Maryland

[Beltway]

Governor Hogan and several MDOT SHA personnel held a groundbreaking ceremony and press conference for the widening of MD 32 between MD 108 (Exit 20) and Linden Church Road in Howard County. The tweet from MDOT states that this project is beginning 9 months earlier than anticipated, which is GOOD NEWS.

Next up is the widening between Linden Church Road and I-70, beginning in 2019, and after that the widening north of I-70, according to the Baltimore Sun. Like I said a while ago, this is one of the most important projects that should have happened 15 years ago, and it's good that it is finally happening!

Will it be a 4-lane freeway?

[cpzilliacus]

Governor Hogan and several MDOT SHA personnel held a groundbreaking ceremony and press conference for the widening of MD 32 between MD 108 (Exit 20) and Linden Church Road in Howard County. The tweet from MDOT states that this project is beginning 9 months earlier than anticipated, which is GOOD NEWS.

Agreed.  This road has way, way, way too much traffic to be a two-land undivided road.  In spite of claims to the contrary from persons and groups opposed to a wider and safer MD-32.

Next up is the widening between Linden Church Road and I-70, beginning in 2019, and after that the widening north of I-70, according to the Baltimore Sun. Like I said a while ago, this is one of the most important projects that should have happened 15 years ago, and it's good that it is finally happening!

Will this be on a new alignment north of Burnt Woods Road and south of I-70?  There are driveways and at least a few intersections at-grade there. 

[Henry]

Governor Hogan and several MDOT SHA personnel held a groundbreaking ceremony and press conference for the widening of MD 32 between MD 108 (Exit 20) and Linden Church Road in Howard County. The tweet from MDOT states that this project is beginning 9 months earlier than anticipated, which is GOOD NEWS.

Next up is the widening between Linden Church Road and I-70, beginning in 2019, and after that the widening north of I-70, according to the Baltimore Sun. Like I said a while ago, this is one of the most important projects that should have happened 15 years ago, and it's good that it is finally happening!

Will it be a 4-lane freeway?

I believe that it will be, since there are plans to upgrade the I-70 diamond interchange to a partial cloverleaf with some flyover ramps to the Interstate. Likewise, the MD 144 intersection will also be converted to a partial cloverleaf, and there will be RIRO's at some locations.

[froggie]

Will it be a 4-lane freeway?

Will this be on a new alignment north of Burnt Woods Road and south of I-70?  There are driveways and at least a few intersections at-grade there.

No freeway on the current plans which date from this summer...disregard what Henry just posted.  It will be limited access up to the Burnt Woods Rd interchange but will have a crossover at the Dayton Shops.  North of Burnt Woods will be an at-grade arterial, albeit with some J-turns and other Superstreet concepts.  There will be a SLIGHT (looks like roughly 30ft) realignment to the (north)west between River Valley Chase and Rosemary Ln....plat maps show that SHA already owns most of this ROW.  Except for that realignment section, the existing lanes will become the future west/northbound lanes.

This is a notable change from the 2006 plan, which had a freeway up to and through MD 144 and included loop ramps in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the I-70 interchange.  The current plan, in addition to what I described above, retains the existing signals at MD 144 and the I-70 ramps, and converts both left turns to I-70 to dual-left-turn lanes.

[TheOneKEA]

Will it be a 4-lane freeway?

Will this be on a new alignment north of Burnt Woods Road and south of I-70?  There are driveways and at least a few intersections at-grade there.

No freeway on the current plans which date from this summer...disregard what Henry just posted.  It will be limited access up to the Burnt Woods Rd interchange but will have a crossover at the Dayton Shops.  North of Burnt Woods will be an at-grade arterial, albeit with some J-turns and other Superstreet concepts.  There will be a SLIGHT (looks like roughly 30ft) realignment to the (north)west between River Valley Chase and Rosemary Ln....plat maps show that SHA already owns most of this ROW.  Except for that realignment section, the existing lanes will become the future west/northbound lanes.

This is a notable change from the 2006 plan, which had a freeway up to and through MD 144 and included loop ramps in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the I-70 interchange.  The current plan, in addition to what I described above, retains the existing signals at MD 144 and the I-70 ramps, and converts both left turns to I-70 to dual-left-turn lanes.

This is very disappointing. The original 2006 plan was exactly what this route needed to support its existing traffic volume and to have any hope of supporting future traffic volumes, and to see that the interchanges were scrapped and the crossovers retained with signals is a retrograde step. I don't understand why the project had to be downgraded to this extent, and I fear that the state will end up having to grade-separate it anyway 10-15 years after this project is completed. In my opinion the traffic volumes are sufficiently high that a case could be made for a full freeway all the way to MD 851 at the Carroll County line.

The only good thing is that the route is being divided and that at least a few of the crossovers are being closed and the remainder patrolled with signals, which is a major improvement over the state of the highway today. This is still very disappointing, though.

[froggie]

I can see two reasons for the downgrade.  First, of course, is cost.  As it is, it'll be close to if not at 9 digits just to get a 4-lane corridor.  The second reason is that the freeway/interchange concepts did have a lot of stream impacts.

The only good thing is that the route is being divided and that at least a few of the crossovers are being closed and the remainder patrolled with signals, which is a major improvement over the state of the highway today.

Regarding this comment, I'm not sure from the plans if there will be a signal at the Dayton shops.  Fortunately, there will be no crossovers other than left turns FROM MD 32 between the Dayton Shops and MD 144....there will be no cross-32 traffic or left turns onto 32 through that stretch.

[lepidopteran]

Regarding the improvements to MD-32 between Burnwoods Rd. and I-70

Will it be a 4-lane freeway?

No freeway on the current plans...
North of Burnt Woods will be an at-grade arterial, albeit with some J-turns and other Superstreet concepts...
This is a notable change from the 2006 plan, which had a freeway up to and through MD 144 and included loop ramps in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the I-70 interchange.

My feeling is that a full freeway would be a "nice-to-have", but the traffic counts probably wouldn't call for it. Especially since the area is largely exurban bedroom communities, so not a lot of heavy truck traffic.  I wonder also if the state is a little reluctant to build something so pricey based on future traffic projections; didn't they kind of get burned with the I-95 express lanes?

Now if you want an example of a freeway interchange that is needed, look at MD-3 Crain Hwy and Waugh Chapel Rd.  A Superstreet with J-turns and channelized lefts, and there sign warning of high traffic, at least on the SB side.  There are even freeway-grade BGSs there.

There was a plan at one point to make MD-3 a freeway between US-50/US-301/secret I-595 and I-97 -- it's whole length, essentially -- perhaps to even be an I-x97 3di.  One proposal was to just upgrade the existing road, where at least one of the bifurcated sections would have one side expressway, one side  local at-grade.  The other was to have a freeway built on a new r/w to the west; this would have required a 3/4-mile viaduct over wetlands due to the impact on the Patuxent River watershed.  Neither ever happened, and I thought I heard that the main reason was noise impacts.

[tckma]

My feeling is that a full freeway would be a "nice-to-have", but the traffic counts probably wouldn't call for it.

Clearly you've never driven northbound on 32 from 108 to I-70 at... oh... sometime between 4:30 and 6:30 PM on a weekday... or southbound between about 8:00 and 9:30 AM.

[Beltway]

My feeling is that a full freeway would be a "nice-to-have", but the traffic counts probably wouldn't call for it.

Clearly you've never driven northbound on 32 from 108 to I-70 at... oh... sometime between 4:30 and 6:30 PM on a weekday... or southbound between about 8:00 and 9:30 AM.

This segment was to be part of the MD-32 Patuxent Freeway between I-70 and US-50 at Annapolis, all the rest of which has been built, one section as part of I-97.  As such it has the traffic and network need to be built to full freeway standards.

[Mr_Northside]

The original 2006 plan was exactly what this route needed to support its existing traffic volume and to have any hope of supporting future traffic volumes, and to see that the interchanges were scrapped and the crossovers retained with signals is a retrograde step. I don't understand why the project had to be downgraded to this extent, and I fear that the state will end up having to grade-separate it anyway 10-15 years after this project is completed.

I agree with this.  This smacks of something that will be viewed as a "missing link" (despite the extra lanes) not long after it's completed... I guess it's better than nothing if they truly can't find the money for the 2006 plan, but it seems like finding a way to "get it done right the first time" would be smart long-term. 

[froggie]

I understand the concerns some have with this plan over the 2006 mostly-freeway plan, but I'd argue the well-documented safety issues of 2 lanes versus 4 make a far more convincing argument to get it 4 laned NOW versus waiting years (likely decades) to get enough funding to "do it right the first time".

[lepidopteran]

I understand the concerns some have with this plan over the 2006 mostly-freeway plan, but I'd argue the well-documented safety issues of 2 lanes versus 4 make a far more convincing argument to get it 4 laned NOW versus waiting years (likely decades) to get enough funding to "do it right the first time".

I agree.  And remember, it's still slated to become full freeway all the way to Burntwoods Rd. anyway (except for those SHA shops, but lots of freeways have at-grade intersections for "official use only" facilities such as these).  But my question remains -- is a pricey freeway-to-freeway interchange at MD-32 and I-70, complete with provisions for the nearby MD-144 exit, really warranted? Gone are the days when a simple cloverleaf will cut it, barring wide loops and maybe C/D lanes.  If the NB->WB movement is really clogged at rush-hour, have the traffic signal that controls the double-left-turn lanes (to be built there  under the current plan) favor it during certain hours.  If that's still not enough, then add a loop ramp for that movement only.

[epzik8]

Governor Hogan and several MDOT SHA personnel held a groundbreaking ceremony and press conference for the widening of MD 32 between MD 108 (Exit 20) and Linden Church Road in Howard County. The tweet from MDOT states that this project is beginning 9 months earlier than anticipated, which is GOOD NEWS.

Next up is the widening between Linden Church Road and I-70, beginning in 2019, and after that the widening north of I-70, according to the Baltimore Sun. Like I said a while ago, this is one of the most important projects that should have happened 15 years ago, and it's good that it is finally happening!

Such a vital project for the Route 32 corridor.

[TheOneKEA]

I understand the concerns some have with this plan over the 2006 mostly-freeway plan, but I'd argue the well-documented safety issues of 2 lanes versus 4 make a far more convincing argument to get it 4 laned NOW versus waiting years (likely decades) to get enough funding to "do it right the first time".

I agree.  And remember, it's still slated to become full freeway all the way to Burntwoods Rd. anyway (except for those SHA shops, but lots of freeways have at-grade intersections for "official use only" facilities such as these).  But my question remains -- is a pricey freeway-to-freeway interchange at MD-32 and I-70, complete with provisions for the nearby MD-144 exit, really warranted? Gone are the days when a simple cloverleaf will cut it, barring wide loops and maybe C/D lanes.  If the NB->WB movement is really clogged at rush-hour, have the traffic signal that controls the double-left-turn lanes (to be built there  under the current plan) favor it during certain hours.  If that's still not enough, then add a loop ramp for that movement only.

The I-70/MD 32 interchange wasn't going to be freeway-to-freeway. The only changes in the 2006 plans would be the additions of a 32NB->70WB loop ramp and a 32SB->70EB loop ramp. There would still be a crossover to go from I-70 east to MD 32 north if the 2006 interchange plans were built as planned.

The MD 144 interchange was important not because of the grade separation (which is definitely needed) but because of the access control rights purchases and the addition of frontage roads on both sides of the future freeway. Not building that interchange will mean that there will still be local landowners trying to make left turns across a divided highway with 60mph+ traffic, which is not optimal.

[froggie]

Not building that interchange will mean that there will still be local landowners trying to make left turns across a divided highway with 60mph+ traffic, which is not optimal.

Not as much as you'd otherwise expect.  The project will eliminate a few driveways and side-street accesses.  All remaining private driveways will effectively become RIRO.  Half of these (along the west side of 32 south of 144) will be forced to make their "left turn" at the traffic light at 144.  Most of the remaining will make their U-turn at Rosemary Ln (where left turns from SB/EB 32 to Rosemary Ln will still be allowed).

[1995hoo]

BIG news out of Maryland this morning. Gov. Hogan announced plans to build HO/T lanes on I-270 and all the way around Maryland's entire portion of the Beltway!

I haven't had time to collect any links while at the office. Just passing on what local transportation reporters Adam Tuss and Martin Di Caro are tweeting out.

[davewiecking]

https://twitter.com/LarryHogan?lang=en

Apparently includes 4 HO/T lanes on entire MD portion of Beltway and I-270 to Frederick. Most interesting detail I've picked up so far: attempt to convince Dept of Interior to transfer BW Pkwy to MD so it can be included in the plan from DC to Baltimore.

(edited to add link)
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/capital-beltway-baltimore-washington-parkway-i-270-lane-expansions-announced-by-gov-larry-hogan; $9 billion to come from someplace...

[BrianP]

I heard there was going to be a transportation announcement in Mo Co today.  I was wondering if they were announcing the start of any more of the smaller I-270 changes they said were coming.  They just announced this week the new lane config will be coming this fall where I-270 south meets the outer loop.
http://www.marylandroads.com/pages/release.aspx?newsId=2977

But that's really good news.

[davewiecking]

I heard there was going to be a transportation announcement in Mo Co today.  I was wondering if they were announcing the start of any more of the smaller I-270 changes they said were coming.  They just announced this week the new lane config will be coming this fall where I-270 south meets the outer loop.
http://www.marylandroads.com/pages/release.aspx?newsId=2977

But that's really good news.

Actually, those specifics were announced in April, along with a few others to I-270. Recent announcement was that work will start on the I-270 spur lane realignment, with work on the other bandaids along I-270 to come "later". Appears they came to the conclusion that bandaids and aspirin are insufficient for a broken leg.

[BrianP]

Yeah this week they announced the timing of when it will happen. 

They're early on in the construction of exit 12.  I wonder if the design of that will be compatible with future hot lanes.

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Maryland governor proposes widening the Beltway and I-270 to include four toll lanes

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Thursday proposed a $9 billion project to widen the state's three most congested highways – Interstates 495 and 270 and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway – in what he said would be the largest public-private partnership in North America.

The plan would add four lanes each to the Capital Beltway and I- 270 to Frederick, in addition to widening the Baltimore-Washington Parkway by taking over ownership from the federal government.

"These three massive, unprecedented projects to widen I-495, I-270, and MD 295 will be absolutely transformative, and they will help Maryland citizens go about their daily lives in a more efficient and safer manner,"  Hogan said Thursday, in announcing the plan. "Today we are turning Maryland's celebrated innovation into real action. These projects will substantially and dramatically improve our state highway system and traffic in the region."

[Mapmikey]

I notice that widening of the American Legion Bridge is not specifically mentioned.  Without this, the current Outer Loop issues coming to that bridge will not be any better.

[1995hoo]

I notice that widening of the American Legion Bridge is not specifically mentioned.  Without this, the current Outer Loop issues coming to that bridge will not be any better.

I believe either WTOP or WAMU (may have been a tweet, however) said the bridge would be reconstructed as part of the effort. Edited: Turns out it was a tweet from Channel 4's Adam Tuss noting a reconstruction would be required.

I wonder whether, assuming for discussion purposes that Maryland widens the Beltway as proposed, this might prompt Virginia to extend the HO/T lanes east either to or over the Wilson Bridge.

[davewiecking]

I notice that widening of the American Legion Bridge is not specifically mentioned.  Without this, the current Outer Loop issues coming to that bridge will not be any better.

Agree that aiming 6 lanes of traffic at a 4 lane American Legion Memorial Bridge won't work for long. The bridge complex (actually 3 bridges in each direction) has been rebuilt/widened twice since it was built, and one of the shorter ones currently has structural issues. I can forsee an entirely separate project to expand/replace the bridge complex, at which time VA (or Transurban) would likely extend their 495 Express lanes 2 miles or so. As I understand it, such a new crossing could be tolled for all travelers, not just those in the Express lanes. This might cause long distance I-95 travelers to favor the eastern part of the Beltway moreso than now, which might provide an incentive for federal funding to keep the main part of the ALMB free.

Recall that the Wilson Bridge was owned by Uncle Sam, which contributed most of the funding for its replacement; after completion, ownership of the bridge (actually 4 parallel bridges) was transferred to the states (mostly to MD). The inside bridges have extra width (for a "future light rail project"), but Congressional action would likely be required to use that space for toll lanes.

[1995hoo]

The Wilson Bridge is actually two parallel spans, not four, although it's set up as a quad-carriageway.