Мэриленд штатының ақылы жолы: Тарихы мен дамуы

Toll highway in Maryland, United States
the current Maryland Route 200

Maryland Route 200 (MD 200), also known as the Intercounty Connector or ICC, is an 18.8 mile (30 km) controlled access toll road in the U. S. state of Maryland. It connects Gaithersburg in Montgomery County and Laurel in Prince George's County, both of which are suburbs of Washington, D. C. The ICC was one of the most controversial Maryland road projects; opposition to the highway stalled the project for decades, and construction did not begin until 60 years after the highway's initial approval. The highway was originally proposed in 1950, was 32 mile (51 km) in length, and part of the Washington Outer Beltway. While other parts of the Outer Beltway were canceled, the ICC and the Fairfax County Parkway remained on master plans. The road's long history as an unbuilt proposed road stems from the controversy that has surrounded it over the years, including the cost of about $2.38 billion to complete the highway and related environmental mitigation. Proponents of the highway claimed that it would improve the flow of interregional traffic, relieve traffic congestion on local roads, spur economic development, and enhance access to Baltimore Washington International Airport. Opponents of the highway claimed that the road would instead harm significant traffic flow characteristics, harm the environment, and disrupt established communities through which it passes. They also argued that "environmental degradation would immediately occur from the construction (loss of forests, wetlands, and animal habitats), [and instill] long term consequences (air pollution and carbon emissions from additional driving, more sprawl development, less money to fund mass transit projects, etc.)." Fulfilling a 2002 campaign promise, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich pushed to begin construction of the road and conducted a formal groundbreaking in October 2006. With additional support from his successor, Governor Martin O'Malley, construction began on November 13, 2007. The first segment, from Interstate 370 (I 370) to MD 28, opened on February 23, 2011, while the extension to I 95 opened on November 22, 2011. The final segment to U. S. Route 1 (US 1) opened on November 7, 2014. MD 200 uses all electronic tolling, with tolls payable through E ZPass or Video Tolling.

MD 200 begins at a trumpet interchange with MD 200A (Metro Access Road), which heads south to provide access to Shady Grove Road and the Shady Grove station serving Washington Metro's Red Line, near Gaithersburg in Montgomery County; west of this interchange the freeway continues as I 370 toward MD 355 and I 270. Several new ramps and collector distributor roads were built between this interchange and MD 355. MD 200 continues northeast from there as a six lane freeway through Redland Station, turning east to pass over Shady Grove Road, and then under Redland Road, paralleling Mill Creek. This is the location of the eastbound toll gantry. MD 200 shortly curves to the east on the approach to the six lane overpass for Olde Mill Run, which was built wide enough for a fourth lane in the eastbound direction. The Olde Mill Run overpass is the only section of MD 200 with full 12 feet (4 m) shoulders on each side. After the overpass, MD 200 turns southeast, passing over Rock Creek and the Upper Rock Creek Trail and under Needwood Road, before turning sharply back to the east as it passes under MD 115 (Muncaster Mill Road). The route, now running slightly to the southeast, begins the approach to MD 97 (Georgia Avenue). MD 200 then turns more eastward, running towards North Branch Stream Valley Park and passing over the North Branch Rock Creek and a second stream over a bridge. This is the location of the westbound toll gantry. The route enters the Norbeck area and passes under Emory Lane. Just east of there is where a hybrid cloverleaf interchange with MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) is located. A park and ride lot serving MTA Maryland commuter buses is located southwest of this interchange along MD 97. When the road opened in February 2011, it temporarily came to an end at a traffic light located just east of MD 97 at MD 28 (Norbeck Road). Just beyond, MD 200 reaches a large interchange with US 29, combining cloverleaf and stack elements. This interchange also adds connections to Fairland Road with both MD 200 and US 29. The route continues eastward, featuring a partial interchange with Briggs Chaney Road (westbound exit and eastbound entrance), and then, just after crossing the border into Prince George's County, it passes over the Little Paint Branch just south of the Fairland Recreational Park. The route then passes under Old Gunpowder Road. The route then enters Calverton, where the expansive interchange with I 95 is located. The interchange, marked as Exit 31 on I 95, is mostly a cloverleaf hybrid, and features several collector distributor roads built along I 95, stretching from Old Gunpowder Road south of the interchange to MD 198 north of it. The community of Konterra is planned for construction near this interchange. Beyond I 95, MD 200 narrows to four lanes. MD 200 curves sharply, first to the south then to the east, and meets a diamond interchange providing access to Konterra Drive (MD 206). MD 200 then turns gradually to the southeast and ends at a continuous flow intersection at US 1 (Baltimore Avenue) in Beltsville. MD 200 is a part of the main National Highway System for its entire length.

The Intercounty Connector uses all electronic tolling, with tolls payable through E ZPass or Video Tolling, which uses automatic license plate recognition. ICC users without E ZPass are mailed a bill to pay the toll along with a 50% surcharge for non E ZPass use (minimum of $1). The tolls along the full length of the road (between I 370 and I 95) vary by time of day, ranging from $1.60 overnight to $3.20 in off peak daytime, and $4 at rush hour (for E ZPass users; for others toll rates will be approximately 50% higher). Tolls were waived along the road between February 23 and March 7, 2011, and again between November 22 and December 4, 2011.

The Intercounty Connector can be traced to plans developed in the 1950s for the proposed 122 mile (196 km) Washington Outer Beltway. The original Outer Beltway had been planned to pass south of the corporate limits of the City of Rockville. The original proposed routing was south and east of the current alignment. The new route was motivated in part by a desire to move the routing of the proposed bridge over the Potomac River upstream from the area of River Bend to Watkins Island. Virginia residents and the United States Department of the Interior objected to the proposed bridge over the Potomac River because they wanted to create state and federal parks along the river in order to protect sugar maple trees, vegetation, and bald eagles. Because of these concerns, the Maryland State Roads Commission moved the proposed Outer Beltway to a route north of Rockville and eliminated a new bridge crossing the Potomac River. By 1976, Maryland's Secretary of Transportation no longer supported state financial support of the Outer Beltway, although Montgomery County still supported it in concept. Meanwhile, the State Highway Administration was studying constructing a 22 mile (35 km) Intercounty Connector with a 10 mile (16 km) spur called the Rockville Facility. In 1984, Maryland Secretary of Transportation Lowell K. Bridwell designated land in Montgomery and Prince George's counties as the future site of the Intercounty Connector so that the right of way would be preserved, even though Montgomery County Executive Charles W. Gilchrist had voiced very critical comments about the Intercounty Connector as it was envisioned in 1983—at least in part because he felt that construction of the ICC by the year 2000 was "infeasible", and advocated construction of a "shorter and less costly" east–west highway instead. Prior to Governor Parris N. Glendening declaring the Intercounty Connector "dead" before leaving office in January 2003, two environmental impact studies had been conducted, the first being a draft document in 1983. In 1977, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center expressed concerns about the impact that the ICC would have on its experiments. An initial environmental study was undertaken in the late 1970s, and extended into the 1980s, with a draft published in 1983.

After the 1997 Intercounty Connector Draft Environmental Impact Statement process was put on hold by Governor Glendening, much controversy resulted between groups and persons in favor of the ICC and those opposed. The Intercounty Counnector became a political issue in 1998, an election year in Maryland. A blue ribbon committee entitled the Transportation Solutions Group was formed in 1998 to tell the Governor's Smart Growth Sub Cabinet about intermodal transportation that complied with state and regional goals. The Transportation Solutions Group, chaired by Thomas B. Deen, former executive director of the Transportation Research Board, met at a series of meetings over about 14 months in 1998 and 1999. Policy suggestions and recommendations made by the Transportation Solutions Group included that most of the group supports "providing high speed bus transit, HOV and SOV access through a new east west, value priced, limited access parkway", with some opposition to the parkway and that the group had a divided opinion on a freeway, with most supporting it. The Transportation Solutions Group had initially voted to oppose the Intercounty Connector on its master planned route, but voted 10 in favor and 4 opposed in February 1999 to endorse a highway alternative with the condition that single occupant vehicles be charged a toll. At its final meeting in June 1999, the Transportation Solutions Group held a public hearing in College Park and voted 12 to 4 in favor of a "parkway like highway from I 270 to I 95, following the general path of the ICC." The Transportation Solutions Group also made a recommendation that a system of high occupancy toll lanes (with variable pricing) be implemented on major freeways of the region, including the Intercounty Connector, I 95, the Capital Beltway, I 270 and US 50. On September 22, 1999, Glendening chose to reject the Transportation Solutions Group recommendation, asserting that the project was "wrong", "inconsistent with Smart Growth doctrine", and an "environmental disaster". Even though Glendening chose to ignore the Transportation Solutions Group's primary recommendation, its work was not entirely in vain, as its efforts were to be cited prominently some years later in the Intercounty Connector's Final Environmental Impact Statement The concept of a regionwide network of HOT lanes (to be called "variably priced highway lanes") was further developed by the Transportation Planning Board, and a regional network (including the Intercounty Connector) was described in a report published in February 2008. After rejecting the Intercounty Connector, Glendening and opponents of the Intercounty Connector then examined the possibility of selling its right of way, but proponents of the Intercounty Connector would have been able to stop such a sale at the Board of Public Works, which must approve transactions involving the sale of state owned real estate.

In 1999, staff to the Montgomery County Planning Board said that the Intercounty Connector could be removed from master plans, but that such an effort would take "six or seven years" to accomplish. In November 1999, the Montgomery County Council discussed removing the Intercounty Connector from master plans, and while five of the nine members were opposed to the Intercounty Connector, the District 4 member, Marilyn Praisner, declined to agree to removal of the master planned route, for fear that the so called Northern Alignment (Corridor 2 in the 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Statement) would become a de facto Intercounty Connector in the future. The effort by Montgomery County politicians to remove the Intercounty Connector from its plans irritated powerful members of the Maryland General Assembly (notably Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller), who discussed legislative measures that could be taken in the General Assembly to thwart such a move. In February 2000, an agreement between Montgomery County's politicians and members of the General Assembly reached an agreement "memorialized in two letters but not cast in stone" that the " Council agreed not to take any action to kill the ICC during the next three years." In 2000, Montgomery County Planning Board established the Transportation Policy Report and then the more inclusive Transportation Policy Report II Task Force " in an effort to establish a framework for future Master Plans and to help set priorities for future infrastructure." The Transportation Policy Report II Task Force had 33 members, including persons in favor of the Intercounty Connector and those opposed. The Transportation Policy Report II Task Force listed the Intercounty Connector in its recommended network, following a caveat that "If they are found feasible and ultimately judged desirable to implement, the priority of implementation could be established at that time. When the Montgomery County Council was briefed on the report, discussions quickly shifted to the Intercounty Connector and the controversy associated with it. The Intercounty Connector's Final Environmental Impact Statement makes specific reference to the work done by the Transportation Policy Report II Task Force. The Maryland State Senate, in its 2002 session, passed Senate Joint Resolution 8, which asked Glendening to restart the Intercounty Connector Environmental Impact Statement that had been put on hold in 1997. The Maryland House of Delegates passed an accompanying resolution, House Joint Resolution 10 with essentially similar provisions. The Intercounty Connector study was not to be restarted until Glendening left office at the end of 2002.

In 2003, Governor Ehrlich followed through with his campaign promise to resurrect the Intercounty Connector study, and he was allowed a fast track review process by the United States Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. In addition to the election of Ehrlich, the Montgomery County Council that was seated at the end of 2002 had a 6–3 majority of members in favor of the project. Prior to the 2002 election, a majority had been skeptical, if not outright opposed, to the project. The Montgomery County Council and County Executive Douglas M. Duncan issued a resolution endorsing the Intercounty Connector in December 2002. On November 17, 2004, the Transportation Planning Board endorsed regional transportation plans which included the Intercounty Connector, determining that the proposed plans met air quality goals and that funding for the project was adequate. On July 11, 2005, Governor Ehrlich announced the state's preference to build the Intercounty Connector along Corridor 1. Corridor 1 (approximately 80% of which is the Master Plan Alignment) has been on the books for decades; Corridor 2, also known as the Northern Alignment, was designed to reduce Corridor 1's impact on the environment. While the EPA gave Corridor 2 a higher environmental rating, it was eventually rejected by the state due to the increased number of homes and businesses that would have to be removed for its construction, because of negative environmental impacts on the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission's Rocky Gorge Reservoir on the Patuxent River (which is a source of drinking water for much of the WSSC service area), and because it was not consistent with several approved and adopted Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission master plans in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. On August 31, 2005, the Board of Public Works gave its approval to the Corridor 1 alternative, which allowed state funding of the project in accordance with Maryland's provisions (established by statute) for funding a "growth related project" that is not entirely within Priority Funding Areas. In December 2005, controversy arose over the Intercounty Connector's proposed toll rate. At a proposed , an end to end driver would have to pay about $6 a day for a round trip (about $1,500 per year). On May 30, 2006, the Federal Highway Administration gave approval to the Corridor 1 plan, meaning that Maryland had satisfied "all environmental, economic and community requirements and that it can build the highway". The Baltimore Business Journal wrote, "Federal approval for the $2.4 billion connector came after Ehrlich made a direct request to President George W. Bush, who named the Intercounty Connector as one of his priority projects. The president's direct attention prompted federal resource agencies to give the project a more timely environmental review." As approved, the Intercounty Connector would be 18 mile (29 km) long, running from I 370 in Gaithersburg to I 95 in Beltsville. It would be a controlled access toll highway with eight interchanges, and two park and ride lots would be built as well. A. I 270/I 370 to east of MD 97
B. East of MD 97 to west of US 29
C. West of US 29 to east of I 95 interchange, and I 95 collector/distributor road improvements along I 95 from MD 212 to just north of the ICC
D. Collector/distributor road improvements along I 95 from just north of the ICC to north of MD 198, including a new exit on the interstate at Konterra Drive
E. East of I 95 interchange to US 1

The first of the five contracts was awarded on March 27, 2007. The contract, worth $478.7 million, was awarded to Intercounty Constructors, a joint venture of Granite Construction Company, Corman Construction Inc. and G. A. & F. C. Wagman, Inc. Construction on the 7 mile (11 km) section between I 370 and MD 97 began in November 2007. Contracts for three other phases are completed and the fifth phase involving collector distributor lanes along I 95 has been completed. Requests for statements of qualification were issued for Phase A in December 2005, for Phase D in August 2006, and for Phase B in August 2007. The selection of the second of the five contracts was announced on November 20, 2007. The contract, worth $513.9 million, was awarded to IC3, a joint venture of Shirley Contracting Company, LLC; Clark Construction Group, LLC; Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC; Facchina Construction Company, Inc. and Trumbull Corporation. This work includes the ICC from a point west of US 29 to I 95, and interchanges with those routes. On September 4, 2008, The Washington Post reported that the Contract B construction contract had been awarded on July 22, 2008, to a joint venture of Kiewit, Corman Construction, and G. A. & F. C. Wagman, at a total cost of about $559.7 million—reportedly 22% higher than previous estimates. The Post story went on to say that a protest of this contract award was filed on July 30, 2008, by a joint venture that was not selected, though the bid price from the rejected group was lower. This protest may have delayed the start of construction on Contract B. On October 15, 2008, the Post reported that the protest was denied by state procurement officer Robert P. Gay and that the losing proposer would file an appeal with the Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals. On September 12, 2008, the Post reported that Contract D ran into funding issues which had delayed its construction. Contract D is associated with the proposed new interchange of I 95 and Contee Road (not part of the ICC). SHA Former Administrator Neil J. Pedersen stated that the "service roads can be delayed until the I 95 interchange has been built at Contee Road." The first segment opened on February 23, 2011, No tolls were charged on the date of opening to March 6, 2011. On the opening morning, over 10,000 vehicles used the highway, and it went on to draw in 30,000 vehicles per day. During the first week of May, the tollway drew 11,490 vehicles per day, which is much less than the 21,000 projected (though by 2014, this section of highway was averaging almost 40,000 vehicles per day on average). As a result, the state launched a $1.4 million advertising campaign to promote the new highway. The second segment of the highway, from MD 97 to I 95 opened on November 22, 2011. The highway was opened between I 95 and US 1 on November 7, 2014.

The $2.56 billion project was funded from several sources, including $1.23 billion of Maryland Transportation Authority revenue bonds (50%), $0.75 billion of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle bonds (31%), $0.26 billion from the Maryland General Fund (11%); $0.18 billion from the Maryland Transportation Trust Fund (7%); and $0.18 billion from Special Federal Funds (1%).

MD 200 has gained opposition from several groups, including the Maryland General Assembly and the Prince George's County Council. Proponents of the highway have claimed that it will improve the flow of interregional traffic, relieving traffic congestion on local roads. Opponents of the highway have claimed that the road will (with a few limited exceptions) harm significant traffic flow characteristics (such as increasing drive times, congestion, and costs in the form of tolls), will harm the environment (with air, sea and land impacts), and will disrupt established communities through which it passes. and Spring 2009 sessions, the 1998 session, and back to 1979, when a bill introduced in the General Assembly by Delegate Robin Ficker proposed to eliminate funding for a study of the ICC and the never built Rockville Facility highway project. In 1980, a bill proposed by Delegate Idamae Garrott to forbid the Maryland Department of Transportation from even studying the matter of new highways running east and west between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties was tabled by the Montgomery County Delegation. In the 1998 session, House Bill 817 was introduced to prohibit MDOT from spending funds or granting approvals to the ICC project, and House Bill 905 was intended to stop the operation of a toll highway altogether. Both bills failed to pass. In 2004, House Bill 732 proposed a similar statement to House Bill 817, extended to include the MdTA. The 2007 Special Session saw the offering of House Bill 37 to prevent construction of the road. Both of these bills also failed to pass. In the 2008 session, two bills proposing to cancel or delay the project were introduced—House Bill 1416 and House Bill 1471. House Bill 1471 proposed to eliminate funding for the road, and, if it had passed, would trigger "liquidated damage clauses that would require it to pay the contractors an estimated $80.0 million upon cancellation of the contracts," according to the Fiscal Note prepared by the state's Department of Legislative Services. Both bills failed. In the 2009 session, a bill proposing to cancel funding for the ICC was pre filed by Delegate Barbara A. Frush—House Bill 27. This bill had not attracted any co sponsors nor had it been scheduled for a hearing. A similar bill, Senate Bill 753, was filed in the Maryland Senate by Sen. E. J. Pipkin and others. The Maryland Politics Watch blog opined that Pipkin's co sponsorship of SB 753 may be related to his possible desire to run again for the U. S. House of Representatives Maryland District 1 seat. Both bills failed in the 2009 session. House Bill 27 received an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates Appropriations Committee on March 28, 2009; and no action was taken on Senate Bill 753 prior to adjournment on April 13, 2009, though a hearing was scheduled on March 18, 2009, before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. The position of the County Council of Prince George's County in opposition to the ICC has been repeatedly cited by opposition groups, and its 2003 resolution on the subject, CR 32 2003, was adopted on June 10, 2003, where it called for alternatives to the road. In 2007, the Prince George's County Council passed resolution CR 59 2007, which repeats much of what was stated in CR 32 2003, including the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County.

The ICC Trail is a combination multi use trail and on road route along the general path of the ICC. It includes about 7 miles of trail and 11 miles along parallel roads. A bicycle trail had long been identified in County master plans as part of the proposed ICC, both in Montgomery County and Prince George's County. However, in 2004, the SHA announced that it was dropping the ICC bike trail from its own plans due to cost and environmental footprint. This move was unpopular, with comments sent to the state's ICC web page overwhelmingly in favor of a bike trail; the Montgomery County Council voted 8–0 in favor of the trail and the state said it would consider five unconnected segments that would run along 40 percent of the ICC. When the State Highway Administration published its final plan for the ICC in May 2006, it recommended seven miles of the 18 mile trail be built as part of the highway and the remaining 11 miles be constructed separate from the highway project. The state later agreed to build 11.4 miles of a trail in separate segments in Prince George's and Montgomery counties. In response, Montgomery County began the process of amending the ICC limited functional Master Plan to include the new design for the bike path in October of 2007. One proposal was to keep a mostly parallel route by utilizing county park lands for the trail, but the County Council voted against that because it would be too harmful to some county parkland. The amendment was approved in April 2009, and it proposed a bikeway near the Intercounty Connector as well as a plan that would divert bike traffic along New Hampshire Avenue, Route 29, East Randolph and Fairland roads. The council approved the options with the idea that one or both would be exercised. Construction of the ICC trail began with construction of the road. The westernmost segment, from Needwood Road to MD 28 (Norbeck Road), primarily following the MD 200 right of way except for a section which follows Emory Lane to Georgia Avenue, opened first on July 30, 2011 shortly after the first section of the ICC opened; this section was later extended to MD 182 (Layhill Road). The second segment, which runs from Notley Road to MD 650 (New Hampshire Avenue), behind the southern sound wall of the highway, and the third segment, which runs alongside US 29 and Briggs Chaney Road, both opened in late 2011. A fourth section was completed in 2015, running along the easternmost section of MD 200 from Konterra Drive to US 1 (Baltimore Avenue). In 2009 work began on the ICC Connector, a shared use path along Needwood Road connecting the ICC Trail to the Shady Grove Metro. Future segments of the trail have been left to county governments to plan and build.

Exit numbers and mile markers are a continuation of those along I 370.

MD 200A is the unsigned designation for Metro Access Road, a four lane freeway that runs from the entrance to the Shady Grove station of Washington Metro's Red Line and an interchange with Shady Grove Road north to an interchange with the western terminus of MD 200 and the eastern terminus of I 370. The route is 0.51 mile (1 km) long.