AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: ICC Intercounty Connector  (Read 233654 times)

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1462
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: June 16, 2019, 07:58:59 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #575 on: April 13, 2018, 08:46:05 AM »

inb4 they pull a Caltrans and just sign it as I-288.
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #576 on: April 13, 2018, 12:20:43 PM »

inb4 they pull a Caltrans and just sign it as I-288.

I doubt that MDOT or MDTA are interested.  The road is now well-known as MD-200 (there are few if any signs with the words "InterCounty Connector" left standing).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4766
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:40:55 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #577 on: April 13, 2018, 02:44:04 PM »

inb4 they pull a Caltrans and just sign it as I-288.
I doubt that MDOT or MDTA are interested.  The road is now well-known as MD-200 (there are few if any signs with the words "InterCounty Connector" left standing).

As I have said before, I would propose using I-470 for the whole current I-370/MD-200 route between I-270 and I-95.  Let the stub to US-1 remain as MD-200.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4766
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:40:55 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #578 on: April 17, 2018, 04:52:28 PM »

I believe the law has changed enough since 2001 to where VDOT could theoretically re-ask FHWA to sign VA 895 as an Interstate. SAFETEA-LU (2005) and MAP-21 (2012) made a number of changes in terms of tolling on Interstate highways.  If VDOT were to eliminate tollong on VA 895 east of Laburnum Ave and toll just the James River Bridge, there would DEFINITELY be nothing stopping them from asking for an Interstate.

They get considerable toll revenue from the section east of Laburnum Avenue, so I can't see it going toll-free.  The RIC airport easterly connection between I-295 and the airport uses VA-895 and the 895 airport connector, and that is tolled via the easterly ramps at the 895 airport connector.

Tolls on Pocahontas 895 are $4.30 for 2-axle vehicles at Main Plaza, and $2.45 for 2-axle vehicles at the Laburnum Avenue and Airport Drive easterly ramps.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #579 on: April 19, 2018, 02:57:56 PM »

Tolls on Pocahontas 895 are $4.30 for 2-axle vehicles at Main Plaza, and $2.45 for 2-axle vehicles at the Laburnum Avenue and Airport Drive easterly ramps.

Quite a bit more than MD-200 (maximum toll for E-ZPass users is a, IIRC, $4.10).
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4766
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:40:55 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #580 on: April 19, 2018, 07:03:41 PM »

Tolls on Pocahontas 895 are $4.30 for 2-axle vehicles at Main Plaza, and $2.45 for 2-axle vehicles at the Laburnum Avenue and Airport Drive easterly ramps.
Quite a bit more than MD-200 (maximum toll for E-ZPass users is a, IIRC, $4.10).

I didn't post that as a comparison.  Toll levels are a function of the levels of indebtedness and traffic volumes and truck percentages.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #581 on: April 24, 2018, 02:42:35 PM »

WTOP Radio: More and more drivers in Maryland continue to take the ICC

Quote
The Intercounty Connector holds on to its spot as Maryland’s second-busiest toll road; in 2017, the roadway beat out all other toll roads in the state except Fort McHenry Tunnel.

Quote
The stretch also known as MD-200 saw 32,634,000 trips last year — that’s up 9 percent over 2016, according to the Maryland Transportation Administration.

Quote
“More people are using the ICC than the Bay Bridge,” said John Townsend with AAA-Mid Atlantic.

Quote
The ICC, which gives drivers a Capital Beltway alternative to get from Gaithersburg to Laurel, was a project that saw criticism over whether or not drivers would fit it into their commute. Motorists now appear to be flocking to it, also raising revenues since the road uses a variable toll system that sets the price based on how busy it is.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 402
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: June 14, 2019, 06:03:13 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #582 on: April 24, 2018, 05:04:53 PM »

I think that's a bit misleading since the other toll facilities are single point tolls.  Whereas the ICC is a 20 mile toll road with several toll collection points.  Like I think on I-95 north of Baltimore only the trips that cross the Millard E Tydings Memorial Bridge are counted.  I think even the Hatem Bridge crossings are considered separate.  So if you just looked at a single toll collection point on the ICC then it would be an apples to apples comparison. 
Quote
“More people are using the ICC than the Bay Bridge,” said John Townsend with AAA-Mid Atlantic.
Uh yeah.  I don't think there are that many daily commuters that cross the Bay bridge.  I also don't think there are many daily commuters crossing the Tydings Bridge.  But I would imagine that there are a large number of daily commuters using the Fort McHenry Tunnel. 
Quote
since the road uses a variable toll system that sets the price based on how busy it is.
Not true.  It uses a time of day variable toll system.  The HOT lanes in VA use congestion based pricing.  The timing of the toll rate on the ICC is based on rush hours.  But the rates do not react to moment to moment congestion. 
Logged

MillTheRoadgeek

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Prince William County, VA
  • Last Login: December 17, 2018, 08:02:45 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #583 on: April 24, 2018, 05:15:56 PM »

WTOP Radio: More and more drivers in Maryland continue to take the ICC

Quote
The Intercounty Connector holds on to its spot as Maryland’s second-busiest toll road; in 2017, the roadway beat out all other toll roads in the state except Fort McHenry Tunnel.

Quote
The stretch also known as MD-200 saw 32,634,000 trips last year — that’s up 9 percent over 2016, according to the Maryland Transportation Administration.

Quote
“More people are using the ICC than the Bay Bridge,” said John Townsend with AAA-Mid Atlantic.

Quote
The ICC, which gives drivers a Capital Beltway alternative to get from Gaithersburg to Laurel, was a project that saw criticism over whether or not drivers would fit it into their commute. Motorists now appear to be flocking to it, also raising revenues since the road uses a variable toll system that sets the price based on how busy it is.

That's actually something surprising to see! I wonder if I can see anything of the road's traffic especially in cases where it fills up quite a bit. From what I previously saw on Google Maps traffic was lighter than anything pictured. Also the whole Bay Bridge comparison is interesting... considering holiday traffic?
Logged
Better signature coming soon. Stay tuned!

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 396
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Gainesville, VA
  • Last Login: June 15, 2019, 01:16:21 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #584 on: April 24, 2018, 06:30:57 PM »

Glad to see increased use on the ICC as I remember shortly after it opened, the intense public criticism it got for it's "low traffic volumes". I have personally used the ICC on multiple occasions and have found it far more relaxing and enjoyable than the hellish stretch of I-495 between I-270 and I-95. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if developers and politicians in VA try and use this as backing that an outer Potomac River Crossing between VA-28 and I-370 is a necessity.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 06:33:57 PM by Jmiles32 »
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #585 on: April 24, 2018, 07:30:46 PM »

I think that's a bit misleading since the other toll facilities are single point tolls.  Whereas the ICC is a 20 mile toll road with several toll collection points.  Like I think on I-95 north of Baltimore only the trips that cross the Millard E Tydings Memorial Bridge are counted.  I think even the Hatem Bridge crossings are considered separate.  So if you just looked at a single toll collection point on the ICC then it would be an apples to apples comparison.

As you say, all other toll roads and toll crossings in Maryland have a single-point of toll collection, and except for the three crossings at Baltimore (I-95 (FMT), I-895 (BHT) and I-695 (FSK) - and the I-95 Express Toll Lanes), all are tolled in one direction only.  And only the BHT was designed so that nearly all traffic must pass through the one toll barrier and pay (on the FMT and the FSK, it is possible to use parts of the toll-maintained approaches without paying toll).   Even the I-95 Express Toll Lanes have exactly one entry point and one exit point and one tolling  point. 

That's obviously not going to work so well when the state made a commitment to keep tolls high enough to maintain free-flow of traffic at all times on all sections between each of the  interchanges, as it did with MD-200. 

I believe that MDTA counts every transaction at every gantry as a separate toll transaction - and in a sense that is correct, since drivers passing under those gantries do pay a certain  amount for each one.   Though my own  preference is to look at the published annual average daily traffic (AADT) for each of the links of MD-200 and just use highest one as a reasonable estimate of traffic, with the understanding that traffic can use the road without passing that "maximum load point." That max load point appears to be between MD-182 (Layhill Road) and MD-650 (New Hampshire Avenue), at 53,588 AADT for year ended 12/31/2016 (so almost certainly higher now).
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 02:34:12 PM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2633
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 49
  • Last Login: June 16, 2019, 08:27:16 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #586 on: April 24, 2018, 07:36:40 PM »

I think that's a bit misleading since the other toll facilities are single point tolls.  Whereas the ICC is a 20 mile toll road with several toll collection points.  Like I think on I-95 north of Baltimore only the trips that cross the Millard E Tydings Memorial Bridge are counted.  I think even the Hatem Bridge crossings are considered separate.  So if you just looked at a single toll collection point on the ICC then it would be an apples to apples comparison. 
Quote
“More people are using the ICC than the Bay Bridge,” said John Townsend with AAA-Mid Atlantic.
Uh yeah.  I don't think there are that many daily commuters that cross the Bay bridge.  I also don't think there are many daily commuters crossing the Tydings Bridge.  But I would imagine that there are a large number of daily commuters using the Fort McHenry Tunnel. 
Quote
since the road uses a variable toll system that sets the price based on how busy it is.
Not true.  It uses a time of day variable toll system.  The HOT lanes in VA use congestion based pricing.  The timing of the toll rate on the ICC is based on rush hours.  But the rates do not react to moment to moment congestion. 


A different way of looking at it:

Lowest 2017 AADT (SHA data) on the ICC between I-370 and I-95 is 47K (1st segment west of I-95) and the rest of the segments are 55-58k range.

Tydings Bridge: 86k
Hatem Bridge: 26k
Harbor Tunnel: 78k
Ft. McHenry Tunnel: 124k
Key Bridge: 32k
Bay Bridge: 74k
Nice Bridge: 19k

From this data, and taking credit for some of those facilities being tolled in only one direction, the ICC is busier from a toll perspective than all but the Baltimore Tunnels.  I'm guessing the multiple toll points makes it possible to have more toll transactions than the Harbor Tunnel despite the lower AADT.  So their statement isn't wildly out of place.  I do believe the AADT is a better apples to apples comparison and easier to evaluate against the criticism when the road was being built that nobody would use it.
Logged
Clinch:
I: 4 8 12 16 17 20 26 27 30 40 59 64 66 68 72 73 ew74 77 78 79 82 83 ew84 85 ew86 e88 97 99
US: 4 6N 9W 11E 11W 13 15 19W 21 44 46 48 58 72 92 113 117 123 130 158 163 176 178 192 206 209 211 219 220 221 222 258 264 276 290 311 319 322 340 360 378 401 ew422 501 521 522 601 701
PriSys: VA, DE

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4766
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:40:55 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #587 on: April 24, 2018, 08:44:53 PM »

Lowest 2017 AADT (SHA data) on the ICC between I-370 and I-95 is 47K (1st segment west of I-95) and the rest of the segments are 55-58k range.
[...]
From this data, and taking credit for some of those facilities being tolled in only one direction, the ICC is busier from a toll perspective than all but the Baltimore Tunnels.  I'm guessing the multiple toll points makes it possible to have more toll transactions than the Harbor Tunnel despite the lower AADT.  So their statement isn't wildly out of place.  I do believe the AADT is a better apples to apples comparison and easier to evaluate against the criticism when the road was being built that nobody would use it.

The current AADTs put it in the range of needing the current 6 lane freeway.  Those AADTs will only grow in the future.
Logged
Scott Michael Savage
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #588 on: April 24, 2018, 11:12:32 PM »

The current AADTs put it in the range of needing the current 6 lane freeway.  Those AADTs will only grow in the future.

One of the demands made by the anti-ICC cottage industry in Montgomery County (after their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland had been dismissed in its entirety by Judge Williams) was that the road be built as a four-lane freeway only. Never mind that the estimates of toll-paying traffic justified six lanes (3 each way) except for the far eastern section between I-95 and U.S. 1.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

TheOneKEA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 242
  • Last Login: June 16, 2019, 10:12:57 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #589 on: April 25, 2018, 06:16:38 AM »

The current AADTs put it in the range of needing the current 6 lane freeway.  Those AADTs will only grow in the future.

One of the demands made by the anti-ICC cottage industry in Montgomery County (after their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland had been dismissed in its entirety by Judge Williams) was that the road be built as a four-lane freeway only. Never mind that the estimates of toll-paying traffic justified six lanes (3 each way) except for the far eastern section between I-95 and U.S. 1.

I would be curious to know if any of the individuals who tried to prevent the ICC from being built have altered their opinions on this road, or if they continue to insist that it should not have been built.

If the road continues to grow in use, I would be interested to know where those users are coming from and which routes they were using before they switched to the ICC.
Logged

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #590 on: April 25, 2018, 03:42:28 PM »

The current AADTs put it in the range of needing the current 6 lane freeway.  Those AADTs will only grow in the future.

One of the demands made by the anti-ICC cottage industry in Montgomery County (after their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland had been dismissed in its entirety by Judge Williams) was that the road be built as a four-lane freeway only. Never mind that the estimates of toll-paying traffic justified six lanes (3 each way) except for the far eastern section between I-95 and U.S. 1.

I would be curious to know if any of the individuals who tried to prevent the ICC from being built have altered their opinions on this road, or if they continue to insist that it should not have been built.

If the road continues to grow in use, I would be interested to know where those users are coming from and which routes they were using before they switched to the ICC.

I used to travel from Gaithersburg to NYC pretty frequently by car over a decade ago, and it was either 1) 270 to 495 to 95 or 2) east on county roads to 95 (don't remember the exact route).  Neither were ideal.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #591 on: April 25, 2018, 05:58:14 PM »

I would be curious to know if any of the individuals who tried to prevent the ICC from being built have altered their opinions on this road, or if they continue to insist that it should not have been built.

If the road continues to grow in use, I would be interested to know where those users are coming from and which routes they were using before they switched to the ICC.

Certainly there are some politicians in both counties (including at least one candidate for Montgomery County Executive) that still make a big deal out of opposing the highway.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5200
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:00 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #592 on: April 25, 2018, 09:21:20 PM »

If the road continues to grow in use, I would be interested to know where those users are coming from and which routes they were using before they switched to the ICC.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the slow but steady growth in traffic not coming from users who used to be taking other routes, but rather from users who used to make entirely different trips.

A great example: I know someone who, a couple years ago, relocated from California to Maryland for work. This individual's place of employment is located in Rockville. Their place of residence is located in Laurel. Naturally, they use the ICC for their daily commute.

Prior to the ICC, they lived somewhere else entirely. Because of the ICC, when they relocated, it was a viable choice to live in Laurel to work at a job in Rockville. Without the ICC, this person would likely be living and/or working somewhere else since their current commute would not be feasible.


This, of course, is exactly why the cottage industry in Montgomery County was so opposed to the ICC. The ICC enables people who work in Montgomery County to live in Howard County, and by doing so evade Montgomery County's social engineering policies aimed at preventing people from living in detached single family homes.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Eth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2382
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: June 16, 2019, 09:03:32 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #593 on: April 25, 2018, 09:44:42 PM »

I used to travel from Gaithersburg to NYC pretty frequently by car over a decade ago, and it was either 1) 270 to 495 to 95 or 2) east on county roads to 95 (don't remember the exact route).  Neither were ideal.

I used to live in Gaithersburg myself; I'd imagine my route to get to BWI would have been the same as I'd have used to drive further northeast: MD 124, MD 115, MD 28, Norbeck Rd, MD 198, I-95. The ICC was only completed to MD 28 by the time I left, so it still didn't entirely address the issue then.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #594 on: April 27, 2018, 01:50:18 PM »

This, of course, is exactly why the cottage industry in Montgomery County was so opposed to the ICC. The ICC enables people who work in Montgomery County to live in Howard County, and by doing so evade Montgomery County's social engineering policies aimed at preventing people from living in detached single family homes.

Funny thing is that most of the usual suspects in the anti-ICC (and anti-all-other-highways) cottage industry (most reside in Montgomery County, but there are some in Prince George's County too) live in single-family detached homes.  A fair number of them are retired, and as a result are not as badly impacted by severe traffic congestion. 
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9828
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: June 16, 2019, 09:28:51 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #595 on: April 27, 2018, 02:13:07 PM »

This, of course, is exactly why the cottage industry in Montgomery County was so opposed to the ICC. The ICC enables people who work in Montgomery County to live in Howard County, and by doing so evade Montgomery County's social engineering policies aimed at preventing people from living in detached single family homes.

Funny thing is that most of the usual suspects in the anti-ICC (and anti-all-other-highways) cottage industry (most reside in Montgomery County, but there are some in Prince George's County too) live in single-family detached homes.  A fair number of them are retired, and as a result are not as badly impacted by severe traffic congestion. 

Not too surprising.  It's fairly common to see people drive in to a public meeting to complain about adding capacity to roadways or building new ones.  Amazingly, these people never seem to carpool with each other or take mass transit, and all live in suburban areas rather than in more urban locations.   

It's the typical Do As I Say, Not As I Do crowd.  They want what they got, but will prevent everyone else from getting what the same thing.
Logged

abefroman329

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3151
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
  • Last Login: April 29, 2019, 05:55:26 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #596 on: April 27, 2018, 02:54:05 PM »

I used to travel from Gaithersburg to NYC pretty frequently by car over a decade ago, and it was either 1) 270 to 495 to 95 or 2) east on county roads to 95 (don't remember the exact route).  Neither were ideal.

I used to live in Gaithersburg myself; I'd imagine my route to get to BWI would have been the same as I'd have used to drive further northeast: MD 124, MD 115, MD 28, Norbeck Rd, MD 198, I-95. The ICC was only completed to MD 28 by the time I left, so it still didn't entirely address the issue then.

I meant to say "country roads," not "county roads," and I think it was a single state highway all the way.  Back then the ICC didn't exist at all.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10053
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: June 16, 2019, 06:34:37 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #597 on: April 27, 2018, 04:58:59 PM »

This, of course, is exactly why the cottage industry in Montgomery County was so opposed to the ICC. The ICC enables people who work in Montgomery County to live in Howard County, and by doing so evade Montgomery County's social engineering policies aimed at preventing people from living in detached single family homes.

Funny thing is that most of the usual suspects in the anti-ICC (and anti-all-other-highways) cottage industry (most reside in Montgomery County, but there are some in Prince George's County too) live in single-family detached homes.  A fair number of them are retired, and as a result are not as badly impacted by severe traffic congestion. 

Not too surprising.  It's fairly common to see people drive in to a public meeting to complain about adding capacity to roadways or building new ones.  Amazingly, these people never seem to carpool with each other or take mass transit, and all live in suburban areas rather than in more urban locations.   

It's the typical Do As I Say, Not As I Do crowd.  They want what they got, but will prevent everyone else from getting what the same thing.

Heh. Back in the 1970s, one lady who was very vocally active in the movement to ban Concorde at Kennedy Airport was in London for something and wanted to get back for a protest, but there was only one way to get back in time: She flew Concorde to Dulles and took a short flight to Kennedy!
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10222
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: May 15, 2019, 09:41:46 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #598 on: April 30, 2018, 06:13:15 AM »

I meant to say "country roads," not "county roads," and I think it was a single state highway all the way.  Back then the ICC didn't exist at all.

Prior to completion of MD-200, there was no continuous east-west state-maintained road across Montgomery County with the sole exceptions of MD-193 (does not serve the same travel market as MD-200, since it runs well inside the Beltway between U.S. 29 and the Prince George's County/Montgomery County border, and stays inside the Beltway until it reaches Greenbelt) and I-495 (Capital Beltway itself).

MD-28 (has various names) between I-270, through Rockville and then on to the northern reaches of Silver Spring ended at MD-182 (Layhill Road) and  still does.

Headed east, MD-198 (also has various names) picked up at MD-650 and continues east past U.S. 29 into Prince George's County to an interchange at I-95, then through the City of Laurel and into Anne Arundel County to an interchange at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and ending at an interchange at MD-32.

The combination of Montrose Road/Montrose Parkway, Randolph Road, East Randolph Road and Cherry Hill Road go across Montgomery County from I-270 almost to I-95 (nearly all of this is county-maintained) and much of it is a four lane residential street, also not intended to carry the traffic to which it is subjected.  It is at least four lanes all the way now, though the usual suspects that campaigned against MD-200 (and sometimes touted in bad faith "upgrade existing  roads" as an alternative) were also loudly opposed to improvements along Randolph Road.

Between MD-28 and MD-198 was a long-standing gap, which was eventually spanned by Norbeck Road Extended, a county-maintained road.  But the combination of MD-28, Norbeck Road Extended and MD-198 was (and is) nearly all two-lane undivided, and much of it is old design, suitable for a low-volume rural road, which this is not -  describing it as a "country road" is accurate.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 06:21:23 AM by cpzilliacus »
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.