After 50 Years, ICC Gets Final Go Ahead

By David Daddio
Friday, November 9th, 2007

Major construction to begin within days with the full road scheduled to open in 2012. SHA’s Environmental Impact Statement apparently litigation-proof:

- See Washington Post Article

- See Baltimore Sun Article

Posted in Transportation | Friday, November 9th, 2007 | Trackback

9 Responses to “After 50 Years, ICC Gets Final Go Ahead”

  1. jeuill Says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    It would be a shame not to add a bike trail on either side of the ICC. It would encourage bike-riders to commute which would also cut down on some traffic. It would also encourage walkers as well. I’ wonder if they missed this fact. Every new road built should have plans to encourage bike ridership and/or walking..

  2. Robert Catlin Says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    From the ICC web site:

    What about bicyclists and walkers?

    The ICC will improve cyclists’ travel along the entire ICC area by:

    Building more than 11 miles of bike/pedestrian trails;
    Reconstructing another 3 miles; and
    Linking to 12 existing and 7 planned trails.

  3. jeuill Says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Great! That would be an awesome ride.

  4. Sam Snellings Says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

    While the ICC plans for 11 new miles (plus the reconstruction of 3) this does not equal the entire 18 mile length of the planned roadway. It is a concession to the state’s bicycle master plan, not the work of a transportation agency truly concerned with increasing the bicycle share. If they were, they would not be building a roadway that fails to decrease traffic levels on any other major highway in the area (and increases traffic levels on 95) and creates 85,000 new car trips per day.

    The ICC completely fails at utilizing any shade of progressive transportation planning and its bike paths do nothing to change perceptions of the bicycle from a recreational vehicle to a true method of commuting. Truly a shame.

  5. David Daddio Says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    You would also have to consider whether the roads the ICC intersect with have bicycle facilities. It makes little sense to add the expense of a dedicated bike lane if there is nowhere to go to or come from along the ICC for bikers. I imagine the paths Bob is talking about are part of the ICC mitigation funds (which mount to an unprecedented $370 million)that will be spread around the effected areas.

    I’m not saying the ICC will be good. I think it will entrench sprawl over the long term and therefore worsten water quality and perpetuate the shitty urban form which we take as given in Maryland. That being said, there is far too much emphasis on the direct environmental damage the physical roadway will do. Environmentalists have a lot to be proud of for this protracted fight - millions in mitigation funds as well as much environmental damage avoided. They should move on from this and fight for dense, environmentally-friendly urban development at the local level. Highways don’t create sprawl, zoning does.

  6. Kevin Fallon Says:
    November 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    I found this map (I am out of state) to see which route was finally selected (kind of strange that this was in issue “back in the day” when I was a student)

    http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/graphics/icc_071205.pdf

    are the interchanges at 95/ICC and 29/ICC new or existing - I cant picture where they are/or will be

  7. Eric Fidler Says:
    November 10th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    Kevin,
    Those two interchanges will be new. Here they are at US-29 and at I-95.

    Interestingly, the western interchange with I-270 was built more than a decade ago with the ICC’s eventual arrival in mind, hence the elaborate ribbon of off-ramps serving what is, at this time, a mere connector to the Shady Grove Metro Station.

  8. R. Michael Farhoodi Says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Hallelujah! After 50 years, it’s about time. And the environmentalists got everything they wanted: longer bridges, environmentally sensitive roadway design, and a bloated price tag. Way to go! Most of these environmentalists reside from out of state anyway and have no personal stake in the project. And the NIMBYs who live along the road KNEW what they were getting to if they bought their home in the last half-century (so pretty much all of them). Now go away and obstruct some other project.

  9. David Daddio Says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Out of state money supporting in state opposition I would guess. Plenty of people who had a stake fought it. You might realize this if you have been to public transportation forums.

    You might want to consider a new career path if you’re going to have that kind of attitude towards environmentalists. Environmental concerns are increasingly considered throughout the entire transportation planning process.

    Not everyone could have known about the roadway because there were several different alternatives…. Just look at the “rejected routes” on this map:

    http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/graphics/icc_071205.pdf

Leave a Reply