Maryland

[Beltway]

It is a bit odd how I-370 simply becomes MD-200 on the same 6-lane freeway.  The segment into the Metro station apparently is no longer part of I-370, and it now has a trumpet interchange with the main freeway.  Is there any reason why MD-200 could not be designated as an Interstate highway?  It could be an extension of I-370, or perhaps the whole thing could be designated as I-470 since it would not be a spur, in that it connects I-270 to I-95.

The part of I-370 that ran past Shady Grove Road and into the Shady Grove rail station is now unsigned MD-200A.
MD-200UL was the number in the MD/SHA Highway Location Reference going back at least 30 years, maybe more.  There's also the matter of the decidedly  non-Interstate signalized intersection where MD-200 ends at U.S. 1.

I wouldn't suggest it being designated as an Interstate east of I-95, as the cross-section and alignment is built to a lower standard than the rest of the ICC.

If they are not going to promote MD-200, then what is the rationale for not demoting I-370 to MD-200?  It is one seamless highway.

[mrsman]

It is a bit odd how I-370 simply becomes MD-200 on the same 6-lane freeway.  The segment into the Metro station apparently is no longer part of I-370, and it now has a trumpet interchange with the main freeway.  Is there any reason why MD-200 could not be designated as an Interstate highway?  It could be an extension of I-370, or perhaps the whole thing could be designated as I-470 since it would not be a spur, in that it connects I-270 to I-95.

The part of I-370 that ran past Shady Grove Road and into the Shady Grove rail station is now unsigned MD-200A.
MD-200UL was the number in the MD/SHA Highway Location Reference going back at least 30 years, maybe more.  There's also the matter of the decidedly  non-Interstate signalized intersection where MD-200 ends at U.S. 1.

I wouldn't suggest it being designated as an Interstate east of I-95, as the cross-section and alignment is built to a lower standard than the rest of the ICC.

If they are not going to promote MD-200, then what is the rationale for not demoting I-370 to MD-200?  It is one seamless highway.

Is there some rule (by MDOT or AASHTO) that new toll roads cannot be signed as Interstate highways?  (Not talking about how NJTP, Penn Turnpike and other roads got grandfathered in to the system.)

You are right that it would be preferred for the full highway from US 1 to Great Seneca Hwy to have the same number, but I'm thinking that they left it the way they did to emphasize that the section west of the Metro station is toll-free.

What they really should do is incorporate control cities for the road.  Laurel and Gaithersburg should work fine.  A sign like this just has too many symbols, get rid of the shields for I-95 and I-270:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0838166,-76.947893,3a,75y,243.97h,110.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJdRybyYrLSskPA_8QPBXdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Beltway]

I wouldn't suggest it being designated as an Interstate east of I-95, as the cross-section and alignment is built to a lower standard than the rest of the ICC.
If they are not going to promote MD-200, then what is the rationale for not demoting I-370 to MD-200?  It is one seamless highway.

Is there some rule (by MDOT or AASHTO) that new toll roads cannot be signed as Interstate highways?  (Not talking about how NJTP, Penn Turnpike and other roads got grandfathered in to the system.)

Not as far as I have ever heard.  The I-355 / North-South Tollway extension in Illinois was opened in the last 10 years.

You are right that it would be preferred for the full highway from US 1 to Great Seneca Hwy to have the same number, but I'm thinking that they left it the way they did to emphasize that the section west of the Metro station is toll-free.

I-370 opened in 1988 and was a 90% federal-aid funded Interstate highway.  MD-200 was built over 25 years later and was a 100% toll funded state highway, no federal funds (as far as I know). 

So having the two segments designated differently in route numbers does indeed reflect the different funding and toll/non-toll status, given that the MD-200 sign also includes a TOLL sign above.

[cpzilliacus]

Is there some rule (by MDOT or AASHTO) that new toll roads cannot be signed as Interstate highways?  (Not talking about how NJTP, Penn Turnpike and other roads got grandfathered in to the system.)

You are right that it would be preferred for the full highway from US 1 to Great Seneca Hwy to have the same number, but I'm thinking that they left it the way they did to emphasize that the section west of the Metro station is toll-free.

What they really should do is incorporate control cities for the road.  Laurel and Gaithersburg should work fine.  A sign like this just has too many symbols, get rid of the shields for I-95 and I-270:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0838166,-76.947893,3a,75y,243.97h,110.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJdRybyYrLSskPA_8QPBXdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

If there is a 3di available for MD-200 (and there clearly is, probably I-470 or maybe just extending I-370 east), then I don't think anyone cares, as long as the road is built to Interstate standards.  Which MD-200 is, with the sole exception of the eastern terminus at U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue), which is a signalized "continuous flow" intersection.  As an aside, one of the loudest and most-noxious opponents of the project (who lived in far-away Takoma Park and supposedly now lives in Oregon) repeatedly made the claim that it would be signed as I-370 (and even had called his anti-ICC site on the early Web "ICC370" (long gone now, though parts of it are on the Internet Archive)).

West of I-270 and I-370, the road (Sam Eig Highway, unsigned County Route 6271) is definitely not built to Interstate standards.  It is not even a state route.  Curiously, it's a county route and not a Gaithersburg municipal route (some of it appears to run smack on the border between Gaithersburg and unincorporated Montgomery County, just west of I-270 it is entirely in Gaithersburg).

I agree that control cities would be useful, though the road has never had them.  Westbound Rockville and Gaithersburg (and maybe Shady Grove west of MD-97) and eastbound Laurel and Beltsville and maybe Burtonsville.

[Beltway]

If there is a 3di available for MD-200 (and there clearly is, probably I-470 or maybe just extending I-370 east), then I don't think anyone cares, as long as the road is built to Interstate standards.  Which MD-200 is, with the sole exception of the eastern terminus at U.S. 1 (Baltimore Avenue), which is a signalized "continuous flow" intersection.  As an aside, one of the loudest and most-noxious opponents of the project (who lived in far-away Takoma Park and supposedly now lives in Oregon) repeatedly made the claim that it would be signed as I-370 (and even had called his anti-ICC site on the early Web "ICC370" (long gone now, though parts of it are on the Internet Archive)).

Indeed, that was Mark Robinowitz.  It would be poetic justice to designate the highway as I-370!

[froggie]

Federal law allows toll roads to be added as non-chargeable Interstates as long as they meet Interstate standards and meet normal FHWA criteria for Interstate inclusion (i.e. connect to another Interstate, have logical termini, etc etc).

[BrianP]

They are also not allowed to have used federal funding.  See VA 895.  I'm not sure if there are kinds of federal funding that are allowed like grants.  But the ICC does look like it has some funds that were federal in source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090315024359/http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/fs13.cfm

I guess the GARVEE bonds would be considered federal funding due to the way they are paid back:

States must repay the bonds using federal funds expected to be received in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GARVEE
Otherwise I think it would have been designated an interstate from the start.

[Beltway]

They are also not allowed to have used federal funding.  See VA 895.  I'm not sure if there are kinds of federal funding that are allowed like grants.  But the ICC does look like it has some funds that were federal in source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090315024359/http://tifia.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/fs13.cfm
I guess the GARVEE bonds would be considered federal funding due to the way they are paid back:

States must repay the bonds using federal funds expected to be received in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GARVEE
Otherwise I think it would have been designated an interstate from the start.

Federally insured loans that the state will ultimately pay back might not be an issue, but I see on that site --
Federal Grants: $180.0 million

Actual federal funds on a portion of the funding package.

I am still working with VDOT on my advocacy of getting Interstate designations for VA-895 and VA-288.

A clause in the next federal transportation bill, or other new federal legislation, could provide a specific authorization for Route 895 to become I-895.  The road has been open since 2002, and that IMHO is what they need to do.

They did a detailed study on the 6 highways that I submitted, and there were multiple design issues on the others that are lower than Interstate standards.  VA-267, VA-164, VA-195.  Things like geometrics and shoulder widths, at least in certain places.  Interstate spurs IMHO have lower priority than outer loops (like Routes 288 and 895) that clearly have inter-state traffic roles in addition to local and regional roles.

[Mergingtraffic]

I disocvered new non-reflective button copy signs near Frederick but GSV only goes up to 2013.  Anybody know if these are still around? I know MD has been changing signs a lot lately.

ALt US-40 EB
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4222831,-77.4881845,3a,75y,98.98h,86.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sceQUZO6zx4qDcRbBdO_tiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

US-40 WB
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4259877,-77.4752391,3a,75y,327.95h,86.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXBSPXq6f-1h8ywMvs2jCbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[cpzilliacus]

US-40 WB
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4259877,-77.4752391,3a,75y,327.95h,86.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXBSPXq6f-1h8ywMvs2jCbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

As of January 2017, this was still standing there.

[PHLBOS]

I disocvered new non-reflective button copy signs near Frederick

New?  Those signs look to be 1970s/1980s vintage.

[cpzilliacus]

ALt US-40 EB
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4222831,-77.4881845,3a,75y,98.98h,86.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sceQUZO6zx4qDcRbBdO_tiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Gone (probably in  the past year).  Was by there yesterday and it has been replaced by a new panel with Clearview.

[cpzilliacus]

Baltimore Sun photo study of the Hanover Street Bridge (MD-2) can be found at this link: At 101, the Hanover Street Bridge is showing its age.

Baltimore City has a study under way to determine (among other things) if the Hanover Street Bridge should be rehabilitated or replaced with  a new structure: Hanover Street Corridor Study (Includes the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Bridge).

[cpzilliacus]

I disocvered new non-reflective button copy signs near Frederick

New?  Those signs look to be 1970s/1980s vintage.

They are not the original signs for I-70 between Frederick and Hagerstown.  For reasons unknown to me, the originals were really cheap (for signs on a new Interstate in Maryland) and probably considered temporary.  Many of the  panels were composite plywood mounted on wood timbers painted dark green with buttoncopy or non-buttoncopy characters, and this was the  only place in Maryland where I have ever seen overhead signs mounted on span wires.  They were replaced after this part of I-70 had been open for a few years with the  standard (for the time) buttoncopy on extruded aluminum panels.

[cl94]

I disocvered new non-reflective button copy signs near Frederick

New?  Those signs look to be 1970s/1980s vintage.

They are not the original signs for I-70 between Frederick and Hagerstown.  For reasons unknown to me, the originals were really cheap (for signs on a new Interstate in Maryland) and probably considered temporary.  Many of the  panels were composite plywood mounted on wood timbers painted dark green with buttoncopy or non-buttoncopy characters, and this was the  only place in Maryland where I have ever seen overhead signs mounted on span wires.  They were replaced after this part of I-70 had been open for a few years with the  standard (for the time) buttoncopy on extruded aluminum panels.

I hope there are pictures of those somewhere on the interwebs (the Summa files?). I need to see that.

[cpzilliacus]

I hope there are pictures of those somewhere on the interwebs (the Summa files?). I need to see that.

I have never seen them unfortunately.

[tckma]

It is a bit odd how I-370 simply becomes MD-200 on the same 6-lane freeway.  The segment into the Metro station apparently is no longer part of I-370, and it now has a trumpet interchange with the main freeway.

I am fairly sure the section from the end of MD-200 to the Shady Grove Metro Station is still part of I-370, even if it isn't signed as such.

[Beltway]

It is a bit odd how I-370 simply becomes MD-200 on the same 6-lane freeway.  The segment into the Metro station apparently is no longer part of I-370, and it now has a trumpet interchange with the main freeway.

I am fairly sure the section from the end of MD-200 to the Shady Grove Metro Station is still part of I-370, even if it isn't signed as such.

If so that is a moot point.  The road appears to the motoring public as I said above.

[Roadsguy]

It is a bit odd how I-370 simply becomes MD-200 on the same 6-lane freeway.  The segment into the Metro station apparently is no longer part of I-370, and it now has a trumpet interchange with the main freeway.

I am fairly sure the section from the end of MD-200 to the Shady Grove Metro Station is still part of I-370, even if it isn't signed as such.

Nope, it's unsigned MD 200A.

[Mapmikey]

I hope there are pictures of those somewhere on the interwebs (the Summa files?). I need to see that.

I have never seen them unfortunately.

Couldn't find that but I did find the original signage at the current 495-270 split that is different from the signage in my 1960s gallery...

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-WE597_ZIMMER_J_20171116174049.jpg

[cpzilliacus]

I am fairly sure the section from the end of MD-200 to the Shady Grove Metro Station is still part of I-370, even if it isn't signed as such.

In Maryland, the State Highway Administration's Highway Location Reference is canon on such things.  It shows the former I-370 into the Metro station as MD-200A. 

[cpzilliacus]

I hope there are pictures of those somewhere on the interwebs (the Summa files?). I need to see that.

I have never seen them unfortunately.

Couldn't find that but I did find the original signage at the current 495-270 split that is different from the signage in my 1960s gallery...

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-WE597_ZIMMER_J_20171116174049.jpg

These are pre-1964 signs (no buttoncopy, I recall these being seen at various places around the  state), when parts of the Capital Beltway was open to traffic, including at present-day I-270Y (I-270 Spur).

SRC replaced all of the signs on the  Maryland part of the Capital Beltway buttoncopy  signs at around the time that it was completed in 1964, maybe a year after that in some cases.

[Beltway]

Couldn't find that but I did find the original signage at the current 495-270 split that is different from the signage in my 1960s gallery...
https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-WE597_ZIMMER_J_20171116174049.jpg

These are pre-1964 signs (no buttoncopy, I recall these being seen at various places around the  state), when parts of the Capital Beltway was open to traffic, including at present-day I-270Y (I-270 Spur).
SRC replaced all of the signs on the  Maryland part of the Capital Beltway buttoncopy  signs at around the time that it was completed in 1964, maybe a year after that in some cases.

Those sign standard footers are from the past as well.  Hazardous fixed objects about 10 feet from the roadway, and not protected by guard rail.

[cpzilliacus]

Those sign standard footers are from the past as well.  Hazardous fixed objects about 10 feet from the roadway, and not protected by guard rail.

Agreed.  And even when they were replaced with more "modern" structures for overhead signs, initially they did not have any barriers around them in Maryland (or, for that matter, on Virginia's part of the Capital Beltway).  The guardrails and other measures to prevent vehicles from crashing into the sign structures started showing up in the late-1960's or early 1970's.

Speaking of Virginia, I really loved the old-style BGS panel designs used by VDH on the Beltway (and other freeways around the Commonwealth too).  They were distinctive yet clear (including the 45° arrows with the long thin shaft).

[BrianP]

MD 355 (URBANA PIKE) BRIDGE OVER THE MONOCACY RIVER IS CLOSED AFTER BEING STRUCK
http://www.marylandroads.com/pages/release.aspx?newsId=3041

Check out the photo.  That one got serious damage.