Maryland

[WillWeaverRVA]

Maryland held on to 55 For a long time. "Still! 55"

You sure that wasn't Pennsylvania?  The first year or so I was in college (when I drove from Long Island to Ithaca, NY using I-80 to I-380 to I-81 to NY-79), I remember a metric crapton of signage posted on PA interstates saying "Pennsylvania's Speed Limit is STILL 55 MPH!!!" with lots of exclamation points and STILL 55 MPH being huge compared to the other text.  This would have been around 1996-1998.  Not saying Maryland didn't do the same, but say "STILL 55!" and I instantly think PA.

I vividly remember seeing "STILL!" Speed Limit 55 signs on I-495 in Montgomery County back in the early to mid 1990's.

[MASTERNC]

Maryland held on to 55 For a long time. "Still! 55"

You sure that wasn't Pennsylvania?  The first year or so I was in college (when I drove from Long Island to Ithaca, NY using I-80 to I-380 to I-81 to NY-79), I remember a metric crapton of signage posted on PA interstates saying "Pennsylvania's Speed Limit is STILL 55 MPH!!!" with lots of exclamation points and STILL 55 MPH being huge compared to the other text.  This would have been around 1996-1998.  Not saying Maryland didn't do the same, but say "STILL 55!" and I instantly think PA.

I vividly remember seeing "STILL!" Speed Limit 55 signs on I-495 in Montgomery County back in the early to mid 1990's.

And I-270 coming off of I-70

[1995hoo]

Clara Barton Parkway/Canal Road are closed this morning between the Glen Echo Turnaround and Chain Bridge for emergency road repairs. Adam Tuss shows us what the issue was:

http://twitter.com/AdamTuss/status/956175540729405440

[TheOneKEA]

http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=HA8882212

This project page for the upgrade of the Bel Air bypass raised a few questions:

1. "Sidewalks will be included where appropriate."  Does this mean that the upgraded US 1 mainline will have sidewalks from MD 147 up to MD 924? That seems odd, given the other statement on the project page that the shoulders will be designed to accomodate bicycles.
2. The page states that US 1 will be a divided highway. Since US 1 between MD 24 is already divided with a guard rail, does this indicate that separate carriageways will be built for US 1 in both directions between MD 24 and MD 924? The plans are very low-res and they appear to show separate carriageways, but I know that MDOT SHA likes to build new divided highways with very narrow medians to reduce right of way disturbance.
3. The interchange diagram shows the new northbound US 1 lanes joining the exising MD 24 ramp in almost exactly the same spot as the existing pavement stub. What was this stub originally going to be used for?
4. Are any soundwalls likely to be built along the segment north of MD 924?

[jeffandnicole]

1. Bikes aren't really supposed to be in sidewalks. And would that stretch be appropriate for sidewalks?

2. A divided highway means a separation between the two directions. Doesn't matter if it's 100 feet or 1 foot.

[Alps]

1. Bikes aren't really supposed to be in sidewalks. And would that stretch be appropriate for sidewalks?

2. A divided highway means a separation between the two directions. Doesn't matter if it's 100 feet or 1 foot.

A divided highway means a physical separation, i.e. something preventing you from crossing. Practical minimum is 2 feet for a barrier, but I've seen narrower curbs on old roads.

[froggie]

1. "Sidewalks will be included where appropriate."  Does this mean that the upgraded US 1 mainline will have sidewalks from MD 147 up to MD 924? That seems odd, given the other statement on the project page that the shoulders will be designed to accomodate bicycles.

No.  The proposed sidewalks would be along MD 924/MD 24 North, with tie-in and revisions to the park-and-ride lot within the 1/24/924 interchange.

2. The page states that US 1 will be a divided highway. Since US 1 between MD 24 is already divided with a guard rail, does this indicate that separate carriageways will be built for US 1 in both directions between MD 24 and MD 924? The plans are very low-res and they appear to show separate carriageways, but I know that MDOT SHA likes to build new divided highways with very narrow medians to reduce right of way disturbance.

The FONSI document which is available if you dig deep enough into the project page shows the existing roadway becoming the southbound lanes with a new roadway being built for the northbound lanes.  This makes sense given the existing road between the two 24 interchanges is a narrow 4-lane roadway and the upgrade plans call for 6 lanes between the two interchanges.

3. The interchange diagram shows the new northbound US 1 lanes joining the exising MD 24 ramp in almost exactly the same spot as the existing pavement stub. What was this stub originally going to be used for?

Those stubs (another one exists at the ramp from NB 1 to SB 24) were always intended for the northbound US 1 lanes.

[TheOneKEA]

1. "Sidewalks will be included where appropriate."  Does this mean that the upgraded US 1 mainline will have sidewalks from MD 147 up to MD 924? That seems odd, given the other statement on the project page that the shoulders will be designed to accomodate bicycles.

No.  The proposed sidewalks would be along MD 924/MD 24 North, with tie-in and revisions to the park-and-ride lot within the 1/24/924 interchange.

That's what I expected - it seemed very odd to me that any highway of this type would have sidewalks.

2. The page states that US 1 will be a divided highway. Since US 1 between MD 24 is already divided with a guard rail, does this indicate that separate carriageways will be built for US 1 in both directions between MD 24 and MD 924? The plans are very low-res and they appear to show separate carriageways, but I know that MDOT SHA likes to build new divided highways with very narrow medians to reduce right of way disturbance.

The FONSI document which is available if you dig deep enough into the project page shows the existing roadway becoming the southbound lanes with a new roadway being built for the northbound lanes.  This makes sense given the existing road between the two 24 interchanges is a narrow 4-lane roadway and the upgrade plans call for 6 lanes between the two interchanges.

To be honest, I hadn't yet tried to dig through the FONSI, so I hadn't seen that yet. I had assumed that the use of the phrase "FONSI"  implied construction other than what you've described.

3. The interchange diagram shows the new northbound US 1 lanes joining the exising MD 24 ramp in almost exactly the same spot as the existing pavement stub. What was this stub originally going to be used for?

Those stubs (another one exists at the ramp from NB 1 to SB 24) were always intended for the northbound US 1 lanes.

Interesting! I wonder what the original interchange design was; it's apparent from the plan that the trumpet may be in a much different spot than the original intended interchange.

[Roadsguy]

Why weren't the stubs used? Too cheap to build the necessary bridge at the time?

I'd imagine the original plan would've been a directional T.

[yakra]

I was imagining something like http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.097361&lon=-71.265306&zoom=17

[ixnay]

Looks like the change of traffic patterns on MD 213 through Centreville will take place right after Presidents' Day...

http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/qa/spotlight/centreville-infrastructure-project-to-begin-mid-february/article_7c327c27-4301-521f-a09b-da1cc43adce0.html

ixnay

[ixnay]

Looks like the change of traffic patterns on MD 213 through Centreville will take place right after Presidents' Day...

http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/qa/spotlight/centreville-infrastructure-project-to-begin-mid-february/article_7c327c27-4301-521f-a09b-da1cc43adce0.html

ixnay

It took place two days afterwards...

http://www.myeasternshoremd.com/kent_county_news/spotlight/centreville-infrastructure-project-begins/article_908c7bd6-e344-5db6-b0a5-224c67a0aacc.html

ixnay

[Jmiles32]

Here is an article and a PDF regarding last night's public information meeting about the upcoming Northbound I-95 express lanes extension:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-i95-express-lanes-forum-20180227-story.html
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4390118/Express-toll-lane-extension-presentation.pdf

Most of the work on $210 million project will encompass a 7.5-mile stretch between the White Marsh Boulevard (Route 43) and Mountain Road (Route 152) interchanges, with construction expected to begin in early 2019 and be completed in late 2022, according to MDTA. Funding will be provided from tolls collected by MDTA, which operates the state's bridges, tunnels and other toll facilities, Sales said.

The project consists of extending one express toll lane north from the terminus at White Marsh Boulevard to just across the Little Gunpowder Falls which forms Baltimore and Harford counties border. The express lane will be built on the inside, or to the left, of the existing four travel lanes.

From the latter point, a fifth "auxiliary"  northbound travel lane will be added on the outside, or to the the right side, of the existing four lanes to the south exit ramp for Route 152, according to MDTA. Motorists would not pay a toll on any of those lanes.

Another similar auxiliary lane will be constructed from the entrance ramp of the Route 152 interchange to the exit ramp for Route 24 in Abingdon; there would be no toll on those lanes, either.

Sales said current traffic loads determined the need for extending the toll lane northbound only at this time, but southbound extensions could be considered in the future. He said there would be an additional toll for motorists using the extended express lane, but how much "hasn't been determined."

The first lane work will occur on the Route 152-Route 24 portion starting in March 2019 with estimated completion in June 2021. The express lane extension and the auxiliary lane between Little Gunpowder Falls and Route 152 will be built between July 2020 and December 2022, according to the MDTA schedule.

There are no plans for changing the existing configurations of the Route 152 and Route 24 interchanges; however, the existing overpasses at Bradshaw Road in Baltimore County and Old Joppa Road in Harford County will be replaced with longer, but not wider, spans to accommodate the additional lanes with this project and possible future lane additions, an SHA representative said.

The two overpasses will be closed to traffic during the replacement construction covering a period of January 2019 to July 2020 for the Bradshaw span and May 2019 to September 2020 for the Old Joppa span

Now that it's clear this project is just the first phase of an eventual plan for two express lanes in each direction, the $210 million price tag makes a lot more sense.

[AlexandriaVA]

Larry knows his constituencies, I'll give him that much credit...

[cpzilliacus]

Larry knows his constituencies, I'll give him that much credit...

You did see this from the Baltimore Sun article posted above, right?

Funding will be provided from tolls collected by MDTA, which operates the state's bridges, tunnels and other toll facilities, Sales said.

[froggie]

^ I think his point is that MDTA is a state agency run by Hogan and his underlings, and the governor certainly has influence on the projects that MDTA pursues.

[cpzilliacus]

^ I think his point is that MDTA is a state agency run by Hogan and his underlings, and the governor certainly has influence on the projects that MDTA pursues.

Perhaps the most-standard complaint against highway projects and highway expansion projects is that "the money should be spent on transit."   

That argument is reasonable when the highway project is to be tax-funded.

It fails badly when the subject is a project that will be largely or entirely funded by toll revenue bonds or tolls or both.  Transit (at least in the United States) has a difficult time covering its operating costs, and cannot usually cover any of its capital costs, usually looking to highway users to fund them.

[Beltway]

Perhaps the most-standard complaint against highway projects and highway expansion projects is that "the money should be spent on transit."   
That argument is reasonable when the highway project is to be tax-funded.
It fails badly when the subject is a project that will be largely or entirely funded by toll revenue bonds or tolls or both.  Transit (at least in the United States) has a difficult time covering its operating costs, and cannot usually cover any of its capital costs, usually looking to highway users to fund them.

MDOT has a combined funding pot with its Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) and has had since the 1970s.  So any of the sub-agencies like MTA, MDTA, MSHA, MVA, MPA and MAA could access the funding for their projects, could mean some toll revenues being used for transit.

[cpzilliacus]

Perhaps the most-standard complaint against highway projects and highway expansion projects is that "the money should be spent on transit."   
That argument is reasonable when the highway project is to be tax-funded.
It fails badly when the subject is a project that will be largely or entirely funded by toll revenue bonds or tolls or both.  Transit (at least in the United States) has a difficult time covering its operating costs, and cannot usually cover any of its capital costs, usually looking to highway users to fund them.

MDOT has a combined funding pot with its Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) and has had since the 1970s.  So any of the sub-agencies like MTA, MDTA, MSHA, MVA, MPA and MAA could access the funding for their projects, could mean some toll revenues being used for transit.

MDTA projects are not generally funded by the Transportation Trust Fund, which funds SHA, MVA, MTA and the Maryland share of WMATA. 

[MASTERNC]

It's a mess right now north of Baltimore. With the strong winds from this storm, the bridges on I-95 and US 40 are both closed (and have been that way nearly the entire day). Supposedly US 1 is gridlocked, as is the entire town of Havre de Grace (one news crew said it took 3 hours to get there from Aberdeen - a total of 5 Miles). Signs on 695 are sending people up to PA on I-83  as an alternate.

[TheOneKEA]

It's a mess right now north of Baltimore. With the strong winds from this storm, the bridges on I-95 and US 40 are both closed (and have been that way nearly the entire day). Supposedly US 1 is gridlocked, as is the entire town of Havre de Grace (one news crew said it took 3 hours to get there from Aberdeen - a total of 5 Miles). Signs on 695 are sending people up to PA on I-83  as an alternate.

The wind was absolutely brutal, even on surface roads. I'm shocked that only one tractor trailer was blown on its side yesterday; I expected to hear of several such vehicles getting knocked around. The MdTA Twitter account was very busy yesterday, and at one point got a little snarky and literally told everyone that they can't predict the weather.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4390118/Express-toll-lane-extension-presentation.pdf

I find myself underwhelmed by this plan. It feels too much like a halfway measure that won't provide a sufficiently large traffic flow improvement for the cost, and will only impose more cost when the time comes for the full four-lane ETL buildout. I'm of the opinion that the inflated construction costs of MD 200 and the existing ETLs have really left a mark on the MdTA Board and that they're downscoping to keep the costs as manageable as possible.

[froggie]

I'm shocked that only one tractor trailer was blown on its side yesterday

Pretty sure there's a traffic camera photo of the Tydings Bridge floating around Facebook that shows two trucks blown down...one on each side of the bridge.

I'm of the opinion that the inflated construction costs of MD 200 and the existing ETLs have really left a mark on the MdTA Board and that they're downscoping to keep the costs as manageable as possible.

Yes.  They opted for ICC construction at one of the most expensive points in recent history (when oil was over $100/barrel), and they have a large volume of bonds to pay back for both projects.  At the same time that they're trying to figure out how to pay for a Nice Bridge replacement, nevermind that Hogan reduced tolls shortly after he took office...

[cpzilliacus]

I'm of the opinion that the inflated construction costs of MD 200 and the existing ETLs have really left a mark on the MdTA Board and that they're downscoping to keep the costs as manageable as possible.

Yes.  They opted for ICC construction at one of the most expensive points in recent history (when oil was over $100/barrel), and they have a large volume of bonds to pay back for both projects.  At the same time that they're trying to figure out how to pay for a Nice Bridge replacement, nevermind that Hogan reduced tolls shortly after he took office...

Except the construction costs for the ICC project were not "inflated," at least not when compared with the Dulles Rail project (same labor market, same federal "prevailing" wages), which has seen an enormous cost overrun (consistent with most WMATA rail construction projects).

The three major ICC contracts were advertised for bid during the worst of the Great Recession, so MDTA got a better deal than it might have otherwise from the contractors that submitted bids.

From the final MDTA report to the General Assembly  dated December 1, 2014:

The total financial plan for the ICC is now estimated to be $2.387 billion, which is approximately $59 million below the $2.446 billion IFP  amount as well as being $60 million below the $2.447 billion estimate provided to the committees in January, 2005. 

- Since inception (FY 2003 through June 30, 2014), the project has expended $2.322 billion,
or 97 percent of the current project estimate.  No additional funding will be required to complete the project. The project is funded with a combination of  the  following State and federal sources:
o $1,172.4 million in MDTA toll revenue backed debt and cash
o $750.0 million in GARVEE bonds   
o $264.9 million in State General Funds and General Obligation Bonds
o $180.0 million in State transportation trust funds
o $19.3 million in special federal funds

The GARVEE bond balance will be entirely paid-off by 2020.

According to audited MDTA financials, the ICC (by itself) collected over $64 million dollars in tolls for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.  That's about 9.5% of all revenues collected by MDTA. 

The only MDTA toll roads that collected more (in percentage terms) were I-95 JFK Highway (northbound crossing the Susquehanna River) (about 25.8%); I-895 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel  (about 13.2%); and the I-95 Fort McHenry  Tunnel (just over 30%). 

The I-95 Express Toll Lanes collected only about 1.85% of MDTA revenues. 

[cpzilliacus]

Looked at two projects construction in Prince George's County this weekend. 

The first is I-95 (Capital Beltway) at Suitland Road in Morningside, near Joint Base Andrews in Camp Springs.  The bridge redecking project there is in full swing, with the contractor apparently building a new section of bridge in the median first, as well as new travel lanes separated by a  Jersey barrier from Auth Road to Suitland Parkway (a contract to replace the deck of the bridge over Suitland Parkway is supposed to be let this year).

Nearby, the contract to replace the terrible and terribly crash-prone signalized intersection at MD-4 and Suitland Parkway has finally gotten under way, with a lot of silt fence and construction fence installed along the parkway (looks like the project includes work at the parkway interchange that connects to the north entrance of Joint Base Andrews).

Interestingly, the prime contractor for this effort is  Tutor Perini Corporation, the same firm that won the MDTA's I-895 Canton Viaduct replacement project in Baltimore.

[TheOneKEA]

I'm of the opinion that the inflated construction costs of MD 200 and the existing ETLs have really left a mark on the MdTA Board and that they're downscoping to keep the costs as manageable as possible.

Yes.  They opted for ICC construction at one of the most expensive points in recent history (when oil was over $100/barrel), and they have a large volume of bonds to pay back for both projects.  At the same time that they're trying to figure out how to pay for a Nice Bridge replacement, nevermind that Hogan reduced tolls shortly after he took office...

Except the construction costs for the ICC project were not "inflated," at least not when compared with the Dulles Rail project (same labor market, same federal "prevailing" wages), which has seen an enormous cost overrun (consistent with most WMATA rail construction projects).

The three major ICC contracts were advertised for bid during the worst of the Great Recession, so MDTA got a better deal than it might have otherwise from the contractors that submitted bids.

From the final MDTA report to the General Assembly  dated December 1, 2014:

The total financial plan for the ICC is now estimated to be $2.387 billion, which is approximately $59 million below the $2.446 billion IFP  amount as well as being $60 million below the $2.447 billion estimate provided to the committees in January, 2005. 

- Since inception (FY 2003 through June 30, 2014), the project has expended $2.322 billion,
or 97 percent of the current project estimate.  No additional funding will be required to complete the project. The project is funded with a combination of  the  following State and federal sources:
o $1,172.4 million in MDTA toll revenue backed debt and cash
o $750.0 million in GARVEE bonds   
o $264.9 million in State General Funds and General Obligation Bonds
o $180.0 million in State transportation trust funds
o $19.3 million in special federal funds

The GARVEE bond balance will be entirely paid-off by 2020.

According to audited MDTA financials, the ICC (by itself) collected over $64 million dollars in tolls for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.  That's about 9.5% of all revenues collected by MDTA. 

The only MDTA toll roads that collected more (in percentage terms) were I-95 JFK Highway (northbound crossing the Susquehanna River) (about 25.8%); I-895 Baltimore Harbor Tunnel  (about 13.2%); and the I-95 Fort McHenry  Tunnel (just over 30%). 

The I-95 Express Toll Lanes collected only about 1.85% of MDTA revenues.

Thanks for the figures and the perspective. It makes me wonder even more why the MDTA would deliberately narrow the scope of the second phase of the ETLs, whe it's likely that 10-15 years after construction starts, they'll have to do even more construction to deal with the traffic volume. I'm quite puzzled - it seems to make much more strategic and financial sense to build the full-size facility up to Exit 80 now and take advantage of the tolls from the longer lanes. What am I missing?