ICC Intercounty Connector

[NE2]

This isn't in Pennsylvania. (Also the MUTCD now specifies the yellow toll banner - note that it's mostly only on entrances to the road, not on the road itself.)

Wrong. Every shield on the mainline, as well as every milepost (not tenth-mileposts), has TOLL.

That must have changed since MDRoads drove it; see photos 10 and 101 in his slide show.

[Alps]

This isn't in Pennsylvania. (Also the MUTCD now specifies the yellow toll banner - note that it's mostly only on entrances to the road, not on the road itself.)

Wrong. Every shield on the mainline, as well as every milepost (not tenth-mileposts), has TOLL.

That must have changed since MDRoads drove it; see photos 10 and 101 in his slide show.

Yeah, you're right, there's one each direction that doesn't. But there's one each direction that does, plus all the MPs.

[J N Winkler]

Admittedly, we are building the US 54 Kingman bypass (four-lane freeway) for sub-10,000 design year AADT--I think about 8,500 VPD in this case.  But we are not completely insane.  I-235 has AADT north of 50,000 with widening projects only just now coming into the pipeline.

Out East, people have to light $20 bills for heat, so there must be a tendency to design for the hundredth highest hour (not that this is a purely Eastern phenomenon--Cooper River Landing in Alaska comes to mind).

On a more serious note, I have never actually seen a design year AADT estimate for the ICC.  I have a hard time believing it is as low as 27,500--I would have expected mid five figures at the very least, and probably close to 100,000 (not much higher because tolls are charged).  I will have a look and see if I can find an estimate in the official documentation.

[froggie]

Buried within Chapter 7 of the Final EIS are some projected 2030 ADTs.  They're in bar graph format, so the numbers I show below might be a little off (plus or minus 3K):

At I-270:  128K
At MD 97/Georgia Ave:  96K
At MD 182/Norwood Rd:  64K
At US 29:  67K
At I-95:  76K
At US 1:  30K

The FEIS also mentions that traffic modeling suggests only 5% of morning peak-hour trips would be taking the ICC all the way between 270 and 95.

Meanwhile, some more ICC photos from an associate of mine.

[oscar]

The ICC ended up with a first day count of 39,000 vehicles total in both directions. A lot of people took it because it's the first day, but a lot didn't take it early in the day, so let's say that balances out. Let's be generous and say 40,000 vehicles total in both directions. It's an urban area, so figure peak hour is no more than 9% of that, or 3,600 vehicles per hour. (Note that this works out pretty well with the 5-6 PM figure.) That's 600 vehicles per lane per hour, which is still Level of Service A!!! You should never have LOS A or even B on an urban highway during rush hour. A well designed freeway should hit LOS C, which is roughly 1,500 vehicles per lane per hour. That's easily accommodated by the roadway design and allows plenty of room for growth. Back that out to 9,000 vehicles per hour and divide by 9%. You get 100,000 vehicles per day.

I wouldn't contend the ICC is overbuilt.  At the time it was being planned (late 1990's), its corridor was exurban at best.  LOS warrants for freeway design vary somewhat and are ultimately up to a state DOT, but the old Caltrans rule of thumb was LOS B for rural freeways, LOS D for urban freeways, calculated in both cases on the basis of design hourly volume.  Plus a basic lane count of six lanes leaves more room for various types of planning default:

*  Feeder developments being authorized for densities higher than those contemplated when traffic volumes for the ICC were being forecast.

*  Future widenings being rejected for environmental reasons.

*  The ICC eventually becoming part of an Outer Beltway (again, at the time the ICC was being planned, funding for the Techway connector had not yet been cut, and this could easily have turned into another leg of an Outer Beltway).

These considerations aside, I would bet the DHV projected for the ICC is a good bit higher than the thirtieth highest hourly volume corresponding with an AADT of 27,500 VPD.

Another consideration supporting six lanes -- it helps, to get people to pony up the rather hefty tolls that help pay for the project, to build enough capacity that most of the time its level of service will be markedly superior to that of local non-toll freeways.  Especially if the incremental costs of six lanes vs. four (if built at the outset, rather than added more expensively later) is fairly low.

Perhaps they could've saved money by building a pair of two-lane bridges over Rock Creek, with room to add two lanes in the median later.  But that was an environmentally-difficult part of the project, and the thinking might've been to get that all out of the way immediately in hopes of not ever having to do more heavy construction in that area. 

[hbelkins]

I don't have my 2011 Rand McNally handy.  But, I just noticed that the 2010 editions shows the ICC under construction but as a free highway.

Does the 2011 edition show any part as complete and/or as a toll road?

The 2011 also shows it under construction as a free route.

Speaking of which .. it's now March 1, 2011. Isn't it time for the 2010 Rand McNally atlas to come out? Didn't this year's come out in April of last year?

[PAHighways]

I just got the 2011-2012 Maryland official today.  The ICC is shown as a complete, undivided toll road from I-370 to MD 97 and then an undivided highway under construction from there to I-95.  The interchanges in the latter section are colored green rather than the yellow for toll, so I am guessing only segments where there is a toll gantry will be colored yellow.

[FLRoads]

I don't have my 2011 Rand McNally handy.  But, I just noticed that the 2010 editions shows the ICC under construction but as a free highway.

Does the 2011 edition show any part as complete and/or as a toll road?

The 2011 also shows it under construction as a free route.

Speaking of which .. it's now March 1, 2011. Isn't it time for the 2010 Rand McNally atlas to come out? Didn't this year's come out in April of last year?

From doing some random searching yesterday, I did see a couple of websites already listing the 2012 Rand as coming out in April, with the Motor Carrier version coming out in June. Not sure of why the time lapse between the different issues, but I would suspect they are giving themselves extra time to finish their research/updates for the extra commercial truck info they insert into those atlases.

[Dougtone]

On Google, the ICC is open all the way to I-370

On Google World, the 41.9-mile trip from Baltimore to Gaithersburg takes all of 48 minutes along the brand new Intercounty Connector. Just take Interstate 95 south, hop on the ICC and you're virtually there.

On Planet Earth, most of the ICC hasn't opened yet. The 12 miles between I-95 and the Montgomery County high-tech hotbed is largely a muddy track where bulldozers are still doing what bulldozers do.

Oops.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/2011/03/on_google_the_icc_is_open_all.html
(Courtesy of the Baltimore Sun)

[MDRoads]

Meanwhile, Google had it right on the I-70 Wheeling Tunnel when closed.  Couldn't set routes through it, even to figure out total mileages.  Only bad thing about that, no information that the tunnel was closed, and that's why it wasn't going through.

[Alps]

CA 52 "opened" early, allowing me to route myself along it and alter my trip plan. Trouble is that these roads (52, ICC) aren't shown on the map, so you have to know they're there before you can use them. (Only works, in other words, if you use Google's routing instead of forging your own way.) Re: closed roads, it's a definite annoyance - a lot of missing segments that ought not be. For example, one I can speak to recently, MA 138 south of I-195/MA 79. Missing piece right there, but the road's definitely open.

[vdeane]

Where is this stuff coming from?  Google Maps doesn't have any part of the ICC, and as far as I know, never has.

[NE2]

Where is this stuff coming from?  Google Maps doesn't have any part of the ICC, and as far as I know, never has.

http://maps.google.com/maps?geocode=FRGGVwIdo_1u-ym3g_TWrgPIiTFY5yNCqJZIBA%3BFRFIVQIdJgBm-ym1E8okNi22iTE1cq2AgVqP4w&q=baltimore,+md+to+gaithersburg,+md&aq=&sll=39.121804,-77.014503&sspn=0.221338,0.528374&ie=UTF8&ll=39.103157,-77.033043&spn=0.221397,0.528374&z=12&saddr=baltimore,+md&daddr=gaithersburg,+md

[Eth]

In addition to that weirdness, looking at what is in fact visible on the map, it appears that Google has also decided that I-370 is no longer a freeway (shown in yellow instead of orange).

[MDRoads]

In addition to that weirdness, looking at what is in fact visible on the map, it appears that Google has also decided that I-370 is no longer a freeway (shown in yellow instead of orange).

No worse than the new 2011-12 Maryland official map, which shows the ICC as just another secondary divided highway, but with yellow added to indicate toll.  Looks weird and last-minute, nothing like the other toll roads. It also has the ICC meeting 370 directly east from the Shady Grove Road interchange, not north of it where it is in fact.  It's like this on both sides, the statewide and the B/W metro area.

[Alps]

The online map doesn't show the ICC as yellow (http://www.marylandroads.com/Index.aspx?PageId=833) but it does show that strange divided highway look. The back detail also shows it coming straight out of Shady Grove, not even 370. (As I look at their maps page - the Byways map is temporarily out of stock, don't know how temporary that would be.)

[vdeane]

Where is this stuff coming from?  Google Maps doesn't have any part of the ICC, and as far as I know, never has.

http://maps.google.com/maps?geocode=FRGGVwIdo_1u-ym3g_TWrgPIiTFY5yNCqJZIBA%3BFRFIVQIdJgBm-ym1E8okNi22iTE1cq2AgVqP4w&q=baltimore,+md+to+gaithersburg,+md&aq=&sll=39.121804,-77.014503&sspn=0.221338,0.528374&ie=UTF8&ll=39.103157,-77.033043&spn=0.221397,0.528374&z=12&saddr=baltimore,+md&daddr=gaithersburg,+md

Why on earth does Google use different map data for giving directions than what they display on the map?  As far as I'm concerned, Google Maps just got even less logical and more bad than before.  Sadly it somehow manges to still be better than anything else out there.  Why are good maps so hard to find these days?

[NE2]

Why are good maps so hard to find these days?

Because OSM doesn't have enough good people working on it? MDRoads and others seem to have done a good job with the ICC: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.1208&lon=-77.0889&zoom=13&layers=M

[CanesFan27]

My photos from the recent roadmeet that toured the ICC:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15530177@N05/sets/72157626367937952/

I'll blog about it later this week.

[PAHighways]

In addition to that weirdness, looking at what is in fact visible on the map, it appears that Google has also decided that I-370 is no longer a freeway (shown in yellow instead of orange).

They did the same thing with the newest part of the Mon-Fayette Expressway.

[qguy]

From Tollroadsnews: "Maryland in push to complete Intercounty Connector tollroad to US1 combines two contracts"

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5257

SHA is combining contracts D&E so as to construct that portion before, oh say, 2050. (You may recall that contract D was deferred until 2017–at least–and contract E was deferred indefinitely.)

[treichard]

The BGS for the Briggs Chaney Road interchange from MD 200 EB is visible from US 29. It is posted as Exit 17.

Overhead guide signs for MD 200 are also erected along US 29, but they are covered up.  It's clear though that there are no exit tabs for those signs for this interchange, similar to how there are none at adjacent interchanges along US 29.  I find this odd because higher exit numbers are posted along US 29 at interchanges north of MD 198. 

Part of the US 29 & MD 200 interchange construction involves modifying access between Fairland Road and US 29.  Presently, those roads meet at a signalized intersection.  Next week, the ramp from US 29 SB to Fairland Road will open, and the existing right-turn lane will be closed.  The date was shown on a variable message sign.  This access change is necessary to avoid a conflict between traffic entering from MD 200 and exiting to Fairland Road.  The MD 200 on-ramp will pass over the new off-ramp from US 29 to Fairland Road. Looking at the construction progress shown in the Google satellite view, this might be the only access change for Fairland Road.  One could only hope that another set of traffic signals could disappear as more of US 29 is made a freeway.

I am also curious why the construction zone for the I-95 & MD 200 interchange is worthy of a photo-enforced speed zone, but the US 29 & MD 200 construction zone is not.

[treichard]

The Dec. 31, 2010 Highway Location Reference is available from the SHA:
http://www.roads.maryland.gov/pages/hlr.aspx?PageId=832&d=37

They note several ICC-related changes in the Montgomery  County chapter.

IS 370 — Realigned to connect with MD 200, IS 370 was shortened from 3.13 to 2.54 miles.
Part of old alignment is now MD 200-A, Metro Access Rd. The interchange at MD 355 (former
Exit 1) is now Exit 2. The new interchange at MD 200/MD 200-A is Exit 3.

MD 28 — Temporary intersection with MD 200 added at milepoint 28.216.

MD 97 — The new interchange at MD 200 (Exit 9) with its associated ramps is now open to
traffic. The ramps will be maintained by MdTA.

MD 200, Intercounty Connector — Contract A from IS 370 to the temporary intersection at MD
28 is now open to traffic and will be maintained by the Maryland Transportation Authority.
The milepoint sequence on MD 200 will be consistent with (i.e. a continuation of) IS 370's
milepoints.

MD 200-A, Metro Access Rd — Newly assigned route; was part of the old alignment of IS 370,
and will be maintained by SHA. The interchange at Shady Grove Rd (former IS 370, Exit 2) is
renumbered as MD 200-A, Exit 1.

MD 200-A is the ~0.5 mile freeway from I-370 & MD 200 to the Shady Grove Road interchange. Does "EXIT 1" now appear on signs at the Shady Grove Rd interchange? 

[Eth]

Last time I checked it was still unnumbered, but that was about a month ago (and since I recently moved out of the area, I can't check that in person anymore).

Interesting that they mention old exit numbers for MD 355 and Shady Grove.  Were those numbers ever actually signed?

[MDRoads]

Went through there today, and the "End I-370" shield is still there near the Metro entrance.   No exit tabs on the Shady Grove interchange.