« Chambliss Crossing Update | Main | DDOT works on downtown Bike lanes »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm trying to read the map...is that I-95 and Cherry Hill Road? Could it be a northern continuation of the Paint Branch Trail?

The sidepath along Old Gunpowder would not be a continuation of the Paint Branch Trail, as I read it. It's described as following the road, not the stream valley. I hope they consider extending the trail south of Briggs Cheney to Powder Mill Rd too - there is a short stretch of trail in that section, but it's so short that it's rather useless. The rest of the road is narrow with little to no shoulder and lots of rush-hour traffic.

Jon, you're right. I made a typo.
Purple Eagle, I think Jon is talking about the 4th item on the list, not the 5th.

As an avid biker, I think you are doing a serious disservice by describing the ICC in such a negative fashion. The ICC has been master planned over 50 years - plenty of time for all those in "rural" MoCo to sell and find a new place to live - I don't see you complaining about Bethesda being developed back in the 1950s, yet it is no different. The ICC is long overdue - return the underbuilt, rural roads around there to the people - not a chance I would ever ride my bike on Muncaster Mill, Bowie Mill, Olney Sandy Spring. The ICC is long overdue. Plus, it will concentrate development further south than if it were not built, contributing to further sprawl, longer car trips, etc.

That being said, there should be a bike path paralleling the entire highway like originally planned.

This caught my eye: "Wayfinding Signage north of Lake Bernard Frank. It includes 47 signs with a budget of $100,000-$500,000."

So... that means a cost of $2100-$10600 PER SIGN.

Those must be some REALLY special signs...

I was merely noting the complaints people have about the ICC. You can make the argument that the positives of the ICC outweigh the negatives, but that isn't the same as saying the negatives don't exist. Looking at your reasons for the ICC:

1. This has been planned for a long time, so let's do it.
2. Removing traffic from the other regional roads
3. It will concentrate development further south

#1 is not a reason to do something. #2 and #3 are probably untrue, due to induced demand and the way sprawl follows highways. Even if #2 and #3 are true, there may have been other ways to achieve those goals with the money spent that have fewer negatives. So, I don't think I'm doing the project a disservice.

I missed the distinction between #4 and #5. Cherry Hill, Powder Mill, and Old Gunpowder roads frequently confuse me . . partly because of similar names and partly because Cherry Hill turns so much, and then changes names as it goes further west.

I would like to know more about this proposed bike trail at Cherry Hill/95. A section of Cherry Hill was just rebuilt (at the intersection with Sellman) without any bike accomodations - other than the fact that the wider road provides more shoulder space.

Wash...but herein lies the catch. Development generally occurred around that area of MoCo with construction of the ICC in mind. Lack of construction of the ICC has in turn created a lot of the congestion that has been seen on local arterials that have had to pick up the slack.

Even factoring in "induced demand" (which is factored into traffic modeling these days anyway), #2 will happen to local parallel roads...including Randolph, Norbeck, and Route 198.

#3 will depend on the Montgomery County government. People like using highways as an argument against development/sprawl, but too often don't take into account that development needs to be approved by county officials at some point.

Are you saying the PBT will be extended north of 95. Not following this exactly.

I would very much like to contact you by phone to chat. I am the Media Relations Manager for the ICC. I read that you contacted my office, but you have not heard back. Something must not be working, as I have not heard from you. If you would be kind enough to call 301-586-9296 and leave a number, if I am not there, I will be delighted to call you back. Thanks for your interest in the ICC. Fran Counihan

Are they rebuilding Rock Creek Park Trail? The current trail is barely usable. It is far too narrow for two-way bike/pedestrian traffic.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader