Talk:Maryland Route 200

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Topics Roads in Maryland
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

Maryland Route 200 is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Regarding the recently-added information on projects to form an outer Beltway, I am not aware of any other "Outer Beltway" projects in Maryland that are being planned apart from the ICC. If the Techway refers to a series of proposed roadway alignments from long ago, when an Outer Beltway was indeed proposed, the wording should be modified to reflect that the outer beltway concept is no longer an option and that the ICC is (and likely will be) the only portion of the aged concept ever to be realised within the state of Maryland. Can anyone verify the information presented here? --Thisisbossi 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Those claims, at least on the Maryland side, are without foundation, and I have added appropriate links to the 2002 Potomac Subregion Master Plan and a quote from that document to substantiate same.--Cpzilliacus 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Alot of external links are embedded in text where they should be formatted as citations or added to external links at the bottom. Some sould have been replaced with their corresponding wikilinks but I've fixed these already. I'm sure there are probably other problems with it, so if anyone has the time to really look through this and see how it can be straigtened out please do so, thanks.-Jeff (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will pass on the large-scale cleanup, but I did remove two external links from the bottom. The first is a Boston Globe article from 3 August 2006 [[1]. While this provides some insightful commentary, it is just one of hundreds of similar articles. I feel that if we post one, we might as well post them all. I also removed the online Location Reference manual [[2] because it is not particularly useful for a highway that does not yet exist. It is better left as a link on the MD State highway list. --Thisisbossi 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it was already in sections that simply lacked headings, so I took care of that. Other than that the only thing that needs to be fixed is the wording of the Outer Capital Beltway section at the end. Phrasing such as "Highly speculative at best" just doesn't seem to fit the tone.-Jeff (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

Considering that the ICC is to be designated as Maryland State Route 200 (MD 200), I believe we should move this article to conform to the naming convention used with other state routes. Anyone agree? --Thisisbossi 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I was expecting it to be designated I-370, but I guess since it will be a toll road instead of built with Interstate funding, then the state highway designation makes more sense, plus it mirrors MD 100 to the north. Anyway, according to the rules of Wikipedia I think we would need a source for this info. Being that you work for the SHA, I know you would know what it's going to be designated, but the problem is that it can't be verified by other people. If there is actually a source online that says the ICC will be designated MD 200 then post it here and we can move it to Maryland Route 200, otherwise we'll just have to wait for one.-Jeff (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, now I see the source, I see no problem with moving it.-Jeff (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We have Baltimore-Washington Parkway instead of Maryland Route 295. The Intercounty Connector is going to remain the most common name for the highway, for sure, especially after the age-old controversy over it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference with the B/W Parkway is that it is a federal parkway, and parkways have thier own naming convention, which happened to be the one that was favored when the B/W Parkway and MD 295 articles were merged. The ICC is only a state highway and state highway articles have their own naming convention. Indeed people will probably still search for Intercounty Connector but that's what redirects are for.-Jeff (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Any idea what the UL in MD 200UL means? --SPUI (T - C) 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps Thisisbossi would know.-Jeff (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

After giving this some thought, I was thinking that maybe we should leave this here at least until construction begins.-Jeff (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. And when the project begins (and especially when the MD 200 designation becomes more public), I would agree with the move to Maryland Route 200. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting information

Some news articles have been suggesting that this road will replace I-370 and run from I-270 to US 1 for a distance of 18 miles. The HLR (MO PG) however, shows the route starting at I-370, rather than replacing it, and running for 13.8 miles. So I am updating information in the article to agree with the HLR, where previous info was based off the news articles.-Jeff (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] O'Malley's position on the ICC?

Does anyone know if he's for or against it? With him winning the recent election I think the last sentence in the intro should be something like: "... however, with Ehrlich losing the 2006 gubernatorial election to Martin O'Malley, an opponent of the ICC, the highway's future is left uncertain", or "Although Ehrlich lost the 2006 gubernatorial election to Martin O'Malley, O'Malley also supports the ICC, therefore construction is likely to proceed as planned."-Jeff (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, found the info in a recently added link. Thanks to the anonymous contributor that added it.-Jeff (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Construction is expected to continue as planned."

Is it? Perhaps. Jeff02 thinks it will. I happen to think so. The Sierra Club and friends might disagree. Certainly the new County Council includes members who ran on slow-growth platforms and who opposed the ICC. That, plus the road's start-stop history, just might add a few credible voices to the "do not expect" camp.

This from a planning commissioner: "I want an affirmation from the council and the [incoming] governor that this is still the transportation policy." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301043.html)

So what's the fair wording here? "Proponents of the road, and world-weary opponents, expect construction to continue?" Ah, but then we'd need to name a few of these folks.

Chelt 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned in my edit summary, it is mentioned in the linked articles that Flanagan does not expect the lawsuits to have an impact, here's a quote from one of them:

Maryland highway officials were not named in the lawsuits, but state Transportation Secretary Robert L. Flanagan said he had expected them. Still, he said, he was confident the state's study -- and federal officials' approval of it -- would withstand legal scrutiny.

Also here's a quote citing O'Malley's spokesman saying he will defend the lawsuits and expects the highway to be built:

A spokesman for Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley said the governor-elect stood by his campaign statements in support of the project -- a rare point of agreement between him and the Republican incumbent he ousted. "We will defend the lawsuits, and the ICC will progress, will be built," said Rick Abbruzzese, O'Malley's spokesman.

That's what I went off of when I added that sentence. If there's going to be a dispute over whether to add that bit of info then I don't think it's that important, I just didn't want info to be removed that I saw as already being cited.-Jeff (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see where the confusion came from, it appears my edit summary was cut off.-Jeff (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Confusing Purpose of Road

The ICC FAQ indicates that the ICC

"...is not designed or intended to relieve congestion on the Beltway, I-95, or I-270"

but it

"...is designed to improve mobility and safety in the ICC corridor area between I-270 in Montgomery and I-95 in Prince George's County."

My understanding is the the ONLY route that will have even an element of improvement is to travel for the entire length of the toll road. As a daily toll, this is unlikely to become well traveled. All the other intermediary routes within the planned route have negative impacts to travel times.

So, my question is that if the citizens of Montgomery County and Prince Georges County do not want this the road will be an improvement, and it isn't even intended to provide relief outside of these areas...what is the purpose of the road?

As a side comment, I have a friend from just south of Frederick that is convinced that it will relieve traffic for his use of 270 on the way to Washington and also to Baltimore, but based on the statements above from the ICC website, it won't help him either.

Or do I have the wrong end of the stick? Any thoughts? --Alex.rosenheim 01:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the highway is intended to serve two purposes: to relieve traffic from local roads, and to provide an alternate route around DC and the Capital Beltway for traffic between the Gaithersburg/Rockville area, and Baltimore. So it really isn't intended to relieve traffic from the beltway, but rather to help traffic avoid it.-Jeff (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between intending to "relieve traffic from the beltway" and helping to "avoid (the beltway)"? Sounds like the same goal to me. And it is not a goal that the designers even acknowledge would be achieved by building the ICC. The quotes I presented above were from the ICC website, itself. Not from one of the opponents.
If the road does not relieve congestion outside of the area of the road, then it must be, by process of elimination, intended to improve the existing roads and travel within the survey area. Well, my point is that the only trip to be improved would be a full trip from end to end, and even that would only save a few minutes daily, not to mention...does not represent a route that is currently or is expected to be a highly used route.
Comparing the minimal improvements, significant hindrances, economic and environmental damage, not to mention the enormous cost, which could be diverted to real projects (like the Purple Line and other mass transit projects) that WOULD actually clear some cars off the road...I am still left unclear as to why anyone would support such a project.-Alex.rosenheim 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Late to the party, but in case anyone is still reading, the ICC was billed as something that would relieve traffic congestion until the studies came out indicating the the ICC will increase VMT and likely lead to more congestion on the beltway in the long term. Once that came out, the state had to drop all claims that the road is being built to relieve congestion because otherwise they'd have to admit building it is a bad idea. -63.167.196.17 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correct, its purpose is to relieve congestion along MD 198 and MD 28 (of which the connection between the two was built by Montgomery County a couple years ago as a "pseudo-ICC"). --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Concerns

Looking at the article the way it is now, it seems to have some POV issues. Notably, claims that it has been concluded that the road will increase congestion, increase fuel consumtion, etc, need to be either backed up or removed. I understand the topic of this article is controversial, and just like any controversial topic, we need to make sure the article remains neutral. -Jeff (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand some of your POV concerns. I should have included the references to the peer-reviewed studies that were produced by the opponents of the road. The key here is that they were scientific peer-reviewed studies. It becomes irrelevant who produced the studies...as long as the authors (and their intent) is known and that a good faith professional peer-review is done. The point of getting the peer-review is to prevent the author's potential bias from being incorporated into the rational discourse and conclusions.
And just from my memory, I remember that the study does show that at least two of the 14 criteria that were investigated would, actually, be improved by the road. But the overall conclusion would be to either "Not Build" or to proceed with one of the other alternatives studied. I will leave the POV note in until I can find the time to compile that documentation and incorporate it into the article. -Alex.rosenheim 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to draw conclusions, but to state facts. So we shouldn't try to tell the reader why the ICC should/shouldn't be built, but to give them the facts and let them draw their own conclusions. The problem is when there are facts that are given to push a particular point of view. Up until now, the article has contained mostly neutral facts, such as planned routing and when the road is expected to be opened. That kind of information is straight fact and won't be disputed, but if someone were to say "the road will relieve traffic" or "the road will have a significant environmental impact", that might be disputed by someone who is for or against the ICC. A better way to say these would be "the road is intended to relieve traffic" and "a study by the Sierra Club shows that the road could have a significant environmental impact". While that makes the comments facts as opposed to someone's POV, they still somewhat carry their original bias. So another point of concern is the placement and balance of these kind of facts. The intro makes several statements in opposition to the ICC, while it only makes one statement in support of it (that proponents claim it will improve the flow of interregional traffic). The intro above all sections should be neutral, I think the best thing to do is to put anything that is in support or opposition to the ICC into a "Support" or the "Opposition" section, or better yet, in place of those sections we could have a single "Controversy" section to give facts from both sides of the debate.-Jeff (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Good points. I can't decide if a a large scale re-editing would be in order? I don't think so. If all of the content regarding the intent and history of the development of the road were stripped, the summary would be neutral. But the intent of the project as well as the development process is integral to the road itself. Roads and other public infrastructure elements are not just collections of concrete, asphalt and steel...they are one of the sources of lifeblood for our society. They are the physicalization of how society chooses to organize itself. So, the purpose of the road is essential to definition of the road...but a road, as are all public works, is a collaborative process. This means that the purpose IS subjective.
So, where does that leave us? We must include the intent and the projected impacts. Maybe that is the key. It is not up to the Wikipedia to say that this fact is from a supporter and shows a positive impact or that this fact is from an opponent. It should state things more like, the State of Maryland indicates that the road will reduce drive times from this spot to that or the Sierra Club study states that the road will increase congestion for this region or that. Or, I suppose, go even further and just state these types of comments with footnoted references that identify the source of the statements. It would be up to the reader to decide if the identified project outcome is positive or negative and also if the source of the projected outcome is trustworthy.
-Alex.rosenheim 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex, I have a problem calling the studies you cite "peer reviewed." Compared to the process used by the Transportation Research Board ( see http://www.trb.org/am/TRR-C3.pdf ), the studies you cite were not peer reviewed.Cpzilliacus 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to address these POV issues in my update today. Psinu (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future road

Should the "This article contains information about a planned or expected future road." tag be removed now that the ICC is under construction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpzilliacus (talk • contribs) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not until it opens to traffic, that's usually how the future road template works. Even when the first section opens in 2010, the tag should still be in the article, but be moved to a section on future development.-Jeff (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freeway vs. Expressway

Definitions (taken from the online version of SHA's MUTCD; [3] ) are as follows:

27. Expressway a divided highway with partial control of access.

29. Freeway a divided highway with full control of access.

Note that there is no reference to tolling above - the ICC will be a tolled freeway, and that's what it should be correctly called. Note that this is correct even though Maryland has Expressways (I-83, the JFX), Highways (I-95, JFK Highway; and I-595/U.S. 50, John Hanson Highway) and even Pikes (I-70, Baltimore National Pike) that are functionally classified as freeway. So NE2, you are exactly correct. Cpzilliacus (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Can someone include a photo of the road under construction? It would be helpful to illustrate the current state of the project.-Jeff (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I have some good news -- I should be around the project site most of the day tomorrow. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Doh... field work got cut short due to the weather. I'll see if I can make it out there next week. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Finally got the photos uploaded. Dreary weather and there really wasn't much to see without trouncing around the site. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 05:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's official, MD 200 is now signed

Well, sort of anyway. According to this M.T.R post, signs posted along the work zone are already identifying the new road as MD 200. So should we move the page now, or at least wait for some more definite evidence?-Jeff (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It'll have to happen eventually. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving the page should be fine assuming a redirect is left at its current location. - Algorerhythms (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure the redirect will stay. We already have several redirects from the name to the route designation (such as Ritchie Highway). And even if they end up calling this road something else, the fact still remains that "Intercounty Connector" was the project name, so it will remain a perfectly valid redirect.-Jeff (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Usually page moves don't happen after a day, so we should probably wait until at least tomorrow just in case someone else wants to say something.-Jeff (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. And if another project ever gets coined the Intercounty Connector: that's what disambiguation pages are for. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeological digs in the path of the ICC

I added a new section about the Archaeological sites in the path of the ICC, since there did not seem to be an appropriate place to put them under the existing headings. Cpzilliacus (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interchange list (missing interchanges in Prince George's County?)

A look at the plates for Contract C shows a half interchange (off-ramp eastbound and on-ramp westbound) between Briggs Chaney Road and I-95 in Prince George's County. The plates show this as planned road A-59. Should this be on the list of interchanges?

Similarly, in Contract E, there's a half interchange (off-ramp eastbound and on-ramp westbound) between I-95 and U.S. 1 at Virginia Manor Road (or Planned Maryland 201 Extended).

Should these be added to the list of interchanges? Cpzilliacus (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'd say yes the info should be included... but on the other hand, I'd say they'd be better fit for the I-95 and MD 201 articles, respectively. My viewpoint is that this article should focus on what will ultimately become MD 200, whereas those two interchanges will be on different roads entirely. Granted, since they're being constructed as part of the same project, I don't think they would fit in with the MD 200 interchange list; but they may make good additions to the text of the article. Thinking to what this article may look like in the future: a history section may detail each of the phases and could mention the work done along other corridors. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Bossi, I may not have been clear - these are half interchanges with Md. 200 (directly), similar to the one planned for Briggs Chaney Road. Take a look at physical page 4 of the plates for Contract C ( http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/web-plates-contract-c.pdf ), and the interchange between A-59 and Md. 200 is very clearly shown, even though A-59 is shown as dashed and marked as Planned A59 Interchange. The interchange with Md. 200 and Virginia Manor Road (to possibly become Md. 201 Extended in the future, according to the map) in Contract E ( http://www.iccproject.com/PDFs/web-plates-contract-e.pdf ) is even more obvious. My reading of this plate is that the half-interchange will be completed with Contract E, regardless of what happens (or does not happen) with Md. 201 Extended. Thoughts? Cpzilliacus (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I created that list a while ago and based it off the map that was available at the time. If any interchanges have been added since then (or weren't covered by the map I saw back then, whatever the case may be), then certainly add them, as long as they are interchanges with Route 200 itself.-Jeff (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not modify the map, but I did add A-59 and Virginia Manor Road to the list of planned interchanges. As an aside, the plate for Contract E also implies that Virginia Manor Road is where Md. 201 Extended will run in the future, but I do not think there has been any decision reached about that, so I did not put a reference to Md. 201 in the table. Cpzilliacus (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)