MARYLAND:Six Road Price Projects for Study

I-270 is to be studied 70km (40mi) from the Beltway (I-495) to I-70 at Frederick. The road starts out at the Beltway as two separate spurs which are each 2x3-lanes, each third lane being HOV2, then it becomes 2x6-lanes (2 lanes HOV) for one leg (Split to Montrose) then a long 12-lane dual/dual section 2/4/4/2 with the inner two lanes in the 2x4 mainline being HOV and slip lanes for the outer collector-distributor lanes. It declines progressively in size to 2x2-lanes about halfway at Clarksburg where the present HOV ends northbound (the southbound HOV is shorter). The narrowest northern 2x2 lane section is currently the most congested with 80k veh/day, the widest section with about 210k veh/day has some slow traffic too. The rush hours run around 2,000 veh/hr/lane in the unrestricted lanes and the HOV lanes run 1250 veh/hr/lane mornings and 1600 evenings at the busiest southern end where the overall section is 2x6-lanes — with declines in HOV volume northward. Time savings in the HOVLs are currently estimated at about half a minute/mile in the peak.

That southern leg (Split to Montrose) is a respectable HOV2 without much apparent spare capacity to sell for toll buy-in. Two alternatives suggest themselves for pricing here: (1) Raise the occupancy requirement to HOV3 providing the spare capacity for buy-in (2) Plan for an elevated T-section HOT roadway (like the Loop 12 Dallas conceptual section) with space for three extra HOT lanes on that busiest leg (c4km). But this is not a road-building state government, so that is unlikely to be touched under the present regime.

In the northern leg Clarksburg to Frederick it seems highly unlikely that decent HOV volumes could be gotten so toll buy-in to make it an HOT lane seems a reasonable prospect. But that would need to be a newly constructed lane. The roadway is so varied along its length it will be a challenge to devise a workable scheme.

The Beltway (I-495/I-95) running 200 to 230k veh/day mostly on 2x4 lanes is a difficult road also, turning like a snake in the Chevy Chase area, with close-spaced interchanges especially in the northern portion. An option adding two concurrent HOT lanes is part of an MIS. The governor however wants a multi-billion dollar so-called Purple Line subway roughly following the Beltway. (Should have been called the Green Line except there already is one of those.)

MD-210 the Indian Head highway is mostly 2x3 lanes access controlled arterial with at-grade intersections. It is a major route connecting southern Prince George’s and Charles Co to the greater Washington area and upgrade to urban motorway standard is being looked at. It already has major park-&-rides to encourage bus use and an option would be to add a pair of HOT lanes while doing grade separation. There has been occasional talk, no more, since it parallels I-95 on the eastern side of the Potomac of building another Potomac Crossing down its southern end toward Indian Head, to provide an alternative to I-95 and the Wilson Bridge.

In the Baltimore area the Fort McHenry Tunnel (I-95) of 8 travel lanes (four 2-lane tubes) carries 110k veh/day and the older 2x2-lane Harbor tunnel (I-895) about half that. Most of the current rush hour congestion should be cleared by greater toll plaza throughput when ET is implemented in the first half of this year, but the tunnels might then attract more traffic away from the longer Baltimore Beltway (I-695), and still be liable to some overloading. There might be a variable pricing scheme in having an express toll choice. It might be possible to keep the inner tubes of the McHenry flowing with less traffic, for example, by having a slightly higher toll than the outer tubes in peak hours. The study will also probably look at possible peak hour versus off peak toll rates.

The big Chesapeake Bay bridge near Annapolis (3 and 4 lane spans) is the only route to the ocean and the eastern shore for the 7m pop of the Washington/Baltimore complex. Its congestion fits the pattern of holidays and vacations rather than commuting. The study there is liable to look at some pricing to try and anticipate the Friday evening/Sunday evening peaks and perhaps to move some of the traffic to the shoulders. It might be possible to devise a pricing scheme that would support a contra-flow arrangement on the non-peak flow span.

The governing board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments late Jan approved the pricing study of the six facilities unanimously. Ron Kirby the head of transp at MWCOG is pleased with the support but says it shouldn’t be interpreted as support for pricing itself. He characterizes the attitude of board members as: “Hey it’s just a study, why not?”

MDOT is applying for $500k of US-$s for the study. (Contact Ron Spalding, Statewide Planning, MDDOT 410 865 1286)