Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment

Public Hearing Draft

Recommendations: Designate the roadway as a dual bikeway to include a shared use path along the south
side between Layhill and Notley roads. Implement the path between Layhill Road and Alderton Road only
when the County reconstructs the roadway to include curb and gutter (and remove the drainage swales),
otherwise, constructing the path without impacting the bike lanes/shoulders will be extremely problematic.
Include the segment between Alderton Road and Notley Road as a future facility planning study.

Layhill Road (Bonifant to ICC)

Existing conditions: Major highway (M-16) 4-lanes divided Bonifant Road to Longmead Crossing Drive;
and 2 lanes as approaching the ICC. 150’ ROW master planned, but only 120’ exists in short segments.
Closed section roadway, except open section near approach to ICC north of Longmead Crossing. 4-5’
sidewalks exist along both sides, condition good. Bike lanes exist from Bonifant Road to just north of
Longmead Crossing Drive.

Master Plan Guidance: Aspen Hill Master Plan (1994) recommends Layhill Road as 4-lanes divided from
MD 28 to southern plan boundary (south of Bonifant Road). Both the Aspen Hill Master Plan and CBFMP
recommend bike lanes.

Discussion: The bike lanes accommodate experienced cyclists and sidewalks accommodate pedestrians.
However, while the sidewalks accommodate pedestrians, they do not accommodate child or intermediate
bicycle skill levels. With a 150’ ROW, widening a sidewalk to shared use path standards would be
relatively easy. The east side has fewer obstructions and offers the added benefit of improving bicycle and
pedestrian access to Layhill Local Park. In addition, SHA will be constructing 2,000 linear feet of shared
use path along the east side near Park Vista Drive north to the entrance of Layhill Local Park as an ICC
highway community stewardship project (see figure 5).

Recommendation: Designate the roadway as a dual bikeway to include a shared use path along the east
side. Add the shared use path (widened sidewalk) as a facility planning study in a future CIP to connect
Bonifant Road with the community stewardship project.

Study Area D: Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley Park and Vicinity (Figure 7)
Problems/Issues
Deciding whether to remove from County master plans the CBP – SP-40 in the CBFMP – through the park
between Old Columbia Pike and New Hampshire Avenue.
Deciding whether to accept the State’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to route the trail along parallel roads.
Studying and recommending improvements to these roads to accommodate all potential trail user groups
and ability levels.
Recommending master plan amendments to facilitate these improvements.

Discussion
The ROD did not include the master planned trail (SP-40) along this highway segment. SHA’s Plan instead routes
the trail along parallel roads to bypass the park’s environmentally sensitive resources. Efforts to reduce the
30
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

highway’s footprint through this area make it highly unlikely the CBP could be built within the highway ROW in
the future. Therefore, the path would need to be constructed parallel to the highway through parkland to maintain
the off-road connection. And the Department of Parks does not support putting the CBP through the park due to
environmental concerns, including impervious cover impacts in the Upper Paint Branch Special Protection Area.

Prior decisions
The Planning Board supported the SHA route during its review of the highway’s FEIS and suggested removing SP-
40 through the park from County master plans. The County Council did not support the SHA route and
recommended the parallel trail (SP-40) along the highway (but within the ROW). The Council did not comment on
routing the trail through the park and parallel to the highway.

Recommendations
Remove the CBP (SP-40) through the park from county master plans.
Retain an east-west natural surface trail connection through the park when the Planning Board updates the
CPTP.
Identify Fairland Road, Randolph Road, and New Hampshire Avenue as the bikeway/trail connector
between US 29 Corridor and the ICC trail heading west. See below for related bikeway/sidewalk/roadway
recommendations for Fairland Road, Randolph Road and New Hampshire Avenue.

Fairland Road (US 29 to E. Randolph Road)

Existing Conditions: 2 lane arterial (A-75), 8-foot shoulder both sides, which function as bike lanes.
Master planned ROW is 80’, existing ROW varies. Sidewalk along south side largely exists between East
Randolph Road and just west of US 29. Sidewalk/path condition is fair to poor. Pavement is mostly 4’
asphalt, and at times as narrow as 3’ but changes to 5’ concrete about 900 feet west of Old Columbia Pike.
Pathway merges with shoulder briefly where road crosses Paint Branch, and then disappears heading west;
pedestrians can use the Paint Branch Trail extension along the road, but the two facilities do not currently
connect.

Master Plan Guidance: CBFMP identifies existing bike lanes (BL-13), 1997 Fairland Master Plan
identifies existing sidewalk along segment as well as existing bike lanes (EB-6).

Discussion: Should the existing sidewalk be widened to shared use path standard, making the road a dual
bikeway (both on-road and off-road)? Only one major destination exists along the road: Paint Branch Trail,
which heads south toward E. Randolph Road. Otherwise, there are few destinations and therefore widening
the path would be difficult to justify given the low anticipated demand for recreation. Even with 80-foot
ROW, it would be possible to construct a four-lane road with bike lanes and an eight-foot path on one side
(and no sidewalk on the other). The ROW becomes constrained if a sidewalk is considered for the other
side or if a center turn lane or median is considered.

Recommendations: Modify master plans to widen existing south side sidewalk to shared use path
standards, thus making the road a dual bikeway. If road is widened or reconstructed, add shared use path to
31
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

design of roadway as well as bridge over Paint Branch. If road is not widened, add this project to the CIP as
a facility planning study to widen the sidewalk to shared use path standards. Fairland Road then becomes
the primary bikeway/trail connector between eastern county communities and points west, including the
park trail system, since the CBP through Paint Branch Stream Valley Park is removed from master plans.

E. Randolph Road (Fairland Road to New Hampshire Avenue)

Existing conditions: Major highway (M-75). 6-lanes divided. Existing shared use path (eight-foot
concrete) north side, narrowed in places due to overgrowth. Condition generally fair to good, aside from
vegetation. Four-foot landscape buffer between the McDonald’s property and Fairland Road. No buffer
from the McDonalds property to New Hampshire Avenue.

Master Plan Guidance: White Oak Master Plan (1997) calls for a Class I bikeway (EB-5). The CBFMP
recommends a shared use path (SP-17).

Discussion: Generally, this segment meets all user groups. However, several small changes would greatly
enhance safety, aesthetics, and mobility. A landscape buffer is recommended between the McDonald’s
property and New Hampshire Avenue.

Recommendation: Implement any improvements when the New Hampshire Avenue/East Randolph Road
intersection is reconstructed. Relocate path closer to property lines and install a landscape buffer with street
trees between the trail and roadway, where appropriate.

32
 FIGURE 7
Paint Branch
and Vicinity
Master Plan & SHA
KI
NG Bike Alignment
HO
US
WINDMILL LA E
RD
Master Plan ICC
Bike Path
NEW

RD
PE
RR

PE
YW SHA Bike Plan
HAM

HO
OO
D
RD

D
DR
PSH

O
D ICC Alignment

GO
R
HA
I RE

RC
O Master Plan Bikeways

RD
AV E

H
AC

TW

D
E

WI

OO
P
Existing Bike Route

IG

ND

W
RD

LY
MIL

BR

D
Proposed Bike Route

EN
IGG
LL

I
FR
A

SC

D
Park Hard Surface Trails

ER
HA

PIK
DAL
NE
£ 29
¤

IA
YR
650
!
(
k Future Briggs

MB
FAI
D
INT Chaney Interchange

LU
ER

CO
A
CO
UN
Roads

D
Up TY

OL
per CO
Pa NN
in t EC
Bra TO Airy Hill Proposed Roads
nch R Park
St r
ea m
Va l Wetlands
le yP
a rk
BL
V Floodplain
_
^ 2
AS
TL
E

RD Lakes

BR
C
Y
VE

IG
BE

AUT
O

GS
R
PSHIRE A

_
^ 1 Parks

OM

CH
OBI

AN
Special Protection Areas

EY
RD
FAIRLAND

LE
NEW HAM

RD
_

BL V
^ 5
RA
C K
RD Paint
Branch _
^6
Issue Areas
_
^ 3
_
^ 4
RANDOLPH RD
TA
MA
Stream
West
Fairland

:
Park
Valley

PIK
Park
_
^ 7 !
(
k

IA
MB
B

LU
650 BRAHMS AVE

CO
0 0.25 0.5
D
SER P

CANNO N R OL Interchange ramps shown

D
are symbolic, not explicit Miles

FA
EN

V
BL
IRL
TINE

AN

N
MUSGR

VE
O V E RD

HO
RD
W AY

ET
BE
EAS
TR 29
£
AN
DO
LPH
¤
RD
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Photographs of Paint Branch Stream Valley Park/US 29 and Vicinity

(Accompanies Figure 7)

34
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

New Hampshire Avenue (Randolph Road to ICC)

Existing Conditions: Major highway (M-12) 6-lanes divided, 120’ ROW. Existing sidewalk both sides,
condition generally fair to good, no landscape buffer, sidewalk adjacent to curb. Bike lanes exist north of
Midland Road.

Master Plan Guidance: White Oak Master Plan (1997) calls for a class II bikeway (PB-23). CBFMP
recommends bike lanes (BL-11).

Discussion: Except for the bike lane gap between Midland Road and Randolph Road, generally this road
segment meets all user groups. It’s not ideal, however. The sidewalks along both sides are narrow, feature
obstructions (signs and utility poles) and no landscape panel between them and the curb. A shared use path
or wider sidewalk along one side or the other would be desirable to better accommodate novice cyclists.
But the ROW is very constrained in this segment and a wider sidewalk is unlikely unless the median is
narrowed, the roadway shifted, or additional ROW is acquired. Many buildings are located close to the
current ROW line, making land acquisition for additional ROW difficult.

Recommendations: When the New Hampshire Avenue/Randolph Road intersection is reconstructed,

ensure two improvements occur: 1) the bike lanes along both sides of MD 650 up to Midland Road; and 2)
the northern MD 650 crosswalk improved with bicycle travel (eight-foot ramps at both the northwest and
northeast corners of the intersection).

Also, designate the west side of the road as a shared use path to widen the sidewalk to eight feet,
recognizing that additional ROW would be required and that the improvement is a low priority and may
take a decade or longer to realize. Maintain existing sidewalk along east side.

Study Area E: US 29 & Vicinity (Figure 7)

Issues/Problems
Whether to retain in County master plans the CBP through the US 29 interchange
Whether to retain in County master plans to segment of CBP between US 29 and Briggs Chaney Road

Discussion
The highway Record of Decision (ROD) did not include the CBP through either area. SHA’s Plan instead routes
the path along US 29 (part of the US 29 commuter bikeway) and then along a shared use path on Briggs Chaney
Road heading east into Prince George’s County. Weaving the trail east-west through the US 29 interchange (going
over US 29) was cost prohibitive, while the segment between US 29 and Briggs Chaney Road was a simple cost
saving measure since the path along Briggs Chaney Road exists.

Agency staff generally agrees with the State’s decision not to pursue the path through the interchange. Because the
segment of CBP through Paint Branch Stream Valley Park is unlikely to happen (particularly if removed from
master plans, as recommended in this document), weaving a grade-separated trail-bridge through the interchange
cannot be economically justified. Likewise, the segment of master planned path between Briggs Chaney Road and
35
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

US 29 would be redundant to the path along Briggs Chaney Road and offer few benefits that justifies its cost.
However, there is no reason at this time to remove it from County master plans. While there’s no urgent need for
the path, the County should not preclude options for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in this area of the county,
including a possible connection to or along the ICC ROW through the Tanglewood community and the new
parkland adjoining Tanglewood Park acquired by the County as part of the ICC highway project.

We also feel SHA’s design for the path along the east side of US 29 is adequate and the shared use path along
Briggs Chaney Road is a suitable connection to the Prince George’s County bikeways and trails network. The only
question is ensuring a safe connection from a future path along Fairland Road and the US 29 pathway on the east
side. This should be studied in detail when SHA designs the Fairland Road/US 29 interchange project.

Prior decisions
The Planning Board supported the SHA Bike Plan during its review of the highway’s Final Environmental Impact
Statement but stopped short of recommending its removal from County master plans. The County Council did not
support the SHA Bike Plan and recommended the parallel trail (SP-40) along the highway (and within the ROW)
and through the US 29 interchange to the Prince George’s County line.

Recommendations
Remove the CBP (SP-40) through the interchange from County master plans.
Retain in County master plans the segment of SP-40 between Briggs Chaney Road and US 29.
As part of the proposed Fairland/US 29 interchange study, examine the connection between the future
shared use path along the south side of Fairland Road with the path along the east side of US 29 leading up
to Briggs Chaney Road.

36