AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: ICC Intercounty Connector  (Read 248198 times)

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 461
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 05:02:59 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #425 on: November 27, 2013, 10:16:30 AM »

They are still saying spring for the completion of the mainline to US 1 and the CD lanes.  The previous report said the mainline to US 1 would be done in the spring.  This report says that the CD lanes will be done in the spring. That could mean that they are completed in May.

STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION OPENS NEW EXIT RAMP ON NORTHBOUND I-95 RAMP TO EASTBOUND MD 198
Quote
This temporary alignment will be in place until spring 2014, when construction of the new collector-distributor lanes will be complete.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #426 on: November 27, 2013, 11:21:57 AM »

They are still saying spring for the completion of the mainline to US 1 and the CD lanes.  The previous report said the mainline to US 1 would be done in the spring.  This report says that the CD lanes will be done in the spring. That could mean that they are completed in May.

The mainline of Md. 200 between Virginia Manor Road and I-95 is essentially done (I've been on it once (with permission)).  As was pointed out upthread, there is still work to be done at Virginia Manor Road and east of there to the new at-grade intersection at U.S. 1.

My guess is that all of the Contract D/E work will be complete by Memorial Day 2014, weather permitting.
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.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #427 on: November 30, 2013, 11:28:42 PM »

Washington Post: Intercounty Connector toll revenue falls short of early forecasts

Quote
Maryland officials have said repeatedly that traffic on the Intercounty Connector matches state projections, even as motorists say the controversial toll road continues to feel remarkably underused two years after it opened.

Quote
Tolls collected on the highway, between Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, do align with state forecasts, but only because those projections were adjusted downward, according to internal state reports obtained under a public records request.

Quote
The ICC took in $39.6 million in the past fiscal year — almost dead-on the latest projection but $10 million to $32 million less than forecasts that Maryland lawmakers had in 2005, when they agreed to significantly increase the Maryland Transportation Authority’s debt to build it.

Quote
“They lowered the bar so now they can step over it,” said Montgomery County Council member Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), a longtime ICC critic. “When you merge onto the ICC, it doesn’t feel like a highway. It feels like an airport runway.”
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.

Laura

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 853
  • Mrs. MD Roads

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Bel Air, Maryland
  • Last Login: June 09, 2020, 11:15:28 PM
    • MD Roads
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #428 on: January 02, 2014, 01:04:56 AM »

Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post: Turn the Intercounty Connector into the American autobahn

Quote
I needed to take a relative from Gaithersburg to Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport a few days ago, and I took the Intercounty Connector (ICC). I was surprised by how lightly traveled the road is and by the three police cruisers enforcing the speed limit.

Quote
Why? Why the concentrated enforcement presence when there were hardly any cars on the road? Why enforce a speed limit at all? If Maryland had any marketing sense, instead of enforcing speed limits on a road that few people bother to use, it would rebrand the ICC as an American autobahn. When you are as desperate for revenue as the Maryland Transportation Authority is, you have to think outside the box.

This is EXACTLY how I feel about the ICC (and toll roads in general). If I am paying extra money to take the road, I should not have to worry about police, period. Making it a speed trap just give me another reason to not use the road.
Logged
Disclaimer: All comments here represent my own personal opinion(s) as citizen Laura.

MD Roads
County Clinches

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #429 on: January 02, 2014, 02:46:43 PM »

This is EXACTLY how I feel about the ICC (and toll roads in general). If I am paying extra money to take the road, I should not have to worry about police, period. Making it a speed trap just give me another reason to not use the road.

I agree with you, and I also think the posted 60 MPH is too low, even though the ICC saves gobs of time over comparable routes such as Md. 198/Norbeck Road Extended/Md. 28, East Randolph and Randolph Roads, and Md. 115/Shady Grove Road. 

If it were my call, MdTA would install New Jersey Turnpike-style variable speed limit signs, and set them at 70 or 75 MPH as long as the road surface is dry.

Only place where that might be too high is at the west end, between Shady Grove Road and the Winters Run tunnel, where there are a few (fairly) sharp curves.
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: 283
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #430 on: January 02, 2014, 03:51:23 PM »

This is EXACTLY how I feel about the ICC (and toll roads in general). If I am paying extra money to take the road, I should not have to worry about police, period. Making it a speed trap just give me another reason to not use the road.

I agree with you, and I also think the posted 60 MPH is too low, even though the ICC saves gobs of time over comparable routes such as Md. 198/Norbeck Road Extended/Md. 28, East Randolph and Randolph Roads, and Md. 115/Shady Grove Road. 

If it were my call, MdTA would install New Jersey Turnpike-style variable speed limit signs, and set them at 70 or 75 MPH as long as the road surface is dry.

Only place where that might be too high is at the west end, between Shady Grove Road and the Winters Run tunnel, where there are a few (fairly) sharp curves.

I agree completely. Several years ago I even asked the MdTA if they would have variable speed limits or a 70mph speed limit on the I-95 ETLs, and at the time the response was that they would not; the limit would be 65mph, just like the GP lanes. Now, with the I-495 HOT lanes in place with a higher speed limit as well as the ICC speed limit change, I would be shocked if the MdTA didn't set the I-95 ETLs' speed limit to 70mph.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11238
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 09:46:34 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #431 on: January 02, 2014, 04:35:39 PM »

Does Maryland law allow for a 70-mph limit or would that require action by the state legislature? I assume the latter. It sure seems that if Maryland law already allowed for 70-mph speed limits, there would be some in place somewhere in the state (I-68 in Garrett County is the most obvious example that comes to mind).
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: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #432 on: January 03, 2014, 12:03:41 AM »

Does Maryland law allow for a 70-mph limit or would that require action by the state legislature? I assume the latter.

Yes, maximum is 65 MPH, set by state statute - see Transportation Article §21–801.1.

It sure seems that if Maryland law already allowed for 70-mph speed limits, there would be some in place somewhere in the state (I-68 in Garrett County is the most obvious example that comes to mind).

Maryland had 70 MPH maximum prior to the imposition of the NMSL.

I-68 in Garrett County would (IMO) be a good candidate for consideration of a 70 MPH limit.

Others (again, IMO) that could be considered for 70 or even 75 MPH:

I-70 between Hancock and Hagerstown;
I-70 between Frederick and U.S. 29;
I-83 between Timonium and the Pennsylvania border;
I-95/I-495 between the Wilson Bridge and Md. 202;
I-95 "between the Beltways;"
I-95 (JFK Highway) between White Marsh and the Delaware border;
I-97;
I-270;
I-795;
I-895 between I-95 and the Patapsco Flats Bridge;
Md. 10;
Md. 32 (divided freeway segments only, except at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway interchange and in front of NSA);
Md. 100;
Md. 200;
U.S. 50 ("secret" I-595) between New Carrollton and Md. 70 (Rowe Boulevard); and
U.S. 301 between Queenstown and the Delaware border (not a freeway, but close enough to have a higher limit than 55 MPH).
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.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #433 on: January 03, 2014, 12:06:27 AM »

I agree completely. Several years ago I even asked the MdTA if they would have variable speed limits or a 70mph speed limit on the I-95 ETLs, and at the time the response was that they would not; the limit would be 65mph, just like the GP lanes. Now, with the I-495 HOT lanes in place with a higher speed limit as well as the ICC speed limit change, I would be shocked if the MdTA didn't set the I-95 ETLs' speed limit to 70mph.

I don't think MdTA can set a higher limit than 65 MPH without a change in state law. 
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: 283
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #434 on: January 03, 2014, 08:09:59 AM »

I agree completely. Several years ago I even asked the MdTA if they would have variable speed limits or a 70mph speed limit on the I-95 ETLs, and at the time the response was that they would not; the limit would be 65mph, just like the GP lanes. Now, with the I-495 HOT lanes in place with a higher speed limit as well as the ICC speed limit change, I would be shocked if the MdTA didn't set the I-95 ETLs' speed limit to 70mph.

I don't think MdTA can set a higher limit than 65 MPH without a change in state law.

That's kind of annoying. I doubt there will be any interest in amending the law to allow a 70mph limit.
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11207
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 10:15:09 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #435 on: January 03, 2014, 04:31:37 PM »

Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #436 on: January 03, 2014, 04:51:29 PM »

There was a bill proposed a year ago, but it looks dead: http://articles.herald-mail.com/2013-01-24/news/36534508_1_rural-interstates-limit-mph-for-urban-areas

Nothing to stop those Delegates from pre-filing (or filing) a bill again for the upcoming session of the General Assembly.
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: 283
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #437 on: January 14, 2014, 10:43:00 PM »

I passed through the site of the Contee Road interchange several days ago and there doesn't appear to be any significant progress on the interchange ramps or the I-95 C/D roadways, including the C/D roadways at the MD 198 interchange. The MD 200 mainline base paving appears to be done and the temporary embankment for Virginia Manor Road is nearly removed, but not much else has happened at the site of that interchange either. I couldn't see any progress on the divided highway west of Sweitzer Lane but my vantage point wasn't very good.

Unless work really takes off this month and maintains its pace going forward I really don't see how these works could all be done by May of this year. Still, once it does open I could see a LOT of traffic shift from the MD 198 and MD 212 interchanges to US 1 and the ICC; it will be interesting to see if the lights along US 1 south of MD 212 have their timings altered substantially to make the mainline green phases longer in the peaks.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #438 on: February 10, 2014, 05:41:37 PM »

Washington Post: Gansler proposes 50 percent discount for frequent users of Intercounty Connector

Quote
Maryland Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Douglas F. Gansler proposed a 50 percent discount Friday for regular commuters on the Intercounty Connector, arguing that the lower toll would draw more motorists to the underutilized highway.

Quote
Under Gansler’s plan, commuters who make at least 15 trips a month on the ICC would be eligible for the discount, which he said would be comparable to existing breaks for drivers who frequently use the Harbor Tunnel in Baltimore and the Bay Bridge.
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: 283
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #439 on: February 11, 2014, 10:18:24 PM »

There's still no sign of any major progress on Contee Road or Virginia Manor Road, but there has been a huge amount of progress on the new US 1 southbound roadbed at the eastern terminus of the ICC. The intersection is now taking shape and I will be interested to see if any pedestrian facilities are provided.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2814
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:29:39 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #440 on: February 13, 2014, 08:38:36 AM »

I passed through the site of the Contee Road interchange several days ago and there doesn't appear to be any significant progress on the interchange ramps or the I-95 C/D roadways, including the C/D roadways at the MD 198 interchange. The MD 200 mainline base paving appears to be done and the temporary embankment for Virginia Manor Road is nearly removed, but not much else has happened at the site of that interchange either. I couldn't see any progress on the divided highway west of Sweitzer Lane but my vantage point wasn't very good.

Unless work really takes off this month and maintains its pace going forward I really don't see how these works could all be done by May of this year. Still, once it does open I could see a LOT of traffic shift from the MD 198 and MD 212 interchanges to US 1 and the ICC; it will be interesting to see if the lights along US 1 south of MD 212 have their timings altered substantially to make the mainline green phases longer in the peaks.

Traffic won't shift that much, unless the section between I-95 and US 1 were toll free.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #441 on: February 14, 2014, 01:08:23 PM »

Traffic won't shift that much, unless the section between I-95 and US 1 were toll free.

It may shift some (and it will be tolled - the gantries are already in place), because the ICC will make access to I-95 (and, of course, points to the west) dramatically better for U.S. 1 traffic.  It is a pretty long distance between Md. 212 and Md. 198 (and 198 has a lot of signals between U.S. 1 and I-95).  The ICC should benefit the industrial and warehouse uses along U.S. 1 on the west side of the CSX Capital Subdivision tracks, and along Old Baltimore Pike (a county-maintained extension of Md. 201) on the east side of CSX with access to the ICC via Muirkirk Road and Virginia Manor Road.
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: 283
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #442 on: February 15, 2014, 09:24:43 AM »

Traffic won't shift that much, unless the section between I-95 and US 1 were toll free.

It may shift some (and it will be tolled - the gantries are already in place), because the ICC will make access to I-95 (and, of course, points to the west) dramatically better for U.S. 1 traffic.  It is a pretty long distance between Md. 212 and Md. 198 (and 198 has a lot of signals between U.S. 1 and I-95).  The ICC should benefit the industrial and warehouse uses along U.S. 1 on the west side of the CSX Capital Subdivision tracks, and along Old Baltimore Pike (a county-maintained extension of Md. 201) on the east side of CSX with access to the ICC via Muirkirk Road and Virginia Manor Road.

It should also be noted that there is a long term alternative plan to build a state-maintained extension of MD 201, bypassing the existing county maintained roads that extend from its northern terminus, that crosses US 1 at an angle to meet Virginia Manor Road at its intersection with MD 212 (which was itself diverted about a year ago). The other alternatives include smaller bypasses and various intersection improvements to get through traffic onto Old Baltimore Pike more easily.

An alternative route across US 1 to BARC and parts of Beltsville and College Park that may be partially access controlled in places will help bring a lot of traffic to the ICC's eastern end. The other alternatives will also help but less so in my opinion.

There is also a pretty good chance that Muirkirk Station's parking lot may see major expansion within the next five years because of the improved access to the station from the Virginia Manor Road exit. I also expect to eventually see buses going that way from the ICC to Muirkirk and back.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #443 on: February 15, 2014, 06:31:20 PM »

It should also be noted that there is a long term alternative plan to build a state-maintained extension of MD 201, bypassing the existing county maintained roads that extend from its northern terminus, that crosses US 1 at an angle to meet Virginia Manor Road at its intersection with MD 212 (which was itself diverted about a year ago). The other alternatives include smaller bypasses and various intersection improvements to get through traffic onto Old Baltimore Pike more easily.

Though that project has been studied and discussed for many years now, and the last time I checked, it was "on hold."  I believe the City of Greenbelt (well served by the Capital Beltway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway) is opposed, even though only its extreme southern end would be within its corporate limits.  It does not help that Greenbelt was loudly opposed to the ICC, and I believe there is a perception that this project (as you suggest) will route more traffic to the toll road.

Quote
An alternative route across US 1 to BARC and parts of Beltsville and College Park that may be partially access controlled in places will help bring a lot of traffic to the ICC's eastern end. The other alternatives will also help but less so in my opinion.

The better alternative would be to build the now-cancelled A-44 from the east end of Md. 200 all the way to U.S. 50.

Quote
There is also a pretty good chance that Muirkirk Station's parking lot may see major expansion within the next five years because of the improved access to the station from the Virginia Manor Road exit. I also expect to eventually see buses going that way from the ICC to Muirkirk and back.

I'm not sure why.  I don't think CSX wants any more MARC Camden Line trains running between Washington and Baltimore, so it's not clear to me that there would be much more in the way of transit trips there (and to the extent there are any new transit, I believe they will only be during peak commute times, Monday through Friday).

I don't have a problem with buses stopping at Muirkirk, but they probably need to continue to the Greenbelt Metrorail station.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 07:05:14 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.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #444 on: February 15, 2014, 06:36:35 PM »

Smart Growth America mentions the InterCounty Connector (but only by route number) without bashing it in this document (physical page 75).

This is interesting because ex-Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening did everything he could to stop the highway from getting built, and now works for Smart Growth America as President of Smart Growth America’s Leadership Institute.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 06:38:53 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.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11106
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:12:47 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #445 on: February 16, 2014, 08:13:23 AM »

Quote
Though that project has been studied and discussed for many years now, and the last time I checked, it was "on hold."  I believe the City of Greenbelt (well served by the Capital Beltway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway) is opposed, even though only its extreme southern end would be within its corporate limits.  It does not help that Greenbelt was loudly opposed to the ICC, and I believe there is a perception that this project (as you suggest) will route more traffic to the toll road.

Greenbelt's opposition is somewhat justified in that it would bring a lot more traffic to 201.  And Greenbelt residents and drivers already have issues getting across 201 to access the Greenbelt Metro station.

Quote
Smart Growth America mentions the InterCounty Connector (but only by route number) without bashing it in this document (physical page 75).

Given the context in which it was mentioned (variable tolling facilities), not exactly the place for them to bash it.
Logged

TheOneKEA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 283
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #446 on: February 16, 2014, 10:39:51 PM »

It should also be noted that there is a long term alternative plan to build a state-maintained extension of MD 201, bypassing the existing county maintained roads that extend from its northern terminus, that crosses US 1 at an angle to meet Virginia Manor Road at its intersection with MD 212 (which was itself diverted about a year ago). The other alternatives include smaller bypasses and various intersection improvements to get through traffic onto Old Baltimore Pike more easily.

Though that project has been studied and discussed for many years now, and the last time I checked, it was "on hold."  I believe the City of Greenbelt (well served by the Capital Beltway and the Baltimore-Washington Parkway) is opposed, even though only its extreme southern end would be within its corporate limits.  It does not help that Greenbelt was loudly opposed to the ICC, and I believe there is a perception that this project (as you suggest) will route more traffic to the toll road.

Quote
An alternative route across US 1 to BARC and parts of Beltsville and College Park that may be partially access controlled in places will help bring a lot of traffic to the ICC's eastern end. The other alternatives will also help but less so in my opinion.

The better alternative would be to build the now-cancelled A-44 from the east end of Md. 200 all the way to U.S. 50.

Obviously, but that depends on where the planned routing of A-44 (a nomenclature I've never seen before) was located. Any route that would have taken land from the Patuxent Research Refuge would have been disastrous, and obviously today such a thing is completely impossible.

Unless there is a massive shift in local and political opinion going forward I think the best that can be hoped for now is a partially access-controlled parkway in the PEPCO powerline corridor that crosses the Parkway with no interchange and ends at a flat intersection with MD 197, with the latter widened to the maximum possible ROW limit. Even doing that much will have people howling.

Quote
Quote
There is also a pretty good chance that Muirkirk Station's parking lot may see major expansion within the next five years because of the improved access to the station from the Virginia Manor Road exit. I also expect to eventually see buses going that way from the ICC to Muirkirk and back.

I'm not sure why.  I don't think CSX wants any more MARC Camden Line trains running between Washington and Baltimore, so it's not clear to me that there would be much more in the way of transit trips there (and to the extent there are any new transit, I believe they will only be during peak commute times, Monday through Friday).

I don't have a problem with buses stopping at Muirkirk, but they probably need to continue to the Greenbelt Metrorail station.

Does CSX also control how long the trains are and the number of locomotives? If they don't then MARC could simply make the trains longer (but I don't know what the maximum possible length is) and run the same number of trains, thus carrying more people for the same amount of track occupancy.

There is also the new TOD that was just constructed next to the station, and someday that large brownfield site next to I-95 will be built on too, so I would expect that sooner or later there will be buses going up and down the ramps to Virginia Manor Road.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11106
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 11:12:47 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #447 on: February 17, 2014, 07:34:06 AM »

Quote
Obviously, but that depends on where the planned routing of A-44 (a nomenclature I've never seen before) was located. Any route that would have taken land from the Patuxent Research Refuge would have been disastrous, and obviously today such a thing is completely impossible.

A few maps of A-44 have shown up here and there in various PGC planning documents.  There haven't been any posted online in several years (used to be some on an anti-ICC website that is long gone).

Quote
Unless there is a massive shift in local and political opinion going forward I think the best that can be hoped for now is a partially access-controlled parkway in the PEPCO powerline corridor that crosses the Parkway with no interchange and ends at a flat intersection with MD 197, with the latter widened to the maximum possible ROW limit. Even doing that much will have people howling.

Concur.

Quote
Does CSX also control how long the trains are and the number of locomotives? If they don't then MARC could simply make the trains longer (but I don't know what the maximum possible length is)

The limitation to train length isn't from CSX but from the length of the MARC station platforms.
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #448 on: February 17, 2014, 02:04:04 PM »


The better alternative would be to build the now-cancelled A-44 from the east end of Md. 200 all the way to U.S. 50.

Obviously, but that depends on where the planned routing of A-44 (a nomenclature I've never seen before) was located. Any route that would have taken land from the Patuxent Research Refuge would have been disastrous, and obviously today such a thing is completely impossible.

A-44 was (is) the designation by M-NCP&PC Prince George's County on their Master Plan of Highways for Md. 200.

There is a lot of land along the proposed route that belongs to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Beltsville Agriculture Research Center (BARC) and is not being used.

Unless there is a massive shift in local and political opinion going forward I think the best that can be hoped for now is a partially access-controlled parkway in the PEPCO powerline corridor that crosses the Parkway with no interchange and ends at a flat intersection with MD 197, with the latter widened to the maximum possible ROW limit. Even doing that much will have people howling.

The plans I have seen for Md. 200 east of U.S. 1 did not have an interchange at the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, in spite of claims to the contrary.

I also get the impression that over the years, much of the opposition to Md. 200 in Prince George's County was stirred-up by Montgomery County anti-highway activists.  But regardless, there are no current plans to build A-44 east of U.S. 1.

Quote
Quote
There is also a pretty good chance that Muirkirk Station's parking lot may see major expansion within the next five years because of the improved access to the station from the Virginia Manor Road exit. I also expect to eventually see buses going that way from the ICC to Muirkirk and back.

I'm not sure why.  I don't think CSX wants any more MARC Camden Line trains running between Washington and Baltimore, so it's not clear to me that there would be much more in the way of transit trips there (and to the extent there are any new transit, I believe they will only be during peak commute times, Monday through Friday).

I don't have a problem with buses stopping at Muirkirk, but they probably need to continue to the Greenbelt Metrorail station.

Quote
Does CSX also control how long the trains are and the number of locomotives? If they don't then MARC could simply make the trains longer (but I don't know what the maximum possible length is) and run the same number of trains, thus carrying more people for the same amount of track occupancy.

Adam is correct - the constraint on passenger carrying capacity on the MARC Camden Line is (mostly) platform length - MDOT/MTA could increase capacity by going to double-deck cars, but I do not believe that is being considered right now for this line.  I don't think CSX really cares much how many locomotive units that are used to power MARC trains - CSX runs freight train consists on its rails that are much longer and heavier than anything that MARC operates.

Quote
There is also the new TOD that was just constructed next to the station, and someday that large brownfield site next to I-95 will be built on too, so I would expect that sooner or later there will be buses going up and down the ramps to Virginia Manor Road.

There was a brick manufacturing plant there, as well as an automobile junkyard.

I do think added bus service will come, and that's a good idea - maybe limited-stop service that runs local from Greenbelt north to Virginia Manor Road, then with stops along Md. 200 at Briggs Chaney, a detour to the Glenmont rail station, then on to Shady Grove and Gaithersburg.
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.

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10566
  • Age: 61
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: July 08, 2020, 12:49:04 PM
Re: ICC Intercounty Connector
« Reply #449 on: February 17, 2014, 02:13:50 PM »

Quote
Obviously, but that depends on where the planned routing of A-44 (a nomenclature I've never seen before) was located. Any route that would have taken land from the Patuxent Research Refuge would have been disastrous, and obviously today such a thing is completely impossible.

A few maps of A-44 have shown up here and there in various PGC planning documents.  There haven't been any posted online in several years (used to be some on an anti-ICC website that is long gone).

The owner of that old site, ICC370, has another anti-ICC site up, but does not appear to have made much progress with it. 

Here are some of the maps that I plucked from the ICC370 site: 





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.