Connector Road Letter
December 5th, 2006 | by David Daddio | Published in Connector Road, Transportation | 3 Comments
We finally received a response (PDF) from Maryland’s State Highway Administration about the proposed “Terrapin Parkway”. Unfortunately the letter provides little, if any, new information on the project (the response also took about 6 weeks).
The Diamondback reported last week about a letter that university President Dan Mote sent to the City Council stating his continued support for the project. Needless to say, the letter didn’t go over well at last Tuesday’s council meeting. We’ll post Mote’s letter and our analysis as soon as we can get our hands on it.
>> SHA letter to us 11/8/2006 (PDF)
>> Our Connector Road Page (including previous studies)
December 18th, 2006 at 8:16 pm (#)
[...] We reported the other week that University President Dan Mote sent a letter to the College Park City Council supporting the continued project planning for the I-95 Connector Road. There’s nothing too surprising in the letter considering that the university administration has alway pointed to the project as the “only solution” to CP’s traffic woes. One interesting thing is that while Mote supports the phasing of the Route 1 reconstruction he seems skeptical that even the first segment (College Ave to 193) will be funded anytime soon. “Should a shorter first segment prove desirable,” Mote says in the letter, then the University supports a project from College Ave to just north of Paint Branch Parkway. While there would be some clear pedestrian improvements from such a project, we’d like to point out to administrators that that segment of Route 1 already has a median. It may not be pretty, but this existing median provides just the sort of safety improvements needed all along the roadway and especially in the fast growing area around the University View. “the proposed US 1 project does not provide the critically needed capacity improvements for access to and from the State’s flagship university, improvements that only the I-95 Connector Road can provide.” [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:31 pm (#)
What option have they selected?
Why run it via a new right of way instead of the available space within the PEPECO right of way?
And has any thought been given to shifting this increased traffic along Adelphi Road away from the houses via a widening to the north and making the existing southbound roadway local access?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
March 27th, 2010 at 8:41 am (#)
I’ve heard that the connector road is a no go, is this correct?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0