WV Bond Issue - 2017

[bubbamcgee]

When they say I-64 at Beckley I'm thinking they mean the free section. What's the traffic counts here? I wouldn't think there would be a need for more than 4 lanes

I've traveled through there many times on the non-turnpike section and have never found traffic to be high enough to warrant expansion past 4 lanes.  I could see an expansion to 6 lanes on the turnpike section from US 19 down to the I 64 split though. 

[hbelkins]

- It looks like I-79 from Servia to Flatwoods will be reconstructed.

Why? Do they mean a full-depth pavement rehab or something else? There's nothing particularly wrong with this segment.

- I-64 reconstruction from Milton (Exit 28) to US 35 (Exit 40).

Widening?

- I-64 reconstruction near White Sulphur Springs.

Again, why? Unless this is a full-depth rehab, not necessary.

- I-77 reconstruction from Kenna to Medina.

Again, why? Unless this is a full-depth rehab, reconstruction isn't necessary.

- US 340 four-lane construction from Charles Town to the Virginia state line.

I presume this is the southernmost segment, and not the Harpers Ferry descent.

- I-79 reconstruction from some access road to MM 14.
- I-77 reconstruction from Edens Fork to Tuppers Creek.

Again, why? Unless this is a pavement rehab, it's not necessary.

- WV 2 widening to four lanes from Proctor to Franklin. It passes by numerous industrial facilities.

All of WV 2 should be four lanes, IMO.

- Widen I-64 at Beckley.

Not needed. I've never seen high traffic volumes on that stretch.

[SP Cook]

HB asks a lot of good questions.  I have looked at every halfway trustworthy news source, and really have no idea.  They are playing their cards way too close to the vest, IMHO. 

I have no idea what "reconstructed" means.  The segments listed are among the oldest parts of the interstate system, so is this a down to the dirt rebuild?  Be nice if they would say.

The state has had plans to widen 64 from MP 6 to the current end at MP 40 for a long time, but I have no idea if the Milton to Hurricane project includes that.  Be nice if they would say. 

As to WV 2, yes certainly all of WV 2 should be four lanes.  That has been a political football since at least the 60s.  One issue is ROW costs, which would be quite high.

As to 64 at Beckley, I'm certain that they are talking about the free part.  Turnpike work would not be listed at all.  Agree that this seems odd, as there is little traffic on this segment.  The needed work at Beckley is a connector from the Glade Springs development directly to either the turnpike or 64.  The turnpike was supposed to do that 10 years ago, but just defied the legislature and wasted the money on other things.  As Justice owns Glade Springs, he does not dare trying to do anything about it, for which I give him credit. 

The big question I have is "in what order".  Been down this road (no pun intended) before.  Seen lots of road bonds with lots of lists of projects, northern WV ones actually get built, southern WV told to wait its turn and by then inflation has eroded the money and they do a new bond with a new list.  Lather, rinse, repeat. 

There is no reliable polling, and a Saturday election during football season is designed to get only the most hard core voters out but this is looking like a referendum of Justice more and more, and that will be a hard sell.

[seicer]

I know that Justice was talking about a ground-up reconstruction of I-64 between Milton and Hurricane. It did not indicate that this portion would be widened, just rebuilt.

I would say that while a lot of I-77 and I-79 is in serviceable condition, it can be quite bumpy, especially at the joints. Those projects might entail rehabilitation of the joints with an asphalt overlay, not a ground-up rebuild. I-64 is different; it's old, carries a lot of traffic and has a lot of issues with the original concrete that just can't be patched indefinitely.

[bubbamcgee]

I find it interesting that there are quite a few projects (bridge replacements, road & slip repairs, safety improvements, etc.) being done as turnpike bond projects that have no direct ties to the turnpike itself.  In fact, many of the projects are nowhere near the turnpike.  Shouldn't these projects have been under the general road fund/bonds???  Why would the turnpike authority take on additional debt for projects that have nothing to do directly with the highway???   

Also, HB, it appears the I-77, I-64 & I-79 projects you questioned are pavement rehabilitation's; not reconstruction.

[hbelkins]

I know that Justice was talking about a ground-up reconstruction of I-64 between Milton and Hurricane. It did not indicate that this portion would be widened, just rebuilt.

In most places where work has been done on I-64 between Exit 15 and Exit (mumble ... the WV 25 exit just after you cross the Kanawha for the first time), such as the Milton exit bridge replacement, preparations have been made for three-laning the road. Given there have been plans to widen I-64 between Exit 15 and Charleston for years, I'd expect it to be a widening. Makes no sense to to a rehab now when you'd just be tearing it up to widen the road in future years.

If there are a lot of lane closures along this corridor, I'll definitely be taking WV 2-US 50 or US 119 to avoid I-64 while that work is ongoing.

[Bitmapped]

When they say I-64 at Beckley I'm thinking they mean the free section. What's the traffic counts here? I wouldn't think there would be a need for more than 4 lanes

It's the Turnpike section near Beckley. The Secretary of Transportation mentioned this project during the ribbon cutting for WV 10 near Logan. I'm not sure why they're using general obligation bonds for this rather than Turnpike revenue bonds.

Just noticed an odd project on this list.  Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12.  Total projected cost: $42,000,000.  Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need.  Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???

That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.

I find it interesting that there are quite a few projects (bridge replacements, road & slip repairs, safety improvements, etc.) being done as turnpike bond projects that have no direct ties to the turnpike itself.  In fact, many of the projects are nowhere near the turnpike.  Shouldn't these projects have been under the general road fund/bonds???  Why would the turnpike authority take on additional debt for projects that have nothing to do directly with the highway???   

Turnpike tolls are being raised to back a large revenue bond that will fund projects in 10 southern West Virginia counties. The idea is to make out-of-state drivers on the Turnpike pay for the work rather than increasing the state gas tax or DMV fees further.

Also, HB, it appears the I-77, I-64 & I-79 projects you questioned are pavement rehabilitation's; not reconstruction.

No, they are full depth Interstate reconstruction projects. A number of these projects are already out to bid. Like HB, I question the need. Some are DOH-designed projects and others, like I-79 in Monongalia County, are partially contractor-designed with a 9-year pavement warranty. If you're going to do a full depth reconstruction, it seems like you should be pushing for a lot longer lifespan than 9-years.

[Beltway]

The issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.

However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route.  Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.

The project segment is in all three states.  US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD.  As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.

It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.

[Bitmapped]

The issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.

However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route.  Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.

The project segment is in all three states.  US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD.  As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.

It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.

To clarify, the part of US 340 being widened to 4 lanes is from the Charles Town bypass south to Clarke County, VA. WV does have some minor improvements planned near Harpers Ferry, but no significant widening.

Widening Virginia's section of US 340 near Harpers Ferry looks to be readily doable with a median barrier. Widening WV's section on the east bank of the Shenandoah is not. Extensive blasting and/or retaining walls would be needed. The adjoining land is owned by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and construction of the scale needed is going to cause viewshed issues from Harpers Ferry.

[Beltway]

The issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.

However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route.  Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.

The project segment is in all three states.  US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD.  As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.
It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.

To clarify, the part of US 340 being widened to 4 lanes is from the Charles Town bypass south to Clarke County, VA. WV does have some minor improvements planned near Harpers Ferry, but no significant widening.
Widening Virginia's section of US 340 near Harpers Ferry looks to be readily doable with a median barrier. Widening WV's section on the east bank of the Shenandoah is not. Extensive blasting and/or retaining walls would be needed. The adjoining land is owned by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and construction of the scale needed is going to cause viewshed issues from Harpers Ferry.

It doesn't appear from maps online of the park, that it extends inland of the low water line on the south bank of the river.  So the highway could be widened without impacting the park.

This has needed widening for at least 40 years.  There are context sensitive designs that could be utilized to blend the highway embankments into the natural environment.  The needs are too great for this widening to remain unbuilt.  The Potomac River bridge is old enough that it might warrant a complete replacement with a 4-lane bridge.

Maryland did a good job back in the 1960s building the rest of US-340 as a 4-lane highway.

West Virginia did a good job back in the 1970s building a Charles Town bypass and building a 4-lane US-340 between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry.

Virginia built a 4-lane VA-7 Berryville Bypass in the 1970s and upgraded the rest of VA-7 to 4 lanes (a few places wider) between I-81 and I-495 by about 1995.  They also widened US-340 to 4 lanes between Berryville and WVA by about 1980. 

I am aware of the 4-mile-long 2-lane segment of US-340 just north of the VA/WVA border.

So there are two un-widened segments of US-340 that need to be widened on the corridor between Berryville, VA, and Frederick, MD.

[hbelkins]

Just noticed an odd project on this list.  Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12.  Total projected cost: $42,000,000.  Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need.  Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???

That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.

That's the best section of 33 between the two interstates, as it exists now. The drive from Ripley to Spencer isn't that bad. Spencer to Glenville to Weston? Aargh.

[bubbamcgee]

Just noticed an odd project on this list.  Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12.  Total projected cost: $42,000,000.  Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need.  Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???

That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.

That's the best section of 33 between the two interstates, as it exists now. The drive from Ripley to Spencer isn't that bad. Spencer to Glenville to Weston? Aargh.

I have to agree with you HB!  Ripley to Spencer is a pretty good road as it is now with fairly low traffic.  So, I really question the 42 million being spent on this section.  It would have been much better to replace sections east of Glenville from south/west of Linn to Alum Bridge and around Stumptown.

[Bitmapped]

The issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.

However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route.  Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.

The project segment is in all three states.  US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD.  As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.
It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.

To clarify, the part of US 340 being widened to 4 lanes is from the Charles Town bypass south to Clarke County, VA. WV does have some minor improvements planned near Harpers Ferry, but no significant widening.
Widening Virginia's section of US 340 near Harpers Ferry looks to be readily doable with a median barrier. Widening WV's section on the east bank of the Shenandoah is not. Extensive blasting and/or retaining walls would be needed. The adjoining land is owned by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and construction of the scale needed is going to cause viewshed issues from Harpers Ferry.

It doesn't appear from maps online of the park, that it extends inland of the low water line on the south bank of the river.  So the highway could be widened without impacting the park.

NPS owns up to and over the ridgeline on Blue Ridge. This is shown in the park maps on the Harpers Ferry NHP website (https://www.nps.gov/hafe/planyourvisit/maps.htm) and on Jefferson County's online GIS map (http://www.jefferson.wvassessor.com/ESRIJavascriptMaps/JCParcelViewerCounty/index.html).

While I agree that a four lane corridor would be nice, there's nothing of the sort near Harpers Ferry on WVDOH's radar screen.

[Bitmapped]

Just noticed an odd project on this list.  Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12.  Total projected cost: $42,000,000.  Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need.  Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???

That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.

That's the best section of 33 between the two interstates, as it exists now. The drive from Ripley to Spencer isn't that bad. Spencer to Glenville to Weston? Aargh.

I have to agree with you HB!  Ripley to Spencer is a pretty good road as it is now with fairly low traffic.  So, I really question the 42 million being spent on this section.  It would have been much better to replace sections east of Glenville from south/west of Linn to Alum Bridge and around Stumptown.

The preferred route east of Glenville is to use WV 5 along the Little Kanawha River. That's how WVDOH signs to get to I-79 from Glenville. Nothing is going to happen between Glenville and Weston because there's not really much of anything out that way and that part of US 33 is not a through corridor.

[hbelkins]

Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?

[Mapmikey]

Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?

I drove US 119 from Charleston to Spencer a couple weeks ago. They are doing a project a few miles south of Spencer improving a couple bridges. Otherwise it is worse than Spencer to Weston which I drove both directions that same day.

[hbelkins]

Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?

I drove US 119 from Charleston to Spencer a couple weeks ago. They are doing a project a few miles south of Spencer improving a couple bridges. Otherwise it is worse than Spencer to Weston which I drove both directions that same day.

I drove that section of 119 several years ago and don't remember all that much about it. But I drove WV 36 a couple of weeks ago and it was awful.

[Mapmikey]

Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?

I drove US 119 from Charleston to Spencer a couple weeks ago. They are doing a project a few miles south of Spencer improving a couple bridges. Otherwise it is worse than Spencer to Weston which I drove both directions that same day.

I drove that section of 119 several years ago and don't remember all that much about it. But I drove WV 36 a couple of weeks ago and it was awful.

I thought about using WV 36 to get back to I-79 but the Gazeteer made it look like it really was awful and I was trying to get home by then, so I elected to use US 33-119 back to Weston even though I had drive it westbound earlier that day.

[SP Cook]

The only poll before the election is out, from the right-leaning WV Metronews radio chain.  It has approval at 67%, but even the pollster says "that is not going to happen".  The same pollster has gotten several elections wrong. 

[Bitmapped]

A lot of people in the southern part of West Virginia are upset because there aren't many projects in their area covered by the general obligation bonds being voted on. (They are getting their own ~$450M pot of money with bonds backed by Turnpike revenue.) To appease them, a section of Coalfields Expressway paving that was to be paid for with Turnpike bonds has been moved to general obligation bonds. http://www.wvva.com/story/36294882/2017/09/Tuesday/wva-governor-adds-55-million-for-coalfields-expressway-in-upcoming-bond-election

The project list WVDOT has put out don't add up. They're promising $1.9 billion of work to be paid with $1.6 billion of general obligation bonds and have given no indication where the other $300M is coming from.

[Bitmapped]

WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.

[hbelkins]

WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.

Does that section really need widening?

[plain]

WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.

Does that section really need widening?

I maybe could see this section being widened. At first I was thinking they meant the free section, which definitely doesn't need it at all

[Bitmapped]

WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.

Does that section really need widening?

It's been talked about for years and I think it would be beneficial. Traffic is running about 45K with about 25% trucks, which is comparable with sections of the other Interstates that have been widened. The road has some grades to it and can be crowded at peak times. Having three continuous lanes would also help to clean up some oddly placed climbing lane ends near the Tamarack exit.

[VTGoose]

WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.

Does that section really need widening?

It couldn't hurt. Going southbound, there is a three-lane climbing lane section that starts north of the U.S. 19 exit and ends at the top of that grade. At that point, there is a combination of through traffic and local traffic in both directions with the added "bonus" of traffic entering and exiting for the service plaza/Tamarac. Adding a third lane would give better separation for through traffic that doesn't want to/need to slow down to enter or exit. As with a lot of projects, the traffic volume at most times may not warrant three lanes (I-95 in South Carolina for example) but when traffic is heavy (hurricane evac, Hoopies traveling after the holidays) having an extra lane is almost a necessity.

Bruce in Blacksburg (who has witnessed Sunday-after-Thanksgiving traffic jams on the Turnpike)