June 2008

Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment

BIKEWAYS AND INTERCHANGES
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT

M-NCPPC
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a bi-county agency created by the General
Assembly of Maryland in 1927. The Commission's geographic authority extends to the great majority of
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC planning
jurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District (parks) comprises 919 square miles, in
the two counties.

The Commission is charged with preparing, adopting, and amending or extending On Wedges and Corridors, the
general plan for the physical development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District.

The Commission operates in each county through Planning Boards appointed by the county government. The
Boards are responsible for all local plans, zoning amendments, subdivision regulations, and administration of parks.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission encourages the involvement and
participation of individuals with disabilities, and its facilities are accessible. For assistance with
special needs (e.g., large print materials, listening devices, sign language interpretation, etc.),
please contact the Community Outreach and Media Relations Division, 301-495-4600 or TDD 301-
495-1331.

2
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS

County Council
Michael Knapp, President
Philip Andrews, Vice President
Roger Berliner
Mark Elrich
Valerie Ervin
Nancy Floreen
George L. Leventhal
Duchy Trachtenberg

County Executive
Isiah Leggett

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission

Royce Hanson, Chairman
Samuel J. Parker, Jr., Vice Chairman

Commissioners

Montgomery County Planning Board Prince George's County Planning Board

Royce Hanson, Chairman Samuel J. Parker, Jr., Chairman
John M. Robinson, Vice Chair Sylvester J. Vaughns, Vice Chair
Allison Bryant Sarah A. Cavitt
Jean B. Cryor Jesse Clark
Colonel John H. Squire

3
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

The Plan Process

The STAFF DRAFT PLAN is prepared for presentation to the Montgomery County Planning Board, which reviews
it and makes preliminary changes as appropriate, and approves it for public hearing. After the Planning Board’s
changes are made, the document becomes the Public Hearing Draft Plan.

The PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT PLAN is the formal proposal to amend adopted master plans. Its
recommendations are not necessarily those of the Planning Board; it is prepared for the purpose of receiving public
testimony. The Planning Board holds a public hearing and receives testimony, after which they hold public
worksessions to review the testimony and revise the Public Hearing Draft Plan as appropriate. When the Planning
Board’s changes are made, the document becomes the Planning Board Draft Plan.

The PLANNING BOARD DRAFT PLAN is the Board's recommended Plan and reflects their revisions to the
Public Hearing Draft Plan. The Regional District Act requires the Planning Board to transmit a sector plan to the
County Council with copies to the County Executive who must, within sixty days, prepare and transmit a fiscal
impact analysis of the Planning Board Draft Plan to the County Council. The County Executive may also forward
to the County Council other comments and recommendations.

After receiving the Executive's fiscal impact analysis and comments, the County Council holds a public hearing to
receive additional public testimony. After the hearing record is closed, the Council's Planning, Housing, and
Economic Development (PHED) Committee holds public worksessions to review the testimony and makes
recommendations to the County Council. The Council holds its own worksessions, and then adopts a resolution
approving the Planning Board Draft Plan, as revised.

After Council approval the plan is forwarded to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission for
adoption. Once adopted by the Commission, the plan officially amends the master plans, functional plans, and
sector plans cited in the Commission's adoption resolution.

4
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Table of Contents
BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................... 6
WHY A LIMITED PLAN AMENDMENT?................................................................................................... 6
PURPOSES ............................................................................................................................................... 7
KEY PLAN OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 7
REFINED OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 8
CROSSCUTTING THEMES AND ISSUES.............................................................................................. 10
ISSUES, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 12
HIGHWAY ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 12
BIKEWAYS ELEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 14
Study Area A: Needwood Road and Vicinity (Figures 3 and 4) ........................................................ 14
Study Area B: Emory Lane/Georgia Avenue and Vicinity (Figure 3) ................................................ 21
Study Area C: Northwest Branch Stream Valley Park and Vicinity (Figures 5 and 6) ....................... 22
Study Area D: Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley Park and Vicinity (Figure 7) ................................ 30
Study Area E: US 29 & Vicinity (Figure 7) ......................................................................................... 35
COUNTY BIKE PATH (SP-40) BEFORE AND AFTER ........................................................................... 37
PARK TRAILS BEFORE AND AFTER ................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX A – ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................. 42
APPENDIX B – MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT SCHEDULE ................................................................ 43
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................ 44

Figures
1. ICC Corridor Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 9
2. Midcounty Highway Interchange .......................................................................................................... 13
3. Needwood Road and Vicinity ............................................................................................................... 16
4. Needwood Road Options ..................................................................................................................... 18
5. Northwest Branch and Vicinity ............................................................................................................. 26
6. Northwest Branch Options ................................................................................................................... 28
7. Paint Branch and Vicinity ..................................................................................................................... 33
8. SP-40 Before and After ........................................................................................................................ 39

5
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Background
In May 2006, the Federal Highway Administration approved the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Intercounty
Connector (ICC), which established the specific highway alignment and interchange locations, and identified
impacts as well as the measures to mitigate those impacts. The ROD also recommended a number of related master
planned elements that would be implemented with the highway project, including parks, bikeways and sidewalks,
and including seven miles of the master planned ICC shared use path (SP-40 in the Countywide Bikeways
Functional Master Plan) being built with the ICC highway project. Certain alignment and implementation
decisions included in the ROD are inconsistent with prior master plan guidance.

This ICC limited functional master plan amendment (ICCLFMPA), is intended primarily to amend County master
plans to reflect the ROD highway alignment. It also evaluates alternative alignments for the master planned shared
use path along the ICC (SP-40), essentially using as a starting point for discussion county agencies’ majority
viewpoints to affirm prior Planning Board recommendations to remove the path from sensitive environmental areas.
The amendment analyzes in substantial detail the State’s alternative routes along parallel roads and recommends
changes to master plans needed to upgrade or enhance the routes to meet the needs of all potential pathway users.

Why a limited plan amendment?

The ICCLFMPA is needed to reconcile the highway, bicycle, pedestrian, and pathway facilities in the Selected
Alternative described in the 2006 ICC ROD with the related elements in the County’s master plans. This report
describes the history, vision, and prior master plan guidance for the highway and parallel shared-use path, including
past decisions by the Planning Board, the County Council, and the Maryland Department of Transportation that
were all incorporated within the ROD.
The ICCLFMPA will modify two functional master plans:
 The Master Plan of Highways within Montgomery County
 Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan(CBFMP)

The ICCLFMPA will also amend the Planning Board’s Countywide Park Trails Plan (CPTP) and has been be
coordinated closely with the ongoing Upper Rock Creek Trail Corridor Plan and the Northwest Branch Park
Master Plan update.
This plan amendment addresses two relatively narrow issues and one larger, broader issue. The narrow issues
involve amending the Master Plan of Highways to 1) modify the ICC alignment to reflect the ROD; and 2) establish
interchange locations at Briggs Chaney Road and Midcounty Highway. The broader issue involves evaluating
cross-county bicycle and trail connectivity along the ICC corridor, to provide connections to logical destinations
and fill in critical gaps in response to portions of the path being built with the highway project.
The interchange at Briggs Chaney Road is more procedural than technical. The ICC ROD identified this location
for an interchange and this plan amendment will simply affirm and reflect prior decisions. The interchange at
Midcounty Highway must be studied further because the alignment selected for the ICC utilized portions of the
right-of-way(ROW) intended for Midcounty Highway, and thus shifted the location of a future interchange further
north and west.
6
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Purposes
The purposes of the ICCLFMPA are to: 1) determine appropriate uses for master planned ROW not used by the
approved highway project, with a particular focus on use of ROW that passes through parkland for a future bikeway
or trail in conjunction with the approved ROD highway alignment; 2) propose new alignment(s) for the master
planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities along the ICC Corridor; and 3) reconcile approved highway design
elements with master plan guidance regarding certain interchange locations.

The ICCLFMPA examines key issues and challenges related to the CBFMP and the CPTP to clarify the County’s
vision for bicycle and pedestrian mobility and access along the corridor, which is consistent with our commitment
to the Planning Board when we presented the ICC Bikeways Implementation Strategy in early January 2007. For
an overview of the areas that are described in detail as part of this amendment, refer to Figure 1.

Key Plan Objectives

Highway Design and Alignment
o Modify the Master Plan of Highways to identify the ROD selected alternative as the highway’s
official master plan alignment.
o Examine and provide guidance for the design of the future interchange at Midcounty Highway and
the ICC (See Figure 2) and the related connection to Shady Grove Road.
o Affirm prior Planning Board decisions (no paved pathway/trail due to environmental sensitivity) for
master planned ROW segments passing through parkland that are no longer needed for the ICC.
 Rock Creek Option A (Figures 3 and 4)
 Northwest Branch Option B (Figures 5 and 6)
o Consider removing from County master plans a bikeway/trail alignment through Paint Branch
Stream Valley Park. (Figure 7)
o Identify Briggs Chaney Road and the ICC as an interchange. (Figure 7)
o Establish the new master planned alignment of SP-40. (Figure 8)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Mobility

o Identify and recommend the required changes to policy guidance to enable the successful
implementation of the State Highway Administration’s (SHA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,
henceforth referred to as SHA Bike Plan (refer to Figure 1), to safely accommodate both
novice/family bicyclists, pedestrians and other users along the route’s full length.
o Identify and recommend policy changes needed to implement the full-length master planned shared-
use path in the highway ROW, SP-40 in the CBFMP, henceforth referred to as the County Bike
Path (CBP) (refer to Figures 1 and 8), or an equivalent and suitable alternative route along new
paths or wide sidewalks of parallel highways, arterials and neighborhood streets, in order to avoid
environmentally sensitive areas particularly in stream valley parks.
o Modify the CBFMP and the CPTP to ensure safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian access to and
from the SHA Bike Plan.
7
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Other issues studied include:

o Identify a funding mechanism that would permit potential participation by the private sector, through
the Local Area Transportation Review, to help construct or fund portions of the SHA Bike Plan or
CBP.
o Determine feasibility of interim use by mountain bikers (and equestrians) of segments adjacent to the
highway ROW where the master planned CBP would eventually be built in the future.

Refined objectives
The above plan objectives were starting points for discussions. As the planning process progressed during fall
2007, four key questions emerged which we posed to both agency staff as well as the public during the public
meetings in March/April 2008.
1. Does the County agree with the State’s recommendations for routing the CBP along existing bikeways,
sidewalks and paths (SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan)?
2. What improvements are needed along these roads to improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodation and
address the needs of all potential user groups?
3. Should the County remove from master plans CBP sections through environmentally sensitive park
resources?
4. What related master plan amendments are required to achieve any recommendations resulting from
solutions intended to address the above?

8
 RD Figure 1

D
ICC Corridor Study Area
R
RS

WI
AI

LD
R IA

CK
BR

FIE
PA
RD

HA
R R D
OD
K R KE
TE
SHA and Master Plan Bike Alignment Park Trails

M
R
D
AS OO
WO

BR

RD
C D
UN LR
MIL
Master Plan ICC Bike Path
M
BO
W IE
Parks
SHA Bike Plan Metro Stations
D
2
I
D ICC Alignment
R R
ING
K
PR
Railroads
R

YS
PA

ME
D
AN

D
BU
R

Y -S

LR
Proposed Interchanges
MID

ET
AI

CO
UN
E HL OL
NE
!
(
k Rivers & Streams

ING
MIL
TY ER
HW RD
Y

IE

HO
HINE S RD Existing Bike Route

W
Lakes

US
BO

B LV

ER
!
(
RD

k Proposed Bike Route

D
VE

CA

V IC
County Boundary

K
O

SH
GR

AV E

OL D
EL
0 0.5 1
DY

M-NCPPC

LR

G IA
A

Miles
SH

DR

R
CR

Date: May 13, 2008

NO
GE O
AN

OL D
AB

DL

RW
BS

LA

OR
RE
BR

OO
Y D
OR
AN

CHA
NEE D R

DR
WOO EM L

D
IL
C

D RD

RD
H

YH

RD
D
K RD

LL
W

B EC LA NORB E
AY

CK RD

LV
HI

ON
NOR

RD
2
I 115

B
BATS
182

OA

SV IL LE
Needwood
Golf Course MU
NC
AS
28
SPE

HA RD RD
RD
T ER N

N
M CE
ILL RV

BURTO
W
ILL

SO
RD

IN
RAINBO W DR ER
AVERY RD

HN
ER
Rock

JO
Northwest

PEACH ORC
Creek

AT
E GUDE DR Regional Branch BR
IGG

E
D R Recreational

DR
Park S
W ER CH
Park 650 AN
LO EY
NF R
SU D

Figures 3 and 4 Needwood Road and Vicinity

WINDMILL LA PE
D
ORE R RR

NOTLEY RD
GR

D
WES TM YW EE

R
RD

OO NC

ES T
D AS
R

97 R D TL
VE

PE DR ER
NA

E CR
HO
DO

D
OD

PIK
DIN

BONIFANT RD GO TW

HOM
IG

D
ED

B IA
RD

ER
ALDERTON RD
28 BEL PRE RD
29
R

LUM
¤

DAL
R
NNE CTO
RD

NTY CO
TE RCOU
RU

CO
E

IN

FA IR
Upp

D
OR

SS

er P

ILL R

OL D
aint
IM

ETT

Bra
¤
n
LT

2
I nc h RD

LAY H
NOT Y
BA

LE Y BE
RD

Figures 5 and 6 Northwest Branch

R
D D RO
A VE

HILL R TA VE
ASP EN HEWIT
G

RD
EO

D
FA IRLA N
TIC

and Vicinity
R

E AV E
G
C

IA
AR

AV
CO
ND DR

!
(

PS HIR

SERPENTINE WA Y
k
NN

RD
RD
EC

CK
LA

H
RA

NEW HAM
TIC

BRIGGS RD LP A
P KW

PAR K

O M
ND
UT

A TA EAS
R T
AV

RD

RAN
OK

R RD DO
EL LE
E

LP H
B RO

ILL

ST W RD
§
¦
¨ 270 355 RD

KE
YH

VA 2
I
N

2
I
MP
GL ENA

Figure 7 Paint Branch and Vicinity

A
LA

CH
LLA N A
TW I

H VE
MI

ER
DR

K
LL PI
LIN

R
MONT D
RO SE
HEY

YH
RD
EL
L RD JACKS ON RD BI
ST M
LU

ILL
RD
BUS

PO ST OA
K RD CO

RD
OL D STAG E RD

CH
GRAYS LA

TE
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Crosscutting themes and issues

Several broad, cross-cutting themes or issues emerged during the planning process, which impacted the analysis
and staff recommendations throughout the ICC corridor. Decision makers and the public must be cognizant of these
conflicts and challenges as they evaluate various alternatives and options considered in this plan.

Short- term solutions (“quick fixes”) versus long-term vision. The planning process must not merely react
to the approved highway design to develop short-term quick fixes, but must offer long-term vision, looking
20-30 years in the future to anticipate future needs in reaction to emerging local, regional and global
environmental and societal challenges.
Environmental protection versus mobility and access. Bikeways, like any land development -- including
ballfields and playgrounds -- cause environmental harm at some level. Land development frequently causes
loss of trees, disruption to natural drainage patterns, adverse impacts to natural habitat, damage to water
quality from increased runoff, and other effects. Unlike some land development, bikeways and trails also
offer significant environmental (and health) benefits as well, which are difficult to quantify. A transportation
cyclist using a pathway or bikeway frequently equates to one less car on county roads, which in turn means
less air and water pollution in the long run (when compared to what otherwise would be a single occupant
vehicle). This conflict was, and remains, at the heart of the debate for and against a full-length CBP as well
as debates about numerous other bikeways and trails throughout the County. Bicycle facilities offer
environmental and health benefits which are difficult to quantify in the short term, but when absent,
contribute to long-term consequences such as obesity and air pollution.
Transportation function versus a recreational, aesthetic experience. Transportation cyclists most often
prefer the shortest and most direct connection from their origins to their destinations. Recreational cyclists
and other pathway users frequently want an aesthetic, park-like experience for which a meandering pathway
is appropriate and often highly desirable. Ironically, these frequently conflicting desires merge in this
master plan amendment because the most direct connection between future ICC Bike Path segments would
pass through parkland, offering the best of both worlds. However, these direct connections also frequently
travel through very sensitive environmental resources. The reaction is to move the trail to parallel roadways
where the transportation function may be high, but the aesthetic, park-like experience is low or non-existent.
This master plan amendment offers a choice between enhancing transportation function while reducing
recreational value or selecting a pathway alignment that enhances recreational and transportation value
while affecting environmental resources. In reality, both affect environmental resources; the former is
indirect and diluted while the latter is direct and visible.
Different routes for different users. A goal from the beginning of this master plan process was to identify
one route to accommodate all pathway user groups: bicyclists of all levels, hikers, walkers, equestrians, and
others. It became apparent during public meetings that one route would not satisfy all user groups. Some
wanted a hard surface trail, some did not want any facilities along roadways, and some wanted a natural
surface trail (only hard surface was evaluated during the ICC Final Environmental Impact Statement
[FEIS]). Some bicyclist place a high value on the most direct route to destinations for bicycle
transportation, while others place a higher value on a park-like experience (recreation).

10
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Choice trails versus sanctioned trails. Choice trails result where connections are needed and sanctioned
trails are not planned. As a result, choice trails – typically created by residents – can inadvertently damage
sensitive natural resources. To prevent this, many user groups (particularly users of natural surface trails)
are asking the County to designate (or “sanction”) specific trail routes along the ICC corridor, which would
allow unsanctioned trails to revert back to a nature state.

Bicycle use on limited access highway. Many transportation cyclists are asking the County and state to
allow bicycles to travel along the ICC shoulders. Current State law prohibits bicycle use on highways with
speed limits 50 MPH or higher, particularly those managed by the Maryland Transportation Authority
(MdTA). Legislation passed by the General Assembly in 2008 and likely to be signed into law by the
Governor on April 24, 2008, however, grants the Chair of the Transportation Authority the ability to
approve bicycle and pedestrian use of MdTA facilities on a case-by-case basis. By the time this plan
amendment is approved and adopted by the County Council (October 2008), this law will take effect and
should be considered and reflected in any recommendations. However, the ICC is a co-sponsored facility
with the MdTA and SHA and it is presumed the facility will be signed to prohibit access by cyclists on all
approaches to the highway to minimize potential confusion with where cycling is permitted on the pathway
within the highway ROW.

Use of highway construction access roads for recreation. Numerous trail user groups have asked agency
staff to consider converting ICC construction roads to pathways after SHA contractors are done using them.
Staff has studied this option, but it cannot be done for two reasons. First, most of the highway will be built
within the highway footprint, and not require access roads. Secondly, where access roads are being built,
they must be environmentally restored per commitments in the ROD.

Critical connections for eastern County residents. There was strong sentiment in public meetings that
critical connections be preserved so that the large segment of County residents living east of New
Hampshire Avenue can continue to enjoy park trails. Of particular concern is that by eliminating hard
surface trails through parkland (and during the ICC), such as through Paint Branch and Northwest Branch
stream valley parks, eastern County communities will be unable to safely and enjoyably link with the rest of
the County trail system. Families are unlikely to use the alternative routes along parallel roads proposed in
this plan for recreation, particularly to reach the major park trails further west.

The recommendations in this Plan reflect staff judgment regarding these themes and issues. The draft remains
fairly true to the Planning Board's position in 2005, at which time the Board did not support a paved trail along the
ICC within the Mill Creek, Rock Creek, or Upper Paint Branch stream valley parks due to concerns associated with
the natural environment. Our staff proposal recognizes that different routes are needed for different users. In areas
where the clearing and grading impacts associated with a paved trail are highest and there are few community
connections, the formal east-west transportation link for bicyclists should be diverted to adjacent roads. In some
locations, however, the park access function served by the master plan trail can be maintained by retention of a
natural surface trail system in the Countywide Park Trails Plan to provide access for hikers, equestrians, and
mountain bikers.

11
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

ISSUES, ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Highway Elements
This master plan amendment adopts the three roadway options to the master plan alternative that were analyzed in
the DEIS and included in the ROD:

Rock Creek Option C

Northwest Branch Option A
Briggs Chaney Road interchange

The Planning Board supported all three of these options during their review of the DEIS in February 2005. Each
recommended change is briefly described below.

Rock Creek Option C

The DEIS compared two alignments within Rock Creek Stream Valley Park. Option A is the master planned
alignment following the Mill Creek tributary to Rock Creek. Option C, part of the selected alternative, follows an
alignment several hundred feet north and utilizes a portion of the highway ROW reserved for the future Midcounty
Highway (M-83) connection to the ICC. Option C was selected to minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive
areas along the Option A alignment.

The proposed southerly extension of M-83 provides a direct connection between existing Midcounty Highway at
Shady Grove Road and points to the east along the ICC. The 1985 and 2004 Upper Rock Creek Area master plans
both identified two alignments for the portion of M-83 between Redland Road and the ICC. The selection of the
Rock Creek Option C alignment for the ICC reduces the length of the unbuilt portion of M-83 extended.

This plan preserves ROW options for future M-83 ramp connections to the ICC. Figure 2 is an excerpt from the
ICC Contract A Request for Proposals identifying a conceptual extension of M-83 to the ICC and identifies the
residential property displacements associated with Rock Creek Option C. These properties are now owned by the
State of Maryland. The alignment of the eastbound M-83 ramp shown in Figure 2 would likely require three
additional residential property displacements on Garrett Court in the Winters Run community. This plan
recommends that an alternative ramp alignment be developed that avoids additional property displacements and that
all properties owned by the State be considered part of the M-83 alignment ROW and subject to property
reservation policies pending completion of the alternative ramp design upon which ROW decisions can be made.

12
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Figure 2 Midcounty Highway Interchange

Northwest Branch Option A

The ICC DEIS compared two alternative alignments within Northwest Branch Stream Valley Park. Northwest
Branch Option B (the shorter, straighter alignment of the two) is the master planned alignment. Northwest Branch
Option A is a more curvilinear alignment that was developed to minimize impacts on environmental resources,
despite the fact that it is longer and requires more designated parkland.

Briggs Chaney Road Interchange

The ROD includes a partial interchange at Briggs Chaney Road, which is not included in the Fairland Master Plan.
This interchange includes ramps to and from the east along the ICC. A Briggs Chaney Road interchange is needed
to provide local business access to and from the east on the ICC because close interchange spacing precludes these
connections from occurring via US 29.

13
 Intercounty Connector Limited Functional Master Plan Amendment
Public Hearing Draft

Bikeways Elements
The CBP is defined as the shared-use off-road bicycle facility in the highway ROW as recommended in the
CBFMP, the CPTP, and area master plans. The ICC’s SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is defined as existing or
proposed bicycle facilities – both off-road and on-road – that are recommended by SHA as its alternative to the
CBP to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and parkland impacts. Recognizing that the alternative does not
implement the master planned facility in the highway ROW, the State has committed to work with the local
governments to accelerate construction those portions of the SHA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that are part of
County master plans. Revisions to the SHA Plan as part of this amendment are expected to provide a continuous
shared use path to ensure that the SHA Plan meets the needs of novice and experienced bicyclists and pedestrians.
For bikeway issues, the ICCLFMPA subdivided the study area into five subareas with their own issues and
recommendations:
A. Needwood Road and Vicinity
B. Emory Lane/Georgia Avenue and Vicinity
C. Northwest Branch Park and Vicinity
D. Paint Branch Stream Valley Park and Vicinity
E. US 29 Corridor

Study Area A: Needwood Road and Vicinity (Figures 3 and 4)

Problems/Issues
Connecting the ICC pathway west-terminus at Needwood Road with Midcounty Highway
o Along the current master plan route via the old ICC ROW through the park; or
o Via new shared use paths along Needwood, Muncaster Mill and Shady Grove Roads, and perhaps
using Applewood Lane, a neighborhood street, to connect Muncaster Mill Road with the future
ICC/Midcounty Highway interchange.
Deciding whether to eliminate the master planned alignment through the park (to run parallel to the master
planned highway alignment not selected in the ROD).

Discussion
The CBP through this study area provides a critical trail/pathway connection between the I-270 Corridor and the
Georgia Avenue communities. The selected alternative highway alignment for this area – Rock Creek Option C –
avoids sensitive natural resources but does not accommodate the trail connection, primarily because the highway
was designed with a small footprint to avoid additional impacts to the Mill Creek communities. A trail/bikeway
connection across the Rock Creek Main Stem is needed to link the up-County and down-County bikeway/pathway
systems, connecting Clarksburg, East Germantown, and East Gaithersburg with the Rock Creek Trail network and
parks to the east. An independent hard surface trail or pathway within the old master plan alignment should not be
built due to the same environmental problems the highway would have caused, in addition to the cost.
14