From MdTA: No bikes on ICC shoulders

The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) has decided not to allow bicycling on the shoulders of the ICC. Here is their response to Nancy Breen who had asked on behalf of the Rockville Bicycle Advisory Committee that bicycling be allowed on the shoulders for those portions where the ICC trail will not be built.
- Jack Cochrane

December 1, 2008

Dear Dr. Breen:

Thank you for your follow-up email regarding bicyclist use of the shoulders on the Intercounty Connector (ICC). As Transportation Secretary and Maryland Transportation Authority Chairman, I am once again pleased to respond.

As you are aware, legislation was passed during the 2008 legislative session that allows me, as Authority Chairman, to decide on a case-by-case basis whether bicycle use will be permitted on Authority facilities. To that end, staff members completed a review of the matter and took several issues into account, including shoulder use, high-speed ramp crossing, motorist expectancy, toll collection/violations and facility design. Based on staff findings and further examination, I have made the decision not to allow bicycle use on ICC shoulders. Local viable alternatives exist to allow a bicyclist to cross the county, including trail segments that will be built during ICC construction. The Authority has committed to and will continue work at the local level to allow additional trail segments adjacent to the ICC.

Thank you again for your follow-up email and for taking the time to write. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Dennis Simpson, Acting Director of Capital Planning, Maryland Transportation Authority at 410-537-5650, toll-free 1-888-754-0098 or via email at mdta@mdtransportationauthority.com.

Sincerely,

John D. Porcari

by B' Spokes

Like most people I live a hectic life and who has the time for much exercise? Thanks to xtracycle now I do. By using my bike for daily activities I can get things done and get an hour plus work out in 15 minutes extra of my time, not a bad deal and beats taking the extra time going to the gym. In case you are still having trouble being motivated; the National Center of Disease Control says that inactivity is the #2 killer in the United States just behind smoking. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/bb_nutrition/ ) Get out there and start living life! I can carry home a full shopping cart of groceries, car pool two kids or just get lost in the great outdoors camping for a week. Well I got go, another outing this weekend.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Share It!

Story Options

  • From MdTA: No bikes on ICC shoulders
  • 2 comments
Login required to comment
From JM: UNBELIEVABLE. No, wait, completely believable. Best in the nation for cycling - my comment unprintable. A brand new facility is not adequatly designed (wait, part of it isn't even designed - like the section where we'd most like to use the shoulder!!!!) to permit cyclists on the shoulder? I will repeat - the bill last year was a complete waste of time and energy for getting nothing tangible accomplished. If the ICC won't pass muster then what will - umm - between New Hampshire and US 29 - how many ramps are there - that would be NONE. There are more ramps and cross traffic in a 1.5 mile portion of US 29 between Industrial Way and Fairland Road (4 traffic lights and 1 interchange) where bikes are permitted than in the entire section of the ICC from NH to US29. For the Delegates that read these threads - this is where we need your help - our State Agencies just don't get it. They need some better guidance.
This problem is systemic to the way the state handles all its projects: 1) Make detailed drawings (60% designed) to secure that the project can be funded. 2) Fulfill your obligation for public comment. 3) Then notice that you now have to throw out all that work in step one if you actually acted on public comment so defend, defend and defend the original plans so as not to waste money. And fores on the public something they really don't want as presented. We have been faced with this problem from the first comment period, how do we get the State to go back and modify its plans. The further along the project gets the harder it gets to change plans, contracts, detail drawings... The problem goes back to the DEIS where the state falsely asserted that we were getting a full and complete trail which per State Law MdTA is obligated not to destroy. Our continued requests to get a real full, complete and viable trail should be proof that the state has failed to met its obligations and has falsified reports in a typical CYA style. The state has failed to meet "the needs of bicycle riders and pedestrians shall be employed in all phases of transportation planning, including highway design, construction,..." Like what we did on MD24/I95 where we got MdTA to attach bicycle accommodations that should have gone in section 100 to section 200 (which was still in the works) we need them to make plans that the trail go through ether the parks or on the bridges. This can be a separate project to be done at some later date, but something has to be on the table now! I will also strongly assert that going from on-ramp to off-ramp on the ICC over the parks should be a no brainier. Crossing the interchanges is somewhat problematic to do in a direct fashion but saying 5 miles worth of detours is more direct and viable then coming off a trail segment (which we have to do anyway), crossing at a light (which we have to do anyway) and then going up an on ramp (shoulder), across a bridge (shoulder) and off the next off ramp (shoulder) and resume the last little bit of what we have to do anyway to get to the next trail segment, I find very hard to wrap my head around. I would rather get a little bit of detour then a whole whooping mess of it.