsp;182]] (Layhill Road).

Three more segments opened later in 2011: one from Notley Road to [[Maryland Route 650|MD&nbsp;650]] (New Hampshire Avenue) running behind the southern sound wall of the highway; one along [[U.S. Route 29 in Maryland|US&nbsp;29]] between Fairland and Briggs Chaney Roads and a third along MD&nbsp;200 from Briggs Chaney Road to the existing Little Paint Branch Trail. A fifth segment, from Konterra Drive to [[U.S. Route 1 in Maryland|US&nbsp;1]] (Baltimore Avenue), was completed in 2015 and follows the easternmost section of MD 200.

Separately, in 2009, work began on the ICC Connector—a shared-use path along Needwood Road that links the ICC Trail to the Shady Grove Metro Station. Prior to 2011 a side path was constructed along Briggs Chaney Road that connects the US&nbsp;29 section of the ICC to the Little Paint Branch section. 

Future segments of the trail are to be planned and built by county governments.

==Exit list==
Exit numbers and mile markers are a continuation of those along I-370.{{jcttop|exit|length_ref=<ref name="Maryland HLR"/>}}
{{MDint|exit
|county=Montgomery
|cspan=16
|location=Gaithersburg
|lspan=2
|mile=2.540
|mspan=2
|exit=
|road={{jct|state=MD|I|370|I|270|to2=y|dir1=west}}
|notes=Continuation west
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=none
|exit=3
|road=[[File:WMATA Metro Logo small.svg|20px|link=]] {{jct|state=MD|road|Shady Grove Road|location1=[[Shady Grove station|Metro Station]]}}
|notes=Metro Access Road is officially MD&nbsp;200A but is signed as I-370; signed as exits 3A (Shady Grove) and 3B (Metro) eastbound; last eastbound exit before toll
}}
{{MDint|exit
|location=Derwood
|lspan=2
|type=etc
|mile=4.114
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=6.330
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|location=Norbeck
|lspan=2
|mile=8.204
|exit=8
|road={{jct|state=MD|MD|97|name1=[[Georgia Avenue]]|city1=Olney|city2=Wheaton}}
|notes=Originally signed as exits&nbsp;9A (south) and 9B (north), but was renumbered as exits&nbsp;8A (south) and 8B (north) when the second segment opened on November 22, 2011
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=closed
|mile=8.760
|exit=9
|road={{jct|state=MD|MD|28|name1=Norbeck Road}}
|notes= Former terminus
}}
{{MDint|exit
|location=Aspen Hill
|lspan=3
|type=etc
|mile=9.460
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=9.770
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=10.445
|exit=10
|road={{jct|state=MD|MD|182|name1=Layhill Road|city1=Norwood|city2=Glenmont}}
|notes=
}}
{{MDint|exit
|location=Colesville
|lspan=3
|type=etc
|mile=11.541
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=12.132
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=13.245
|exit=13
|road={{jct|state=MD|MD|650|name1=[[New Hampshire Avenue]]|city1=Ashton|city2=White Oak}}
|notes=
}}
{{MDint|exit
|location=Fairland
|lspan=4
|type=etc
|mile=14.467
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=15.165
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=15.978
|exit=16
|road={{jct|state=MD|US|29|city1=Silver Spring|city2=Columbia}}
|notes=Also includes access for Briggs Chaney Road eastbound; signed as exits 16A (south) and 16B (north)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=16.747
|exit=17
|type=incomplete
|road=Briggs Chaney Road
|notes=Westbound exit and eastbound entrance
}}<!-- MP 17.208 at MO-PG county line -->
{{MDint|exit
|county=Prince George's
|cspan=10
|location=Calverton
|lspan=2
|type=etc
|mile=17.516
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=17.576
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|location=Laurel
|lspan=8
|mile=18.607
|exit=19
|road={{jct|state=MD|I|95|location1=[[Baltimore]]|location2=[[Washington, D.C.|Washington]]}}
|notes=Signed as exits&nbsp;19A (south) and&nbsp;19B (north); exit 31 on I-95
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=18.639
|exit=19C
|road={{jct|state=MD|to1=to|MD|198|city1=Laurel|city2=Burtonsville}}
|notes=Direct access from eastbound MD&nbsp;200 to the Konterra Drive interchange and the I-95 collector-distributor lanes between MD&nbsp;200 and MD&nbsp;198
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=19.121
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=19.228
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=incomplete
|mile=19.693
|exit=20
|road={{jctname|state=MD|MD|206|name1=Konterra Drive|noshield1=yes}}
|notes=Eastbound exit and westbound entrance
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=19.788
|place=Toll Gantry (eastbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|type=etc
|mile=19.791
|place=Toll Gantry (westbound)
}}
{{MDint|exit
|mile=20.008
|exit=
|road={{jct|state=MD|US|1|city1=Laurel|city2=Beltsville}}
|notes=Eastern terminus; [[continuous-flow intersection]],<ref>{{cite journal |url = http://www.iccproject.com/pdf/ICC_Contract-D-E-mailer4_2014-06-26.pdf |journal = ICC Construction Update |date = Summer 2014 |issue = 6 |page = 2 |title = What is a Continuous-Flow Intersection? |author1 = Office of the Intercounty Connector |first2 = Genevieve |last2 = Rubrecht |access-date = July 28, 2014 }}</ref> access to [[Muirkirk station (MARC)|Muirkirk station]]
}}
{{jctbtm|exit|keys=etc,incomplete,closed}}

==Auxiliary route==
*MD 200A is the [[unsigned highway|unsigned]] designation for Metro Access Road, a four-lane [[freeway]] that runs from the entrance to the [[Shady Grove station]] of [[Washington Metro]]'s [[Red Line (Washington Metro)|Red Line]] and an interchange with Shady Grove Road north to an interchange with the western terminus of MD 200 and the eastern terminus of I-370. The route is {{convert|0.51|mi|km|abbr=on}} long.<ref name="Maryland HLR"/> MD 200A was designated in 2010, replacing the previous I-370 designation that was realigned to connect with MD 200.<ref name="2010MarylandHLR">{{Maryland HLR|year=2010|county1=Montgomery|access-date=August 10, 2016}}</ref>

==See also==
{{portal|Maryland Roads}}
* [[Förbifart Stockholm]], a western bypass motorway under construction around [[Stockholm]], Sweden
* [[Ontario Highway 407|Highway 407]], a similar toll road through the suburbs of [[Toronto]]
* [[Interstate 355]], a toll road similar to the ICC (in some respects) in the suburbs of [[Chicago]]
* [[M-6 (Michigan highway)|M-6]], a similar freeway that was built as a toll-free bypass south of [[Grand Rapids, Michigan]]
* [[Maryland Route 100]], a similar outer beltway segment around [[Baltimore, Maryland|Baltimore]]
* [[Triangle Expressway]] ([[North Carolina Highway 147|N.C. 147]] and [[Interstate 540 (North Carolina)|N.C. 540]]), a similar toll road in [[Durham County, North Carolina|Durham]] and [[Wake County, North Carolina|Wake]] Counties, [[North Carolina]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Maryland Route 200}}
{{AttachedKML|display=title,inline}}

* {{official website|http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/ICC/ICC.html}} at the [[Maryland Department of Transportation]]
* {{Osmrelation-inline|1444211|Intercounty Connector}}
* [http://www.mdroads.com/routes/200-219.html#md200 MD 200 at MDRoads.com]
* [https://www.aaroads.com/guides/md-200/ MD 200 - Intercounty Connector at AARoads.com]
* [https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/md/md_200/ Maryland Roads – MD 200, Intercounty Connector (ICC)]
* [http://www.dcroads.net/roads/MD-200/ Intercounty Connector (MD 200) on DCroads.net]
* [http://www.dcroads.net/roads/rockville/ Unbuilt Rockville Facility (Freeway) on Steve Anderson's DCroads.net]

{{MdTA facilities}}

[[Category:Limited-access roads in Maryland]]
[[Category:State highways in Maryland|200]]
[[Category:Roads in Montgomery County, Maryland|Maryland Route 200]]
[[Category:Roads in Prince George's County, Maryland|Maryland Route 200]]
[[Category:Toll roads in Maryland]]