Expand the Intercounty Connector for a truly regional transportation network

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post op-ed: Expand the Intercounty Connector for a truly regional transportation network

Alan Pisarski, a former chief of data collection and analysis at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Transportation Planning Board, is the author of the continuing series "Commuting in America."  Peter Samuel ran Toll Roads News from 1996 to 2013.

The Intercounty Connector gets disparaged for being "empty,"  often by people who object to building any road and want only new rail lines. In fact, the "empty"  ICC is carrying more passengers per day than Metro's Silver Line, which was built at many times the cost of the ICC and needs ongoing subsidies to cover its operational losses.

The ICC could comfortably carry more traffic. An expressway such as the ICC, when it starts to reach capacity, has two to three times the capacity of the ICC's present volume of 40,000 vehicles per day.

Maryland Gov.-elect Larry Hogan (R) campaigned against proposed costly light-rail lines that would engender long-term subsidies that Maryland can't afford. Now he has a mandate for promoting cost-effective, self-financing projects: toll lanes and toll roads. One of his early initiatives should be to improve mobility without burdening taxpayers.

[skluth]

The article overlooks some obvious issues.

A westward extension of the ICC in Gaithersburg to a Potomac River crossing just upstream of the McKee-Beshers Wildlife Management Area would be a simple-to-engineer, 15-mile link.

That simple-to-engineer link crosses some prime real estate in both Virginia and Maryland that would cost billions for the right-of-way. And crossing just upstream of a wildlife area is going to draw the ire of more than just hard-core environmentalists.

There's also a case, although not as compelling, that the ICC should be extended into Prince George's County to Route 50 in Bowie.

The two extensions would make the ICC a true intercounty connector, linking Fairfax, Loudoun, Montgomery and Prince George's and improving access to Annapolis and the Eastern Shore.

The cost for this would also be outrageous, though less costly than a new bridge across the Potomac. Other than giving the ICC an extension into the eastern suburban counties, there is no argument as to who benefits from this. The only other argument is a spurious one concerning a bus rapid transit capability that would still have to run back to the beltline to connect to most Metro endpoints.

I agree another Potomac crossing would be useful. I am curious as to what the toll would need to be to help pay for the cost.

[cpzilliacus]

The article overlooks some obvious issues.

A westward extension of the ICC in Gaithersburg to a Potomac River crossing just upstream of the McKee-Beshers Wildlife Management Area would be a simple-to-engineer, 15-mile link.

That simple-to-engineer link crosses some prime real estate in both Virginia and Maryland that would cost billions for the right-of-way. And crossing just upstream of a wildlife area is going to draw the ire of more than just hard-core environmentalists.

In Virginia, yes.  In Maryland, probably not as much, because it would need to cross the Montgomery County Agricultural Preserve, where most or all of the development rights have been terminated or sold-away.   

There's also a case, although not as compelling, that the ICC should be extended into Prince George's County to Route 50 in Bowie.

The two extensions would make the ICC a true intercounty connector, linking Fairfax, Loudoun, Montgomery and Prince George's and improving access to Annapolis and the Eastern Shore.

The cost for this would also be outrageous, though less costly than a new bridge across the Potomac. Other than giving the ICC an extension into the eastern suburban counties, there is no argument as to who benefits from this. The only other argument is a spurious one concerning a bus rapid transit capability that would still have to run back to the beltline to connect to most Metro endpoints.

I agree another Potomac crossing would be useful. I am curious as to what the toll would need to be to help pay for the cost.

Eastern suburban counties?  There's only one east of Montgomery County and the District of Columbia - Prince George's County, though  I suppose you could include the next county out beyond Prince George's, Anne Arundel County.

There is bus rapid transit service on the ICC right now (such as Route 201), and has been since the Contract A section of the toll road was opened in 2011.

Regarding tolls, you should consider what the tolls are on the InterCounty Connector (Md. 200) now on this page.

[froggie]

What the article chooses to ignore (and CP didn't mention either) is that any connection back to the ICC from the author's suggested bridge location would also have to plow through a good chunk of Darnestown/Kentlands/Gaithersburg suburbia.  Hardly "simple-to-engineer".

And as skluth noted, there's some development in the way on the Virginia side that would prevent an easy link-up with VA 28.

To avoid the suburbia on the Maryland side, you'd have to run it more or less due north to I-270 near Clarksburg.  To avoid Virginia development, you'd have to tie it into US 15 north of Leesburg.  Both routes would be next-to-useless for Legion Bridge relief.

[cpzilliacus]

What the article chooses to ignore (and CP didn't mention either) is that any connection back to the ICC from the author's suggested bridge location would also have to plow through a good chunk of Darnestown/Kentlands/Gaithersburg suburbia.  Hardly "simple-to-engineer".

As I suggested elsewhere, there is no master-planned route at this time (thanks in large part to the late Montgomery County politician (County Council, House of Delegates, Maryland Senate) Idamae Garrott, who represented one of the most-sprawling areas of the county but had a fervent belief in transit and removing highways from regional planning maps anyway).

But since federal environmental regulators are not obligated to consider state, county or municipal planning maps, perhaps it is just as well that there is no current planned route.

And as skluth noted, there's some development in the way on the Virginia side that would prevent an easy link-up with VA 28.

More than a few project opponents repeatedly claimed (going back to the 1970's) that the ICC out there now "cannot be built."

On the Virginia side, there is no identified route any longer either.

To avoid the suburbia on the Maryland side, you'd have to run it more or less due north to I-270 near Clarksburg.  To avoid Virginia development, you'd have to tie it into US 15 north of Leesburg.  Both routes would be next-to-useless for Legion Bridge relief.

Would you rather that the Capital Beltway be widened from north of Va. 267 into Maryland?

[NE2]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=20

[froggie]

Would you rather that the Capital Beltway be widened from north of Va. 267 into Maryland?

Yep.

[cpzilliacus]

Would you rather that the Capital Beltway be widened from north of Va. 267 into Maryland?

Yep.

That's fair. 

As long as the lanes are managed to assure free-flow at all times, it is (IMO) a legitimate alternative - though it would have worked better if the ICC (or the Rockville Facility) had been built to tie in to I-270 at Montrose Road in South Rockville. 

[Henry]

IIRC, someone also proposed running I-83 along the ICC on its way to Greensboro:

http://www.i-83ext.freehomepage.com/Maryland.htm

To avoid the suburbia on the Maryland side, you'd have to run it more or less due north to I-270 near Clarksburg.  To avoid Virginia development, you'd have to tie it into US 15 north of Leesburg.  Both routes would be next-to-useless for Legion Bridge relief.

I think the blue line in the above pic would represent that routing. And the way that area is built-up, I don't see the ICC tying into VA 28 anytime soon.

[NE2]

Please upgrade your account. Or don't; it's that guy.