AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: ICC Intercounty Connector  (Read 230811 times)

MDRoads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 109
  • Location: Baltimore, MD
  • Last Login: October 11, 2016, 08:03:23 PM
    • MDRoads : Guide to Maryland Highways
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2011, 11:22:57 PM »

Got to drive it both ways this afternoon, both to get pictures and GPS tracks.  It's about time, after the Presidents' Day ribbon cutting that really wasn't, then the 24 hour snow delay.  :colorful:

my ICC photo album:
http://www.mdroads.com/pics/gallery/ICC_Opening/ICC_Opening_2011.html
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2183
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 31
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 03:05:40 PM
    • Flickr
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #51 on: February 24, 2011, 12:03:24 PM »

Is this the first full tollway in the D.C. area? As far as I know there were toll lanes (HOT?) but no full toll roads with no free lanes, right?

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5948
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:55:22 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #52 on: February 24, 2011, 01:16:58 PM »

Is this the first full tollway in the D.C. area? As far as I know there were toll lanes (HOT?) but no full toll roads with no free lanes, right?

Dulles Greenway.  Dulles Toll Road (treating the free but airport-traffic-only Dulles Airport Access Road, in the DTR's median, as a separate freeway).  DTR has HOV lanes, but HOV traffic still has to pay the same toll as other users.

No HOT lanes down here yet, but some are under construction on part of the I-495 beltway.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

treichard

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 187
  • Last Login: June 30, 2014, 10:51:02 PM
    • Clinched Highway Mapping
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #53 on: February 24, 2011, 03:03:59 PM »

my ICC photo album:
http://www.mdroads.com/pics/gallery/ICC_Opening/ICC_Opening_2011.html

Photo #45 shows a sign saying that I-370 ends at MD 200.   Then the next photo (#46) has a sign saying that I-370 ends at Shady Grove Road, 1/4 mile further than MD 200.  Is the latter an old sign?
Logged
Map your cumulative highway travel
Clinched Highway Mapping
http://cmap.m-plex.com/

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 10:22:53 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #54 on: February 24, 2011, 03:09:10 PM »

It might be a "logical end" sign like on I-70 where the sign says it ends at I-695.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

Ian

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2752
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Orono, ME
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:47:55 PM
    • My Flickr
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #55 on: February 24, 2011, 03:18:55 PM »

my ICC photo album:
http://www.mdroads.com/pics/gallery/ICC_Opening/ICC_Opening_2011.html

Very cool photos! Can't wait until I get to see this for myself!
Logged
-Ian L
Youtube l Flickr

Eth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2221
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 10:35:50 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #56 on: February 24, 2011, 06:14:42 PM »

my ICC photo album:
http://www.mdroads.com/pics/gallery/ICC_Opening/ICC_Opening_2011.html

Photo #45 shows a sign saying that I-370 ends at MD 200.   Then the next photo (#46) has a sign saying that I-370 ends at Shady Grove Road, 1/4 mile further than MD 200.  Is the latter an old sign?


Yes, it's an old sign (notice it still uses FHWA series fonts rather than Clearview).  They basically mean the same thing in practice, but there really doesn't seem to be a need for both signs.
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12183
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #57 on: February 24, 2011, 07:22:10 PM »

Got to drive it both ways this afternoon, both to get pictures and GPS tracks.  It's about time, after the Presidents' Day ribbon cutting that really wasn't, then the 24 hour snow delay.  :colorful:

my ICC photo album:
http://www.mdroads.com/pics/gallery/ICC_Opening/ICC_Opening_2011.html
Very nice photos! Looks like the Metro station is just signed as a ramp from both highways, not a route in its own right, but then coming out of the station it still looks like part of I-370. I thought that was off the table?

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12183
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #58 on: February 24, 2011, 07:50:00 PM »

From a rather hot-headed post I made on Yahoo, when I found out the projection was for a gradual increase to 27,500 vehicles per day:

Roadway capacity: 2,250 cars per hour per lane at 55 MPH, which would be roughly 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane (assuming a fairly low truck mix). Times 3 lanes = 6,600 vehicles per hour in each direction, 13,200 vehicles per hour total.

6 AM to 9 AM: Total traffic, both directions, 5,618. Average per hour: 1,873. That's about 14% of capacity.
9 AM to 1 PM: Average per hour: roughly 2,000. That's about 15% of capacity.
4 PM to 7 PM: Total traffic, eastbound, 5,389. Average per hour: 1,796. That's about 27% of capacity.
5 PM to 6 PM: Total traffic, eastbound, 1,907. That's about 29% of capacity.

The road was running at 14-15% all morning long. In the peak direction during the PM peak period, it made it up to about double that. A healthy freeway ought to be running at least 40% of capacity during the day, or roughly 2,500 vehicles per hour in three lanes. (In the urbanized Northeast, I'd expect more like 3,000+.) Peak period may be closer to 75%-80% of capacity, or roughly 4,500 to 5,000 vehicles per hour in three lanes. For reference, this correlates well with other roadways whose data I've run through before.

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.

When will the ICC hit 100,000 vehicles per day? When will it even hit HALF that? This should have been a four-lane parkway at best. In fact, even a FOUR LANE AT GRADE BOULEVARD would function adequately, and a six-laner would have no problems whatsoever. This supports the "waste of money" argument. Don't see how costs will ever be recouped.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5948
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:55:22 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #59 on: February 24, 2011, 08:19:11 PM »

When will the ICC hit 100,000 vehicles per day? When will it even hit HALF that? This should have been a four-lane parkway at best. In fact, even a FOUR LANE AT GRADE BOULEVARD would function adequately, and a six-laner would have no problems whatsoever. This supports the "waste of money" argument. Don't see how costs will ever be recouped.

I wouldn't make much of the first-day traffic counts on a freeway that's only about one-third finished.  Once it is completed, and connects I-270 to I-95, volumes might improve a lot. 

As for six lanes rather than four, the Dulles Greenway started off as four lanes, which seemed to match demand at first.  Then they had to go back later to add a lane in each direction for the eastern part of the highway.  Since adding lanes to a road in use is more expensive than adding them before the road opens, the Greenway experience may have encouraged ICC planners to make the ICC six lanes from the outset. 
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Zmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Iowa City, Iowa
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:08:27 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2011, 08:54:29 PM »

Then why not just build 4 lanes and leave space for 2 more lanes when traffic volumes warrant expansion?
Logged

akotchi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 712
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Fairless Hills, PA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:12:19 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2011, 10:00:42 PM »

If I recall, a similar phenomenon occurred (low traffic volumes) when 895 opened up south in Richmond, VA.  I'm still not sure it has increased significantly since 2002, though I have not tracked it.

This will be more telling, in my opinion, if volumes remain where they are when the rest of the highway is finished.
Logged
Overhead Guide Signs:  The Traffic Engineer's Only True Canvas.

iwishiwascanadian

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 184
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Baltimore, MD
  • Last Login: May 29, 2015, 07:11:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2011, 10:14:25 PM »

Is this the first full tollway in the D.C. area? As far as I know there were toll lanes (HOT?) but no full toll roads with no free lanes, right?

Dulles Greenway.  Dulles Toll Road (treating the free but airport-traffic-only Dulles Airport Access Road, in the DTR's median, as a separate freeway).  DTR has HOV lanes, but HOV traffic still has to pay the same toll as other users.

No HOT lanes down here yet, but some are under construction on part of the I-495 beltway.

And on I-95 South of Springfield. 
Logged

mightyace

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3235
  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: October 04, 2012, 01:36:29 PM
    • My Flickr Photos
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #63 on: February 25, 2011, 12:16:26 AM »

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?
Logged
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5948
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:55:22 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #64 on: February 25, 2011, 06:45:56 AM »

Is this the first full tollway in the D.C. area? As far as I know there were toll lanes (HOT?) but no full toll roads with no free lanes, right?

Dulles Greenway.  Dulles Toll Road (treating the free but airport-traffic-only Dulles Airport Access Road, in the DTR's median, as a separate freeway).  DTR has HOV lanes, but HOV traffic still has to pay the same toll as other users.

No HOT lanes down here yet, but some are under construction on part of the I-495 beltway.

And on I-95 South of Springfield. 

Planned, but not yet under construction.  The I-95/395 HOT lanes project was stalled for awhile, but it's back on the table now that the I-395 HOV lanes inside the Beltway will no longer be part of the HOT conversion.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

PAHighways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1458
  • Not affiliated with PennDOT nor the PTC

  • Location: SWPA!
  • Last Login: February 17, 2019, 10:22:21 PM
    • Pennsylvania Highways
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #65 on: February 25, 2011, 06:41:15 PM »

MD TOLL 200?  "Toll" has a negative connotation for travelers which is what I was told by a PTC employee as the reason "PA TOLL" shields were replaced by "PA TURNPIKE" shields.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 07:29:37 PM by PAHighways »
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 10:22:53 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #66 on: February 25, 2011, 09:33:16 PM »

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.)
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

PAHighways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1458
  • Not affiliated with PennDOT nor the PTC

  • Location: SWPA!
  • Last Login: February 17, 2019, 10:22:21 PM
    • Pennsylvania Highways
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2011, 09:37:22 PM »

This isn't in Pennsylvania.

Thanks for the clarification.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 10:22:53 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2011, 11:01:02 PM »

Not a problem. Perhaps you thought this was a PTC project?
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

PAHighways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1458
  • Not affiliated with PennDOT nor the PTC

  • Location: SWPA!
  • Last Login: February 17, 2019, 10:22:21 PM
    • Pennsylvania Highways
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #69 on: February 26, 2011, 10:38:06 AM »

Not at all.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 10:22:53 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2011, 03:50:43 PM »

Then you must like non sequiturs. Cheers.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

J N Winkler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6135
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:41:08 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2011, 05:03:44 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 07:49:35 PM by J N Winkler »
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

PAHighways

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1458
  • Not affiliated with PennDOT nor the PTC

  • Location: SWPA!
  • Last Login: February 17, 2019, 10:22:21 PM
    • Pennsylvania Highways
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #72 on: February 27, 2011, 09:29:03 PM »

Then you must like non sequiturs. Cheers.

Meh
« Last Edit: February 27, 2011, 11:54:06 PM by PAHighways »
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12183
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #73 on: February 28, 2011, 09:12:22 PM »

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.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12183
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: February 20, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #74 on: February 28, 2011, 09:14:46 PM »

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.

They were talking about roughly that number as the design volume for this road, from what I'd read, which is what prompted my reaction. Maybe that would warrant 6 lanes in some Midwestern city, but here in the east, you'd want about that much per direction to consider 6 lanes.

 


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.