I hate to sound too snide as a part of me wants to side with the urbanist intent of the article, but overall, to me, this feels like a non-issue... it's a logical business strategy to run a campaign intended to drive up customers. As long as MdTA is using their own funds for it: it makes total sense (assuming revenue/customer is greater than costs/customer, minding scale). Now if MDOT or any larger entity responsible for more than toll roads were to be behind it- *then* perhaps it's a story with a bit more interest.

by Bossi on Oct 17, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report

Part of it is, no doubt, to encourage driver to choose the toll road over the beltway or Fairland Rd when heading to Howard and PG counties. Nothing wrong with that!

by JustMe on Oct 17, 2012 12:51 pm • link • report

If anything, GGW should be prasing the ICC. Low exits is a great feature. I'd say increase the speed limit and build a bike path.

But I keep forgetting about the secret metro line from Gaitherburg to Laurel. You know, the one the IC can't tell you about.

by charlie on Oct 17, 2012 12:52 pm • link • report

Hate to burst the naysayers' bubble, but THIS Maryland driver doesn't need coaxing or an ad campaign to be convinced to use the ICC. The time saved and the opportunity to avoid the stress and aggravation of the over-loaded Beltway are worth far more than the $4.00 one-way rush hour trip.

I must laugh at the naysayers. Thanks to the delays caused by their implacable opposition, the cost to build the ICC multiplied. That led to opponents howling about the cost to the point of exaggerating the numbers. When the state imposed high tolls to recoup the construction costs and drivers stayed away, the naysayers opined that the road was "underused" and crowed that it was never needed in the first place. Now that the state is trying to encourage drivers to use the road, the naysayers, as they always do, have a problem with that too.

Some people are never satisfied, no matter what.

by ceefer66 on Oct 17, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report

Even more ridiculous, they had this table set up at the Silver Spring metro station this morning.

by Gray on Oct 17, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report

Promoting the ICC is not the same as promoting more driving. The goal, it seems, is to promote more use of an underused roadway as compared with other, perhaps overused roadways.

I don't see how that's a bad idea--if people are going to drive, why not have them drive on less used roads that are built to take them where they are going (perhaps)?

by ah on Oct 17, 2012 12:59 pm • link • report

Wait. Are they promoting the ICC or just promoting EZ-Pass? The latter seems like a non-issue.

by andrew on Oct 17, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report

Lower the tolls and raise the speed limit. Why would a huge brand new highway with limited access have a 55mph speed limit?

by arm320 on Oct 17, 2012 1:13 pm • link • report

@Bossi it's a logical business strategy to run a campaign intended to drive up customers.

And encouraging people to break state laws is a logical business strategy for the prisons part of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services! (As long as they're using their own money and revenue/customer is greater than costs/customer, minding scale.)

(Please note that this is a rhetorical point and that I'm not actually comparing driving to breaking state laws.)

by Miriam on Oct 17, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Great opportunity for Maryland to start updating parallel local roads to prioritize community quality of life (lower maximum speeds, add cycle tracks, and return excess space to public use (pocket parks, etc). The reason the ICC is "too expensive" has less to do with people taking Metro and more with local streets being used as no-charge traffic sewers.

by Paul Harrison on Oct 17, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

More proof that toll-roads are not the way to go, especially when only electronic tolls are accepted. Next proof: The VA HOT-lanes.

by Jasper on Oct 17, 2012 1:28 pm • link • report

which end of the ICC has an activity center comparable to Tysons?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 17, 2012 1:31 pm • link • report

I suspect the problem with raising the speed limit is that they probably designed the noise abatement features assuming 55 MPH. If they raise the limit to 65 MPH, that effectively doubles the traffic noise, and the state would no longer meet whatever environmental standards were set for new road construction. Most likely, homeowners along the route would then have an option to sue for more expensive sound barriers.

by James on Oct 17, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report

Anyway I love using this road. And no-one is going 55 MPH. It is not as "free-for-all" as the Beltway in some parts but let's be honest.

by formerupstater on Oct 17, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report

they should not have built this damned road. what a colossal waste. yes, i've read the few posts from people who say they love it--of course anyone with their own personal road going right where they want it will love it.

but if it isn't getting used, it wasn't needed. now all that land is paved and cannot be unpaved. stoopid. unnecessary. shortsighted.

by jw on Oct 17, 2012 1:45 pm • link • report

Cool, maybe now people won't complain as much about the purple line which should cost less and serve more people.

by drumz on Oct 17, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report

but if it isn't getting used, it wasn't needed.

The ICC is meeting its projections for use. It's getting used as much as we thought it would at this stage.

Last Sunday, MdTA had a booth at the Bethesda Farmer's Market. Workers handed out literature showing how to sign up for E-ZPass, without which drivers on the ICC face an additional charge.

Is this your only evidence that MDTA is promoting driving? How does this promote driving other than providing the information people need to use the road effectively? What's next...should we remove all signage from roads because signs make it easier to drive and that promotes driving?

An MdTA spokesperson claimed that this is standard outreach aimed at encouraging use of the electronic E-ZPass system to pay tolls. But the focus of the agency's signage was the ICC itself, not the electronic pay system.

Why shouldn't we be informing drivers of the ICC option? If it's such a bad thing, maybe we should ask Google to remove the ICC from its maps, remove all road signage pointing to the ICC, take down the ICC website, and try to keep it as hidden as possible!

by Falls Church on Oct 17, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report

I'm only asking here since this is the most recent thread, but did the site hiccup for anyone else about 20 minutes ago?

by selxic on Oct 17, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

@Jasper - you don't need to have an EZPass transponder to be able to use the ICC. You just drive through the gates as if you had a transponder, the camera will take a picture of your license plate, and you will be sent a bill.

by Frank IBC on Oct 17, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report

For what it's worth, the E-ZPass booth has been at the Bethesda market at various times in the past. It's not obvious to me that their appearance last weekend was to promote the ICC, or anything besides convenience for customers wandering around the market.

A more interesting question, to me, is why I don't use the ICC-- I'd though that it would be handy for me now and then, but it hasn't worked out that way. The reason is that, while going west to east, the ICC also goes north to south, which just isn't how I want to travel. A Bethesda-to-Burtonsville route would have been useful for me; the ICC's Rockville-to-PG county route is not.

by MattF on Oct 17, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report

At the "Road Show" that the Md Dep't of Trans put on in Montgomery County two weeks ago, I believe State Highways chief Melinda Peters said that ICC user numbers are precisely where the SHA projected they would be at this point. Has anyone seen those projections? It would be interesting to know at what rate they believe it will begin to fill.

by Md. Delegate Sam Arora on Oct 17, 2012 2:28 pm • link • report

@ FrankIBC: you don't need to have an EZPass transponder to be able to use the ICC. You just drive through the gates as if you had a transponder, the camera will take a picture of your license plate, and you will be sent a bill.

I've never seen that indicated along the road, and when I looked up what the fee would be, I find:

a photo of your vehicle's license plate will be taken and a statement will be mailed to the registered owner's address for the amount of the toll plus a service charge. This service charge helps offset the costs of looking up the information, printing, and mailing the statement.
http://www.iccproject.com/tolling-mdta.php

Only when I dig deep into a pdf, I find:
Video tolling is an alternative to E-ZPass, but is not recommended for frequent travelers. ICC motorists who do not have an E-ZPass will be sent a bill in the mail and charged the Video Toll Rate (VTR). VTRs at all Maryland
toll facilities are 150% of the base toll rates with a minimum of $1/maximum of $15 above the base toll rate.
http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/ICC/pdf_files/ICC_Brochure.pdf

So, still no clear indication of what the extra service charges are. Service charges which are in itself silly. The cost of paying is supposed to be in the price of the product, not a separate line item. The normalcy of this is the legacy of TicketBastard.

by Jasper on Oct 17, 2012 2:33 pm • link • report

"but if it isn't getting used, it wasn't needed. now all that land is paved and cannot be unpaved. stoopid. unnecessary. shortsighted."

Those exact same words could have been used to describe metro for the first 5 years it was open.

The ICC is apparently meeting the projections it set prior to opening and this ad seems far more of a ezpass advertisement than an ICC one.

by metro on Oct 17, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report

@Jasper - I drove the ICC from US 29 to I-270 several months ago, without EZPass. My toll (including service charge) was $2.65.

I agree that the formula for the service charge could have been written more clearly, but it's actually quite straightforward. The service charge is 50% if your base toll is between $3.00 and $30.00. Minimum service charge is $1.00 and maximum service charge is $15.00.

The alarming thing, however, is that your invoice is titled "Violation Notice".

by Frank IBC on Oct 17, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report

which end of the ICC has an activity center comparable to Tysons?

The eastern end is planned to have the Kontera Town Center. It's been planned for years, and keeps getting delayed, however part of their reasoning is not to start construction until the ICC segments are all finished. That land will surely have some value to it, and the developer struck a deal with the State last year to dedicate the remaining land needed to build the ICC east to Rt 1, if the state built a new interchange at I-95 and a realigned Contee Road (which is under construction now). The Western end connects to the already better developed 270 corridor, including the Washingtonian developments, King and now Crown Farm, and the "Lifescience City", which is where MoCo, other than White Flint, is focusing its development intensification efforts. I'd expect traffic volume to double over the next 5-7 years on the ICC. My only remaining gripe is it's too expensive for off peak. Really the prices are a mind game, lower it just 5 cents a mile and i'd probably use it a lot more than I do now.

Cool, maybe now people won't complain as much about the purple line which should cost less and serve more people.

Ha, I agree! Sadly the funding mechanisms for the ICC and the Purple Line were not the same. Much of the ICC was paid for by Bonds taken out under the name of the MdTA, not the State. The States portion of funding for the Purple Line would need to actually come from the state (or do something crazy like the Silver Line and leverage other private money, i'd say the ICC however raising those tolls certainly is not sound policy right now).

by Gull on Oct 17, 2012 3:27 pm • link • report

gull - so one end of the ICC is where Tysons was circa 1970, and the other is about where Tysons was in say, 1990.

My point is that you can't generalize from ICC usage to Beltway HOT lanes usage - the existing demand is so different.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 17, 2012 3:31 pm • link • report

I'm a fan of transit, but not a fan of urbanist double standards. Tracey Johnstone can't have it both ways: The road cannot be simultaneously so "low demand" so as to prove it is a waste, and yet so high demand as to prove that it is causing congestion on connected roads.

The urbanist double standard works like this:

Empty trains = Success! A new transit facility that will encourage growth and future use
Empty roads = Failure! its a waste of money

Full trains = Success! Lets build more trains!
Full roads = Failure! Roads cause/attract congestion!

"Free" roads = Failure! All roads should have tolls
Low toll roads = Failure! toll not high enough to discourage use,congestion elsewhere.
High toll roads = Failure! underused, empty failure.

See the problem?

by Kevin C on Oct 17, 2012 4:16 pm • link • report

That assumes that modes of transportation are equal. To assume is to ignore externalties that go with whatever mode you choose. It's a value judgment but I think back by evidence to see train (or bus or bike or whatever) moreso than car usage. Trains in particular have a lot more capacity so you can add a lot of trains before you run into induced demand problems that you encounter with a highway.

Re: No one disputed that tolls on the ICC would be high and indeed many predicted that this would discourage people. The point is that since the toll apparently needs to be lowered then maybe demand wasn't as high as was thought and the money to build the ICC could have been used for something more productive.

by drumz on Oct 17, 2012 4:22 pm • link • report

drumz +1

by MLD on Oct 17, 2012 4:23 pm • link • report

Moreover, a train or road being full is kind of immaterial. The question is should we add more road to meet the rising demand?

Example I-66 is a very full road but does it make sense to add a lane when the costs will a. be extremely high? and b. not be as successful as an effort for people to switch from driving to transit?

by drumz on Oct 17, 2012 4:25 pm • link • report

I remember driving not that long ago--maybe 20+ years?--on the then-deserted Route 28 between Centreville Va. and Dulles Airport sometime after it had been expanded to three lanes in each direction. I marveled at how empty it was. Now there are hotels and businesses and plenty of mid-rise office buildings through most of its length and we cannot exactly say it lacks traffic. (oh, and it continues, of course, up to Route 7). Much the same could be said of Dulles airport itself.

Infrastructure doesn't always instantly meet its design capacity.

by Chriscom on Oct 17, 2012 5:04 pm • link • report

$2.5 billion dollar waste. Those state employees touting their white elephant should get to work on something Maryland really needs, like converting our suburban traffic sewers into complete streets that raise, rather than detract from, our communities' quality of life and economic prospects.

by Greenbelt on Oct 17, 2012 6:49 pm • link • report

@Miriam-

You almost had me convinced to go out and see what fancy gizmos my neighbors have! :)

But it's not quite an exact comparison mostly in my bit in parentheses:

"(assuming revenue/customer is greater than costs/customer, minding scale)"

By and large, each additional car doesn't contribute too much additional operating cost to a road -- by and large; the more users the less cost/user & the greater net revenue. Trucks, however, are a different story... each additional truck causes an immense amount of wear to the roadway, and likewise: each additional criminals cost an obscene amount more than the prison system could ever hope to earn off them.

by Bossi on Oct 17, 2012 7:11 pm • link • report

Looks like there's room for a bike lane then!

by Erik on Oct 17, 2012 8:51 pm • link • report

The Federal Government should give the states more rights to tolling on interstates, especially in congested areas.

They should toll the Beltway between 95 and 270 and lower the tolls on the ICC.

by mcs on Oct 17, 2012 9:21 pm • link • report

Of course they're gonna promote the toll road, it's logical business sense. Virginia is doing the same thing for it's idiotic toll lanes on the Beltway.

Seeing how the state has already invested in Governor Ehrlich's $2.5 billion money pit. It makes sense to try to get as much money back as possible. There's also no competing transit between mid-county MoCo and Northern PGC, except for the MTA Commuter Buses and the UMD Shuttle.

by King Terrapin on Oct 18, 2012 3:22 am • link • report

@SamArora:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/13216/why-is-the-icc-so-empty-how-long-will-it-stay-that-way/

by charlie on Oct 18, 2012 5:31 am • link • report

Charlie, you can't forget my piece that I wrote back in 2009: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/3645/high-icc-tolls-show-how-expensive-new-freeways-are/

I don't want to say "I told you so, but..."

The only good thing to come out of the ICC is that it will salt the earth for future wasteful road projects.

by Cavan on Oct 18, 2012 10:25 am • link • report

"Of course they're gonna promote the toll road, it's logical business sense. Virginia is doing the same thing for it's idiotic toll lanes on the Beltway"

Virginia is doing that to get people to use the Express lanes, instead of the regular lanes. Makes perfect sense.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

Hopefully everone will use the express lanes leaving the regular lanes free and clear for me. This is a fool-proof plan.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

Semantic point: what promotes driving is the road's existence. Complaining about a information table somewhere is like fat person complaining about how fattening that cherry is on top of a banana split.

+1 Kevin C.

@drumz and @MLD: trains cost a lot more, cannot provide trucking, and are not cost effective in lower density areas. Like where the ICC is.

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

@AWalkerInTheCity

"Virginia is doing that to get people to use the Express lanes, instead of the regular lanes. Makes perfect sense."

And you could just as easily say "MdTA is doing that to get peole to use empty MD200 instead of the oft-congested Beltway. Makes perfect sense."

by King Terrapin on Oct 18, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

KT

I suppose you could.

Though the proportion of beltway express lanes users who come from the existing regular lanes is likely to be far higher I imagine than the proportion of ICC users who are diverted from the beltway. For, you know, geographical reasons.

The beltway HOT lanes run right next to an existing congested highway, and connect mostly built out areas with an existing massive employment center.

The ICC connects a still forming large center in upper MoCo, with a new low density (?) center, Konterra. While I understand why some think the HOT lanes should have been rail instead, or the entire beltway should have been tolled, fact is the HOT lanes are not as dependent on new sprawl for their success as the ICC is.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

In Montgomery County we have government-operated liquor stores. Should the county's Dept. of Liquor Control set up tables where it gives out shot glasses, so that people have the ability to buy their product?

by Ben Ross on Oct 18, 2012 11:52 am • link • report

Goldfish,

That's assuming that a train line would have replace the ICC on the same route. But if the same effort had been put in the purple line which will connect two of Maryland's biggest job centers along with its premier university and many communities between then maybe commuters who are using the beltway today wouldn't be thus making it easier for truckers who have less traffic to deal with.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 11:53 am • link • report

@Ben Ross: so driving is like drinking? I thought they were supposed to be mutually exclusive.

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

@goldfish
@drumz and @MLD: trains cost a lot more, cannot provide trucking, and are not cost effective in lower density areas. Like where the ICC is.

Since we've mucked up our land use through bad policies for the last 50 years, the only thing we can do now is continue those policies?

The problem is that the base policies of our transportation system do not reflect its true cost. You're right that not building roads is not a super-effective policy. But if we price gas (through taxes) to reflect its actual cost to society, which I believe we will one day, then we are going to end up with a bunch of infrastructure like the ICC that is expensive to maintain and underused.

by MLD on Oct 18, 2012 11:55 am • link • report

@drumz: maybe. But regardless, the ICC is already built.

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 11:57 am • link • report

Folks, first, thanks for all the comments and for keeping it friendly.

My problem with some of the comments is that some seem to see roads and transit as making comparable contributions to a community. There is a role for both. But, compare what happens to real estate values if you're near the different forms of transit. If the impact of a road was positive, then the ICC would far more exits.

Then there's the other point that people who do not ride transit benefit from those who do ride transit. It doesn't work the other way around. So, the numbers game doesn't accurately reflect the impact of the different modes of transit on communities.

So, the market analogies don't quite work.

The idea of a segregated bike lane on the ICC is a great idea.
TJ

by Tracey Johnstone on Oct 18, 2012 11:59 am • link • report

Yes, but finally this should show that we need to seriously look at how decide to fund and prioritize projects. I would suggest that in the future we consider that maybe we should build things where the people live rather than worrying about throughput.

by drumz on Oct 18, 2012 12:01 pm • link • report

@KT and @ goldfish

Forget rail for the moment. If the goal was to impact congestion on the beltway, and if its inefficient to serve a low density area, and the ICC is not about encouraging more low density development, would not it not have made more sense to build beltway HOT lanes in Md from the virginia line around to I95, rather than to build the ICC?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:06 pm • link • report

@MLD: But if we price gas (through taxes) to reflect its actual cost to society, which I believe we will one day, then we are going to end up with a bunch of infrastructure like the ICC that is expensive to maintain and underused.

That argument eats itself. If gas taxes are increased, there will be more money to maintain the highways. Also that will decrease driving and hence reduce congestion, so for the people still driving, the roads will seem like a excellent use of the money.

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 12:11 pm • link • report

I am not seeing the issue here. What is wrong with MDOT educating drivers about the existence of a road and promoting its use?

Look, I support smart growth, bike lanes, "community focused roadways" and a lot of that other stuff, but some of the comments about this are just fanatical. What MDOT is doing is NOT promoting driving, they're promoting the use of a particular road from which they are trying to recoup money. If they were promoting driving, they would be espousing things such as "Why take the bus? Use the ICC instead!" Their message is not aimed at people who are not driving; it is aimed at people who ARE driving and who may be, for various reasons, avoiding or not using the ICC. What, pray tell, is controversial about that?

And those of you complaining about the financial boondoggle of the ICC should actually be encouraging this. Do you want the state to recoup its costs, or do you want the road to fail financially and place an increasiong strain on the state's coffers? As a maryland taxpayer, I prefer the former.

by Ben on Oct 18, 2012 12:15 pm • link • report

Ben, it's about hoping the state will be more prudent in its future building decisions.

by Tracey Johnstone on Oct 18, 2012 12:21 pm • link • report

AWitC: A lot of the traffic on the northern part of the beltway is from people driving down I-95 and I-270, both of which get pretty backed up. The ICC is a bypass.

If one calibrates one's density perception on a log scale, the anti-sprawl argument for NOT building the ICC became invalid around 20 years ago. The areas around the ICC are reasonably built up. The low-density frontier (i.e., 2-acre house plots) is much further out. By improving mobility at a 15-20 mile distance from the core, the ICC encourages in-fill development that otherwise would have occurred much further out.

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 12:23 pm • link • report

"A lot of the traffic on the northern part of the beltway is from people driving down I-95 and I-270, both of which get pretty backed up. "

yes, IIUC that was part of the orignal justification, and the original revenue projections. The question is, though where are those people now? Not on the ICC. The only defense is that the tolls would be cheaper if only all those highway opponents had let it happen sooner and not been all NIMBY about it.

to which

A. Is there evidence for the relationship of its cost to its opposition

B. Are you willing to consider that the same delay imposes costs arguement applies as well to transit projects, and to development projects (I see Hines is being delayed once again, for example)?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report

and note

beltway hot lanes would still serve the people going I270 to I95, and would connect with the I270 HOV lanes, as well as the NoVa HOT lanes.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 18, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

Is there evidence for the relationship of its cost to its opposition

Clearly yes.

Are you willing to consider that the same delay imposes costs argument applies as well to transit projects, and to development projects (I see Hines is being delayed once again, for example)?

Hines is delayed? OMG. Please provide a link.

And yes, obviously local opposition to a project will add costs. A smart developer anticipates this and provides amenities to placate the neighbors, in order to minimize such delays. Of course there are limits to this -- see the Giant re-do on Wisconsin Ave. In that situation the property owner has my sympathies.

by goldfish on Oct 18, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report

Actually, I write frequently that most transit systems (including "some" in our metropolitan area) do a piss poor job marketing themselves and transit use generally.

But yes, this is a non-issue. Of course the road was a bad idea. But it's built. And actually over very long periods of time, it likely will get plenty used. Does it/will it promote sprawl. Sure. It's all about Konterra and Gaithersburg-Germantown, but whatever, it's done. Maybe people will learn from it, maybe not.

We'll see wrt "the Outer Beltway" and plans for the Am. Legion Bridge, and whether anyone starts talking-planning to extend the Purple Line across the river.

by Richard Layman on Oct 18, 2012 12:58 pm • link • report

Tracy, re: "It's about hoping the state will be more prudent in its future building decisions."

That's not the argument you are making; or, at least, you don't make it an obvious one. Your article begins with the following line:

"At a time when Maryland, the District, and Virginia are trying to coax people to drive less, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA), which oversees toll roads, has embarked on a campaign encouraging people to drive more."

To which I respond, no, that is NOT at all what MdTA is doing with this campaign. Theirs is a campaign to coax drivers who are presently using other routes to use the ICC instead. That is not coaxing people to drive more. If it were, the campaign would be structured very differently.

If your point was that you believe the ICC was an imprudent financial decision, why not make that the crux of your argument, instead of making this bogus argument?

by Ben on Oct 18, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report

Ben, the comments have strayed a bit off topic, why can't I?

We've had a great discussion. Enjoy!

TJ

by Tracey Johnstone on Oct 18, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

Tracy, my point is only that making the argument that the ICC was a poor decision, financially and developmentally, is a different argument from stating that MdTA is trying to get people to drive more via their promotion of the ICC.

Even though I've driven it a few times, I don't think it was necessary and do think it will become a massive contributor to sprawl. But I don't fault MdTA for encouraging its use by drivers now that it's been built, particularly when the state has such a significant sum of money invested in the project. That's why I found the article so perplexing: now that the ICC is built, why shouldn't it be promoted? Who profits from a $2.5 billion highway that sits underutilized?

by Ben on Oct 18, 2012 2:53 pm • link • report

@ Ben
My thoughts exactly.

---

As for sprawl, it's interesting because the last time I used the ICC I was thinking about the same thing. However, its a non-issue for a number of reasons.

First of all with the continuously growing push for smart growth in Montgomery County that type of development probably wouldn't be encouraged or allowed. Secondly, the areas around the Rte. 29, New Hampshire Ave., and Georgia Ave. interchanges are already pretty much fully developed. Thirdly, since the ICC is a toll road, development won't be as attractive as it would if it were a free-to-use highway.

Konterra (whenever they actually get around to building it) will probably be the only new development along the roadway.

by King Terrapin on Oct 18, 2012 3:07 pm • link • report

Even though I've driven it a few times, I don't think it was necessary and do think it will become a massive contributor to sprawl.

Past tense, Ben. The ICC was a massive contributor to low(er) density single-family attached and detached housing. Montgomery County approved thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of new homes in the master plan areas through which the ICC passes - with the understanding that the highway was going to get built. This went on for decades prior to ground being broken for the project. Consider the Longmeade Crossing development (where there was some opposition to the ICC) which was approved for development under the condition that the developers deed over all of the land needed for the ICC between Md. 28 (Norbeck Road) and Md. 182 (Layhill Road) to the Maryland Department of Transportation.

That's why the Montgomery County M-NCP&PC staff told the Planning Board and County Council that it was going to take years of staff time to revise those master plans if the ICC had been dropped from the Master Plan of Highways.

But I don't fault MdTA for encouraging its use by drivers now that it's been built, particularly when the state has such a significant sum of money invested in the project. That's why I found the article so perplexing: now that the ICC is built, why shouldn't it be promoted? Who profits from a $2.5 billion highway that sits underutilized?

I still believe that there are significant segments of the population that don't know where the ICC can take them, and some may be intimidated to try the road because they don't have an E-ZPass transponder.

by C. P. Zilliacus on Oct 19, 2012 8:28 am • link • report

First of all with the continuously growing push for smart growth in Montgomery County that type of development probably wouldn't be encouraged or allowed.

As I suggested to Ben above, the single-family detached and attached land use patterns that are now not to be encouraged or allowed were encouraged and allowed by the mere presence of the ICC on the Master Plan of Highways.

Secondly, the areas around the Rte. 29, New Hampshire Ave., and Georgia Ave. interchanges are already pretty much fully developed. Thirdly, since the ICC is a toll road, development won't be as attractive as it would if it were a free-to-use highway.

I am not sure that will matter much in the long(er) term. Consider the massive development that has taken place along most of the length of Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) in Fairfax County since the road was opened to traffic in 1982. Not sure that tolls on the Gov. William Preston Lane, Jr. (Bay) Bridge have inhibited growth and development in Queen Anne's County near the U.S. 50 interchanges, especially on Kent Island and around the Kent Narrows.

Konterra (whenever they actually get around to building it) will probably be the only new development along the roadway.

Prince George's County was not keen to allow Konterra to be constructed without the capacity of the ICC on the ground. Compare and contrast with Montgomery County, where development was allowed (and in the case of the catastrophic 1981 Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan, with its badly-flawed "concept of transit servicability" willy-nilly development was even encouraged) in part because of the presence of the road on planning maps.

by C. P. Zilliacus on Oct 19, 2012 8:42 am • link • report