AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-Atlantic => Topic started by: CanesFan27 on September 20, 2009, 03:01:17 PM

Title: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 20, 2009, 03:01:17 PM
This past Thursday, WVDOH had a ribbon cutting ceremony for the completion of the South Branch of the Potomac bridge in Moorefield.  At the same time, they had a ground breaking ceremony on a paving project that will ultimately extend Corridor H another 10 plus miles from US 220 in Moorefield to Patterson Creek Road in Forman.  The next segment is planned to open in the fall of 2010.

http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/521857.html (http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/521857.html)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 20, 2009, 03:39:51 PM
In addition, Senator Byrd was able to procure another $4.5 million for Corridor H (along with other projects).  He considers Corridor H, "[his] transportation crusade."

http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=66847 (http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=66847)
http://www.newstribune.info/news/x576511606/Byrd-secures-more-Corridor-H-money (http://www.newstribune.info/news/x576511606/Byrd-secures-more-Corridor-H-money)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on September 21, 2009, 07:02:12 AM
When this section is completed, its time for WV to apply for numbering of Corridor H as US 48, IMHO.

Currently, from west to east, the completed section from I-79 to Elkins is a multiplex of several numbers, but primarally called "US 33" or "Corridor H" by locals.  There US 33 continues as a mountain road and when Corridor H resumes it is a complex multiplex of several numbers, with WV 55 being primary.  It then ends at Wardensville, and its just WV 55 to the state line.  But Virginia has multiplexed US 48 onto the existing VA 55 to I-81.

Now, currently, it is very difficult to follow the intended route of Corridor H.  It involves following small local routes, including a one lane road in one section over the eastern continental divide.  I have done it, but it is not for regular motorists.

However, when the current construction is finished, which is quite posibably the last construction that will ever be completed (the blue secions on this map) :

http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html)

the route will be the logical travelway through that area, and it would seem to me that US 48 could be applied to all completed sections, from I-79 to Wardensville, and onto WV 55 to the VA line.  Then apply "Temp 48" or "Detour 48" or "TO 48" or "WV 48, to US 48" (no AASHTO approval needed for that one) to, from west to east, US 219 from Kerens to Thomas, WV 32 from Thomas to Davis, and WV 93 from Davis to Scheer.  For the year it will take to get from Scheer to Forman, US 48 could be bannered on WV 42 and CR 5, which is a good 2 lane road in that point.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 21, 2009, 01:29:04 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 21, 2009, 07:02:12 AM

the route will be the logical travelway through that area, and it would seem to me that US 48 could be applied to all completed sections, from I-79 to Wardensville, and onto WV 55 to the VA line.  Then apply "Temp 48" or "Detour 48" or "TO 48" or "WV 48, to US 48" (no AASHTO approval needed for that one) to, from west to east, US 219 from Kerens to Thomas, WV 32 from Thomas to Davis, and WV 93 from Davis to Scheer.  For the year it will take to get from Scheer to Forman, US 48 could be bannered on WV 42 and CR 5, which is a good 2 lane road in that point.



I've been across WV 42 from Petersburg to Mt. Storm Lake, then WV 93 down to Davis, WV 32 the short distance to Thomas, and US 219 down to Elkins. Did this twice. Drove it from west to east in the summer of 2000, and from east to west during a heavy snowstorm in January 2004. This was the closest approximation I could find to the Corridor H route on major maps. I know the Corridor H routing will run to the north of WV 42 and won't come near Petersburg. So there is a good way to approximate the routing from north of Moorefield (where Corridor H will cross US 220) over to the Mt. Storm Lake area?

In a couple of weeks I'll be in the area, but plan to drive the route that is continuously numbered as WV 55 all the way from the state line to Elkins. The worst section will be the US 33 part from Seneca Rocks to Harman. The rest, even the two/lane parts of WV 28/WV 55 and US 220/WV 28/WV 55, are all very good roads for this part of the country, as they pretty much go through valley areas.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on September 21, 2009, 07:20:45 PM
Heading west, towards Elkins (no pun intended) :

From the end of the current road, exit onto US 220 NORTH and go about 2 miles.  At Old Fields take a left onto CR 2 and follow it for 8 miles.  It will change numbers (although CRs are not numbered with "reassurance signs" anyway) to CR 5/2 at the Hardy/Grant line.  This will come out on CR 5.  Go SOUTH on CR 5 for 4 miles.  Then turn onto CR 3/3 which is Greenland Gap Road.  Follow this out and you come out in Scherr. 

Except for about 100 yards right at the beginning CR 2 and CR 5/2 are 2 lanes or a lane and a half.  CR 5 is equal in quality to any standard WV state route.  CR 3/3 is a lane and a half or two lanes, except for the actual Greenland Gap, which is the eastern continental divide and belongs to the Nature Converancy, which is one lane.  It is still a public road.  All is paved.

This follows the eventual Corridor H almost exactly, especially in Greenland Gap.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 21, 2009, 08:00:56 PM
Except for one bridge, CR 3/3 is still at least 18ft wide through the Greenland Gap/Nature Conservancy area.

As for Corridor H, it crosses CR 3/3 near Greenland Gap, but in that area, Corridor H is actually being built north-south, along the north-south leg of Scherr Rd (CR 1), and then south along what was CR 42/3.  You can see construction on a high level bridge from the CR 1/CR 3/3 intersection.

Between CR 5 and CR 3, the corridor is about halfway between CR 3/3 and CR 3/4...closer to CR 3/3 on the east end, but closer to CR 3/4 on the west end.

A couple miles north of Scherr, you can see where the connector to WV 93 is being built.

One of these days, I should post my photos of Corridor H construction from Grant and Hardy Counties online...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 21, 2009, 10:14:41 PM
The easiest way to get a major upgrade done to Corridor H and show considerable progress is to twin WV 93. Except for the portion around the lake, there appears to be ample ROW to add two lanes since the whole route passes through what appears to be a reclaimed surface mine.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on September 22, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
It would seem to me that the rest of Corridor H, which is unfunded (the red and yellow parts on this map http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html) ) would be an easy toll road.  The vast majority of traffic on that section is not going to be daily commuters who are the people disadvantaged by toll roads.  They are going to be people out of Huntington-Charleston or out of state going to the ski resorts, or people using the road as a throughway to and from the DC metro (if you look at a map, a completed H is a good way into DC from much of the midwest and upper south).  So you eliminate at grades and start a fully limited road at Kerens, with an exit for WV 72, one for US 219 and WV 32, one at Bismarck and end at Scheer.  This would get H finished in whatever amount of time the construction takes (other than the section from Wardensville to the VA line for which funding can be found, and the VA sections, which is a tempest in a teapot, VA will build it). 

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2009, 05:04:36 PM
Was Corridor H originally supposed to go to Cincinnati?

I found this editorial in the Charleston Gazette that reads.

However, one impediment remains. East-west Corridor H from Weston to the Virginia border is only half-finished -- after 40 years of work. The freeway intended to link Cincinnati and the nation's capital still is interrupted by stretches of old-style two-lane torment.

I was unaware of this. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: leifvanderwall on October 03, 2009, 08:04:55 PM
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO  take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Scott5114 on October 03, 2009, 10:23:06 PM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 03, 2009, 08:04:55 PM
We might as have the AASHTO  take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.

AASHTO doesn't "take over" roads. All Interstate and U.S. routes are maintained by the states. AASHTO is merely the Keeper of the Numbers. They don't even provide Interstate funding (that's FHWA's job).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2009, 11:12:04 PM
AASHTO also provides the specifications for signage.  At least, the 1958 interstate signing manual I have here is courtesy of AASHO (which is what AASHTO was known as back then).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on October 05, 2009, 07:31:58 AM
QuoteWas Corridor H originally supposed to go to Cincinnati?

No.  The western end of H always was intended to be Elkins.  However that is MP 99 of I-79.  From there a motorist could go 20 miles north to MP 119 - Clarksburg, the eastern end of Corridor D, which as US 50 and then OH 32, reach Cincinnati.  If you project a completed G, H, and D on the map, you see major changes in many links between the lower midwest and upper south and the DC metro area.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 05, 2009, 09:39:15 AM
This posting is coming to you from Weston, western end of Corridor H, where I spent the night last night.

I drove part of the Corridor H route yesterday on my way back from New York. I took VA 55/US 48 from I-81 west to Wardensville. Around 20 miles, took about 25 minutes, not a bad road at all. (Randy Hersh's head will explode at that news and when he sees the video I shot).

You have to drive through Wardensville and then there's access to the new four-lane, which is a fast and scenic drive over to Moorefield. All traffic is forced off the four-lane at what I call a West Virginia diamond (examples are US 119 at WV 73 in Logan and I-64 at former US 35/current WV 817 west of Charleston) and onto a connector route that leads down to US 220, although the completed bridge over the South Branch of the Potomac can be seen in the distance. From there I deviated from the route Corridor H is supposed to follow and took WV 55/WV 28 south to Seneca Rocks. This is a very good road, mostly flat and straight, although it could use resurfacing in several places), and the worst part of the trip is US 33, where you cross three mountains before you get to the "racetrack" four-lane section east of Elkins. Traffic alway moves slowly through Elkins, that town needs a downtown bypass, but I followed US 33 out to Corridor H and over to Weston, where I decided to stop for the night.

I'll have to check my mileage on my odometer, as I filled up in Strasburg and reset it, but the mileage should be around 175 between I-81 and I-79. Time was a little less than three hours. Traffic was light on the two-lanes and there were no slow trucks to have to follow across the US 33 mountain crossings. Even as is, it's a pleasant and scenic alternative to going all the way north to I-68. When completed it will be a much more direct route from Charleston, Huntington, Lexington, Louisville, Cincinnati, and even Evansville and St. Louis to the DC area than any combination of I-70 or I-68 through Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Scott5114 on October 08, 2009, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2009, 11:12:04 PM
AASHTO also provides the specifications for signage.  At least, the 1958 interstate signing manual I have here is courtesy of AASHO (which is what AASHTO was known as back then).

These days signage specifications are found in the MUTCD and the Standard Highway Signs (SHS) books, both of which are FHWA/USDOT publications. If I remember correctly, AASHO did a lot of the legwork in getting all states on the same page with regard to color and shape standards in the early part of the 20th Century. When Chief MacDonald took over at BPR (the predecessor to FHWA), it started having a more and more active role in things.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 24, 2009, 06:47:51 PM
Slightly related to Corridor H is the US 220 North/South Corridor Proposal from I-68 in Cumberland, MD to Corridor H in Moorefield, WV. 

Some recent news regarding the corridor:

http://www.newstribune.info/news/x41915825/MCDA-agrees-to-support-N-S-highway-project (http://www.newstribune.info/news/x41915825/MCDA-agrees-to-support-N-S-highway-project)
Title: Re: US-48: Signed Yet?
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2009, 07:19:19 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 28, 2009, 07:02:41 PM
Has US-48 been signed anywhere (and not just in WVA)?

It has only been signed in VA along VA-55 from I-81 to the West Virginia boarder.
Title: Re: I want pics!
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2009, 08:00:00 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 28, 2009, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2009, 07:19:19 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 28, 2009, 07:02:41 PM
Has US-48 been signed anywhere (and not just in WVA)?

It has only been signed in VA along VA-55 from I-81 to the West Virginia boarder.

I want pics!

http://www.usends.com/40-49/048/048.html (http://www.usends.com/40-49/048/048.html)
Title: Re: US-48: VA: Yes, WV: No?
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2009, 08:18:57 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 28, 2009, 08:12:54 PM
So US-48 has been signed as such in Virginia but not in West Virginia as of now?

That's what I said above.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 28, 2009, 10:59:34 PM
Oh it's been signed in Virginia for over six years if not more now...where have you been, HighwayMaster?

http://www.gribblenation.com/vapics/corrh/ (http://www.gribblenation.com/vapics/corrh/)
Title: Re: I want pics!
Post by: hbelkins on October 29, 2009, 11:01:10 AM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 28, 2009, 07:54:12 PM
I want pics!

From January 2004...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1125.JPG&hash=a6502bba99ac00768dcbf37826cbe6bc8d9413f8)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1127.JPG&hash=fea6a995517158c01cfcd6abb9c2a01083709004)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1129.JPG&hash=a94537de4139ead5b00cc5b78f285eadb7d0120c)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1130.JPG&hash=cc25e5aec844000f0d7dcb86a0d5933939a7d2be)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1133.JPG&hash=849f8f507c54430f6e033221335ce35dda5852a5)

From October 2009...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F764.jpg&hash=7274f798dcab80c5d76a874a3de8b63026bc1dd7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F765.jpg&hash=f58de6cbd4d231a050303fceb7722d08177aa516)

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 11, 2009, 09:11:42 AM
After some hiking in Maryland on Sunday (to the highest point in Maryland (http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=154), amongst other places), I headed home via the Corridor H area.  Posted an update on the blog (http://ajfroggie.blogspot.com/2009/11/corridor-h-field-checkupdate.html), but in a nutshell, there's more grading/bridgework being done between Scherr and Forman, the interchange at CR 5 in Forman will be a folded diamond, and paving between Forman and Moorefield will mostly be concrete.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 13, 2009, 04:17:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 29, 2009, 11:01:10 AM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on October 28, 2009, 07:54:12 PM
I want pics!

From January 2004...

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FWashington_CD_2004%2FPICT1133.JPG&hash=849f8f507c54430f6e033221335ce35dda5852a5)

That explains the snow... something that hopefully I'll be seeing quite a bit of when I head to NYC & LI in December.

Removed all but one image to cut down on scrolling... - Alex



Title: Re: I want pics!
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2009, 04:24:09 PM
speaking of 48, anyone have a photo of a Maryland US 48 shield?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 14, 2009, 09:43:47 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 13, 2009, 04:17:13 PM
That explains the snow... something that hopefully I'll be seeing quite a bit of when I head to NYC & LI in December.


The snow is the reason I traveled that route on that trip. I was coming home from a business trip to Washington DC and intended to drive I-81 to I-64 on the way home (going up I took I-79 to I-68). However it started to snow as I neared the end of I-66 and it was starting to stick on the road when I hit I-81. I do not like to drive on snowy interstates, especially ones as busy as I-81, because the trucks don't slow down to an appropriate speed. I'd rather drive a snow-covered two-lane mountain road than an interstate with a light accumulation because I don't trust other drivers. So I opted for the Corridor H route of VA/WV 55, WV 42, WV 93 and US 219 to meet up with US 33. At the time the only portion of the eastern four-lane was between the WV 259 exit and the East Moorefield exit, and there was no traffic on it. It worked out well, I ran out of the snow by the time I got to I-79 and it was smooth sailing on home.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 14, 2009, 11:22:59 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on November 14, 2009, 09:24:34 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 13, 2009, 04:24:09 PM
speaking of 48, anyone have a photo of a Maryland US 48 shield?

I have not seen one.

If you would have been along I-68 back in the 80's - early 90's, you might have seen one.  US-48 became I-68 in 1991.
http://www.usends.com/40-49/048_II/048_II.html (http://www.usends.com/40-49/048_II/048_II.html)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 14, 2009, 11:33:14 PM
I think the only time I'd have passed by US-48 is in 1986 on I-81, but I don't remember it.  Must not have had interesting signage!  I do remember '61 spec I-40 shields all down the mainline in Tennessee, though. Good luck finding any of those!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2009, 10:43:40 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 14, 2009, 11:22:59 PM
If you would have been along I-68 back in the 80's - early 90's, you might have seen one.  US-48 became I-68 in 1991.
http://www.usends.com/40-49/048_II/048_II.html (http://www.usends.com/40-49/048_II/048_II.html)

If only I'd been taking road photos back then ... the year prior to the route's promotion to an interstate, I traveled it in its entirety. Actually spent Christmas night in LaVale, Md., which is just west of Cumberland. I remember some construction ongoing east of Cumberland to convert US 40 to a limited-access highway but did not know the route was destined for an interstate designation.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mefailenglish on November 16, 2009, 07:06:04 AM
I've only driven this between I-79 and Buckhannon but I did notice these special mile markers:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fphotos-ak-snc1%2Fv2612%2F65%2F77%2F1510070423%2Fn1510070423_255511_7444956.jpg&hash=05767f49f5bd8f486c628861be7e4166274ac49e)

Do other Appalachian corridors have something like this?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 16, 2009, 07:36:17 AM
Yes..all ARC routes in WV use them.

Bottom of this page has an example on Corridor L.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2008/07/trip-to-pennsylvaniafeaturing-arc.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2008/07/trip-to-pennsylvaniafeaturing-arc.html)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on November 16, 2009, 07:36:32 AM
QuoteDo other Appalachian corridors have something like this?

Those in WV all do.  WV interstate 1/10 mile markers are in the same format, except these are green and have a standard interstate shield.

I have always maintained that the ARC system should have its own signage.  

The only other special signage, AFAIK, is OH 35, which has "Appalachian Highway" between the directional and the shield on most signage.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 16, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 16, 2009, 01:45:38 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 22, 2009, 06:25:55 AM
It would seem to me that the rest of Corridor H, which is unfunded (the red and yellow parts on this map http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html) ) would be an easy toll road.  The vast majority of traffic on that section is not going to be daily commuters who are the people disadvantaged by toll roads.  They are going to be people out of Huntington-Charleston or out of state going to the ski resorts, or people using the road as a throughway to and from the DC metro (if you look at a map, a completed H is a good way into DC from much of the midwest and upper south).  So you eliminate at grades and start a fully limited road at Kerens, with an exit for WV 72, one for US 219 and WV 32, one at Bismarck and end at Scheer.  This would get H finished in whatever amount of time the construction takes (other than the section from Wardensville to the VA line for which funding can be found, and the VA sections, which is a tempest in a teapot, VA will build it). 



My first post...Va. will not build this anytime soon, unless the Feds give $$...The stretch between Wardensville/Va. line: according to the original planning book for Corridor H which I still have, this part of the road will not be built unless 55 becomes "unserviceable", or Fed $$ appears, and there is a limited timeframe for the funds to be utilized...a popular rumor recently was that W.Va. was pushing the Dept. of Homeland Security to obtain the balance of funds to build the rest, citing the road as an emergency route out of D.C. in case of disaster.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: njroadhorse on November 16, 2009, 06:17:28 PM
Hey, I just got the WVDOT Official 2008-2009 Map the other day.  Is there any legitimacy or timetable to the proposed area running from Elkins to Route 220 along WV 93 and US 219?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 16, 2009, 06:37:07 PM
Quote from: njroadhorse on November 16, 2009, 06:17:28 PM
Hey, I just got the WVDOT Official 2008-2009 Map the other day.  Is there any legitimacy or timetable to the proposed area running from Elkins to Route 220 along WV 93 and US 219?

http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/ (http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: jdb1234 on November 17, 2009, 01:01:45 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 16, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...

That would be like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs761.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx260%2Fjdbarnes1234%2F100_0151.jpg&hash=c29361f9b583e7f6028ceedefecc915c77d76d94)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2009, 04:37:22 AM
I thought I'd never see a shield with a legend above the number and think it ugly ... but that thing is hideous!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2009, 05:30:04 AM
now this would be attractive.  I'd skid to a traffic-endangering halt to get a photo of this:

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/misc/x78.jpg)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2009, 11:18:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 16, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...

Georgia, as well.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2008_NOLA_Day_1%2FImages%2F161.jpg&hash=19a67f49e1cecb9b2004cb33925244cb4f33d25c)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mightyace on November 17, 2009, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 16, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...

US 72 east of Huntsville has similar signage.  Unfortunately, I don't have a picture.  (Or fortunately, if you're agentsteel53.  :sombrero:)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alex on November 17, 2009, 04:25:22 PM
Quote from: mightyace on November 17, 2009, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 16, 2009, 10:08:04 AM
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...

US 72 east of Huntsville has similar signage.  Unfortunately, I don't have a picture.  (Or fortunately, if you're agentsteel53.  :sombrero:)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Falabama070%2Fus-072_eb_paint_rock.jpg&hash=6de3f869167fef2e3d101f842898484c35bae00c)

Taken over six years ago, but there is an example of blue U.S. 72. Alabama 4 (http://www.southeastroads.com/alabama070/us-078_wb_app_i-022.jpg) shields are also blue in some places.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: jdb1234 on November 17, 2009, 08:17:31 PM
There are also blue AL 67, AL 20, & AL 24 shields in Alabama.  Most of the blue AL 4 shields are west of Exit 52 on US 78, but there are a few east of there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 18, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
Quote from: jdb1234 on November 17, 2009, 08:17:31 PM
There are also blue AL 67, AL 20, & AL 24 shields in Alabama.  Most of the blue AL 4 shields are west of Exit 52 on US 78, but there are a few east of there.

Examples? Did someone say they wanted to see examples? Gotcha covered!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FJune_2006_Day_1%2FJune_2006_Day_1-Images%2F268.jpg&hash=c000df5a7e1717f43d0b3dcbd7e455591c05a9a4)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FJune_2006_Day_1%2FJune_2006_Day_1-Images%2F302.jpg&hash=7421c088d89d20a138bf30a6eb2a7ccdfc1297cc)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2FJune_2006_Day_1%2FJune_2006_Day_1-Images%2F305.jpg&hash=4b4285e9b182aa157d67de3fc3277534ecf45fbe)

Personally I"m not crazy about any of these and would prefer a separate logo shield using some variation of the ARC logo with the corridor letter included. I'm sure one of our Photoshop experts could whip up something.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 18, 2009, 01:35:06 PM
a Trail of Tears Corridor marker???  How sensitive of the government.  "This here is where we forced our inhabitants down our equivalent of the Bataan Death March.  Oh yes, we are so badass that our lower colons shine through nuclear fusion."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 18, 2009, 02:39:14 PM
Kentucky and Missouri have different "Trail of Tears" markers.

At the moment I'm too lazy to find and post a link to a pic.  :-P
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 14, 2010, 06:14:04 PM
Is Corridor H the new "Goat Path Expressway"?

http://www.times-news.com/local/local_story_038135150.html
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 15, 2010, 04:21:54 PM
WVDOH has recently awarded two projects for the construction of Corridor H in Grant County.  The first project awarded was to Kokosing Construction Co.  The $10.9 million project will pave 3.3 miles of Corridor H.

Also, Mashuda Corp. won a bid to grade and drain another 2.09 miles of the eventual four lane highway.  The project is worth $18.6 million.

Story:
http://wvgazette.com/News/201005140795
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on May 17, 2010, 10:08:46 AM
Wow, Corridor H is chugging along...

I can't see how this thing is going to get completed between Davis and Kerens, though....that is the biggest section and it hasn't even been placed under final design yet!


Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on May 17, 2010, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on May 17, 2010, 10:08:46 AM
I can't see how this thing is going to get completed between Davis and Kerens, though....that is the biggest section and it hasn't even been placed under final design yet!




And you would be correct.  The whole project is the subject with a supposed "settlement" with a particular group of BANANAs.  A very unwise settlement with a tiny group of people who were running out of money and had no case other than their disagreement with those elected to make decisions.

In any event, the red parts on the map, under the "settlement" can esentually never be built unless circumstances that will probably never be met happen.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on May 21, 2010, 04:29:07 PM
West Virginia needs to convince Mitch Daniels to move from Indianapolis to Charleston. He got I-69 kick-started and that route will be open from Evansville to Bloomington, through a quote-unquote environmentally sensitive area, by 2014. I-69 has been in the planning stages a lot fewer years than Corridor H but it's going to be a reality much, much sooner. Doesn't anyone in my grandfather's native state have the political will to get it done?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on May 22, 2010, 08:06:41 AM
Mitch Daniels also convinced the Indiana Legislature to "cash in" on the Indiana Toll Road to the tune of $3.85 billion.  That, in no small part, is what's paying for the I-69 extension.  West Virginia, meanwhile, is relying largely on ADHS funding to pay for Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on May 23, 2010, 12:25:44 AM
Quote from: froggie on May 22, 2010, 08:06:41 AM
Mitch Daniels also convinced the Indiana Legislature to "cash in" on the Indiana Toll Road to the tune of $3.85 billion.  That, in no small part, is what's paying for the I-69 extension.  West Virginia, meanwhile, is relying largely on ADHS funding to pay for Corridor H.


This is true, and of course I knew that. And I sincerely doubt that West Virginia could get that much for the WV Turnpike.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on May 24, 2010, 09:47:13 PM
Press release: Progress Continues Along Corridor H
http://www.transportation.wv.gov/communications/Press-Release/Pages/ProgressContinuesAlongCorridorH.aspx
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on June 28, 2010, 10:12:30 AM
I was up that way again a couple weeks ago.  Grading and bridgework continues in the vicinity of Scherr, which is now visible on Google Maps satellite imagery (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.200467,-79.161644&spn=0.093917,0.21904&t=h&z=13).  No work begun yet on the future bridges over WV 93 or CR 1 on the north side.  The middle bridge over CR 1 is well underway, with most (if not all) of the steel girders in place, which the bridge deck is mostly complete on the southern bridge over CR 1.

Earthwork has begun on the west side of CR 3, but no work yet connecting all the way to the section near Scherr (described above).

Base paving has begun between CR 3 and CR 5.  Too early to tell whether this will be asphalt or concrete, though given they hope to have it completed this fall, it will likely be asphalt.

Paving of the interchange at CR 5 is complete and signs have also been posted (and covered by black plastic bags).  All asphalt.

Mainline paving between CR 5 and the Potomac River bridge is mostly complete.  The main lanes are concrete.  The shoulders will likely be asphalt, but paving of these has not begun yet, nor have the connections to the side roads been completed yet.  One weird aspect along here is the runaway truck ramp just west of CR 220/8.  The central part of the runaway ramp is also paved in concrete, something I've never seen before with a runaway truck ramp.

I saw no reason why they couldn't push to complete this Forman-to-Moorefield leg and have it open by Labor Day.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 01, 2010, 07:18:57 AM
Passed through yesterday on my way back from Spruce Knob.

- Looks like between CR 3 and CR 5 will be concrete, though the immediate CR 5 interchange area is asphalt as noted before.

- About half the signs between Forman and Moorefield are posted, including a few US 48 reassurance shields and signs for an eastbound "Mandatory Truck Stop" at the top of Patterson Creek Mountain, for what is roughly a 3-mile-long 6% grade.

- Work is underway on paving the approach roads at intersections.

Still see no reason why they couldn't push to have Forman-to-Moorefield open by Labor Day.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bryant5493 on August 24, 2010, 07:59:49 AM
WV-55/WV-259 West. Wardensville to Moorefield, WV





Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ShawnP on August 24, 2010, 09:24:41 PM
Speaking of selling. Would any Kentucky residents be in favor of adding tolls back on the old toll roads then selling them to raise money for major upgrades needed around the Commonwealth. For instance six laning 64 Louisville to Lexington, six laning 71 Louisville to Cinncinnati, completing 75 and 65 upgrading, building a true road from Cinncinnati to Ashland, reviving 66 across southern Kentucky, upgrading Mountain parkway and all other parkways to Interstate standards. A lot of money but so, so much better infrastructure.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 25, 2010, 12:00:16 AM
Quote from: Bryant5493 on August 24, 2010, 07:59:49 AM
WV-55/WV-259 West. Wardensville to Moorefield, WV

Be well,

Bryant

I like this music better:

http://www.millenniumhwy.net/videos/WV_Corridor_H.mp4
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 10, 2010, 12:06:26 PM
Apparently, WVDOH is combining and accelerating projects (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/531984.html?nav=5014) to where the Davis-to-Bismark segment (generally along WV 93) will be under contract beginning this fall and could be completed in 2013...5 years ahead of schedule and about the same timeframe that Bismark-to-Forman is expected to be completed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 11, 2010, 05:23:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 10, 2010, 12:06:26 PM
Apparently, WVDOH is combining and accelerating projects (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/531984.html?nav=5014) to where the Davis-to-Bismark segment (generally along WV 93) will be under contract beginning this fall and could be completed in 2013...5 years ahead of schedule and about the same timeframe that Bismark-to-Forman is expected to be completed.

For the most part, all that's needed along that portion is to build another carriageway alongside existing WV 93.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 11, 2010, 09:14:23 PM
As a general rule, from about a half mile east of WV 32 to about a half mile west of the dam, that is more or less the plan, though the shapefile suggests some curves would be smoothed/straightened out.  From the dam east would be off-alignment, starting with a new bridge about a third of a mile downriver from the dam.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 13, 2010, 08:08:55 PM
Someone I know tweeted about this one...it's a partial set of plans (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Manuals/Plan%20Presentation/Large%20Roadway/X312-H-93.37%2002/Pages%20151-179%20from%20X312-H-93.37%2002.pdf) from WVDOH for the soon-to-open segment from Forman to Moorefield, including signage plans at the CR 5 interchange at Forman.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 14, 2010, 01:24:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 13, 2010, 08:08:55 PM
Someone I know tweeted about this one...it's a partial set of plans (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Manuals/Plan%20Presentation/Large%20Roadway/X312-H-93.37%2002/Pages%20151-179%20from%20X312-H-93.37%2002.pdf) from WVDOH for the soon-to-open segment from Forman to Moorefield, including signage plans at the CR 5 interchange at Forman.


Two observations:

1.) US 48 is the signed route. WVDOH ought to go ahead and sign the entire corridor, including the existing WV 93 and US 219 two-lane connecting segments.

2.) No Clearview. All the new signage I've seen in West Virginia lately uses Clearview.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on September 14, 2010, 01:29:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 14, 2010, 01:24:37 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 13, 2010, 08:08:55 PM
Someone I know tweeted about this one...it's a partial set of plans (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Manuals/Plan%20Presentation/Large%20Roadway/X312-H-93.37%2002/Pages%20151-179%20from%20X312-H-93.37%2002.pdf) from WVDOH for the soon-to-open segment from Forman to Moorefield, including signage plans at the CR 5 interchange at Forman.


Two observations:

1.) US 48 is the signed route. WVDOH ought to go ahead and sign the entire corridor, including the existing WV 93 and US 219 two-lane connecting segments.

2.) No Clearview. All the new signage I've seen in West Virginia lately uses Clearview.

It doesn't mean that Clearview won't show up anyway!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 14, 2010, 05:23:15 PM
Quote1.) US 48 is the signed route. WVDOH ought to go ahead and sign the entire corridor, including the existing WV 93 and US 219 two-lane connecting segments.

There's no reason it can't be signed east of Moorefield today.  The problem with the segment soon-to-open is that you'd have to make the connection to WV 42 via CR 5 or CR 3...the former is a decent route comparable to a state highway, but that'll leave a 3 mile spur.  The latter avoids the spur, but CR 3 is barely paved and isn't even close to being a route that could handle traffic.

Might just be easier to wait until ca. 2013 to sign US 48 west of Moorefield, at which point I'd agree with signing it along WV 93 and WV 32 to Davis, ending at US 219 there.

Quote2.) No Clearview. All the new signage I've seen in West Virginia lately uses Clearview.

Probably because these plans date from 2002, before Clearview became used en masse...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on September 18, 2010, 03:05:22 PM
Froggie, can that shapefile be viewed online somewhere?

Links to local media stories on the subject:
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=86311
http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/532285.html?nav=5014

I'm thinking that once Corridor H is completed up to WV 42, WV 93 can be returned to its pre-1962 terminus at Scherr and that US 48 replaces 93 between WV routes 42 and 32...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 18, 2010, 10:51:10 PM
Which shapefile?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on September 18, 2010, 11:06:11 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 11, 2010, 09:14:23 PM
As a general rule, from about a half mile east of WV 32 to about a half mile west of the dam, that is more or less the plan, though the shapefile suggests some curves would be smoothed/straightened out.  From the dam east would be off-alignment, starting with a new bridge about a third of a mile downriver from the dam.

The one mentioned in the above quoted post. Thanks!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 18, 2010, 11:07:31 PM
That's WVDOH's "all routes" shapefile.  I think it's downloadable from the WVDOT website, but I don't remember offhand where I got it.  Requires having a viewer that can read shapefiles.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ShawnP on October 11, 2010, 05:12:52 PM
Corridor H very nice from Weston to east of Elkins. As we all know it ends east of there but is actually straighter and better built than I-79 west of there. One question any one notice that at the US-219 interchange that the bridges not used yet are very, very narrow almost super 2 like?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 12, 2010, 06:50:28 AM
On the really long bridges (such as on WV 55 east of Moorefield), WVDOT has typically built a 4ft shoulder instead of the "standard" 10ft.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 14, 2010, 10:43:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 18, 2010, 11:07:31 PM
That's WVDOH's "all routes" shapefile.  I think it's downloadable from the WVDOT website, but I don't remember offhand where I got it.  Requires having a viewer that can read shapefiles.

Might know where on WVDOH's site I can find that?  I want to be ready when they open a new segment of Corridor H (because it's going to be posted as US-48, right? ;)).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 15, 2010, 09:11:29 AM
I don't remember offhand where I got it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 15, 2010, 09:59:59 PM
I just mentioned it incase you ever remembered. ;)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 18, 2010, 07:55:23 AM
Forman to Moorefield is pretty much wrapped up.  Paving is done, striping is done...all that I saw left was a few signs needed posting.  WVDOH also updated all the Corridor H statuses (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map6.html), and they're anticipating opening it up between Moorefield and CR 3 by the end of the month.  They note that the segment between CR 5 and CR 3 will be for "local traffic only", this probably due to the narrowness and generally poor condition of CR 3.

Also noted that the WV State Police are actively patrolling the new segment and giving tickets to people who are "test driving" it now before the opening.  At least 4 cars driving on the new road were pulled over during the 3 hours I was in the area.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2010, 07:58:05 PM
WV Governor Manchin has announced (http://www.wvgov.org/sec.aspx?id=32&articleid=2126) a ribbon-cutting for the Forman-to-Moorefield section next Wednesday.  Although the press release mentions the roadway may open "as early as next week", it doesn't specify when the roadway would actually open to traffic.

I might be able to get Wednesday off to go over and take a look.  If not, there's a pretty good chance I could hop over the following Saturday (the 30th)...and if not then, definitely Saturday the 6th.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 21, 2010, 08:10:28 PM
If you do Froggie, let me know if US-48 shields are posted, because I would like to get to work on WV US-48's file for the CHM site. ;)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 22, 2010, 12:06:30 AM
I wonder if this might not originally be signed WV 48 initially. The first segment of the Coalfields Expressway, future US 121, is signed WV 121.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on October 22, 2010, 06:21:17 AM
WV plans are not to sign the route as US 48 until the "logical" route from Wardensville to Elkins.  Which I take to mean all of the parts shown in blue on the state's website.  The state is concerned about siphoning through traffic off I-81 and dumping it onto the local roads.  Once the blue parts are finished, the remaining (the red parts) could easily be signed as "temp 48" and be fine.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 22, 2010, 06:54:15 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 22, 2010, 06:21:17 AM
WV plans are not to sign the route as US 48 until the "logical" route from Wardensville to Elkins.  Which I take to mean all of the parts shown in blue on the state's website.  The state is concerned about siphoning through traffic off I-81 and dumping it onto the local roads.  Once the blue parts are finished, the remaining (the red parts) could easily be signed as "temp 48" and be fine.

Then why do the signage plans mentioned in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg77307#msg77307) show US-48 shields?  If they aren't going to post it as US-48, why have US-48 shields in it instead of, say, WV-48 shields.

I'm just wondering if they are following thier own signage plans.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 22, 2010, 08:30:07 AM
QuoteIf you do Froggie, let me know if US-48 shields are posted, because I would like to get to work on WV US-48's file for the CHM site.

Already done and submitted.


QuoteWV plans are not to sign the route as US 48 until the "logical" route from Wardensville to Elkins

The reality is different.  US 48 shields are posted.  I've seen and photographed them firsthand.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 22, 2010, 08:34:50 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 22, 2010, 08:30:07 AM
QuoteIf you do Froggie, let me know if US-48 shields are posted, because I would like to get to work on WV US-48's file for the CHM site.

Already done and submitted.

Huh?  I'm the guy in charge of WV.  I need to at least look over the file before it's placed online encase I need to make any changes so it works with my other WV files.  Can you please send me the file Froggie?  You have a PM with my e-mail address in your Inbox now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on October 23, 2010, 09:51:17 PM
What's the CHM site?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 23, 2010, 10:24:45 PM
Quote from: dave19 on October 23, 2010, 09:51:17 PM
What's the CHM site?

http://cmap.m-plex.com/index.php
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on October 24, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Thanks. Gonna go look at it right now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
Made it to the ribbon-cutting, which started around 1:30pm.  I won't bore you with the details, but of note was one of the speakers...Gov. Manchin's chief of staff...commenting that Corridor H should be designated a "corridor of national significance" (or something along those lines) and completed all the way to I-81.  The reasoning had a Homeland Security flair to it...traffic escaping the DC/Baltimore area in the event of an emergency.

Some notes:

- Except at the Patterson Creek bridge/interchange area and at the South Branch bridge, the new extension is fully concrete.  I've commented on this previously.

- The only indication that the segment west of Patterson Creek Rd is intended for "local traffic" is a sign requiring all trucks to exit at Patterson Creek Rd.

- On my way to the event, I noticed that US 48 shields were in the process of being added to WV 55 between Moorefield and Baker...a sign crew was in the middle of a swap as I drove past.  I talked to a WVDOH sign engineer about this, and he said they plan on signing US 48 all the way to the Virginia line...keeping the WV 55 shields in the process.  As of 4pm, signs were in place out to Baker, but no signs yet east of Baker.

- Sidebar off that last note:  I'll have to fix/extend the list I made for CHM and resend to James and Tim.

- It was also announced at the ribbon-cutting that the Corridor H extension would open that afternoon (i.e. yesterday afternoon), once crews made some last-minute tweaks, cleared out the tent and stage used for the ribbon-cutting (which sat in the westbound lanes at Patterson Creek), and moved the "Road Closed" signs.  I made a side-trip up to Bismark while waiting, then came back around 3:30ish.  While crews were still in the process of working, eastbound was "driveable" by then.

- Knobley Rd (CR 3, and the west end of the completed segment) was recently repaved, with a white shoulder stripe added south of Corridor H.  Previously, the only striping on the road was the centerline, and that's still the case north of Corridor H.

- Farther west, clearing has begun where Corridor H will tie into WV 42/93 at the top of Fore Knobs.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2010, 07:19:17 AM
So, will US-48 be posted all the way to I-79, or only as far West as the newest segment of Corridor H that opened?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2010, 07:25:03 AM
I didn't ask in that direction, but presumably only to Knobley Rd.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2010, 07:31:50 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 28, 2010, 07:25:03 AM
I didn't ask in that direction, but presumably only to Knobley Rd.

I think then I'll shoot off an e-mail to WVDOT about that later today to be on the safe side.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on October 28, 2010, 12:09:56 PM
Did you snap any pics of the new section of Corridor H?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2010, 04:28:45 PM
I did, just as I have with several other trips to the area over the past 2 years to document construction.  Whether I create an actual page for them or post them to Flickr is undecided at this point.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 29, 2010, 01:00:45 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on October 28, 2010, 07:31:50 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 28, 2010, 07:25:03 AM
I didn't ask in that direction, but presumably only to Knobley Rd.

I think then I'll shoot off an e-mail to WVDOT about that later today to be on the safe side.

I have just sent the e-mail.  I'll let you guys know when I get a responce.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Chris on November 02, 2010, 05:20:17 PM
Someone called VAFreeways (is he a member here?) made a video of the new corridor H:

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 02, 2010, 08:28:21 PM
QuoteSomeone called VAFreeways (is he a member here?)

Not to my knowledge.  He lives in the DC area but thus far has only posted material to YouTube.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 07, 2010, 07:37:49 PM
I'm hoping to drive the new section of Corridor H next Wednesday, on my way to the Northeast. I'll be coming in from US 219 north to WV 93 east, turning onto WV 42 south at Bismarck.

To get onto the new routing of US 48/Corridor H, where will I need to turn off of WV 42 to access the new alignment?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 07, 2010, 09:10:30 PM
Quote- Knobley Rd (CR 3, and the west end of the completed segment)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 07, 2010, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 07, 2010, 09:10:30 PM
Quote- Knobley Rd (CR 3, and the west end of the completed segment)

Hopefully it will be signed from WV 42, or any of the myriad of GPS devices I'll have going will have it duly marked. I've seen too many places in WV where the county route signs have been knocked down and not yet replaced.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 09, 2010, 08:20:32 PM
I just got an e-mail back from WVDOT.

QuoteThe signing of Corridor H as US 48 currently is limited to the section generally between Knobley Road (Grant CR 3) to Wardensville. If additional information is needed, please contact Mr. David Bodnar of our Engineering Division at [phone number removed].

Don't know when they mention Wardensville if they meant the end of the constructed Corridor H, or the WV/VA border along WV-55.

So, if anybody is in the area of Wardensville, please check out to see if the WV US-48 is connected to the VA US-48 via WV-55.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 09, 2010, 09:10:53 PM
QuoteI talked to a WVDOH sign engineer about this, and he said they plan on signing US 48 all the way to the Virginia line...keeping the WV 55 shields in the process.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 09, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 09, 2010, 09:10:53 PM
QuoteI talked to a WVDOH sign engineer about this, and he said they plan on signing US 48 all the way to the Virginia line...keeping the WV 55 shields in the process.

Key word there is "plan".  I just want 100% conformation that it will(is) posted all the way to VA. ;)   Can't hurt to be safe before WV US-48 is put online.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 10, 2010, 04:03:49 PM
Have you thought about going out yourself on a Saturday and looking?  After all it's only about 2-3 hour drive from Pittsburgh.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 10, 2010, 10:02:20 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 10, 2010, 04:03:49 PM
Have you thought about going out yourself on a Saturday and looking?  After all it's only about 2-3 hour drive from Pittsburgh.

I'd love to go down there, but have stuff that needs to be done on the weekends. :(
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 10, 2010, 10:04:07 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 09, 2010, 10:28:51 PM

Key word there is "plan".  I just want 100% conformation that it will(is) posted all the way to VA. ;)   Can't hurt to be safe before WV US-48 is put online.

Hopefully I will be able to give you a report tomorrow evening, as I plan to drive the new route tomorrow on my way to the Northeast. I'll probably be doing real-time updating on my Millennium Highway Facebook page so feel free to check it out if you can't wait to check here tomorrow.  :-D
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 11, 2010, 09:48:40 PM
I can report that US 48 is fully signed along WV 55. There is only one assembly that the US 48 sign is missing from, and that's the WV 55/WV 259 assembly just as you rejoin the old alignment outside Wardensville.

Going east into Virginia, there is only one US 48 sign, and that's at the state line. There are no more between there and I-81. Westbound, however, there are several.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 11, 2010, 09:49:58 PM
are any of the 48 shields made to '61 spec?  (classic shield shape, usually with Series C number)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 11, 2010, 10:30:49 PM
Virginia's are, I believe. WV, not so much. I did get plenty of pics.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 11, 2010, 10:32:57 PM
cool!  would like to see an example.  hell, even a '70 spec (bloater shield) from WV is going to be a necessary thing on the shield gallery because right now we don't have a US-48 shield for either state.

(or for Maryland, for that matter.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 12, 2010, 11:39:36 AM
West Virginia's use D-series font.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 11:43:18 AM
WV's been using the fatter shield shape for a while now.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/OK/OK19612771i1.jpg)

note the two different shield shapes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mightyace on November 12, 2010, 12:49:30 PM
^^^

Is that US 277 an error shield?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 01:06:15 PM
no, it is correctly identifying US-277.  It just happens to be made to 1961 spec, complete with Series A font.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 12, 2010, 01:23:24 PM
Brian Powell has a photo of a US 48 shield on his flickr site (alas I am at work and can't access it) but it is the same as that Oklahoma 62.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mightyace on November 12, 2010, 01:38:12 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 01:06:15 PM
no, it is correctly identifying US-277.  It just happens to be made to 1961 spec, complete with Series A font.

I am sorry, I was assuming to picture was in WV!  I should have known better as I don't think there's anywhere that flat in that state.  :banghead:
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 01:55:37 PM
heh, 62 also misses WV to the best of my knowledge.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 12, 2010, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 12, 2010, 01:23:24 PM
Brian Powell has a photo of a US 48 shield on his flickr site (alas I am at work and can't access it) but it is the same as that Oklahoma 62.

the '70 spec shields aren't exactly critical.  if I somehow fail to put one up, I won't really object.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 16, 2010, 11:16:44 PM
Here's the US 48 shield by Brian Powell I was referring to:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bmpowell/5145390374/in/pool-948879@N25
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2010, 10:33:00 AM
dang.  Not critical.  I'll likely run across US48 next week so if I'll grab a photo.  Here's hoping I can find a '61.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 17, 2010, 01:15:36 PM
You won't.  All the US 48 shields are in the same format as the one in the photo.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2010, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 17, 2010, 01:15:36 PM
You won't.  All the US 48 shields are in the same format as the one in the photo.


damn. 

I know WV just recently put up a bunch of '57-spec I-64 shields.  Maybe they'll perform a similar act with US-48 randomly?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2010, 09:07:01 PM
All of Virginia's posted US 48 shields look like this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2F2009_Northeast_Day_5%2FImages%2F772.jpg&hash=14c1788b4148e4ef95017e8ca032cc7ede3f6bb1)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2010, 09:08:50 PM
that'll do.  that is almost '61 spec!  that is the Virginia number-only cutout that was first introduced around 1956 (slightly different shape than the classic 1926 that appears on the '61 spec shields) and now it shows up on the black square.  good job Virginia not using ugly shields!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 17, 2010, 09:17:24 PM
There are several of those 48/55 assemblies heading west from I-81 toward the state line, but only one corresponding eastbound assembly, just past the state line as you cross from WV into VA.

At least WV's US 48 shields don't look like this butt-ugly example, which can be found all over the Mountain State:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumhwy.net%2Fwvroads%2Fhurricane.jpg&hash=805711d9dcba4bbd7c5ee7e5f5606d5c815be89e)

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on November 17, 2010, 09:21:01 PM
gotta love it.  Alabama has similarly wretched designs.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19702172i1.jpg)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mightyace on November 18, 2010, 02:26:13 PM
^^^

In your example, the US shield's deficiencies are overshadowed by the horrible 3-digit AL state highway sign.

To me, that shape looks more like you just used the lower half of Alabama rather than stretching the state shape.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on November 18, 2010, 08:44:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 17, 2010, 09:07:01 PM

All of Virginia's posted US 48 shields look like this:


Not quite...side road junctions have the mini-square shields although I don't seem to have a photo...here is a street view link:  http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=strasburg,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.594583,56.25&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Strasburg,+Shenandoah,+Virginia&ll=39.054414,-78.367884&spn=0,0.109863&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.054414,-78.367884&panoid=hJZDQtWoBd1Tn5311rQd3Q&cbp=12,295.81,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=strasburg,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.594583,56.25&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Strasburg,+Shenandoah,+Virginia&ll=39.054414,-78.367884&spn=0,0.109863&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.054414,-78.367884&panoid=hJZDQtWoBd1Tn5311rQd3Q&cbp=12,295.81,,0,5)

Looking for a good street view to use above I discovered a new US 55 error shield...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=strasburg,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.594583,56.25&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Strasburg,+Shenandoah,+Virginia&ll=39.054429,-78.367627&spn=0,0.109863&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.054501,-78.367522&panoid=OzNcsxjwF-IiDtTQBVdN5g&cbp=12,305.76,,0,5 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=strasburg,+va&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.594583,56.25&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Strasburg,+Shenandoah,+Virginia&ll=39.054429,-78.367627&spn=0,0.109863&t=h&z=13&layer=c&cbll=39.054501,-78.367522&panoid=OzNcsxjwF-IiDtTQBVdN5g&cbp=12,305.76,,0,5)


One full sized shield erroneously posted EAST of I-81 is not like the others...


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ferrors%2Fus48error.jpg&hash=dd630f66ddac7e0327623a630fceab582a45d9f1)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2010, 08:49:56 PM
Here is a clearer example of the smaller 48 shields Mike refers to:

http://www.gribblenation.com/vapics/corrh/us48va55atshenctyrt623.jpg (taken by Seth Dunn in 2005).

Others I have here - http://www.gribblenation.com/vapics/corrh/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 18, 2010, 10:12:39 PM
I'm guessing by that sign East of I-81 that VDOT wants to get approval to post US-48 to US-11 at least. :happy: :-D
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 20, 2010, 09:20:24 PM
I've put my photos of new US 48 (Corridor H) up on Facebook. (http://www.facebook.com/millenniumhighway)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 21, 2010, 03:50:55 PM
Added five construction photos from Sherman Cahal from the Bismarck to Forman section.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VaF on November 28, 2010, 10:56:25 PM
Quote from: Chris on November 02, 2010, 05:20:17 PM
Someone called VAFreeways (is he a member here?) made a video of the new corridor H:



I just posted the eastbound trip on my youtube channel. I also have video of Corridor H in and around Elkins as well - only eastbound though because there would have been too much glare to do a westbound video.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bryant5493 on November 29, 2010, 12:20:29 AM
^^

Welcome aboard, VaF.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 29, 2010, 12:38:33 PM
An interesting observation: US 48 is included in the Rand McNally atlas but it is not noted on the official Virginia highway map, even though Virginia has posted the route in the field for about 8 years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on December 09, 2010, 11:11:52 PM
http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/539227/Corridor-H-construction-set-for-spring.html?nav=5014
Not an especially well-written article, but news nonetheless.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VaF on January 12, 2011, 05:29:57 PM
I wrote to VDOT about Corridor H and what (if any) plans they have... here's what they wrote back with..

"I want to thank you for and respond to your e-mail of concern regarding Corridor H.   We do not have any major projects planned or programmed in Virginia at this time for Corridor H which follows the Route 55 corridor.  This is a topic that was addressed in the mid 1990s by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. 
Initially public hearings were held to determine the entry point to Virginia. The alternatives were either Route 50 in Frederick County or Route 55 in Shenandoah County.  On May 20, 1993 the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) unanimously voted to accept the southern corridor, which generally follows Route 55 from the West Virginia boarder to Interstate 81.  In January 1995, comments on the second of a three tier planning process for Corridor H were taken at a public hearing at Lord Fairfax Community College in Middletown.  Michael Baker Jr. Inc. was the project consultant for Corridor H.  There was strong local opposition to the project at the hearings.
The transcripts, project material and citizen comments were submitted to the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board for review.  The Commonwealth Transportation Board had the choice of a no build option or advancing to the third tier.   February 16, 1995: The Commonwealth Transportation Board chose not to proceed with plans to build Corridor H in Virginia.  The board voted unanimously against the project during its February meeting held in Richmond.
In its resolution, the Board stated no support for a four-lane facility and no support for an improved roadway alternative (IRA).  These options were presented at the January 1995 public hearing.  The board cited a majority of citizen comments favoring the no-build option.  The last paragraph of the resolution states:  "...the Department of Transportation is hereby directed, as may be included in the Six Year Plan, to study the Route 55 corridor safety aspects such as horizontal and vertical alignments, possible need for truck climbing lanes, intersection safety improvements, and other safety related features of the roadway."
The Board's action does not affect the West Virginia portion of Corridor H.  However, all future development of Corridor H plans will be done only in West Virginia.  No Virginia funds were spent on any Corridor H plan development.  Funding for all development to date has been borne by West Virginia."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Henry on January 28, 2011, 03:18:06 PM
I guess you can say that US 48 is making a big comeback after I-68 in MD bumped it off back in 1989.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on February 15, 2011, 01:04:33 PM
Hey everyone, I noticed that Google maps just updated their section west of Moorefiled, WV to include the new construction of Corridor H (WV-55).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on February 15, 2011, 01:08:08 PM
That's been there for at least a few days.  Also of note: that segment is not part of WV 55.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on February 15, 2011, 07:01:45 PM
True, 55 heads south there at Moorefield.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on April 04, 2011, 08:08:13 AM
Noticed yesterday that the initial distance sign westbound just before the river bridge in Moorefield (which had shown distances to Thomas and Elkins) has since been replaced by one that only shows the mileage to Patterson Creek Rd.  Curiously, a similar distance sign near the west end at Knobley Rd remains in place.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on April 05, 2011, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: froggie on April 04, 2011, 08:08:13 AM
Noticed yesterday that the initial distance sign westbound just before the river bridge in Moorefield (which had shown distances to Thomas and Elkins) has since been replaced by one that only shows the mileage to Patterson Creek Rd.  Curiously, a similar distance sign near the west end at Knobley Rd remains in place.


That Patterson Creek Road sign was in place when I drove it back on March 13. Not sure when prior to that it was replace. I drove it eastbound in November and don't remember looking over my shoulder at the WB sign at that time.

Honestly, once that next section from Knobley Road over to Bismarck near the top of the hill near the intersection of WV 42 and WV 93 (the one nearest Mt. Storm Lake) is completed, I think it will be a viable alternative route to the DC area from my part of the world over I-68 or I-64. The road from Bismarck to Thomas is not bad at all, and I honestly don't think US 219 from Thomas to the beginning of the four-lane north of Elkins (through Parsons) is that bad of a drive. Being used to mountainous two-lanes, I wouldn't mind that stretch of US 219 at all if I was driving from Kentucky to DC.

But don't tell Randy Hersh.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on April 07, 2011, 07:39:33 PM
I drove over WV 93 on the way back home yesterday. The piers are all in for the high bridges over 93 between Scherr and US 50 and the approaches are built up; I'm curious to see whether or not this is completed this summer.

Both bridges are complete over CR 1, roadbed on both sides is graded but not paved. There is a lot more earth moving/grading taking place on the east side of WV 42 since the last time I was up there.

West of the lake along 93, I noticed some tree cutting on the south side of the road in places; don't know if it's related to smoothing a couple curves or not.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on April 08, 2011, 07:38:02 AM
QuoteI drove over WV 93 on the way back home yesterday. The piers are all in for the high bridges over 93 between Scherr and US 50 and the approaches are built up; I'm curious to see whether or not this is completed this summer.

It won't.  There's still a lot of earthwork to do in two places:  the ridge west of Knobley Rd, and the ridge west of 93.  Then there'll be a paving contract to be let.  They're still looking at a late 2013 opening.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on April 08, 2011, 10:33:03 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear on that - I meant to say the bridge(s) over 93. It's obvious that grading, while started, is far from completion between 93 and 42.

I do have to say that I enjoy driving Route 93 between Davis and Bismarck.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on June 07, 2011, 04:57:23 PM
Meeting yesterday in Elkins:
http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/543864/Corridor-H-supporters-gather.html?nav=5014
Title: Re: Corridor H - US 220 upgrade from I-68 to Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on September 14, 2011, 02:48:42 PM
Alternatives B, C, and D are the finalists.  A pubic hearing will take place next month with a decision being made by April.  I travel this way quite a bit from Central PA to Franklin, WV, and I hope that this comes to fruition!

http://times-news.com/local/x1095948073/Highway-officials-outline-routes-to-connect-I-68-with-Corridor-H

Here is the map (on page 12): http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/AL613_11/htdocs/Documents/Location_Design/US%20220%20Brochure%20Spreads%20with%20comment%20card.pdf
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on September 14, 2011, 03:50:56 PM
Quote from: LeftyJR on September 14, 2011, 02:48:42 PM
Alternatives B, C, and D are the finalists.  A pubic hearing will take place next month with a decision being made by April.  I travel this way quite a bit from Central PA to Franklin, WV, and I hope that this comes to fruition!

http://times-news.com/local/x1095948073/Highway-officials-outline-routes-to-connect-I-68-with-Corridor-H

Here is the map (on page 12): http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/AL613_11/htdocs/Documents/Location_Design/US%20220%20Brochure%20Spreads%20with%20comment%20card.pdf

D seems like a bad alignment, given that most traffic will probably want to go west on Corridor H (long-distance traffic headed east should use US 522), and staying with US 220 to Moorefield will involve crossing several ridges.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on September 14, 2011, 08:49:11 PM
Alternative C seems to be the best, most direct route IMO. It runs NW to SW, and avoids going around Cumberland (if traveling westbound).  It also seems to line up closer to where US 220 heads north to MD and PA.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Kein Mitleid on September 15, 2011, 07:58:38 PM
I like highways as much as the next guy on here, and I agree that the road is very scenic. However, it's a monumental waste of money that connects nowhere to nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 15, 2011, 10:54:34 PM
Kein:  you're not far off there.  Though I'm sure the residents of Cumberland, MD and Moorefield, WV would like to think they're somewhere, the traffic volumes just don't support a major corridor here.  WVDOT has plenty of roads elsewhere that DO have the volumes to support improvements.  US 220 isn't one of them.  Neither, arguably, is Corridor H itself.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on September 16, 2011, 11:37:21 AM
To me, West Virginia sees its eastern 1/3 as being the next area of development outside of Washington D.C.  My guess is that they are banking on development around these roads after they are built.  Selfishly, I would love this road to be built, but that's only because I travel down that way 3 times a year.  Getting through Cumberland and Keyser isn't what I would call easy.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on September 16, 2011, 01:34:55 PM
Quote from: Kein Mitleid on September 15, 2011, 07:58:38 PM
I like highways as much as the next guy on here, and I agree that the road is very scenic. However, it's a monumental waste of money that connects nowhere to nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right. Corridor H could be useful as a shorter route from DC to the Ohio Valley, but US 220 south of Cumberland really serves only local-regional traffic, with the biggest cities to benefit from an upgrade probably being Elkins and Buckhannon (anyone going west of Buckhanon will simply use I-68 to I-79). Spot improvements on the 220-972-50-93-42 corridor should be enough.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 29, 2011, 07:08:02 AM
First: I like the corridor C alternative, would run entirely thru the valleys.

Second: I just drove on Corridor H to the "new" end last month, nice drive, especially seeing all of the windmills on the mountain, they estimate the next section being built to be the most expensive, close to $23M/mile.

Third: Unless Rt. 55 from Wardensville/Va. border becomes "unserviceable" or money comes in to build w/definite timeline (this per original agreement) to finish, or stimulus money gets allocated in the future (was rerouted to other projects in W.V.) or they attempt again to mooch money from DHS (escape route from D.C.) to finish it,the last W.V. section may not be done in my lifetime to Strasburg. W.V. is trying hard to get the $$ to finish it by 2020, or it will be 2030 before it is done. :banghead:
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on December 30, 2011, 12:15:14 PM
Anybody been up there lately? Was wondering how the construction was going.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 31, 2011, 06:37:51 AM
Was up there a couple weekends ago. Biggest item of noteis that grading/bridgework for a new interchange where Corridor H crosses WV 93 west of Bismark is underway. I saw no discernable work westof there towards David, however.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on January 09, 2012, 11:22:04 AM
An update at the Corridor H website has 4 new milestones:  Knobley Rd to Rt 93, fall of this year; up to the 93/42 crossing under the windmills, end of 2013; to the intersection with Rt 93 just north of the dam, spring of 2014; and to the intersection with Rt 32 at Davis, fall of 2014.

http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map4.html
   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on January 10, 2012, 06:20:49 AM
Thanks for the update, that's a pretty ambitious schedule for completion across that mtn., hope they make it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 10, 2012, 09:17:37 PM
Quote from: CVski on January 09, 2012, 11:22:04 AM
An update at the Corridor H website has 4 new milestones:  Knobley Rd to Rt 93, fall of this year

That will make the route really usable. Right now it's a pain to take Greenland Gap or WV 42 to Knobley to access the route. The WV 93 crossing is very close to the WV 42 intersection.

Quote from: CVski on January 09, 2012, 11:22:04 AM
and to the intersection with Rt 32 at Davis, fall of 2014.

That should be a really easy upgrade, as most of it west of the lake should be just adding two lanes to existing WV 93.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 11, 2012, 07:03:07 AM
QuoteRight now it's a pain to take Greenland Gap or WV 42 to Knobley to access the route.

Matter of opinion.  I've had no problem taking Greenland Gap.

QuoteThe WV 93 crossing is very close to the WV 42 intersection.

Not really "very close".  It's 2 miles.  The entirity of the Greenland Gap detour (Knobley Rd/Greenland gap Rd/Scherr Rd) is 5.3 miles.

QuoteThat should be a really easy upgrade, as most of it west of the lake should be just adding two lanes to existing WV 93.

About 5 miles worth...mostly the westernmost leg...will be a twinning of existing WV 93.  The remainder will be new alignment for all 4 lanes.  In particular, the sharper curve about halfway between Davis and the lake will be bypassed.


Also, because of the backtracking involved, the extension to WV 93 will only save about 2 minutes over the existing "detour" through Greenland Gap.  Significant for trucks since they can't use Knobley Rd or Greenland Gap Rd to begin with.  But less significant for regular vehicles.  The BIG significance will be late next year when they get it finished up to the top of the hill at Mt. Storm.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 11, 2012, 02:44:58 PM
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.191154,-79.160872&spn=0.030866,0.054846&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=6

If there is an intersection with Scherr Road (CR 1) that would be really handy, as that is practically adjacent to the WV 42/WV 93 intersection.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 12, 2012, 07:29:14 AM
There isn't.  Except for 1 or 2 immediate-parcel access points, there will be no intersections between Knobley Rd and the WV 93 connector.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 12, 2012, 02:31:56 PM
Odd, since there are several at-grades along the current section east of Knobley Rd.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 12, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
Not really odd, if you factor in topography.  CR 1/Scherr Rd is in a valley in that location, while Corridor H will be riding the top of the ridge...hence the extra-long (and extra-high) bridge in that location.  Also the reason why Corridor H needs a connector to WV 93 instead of intersecting more directly.  That and there's basically nothing to intersect between Scherr Rd and Knobley Rd.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2012, 12:14:12 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 12, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
Not really odd, if you factor in topography.  CR 1/Scherr Rd is in a valley in that location, while Corridor H will be riding the top of the ridge...hence the extra-long (and extra-high) bridge in that location.  Also the reason why Corridor H needs a connector to WV 93 instead of intersecting more directly.  That and there's basically nothing to intersect between Scherr Rd and Knobley Rd.

I have driven that segment of road that's multiplexed as W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93 between Scherr Road and the point where 42 continues north to U.S. 50 and 93 heads west in the direction of the Mount Storm coal-fired electric generating station and Davis. 

A very scenic drive, though challenging when headed south and east in the direction of Scherr, especially in bad weather.  So Corridor H will provide a better road for most.

The images currenrly online from Google Maps show that most of the right-of-way from the current terminus of Corridor H at Knobley Road almost to the line of windmills has been cleared. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2012, 12:38:57 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 29, 2011, 07:08:02 AM
Third: Unless Rt. 55 from Wardensville/Va. border becomes "unserviceable" or money comes in to build w/definite timeline (this per original agreement) to finish, or stimulus money gets allocated in the future (was rerouted to other projects in W.V.) or they attempt again to mooch money from DHS (escape route from D.C.) to finish it,the last W.V. section may not be done in my lifetime to Strasburg.

There has been a lot of NIMBYist opposition to Corridor H in Virginia. 

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va. 10th) locked horns with the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) over Corridor H (Wolf opposed, Byrd in favor) in the 1990's. 

USEPA Region III Administrator (and former congressman) Peter Kostmayer was fired (http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-20/news/25687710_1_jay-rockefeller-peter-kostmayer-key-waiver) by the Clinton Administration in 1995 in part for opposing Corridor H (and Kostmayer may have been funding groups opposed to the project with federal taxpayer dollars, a no-no).  A friend of mine who was with a different federal agency at the time told me that Kostmayer instructed his staff at Region III that his highest policy priority was to get any and all proposed highway projects in the Region III states (Pa., Del., Md., Va., W.Va. and D.C.) cancelled for environmental reasons.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 13, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2012, 12:38:57 AM
USEPA Region III Administrator (and former congressman) Peter Kostmayer was fired (http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-20/news/25687710_1_jay-rockefeller-peter-kostmayer-key-waiver) by the Clinton Administration in 1995 in part for opposing Corridor H (and Kostmayer may have been funding groups opposed to the project with federal taxpayer dollars, a no-no).  A friend of mine who was with a different federal agency at the time told me that Kostmayer instructed his staff at Region III that his highest policy priority was to get any and all proposed highway projects in the Region III states (Pa., Del., Md., Va., W.Va. and D.C.) cancelled for environmental reasons.

At the risk of going off-topic, this is one of the things that irritates me most about government.

We have one agency trying to keep another agency from doing something that would be a benefit to the public.  That is a total waste of money and time and effort.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 13, 2012, 03:28:06 PM
To be fair, it's both a benefit AND a detriment to the public.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2012, 11:35:51 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2012, 12:38:57 AM
USEPA Region III Administrator (and former congressman) Peter Kostmayer was fired (http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-20/news/25687710_1_jay-rockefeller-peter-kostmayer-key-waiver) by the Clinton Administration in 1995 in part for opposing Corridor H (and Kostmayer may have been funding groups opposed to the project with federal taxpayer dollars, a no-no).  A friend of mine who was with a different federal agency at the time told me that Kostmayer instructed his staff at Region III that his highest policy priority was to get any and all proposed highway projects in the Region III states (Pa., Del., Md., Va., W.Va. and D.C.) cancelled for environmental reasons.

At the risk of going off-topic, this is one of the things that irritates me most about government.

We have one agency trying to keep another agency from doing something that would be a benefit to the public.  That is a total waste of money and time and effort.

H.B., I strongly agree.

Kostmayer also did his best to kill Maryland's InterCounty Connector project.  At the time, Maryland DOT was in the early stages of preparing a draft environmental impact statement (which was destined to be spiked by then-Gov. Parris Glendening in 1999 for political reasons, after spending millions of dollars on that DEIS), and Kostmayer's EPA Region III staff made demands (in about 1993 or 1994) that certain possible alignments for the highway (including the one that had been on the planning maps since the 1950's, and where the completed highway now runs) should be excluded from any consideration, even before alternatives were analyzed.  That's not how the environmental impact statement process, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, is supposed to work.

Supposedly Region III had "serious concerns" about the self-reproducing brown trout population in the Paint Branch of the Anacostia River (never mind that the brown trout are not native to Maryland, but were introduced from Germany many years before - and as an alien species, get no protection under the Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws).

I also believe (but cannot prove) that Kostmayer held private meetings with opponents of both Corridor H and ICC to work out strategies for getting them cancelled.  In the judicial branch, that's called ex-parte communication and is not allowed.  Because EPA was working in a quasi-judicial role in reviewing environmental documents for both projects, I think it's high time that such meetings (with any advocate, pro- or con-) be held on-the record or forbidden entirely (ideally, advocates for or against a project under EPA review should be required to submit comments in writing and the comments should go on the public record for all interested parties to read).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 14, 2012, 08:22:32 AM
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say.  A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5.  But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal. 

The answer, of course, is a "notwithstanding" clause.  Congress should appropriate funds to improve the lives of Earth's most important species "notwithstanding" any environmental regulation. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 14, 2012, 09:24:00 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 14, 2012, 08:22:32 AM
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say.  A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5.  But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal. 

The answer, of course, is a "notwithstanding" clause.  Congress should appropriate funds to improve the lives of Earth's most important species "notwithstanding" any environmental regulation. 

You're about as right as pooing is uncool.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2012, 04:35:06 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 14, 2012, 08:22:32 AM
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say.  A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5.  But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal. 

The answer, of course, is a "notwithstanding" clause.  Congress should appropriate funds to improve the lives of Earth's most important species "notwithstanding" any environmental regulation.

S.P., I am no fan of what the EPA (and other federal environmental regulators, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service) have repeatedly done to obstruct needed improvements to the transportation system.

But some things that the EPA has done, including greatly improved vehicle emission controls and reformulated motor fuels (including ultra-low-sulfur Diesel fuel) have done much to improve air quality (without social engineering schemes, like attempts to force people to use mass transit).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 15, 2012, 01:21:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2012, 03:28:06 PM
To be fair, it's both a benefit AND a detriment to the public.

How is Corridor H a detriment to the public?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 03:21:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2012, 01:21:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2012, 03:28:06 PM
To be fair, it's both a benefit AND a detriment to the public.

How is Corridor H a detriment to the public?

Surely you, as a conservative, realize that government spending is a detriment :)

(Of course there are other (often secondary) effects, but the party of "me" doesn't care about those.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 07:37:53 AM
Corridor H is really no different from any other road in Appalachia.  It just has bad timing.  The other interstates and corridors in WV were finished earlier for various political and social reasons.  By the time it was Corridor H's "turn" the state was bankrupt and they BANANAs had theirs and wanted no one else to have anything.

Really, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance.  Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 07:37:53 AM
nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment
Wow.

Volcanos have environmental impact. Beaver dams have environmental impact. Swarms of locusts have environmental impact.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 07:37:53 AM
Corridor H is really no different from any other road in Appalachia.  It just has bad timing.
Correct.

QuoteThe other interstates and corridors in WV were finished earlier for various political and social reasons.  By the time it was Corridor H's "turn" the state was bankrupt and they BANANAs had theirs and wanted no one else to have anything.

Also correct. I understand that much of the opposition to Corridor H comes from people with money (frequently from places near Washington, D.C.) who have moved to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia to "get away from it all," and absolutely do not want the (desirable) induced traffic that will result from a completed Corridor H. Because they have money, they have no interest in the economic benefits of the highway.  And never mind the safety benefits of a modern highway.

Maryland DOT/State Highway Administration went through similar controversies when it was building the (mostly uncompleted) segment of Corridor E (I-68 today, f/k/a U.S. 48) between Cumberland and Hancock.  But I understand that there were enough people in Allegany County (especially) that understood that upgrading from the (old and twisting) U.S. 40 would have economic and safety benefits.

QuoteReally, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance.  Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.

I strongly agree.  The same is true for I-68.  Hence "serious concern" about air quality and "induced" traffic from groups like the Sierra Club. Never mind that air quality has improved, and is forecast to continue to improve in the coming years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 09:49:42 AM

Beaver dams have environmental impact. Swarms of locusts have environmental impact.

Actually no.  All are just one part of the environment using it to their advantage.  

The problem, well, one problem, with the EPA is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that the current or "natural" (again, as man is a part of nature, everything he does is, by defination "natural") state of the environment is "good" and change is "bad" and only to be permitted after some obtuse analysis.

Is the environment "better" with or without polio?  Neither "natural" nor "current" are necessiarially "good".  

The same logic needs to be appled to road construction.  The environment will be better with a Corridor H than without it.  We need to return to using terms from wiser generations like "reclamation" and "settle" and "improve".
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 01:03:30 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 09:49:42 AM

Beaver dams have environmental impact. Swarms of locusts have environmental impact.

Actually no.  All are just one part of the environment using it to their advantage. 
Just as cancer is part of your body growing.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Absolutly.  Cancer is "natural".  The ordinary state of a body.  Today, man has IMPROVED upon his body by learning how to cure and prevent 1000s of types of cancer, and other diseases.

How sad that there are people that equate people with a disease.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 02:05:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
Also correct. I understand that much of the opposition to Corridor H comes from people with money (frequently from places near Washington, D.C.) who have moved to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia to "get away from it all," and absolutely do not want the (desirable) induced traffic that will result from a completed Corridor H. Because they have money, they have no interest in the economic benefits of the highway.  And never mind the safety benefits of a modern highway.


Absolutly correct.  If by "get away from it all" you mean "start a pot farm".  Many parts of Appalachia are burdened by do-gooder flatlanders who simply "know better" and whose main political agenda is to pull the ladder of success up behind them as they spend daddy and mommy's money.

I should also add that in democrat dominated West Virginia, the Potomac Highlands have always been ancestorally Republican, and thus H was placed at the bottom of the priority list.  The other roads were completed before the BANANA movement got going to the degree of today.  There is really little difference between H and E, L, G, or Q or any of the interstates.

One of the great ironies of the whole environmental movement is the further from the "natural" (original) state of the land one is, the more likely one is to be an environmental extemist.  Consider California.  Unreclaimed, it might support 500K people, max.  An entirely artificial place, filled with people living from the benefits of projects completed by previous generations, none of which the EPA would allow today.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Absolutly.  Cancer is "natural".  The ordinary state of a body.  Today, man has IMPROVED upon his body by learning how to cure and prevent 1000s of types of cancer, and other diseases.
Way to miss the point. Even though cancer is part of the ordinary state, it affects the body, just as something that is part of the environment can impact the environment.

Unless you just like playing word games for the purpose of trolling.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 02:05:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
Also correct. I understand that much of the opposition to Corridor H comes from people with money (frequently from places near Washington, D.C.) who have moved to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia to "get away from it all," and absolutely do not want the (desirable) induced traffic that will result from a completed Corridor H. Because they have money, they have no interest in the economic benefits of the highway.  And never mind the safety benefits of a modern highway.


Absolutly correct.  If by "get away from it all" you mean "start a pot farm".

Agreed regarding cannabis cultivation.  Especially in West Virginia, with plenty of undeveloped land and ideal growing conditions (the stuff grows naturally all over the Mountaineer State).

I've never used the stuff and don't like its vile smell.  In spite of that, I still assert that it should be legalized (not decriminalized, legalized) and taxed.  It would raise a lot of money for the state and federal governments - and possibly bankrupt the Mexican Mafias.

QuoteMany parts of Appalachia are burdened by do-gooder flatlanders who simply "know better" and whose main political agenda is to pull the ladder of success up behind them as they spend daddy and mommy's money.

Also correct.  Many of the flatlanders in question are people who have earned enough money working near the Capital Beltway (or sometimes just from real property value appreciation) to be able to relocate to West Virginia.  Yes, some of them are trust fund babies as well.  Though the syndrome is not unique to West Virginia and Corridor H.  There were similar dynamics at work in Jefferson County, W.Va., where Virginia's Piedmont Environmental Council attempted to stop WVDOH's improvements to W.Va. 9 between Charles Town and the Virginia/West Virginia border (VDOT has no money, and there is opposition in Loudoun County to improving Va. 9 between the state line and Clarke's Gap - and never mind that there have been some terrible crashes along this road in both states).

QuoteI should also add that in democrat dominated West Virginia, the Potomac Highlands have always been ancestorally Republican, and thus H was placed at the bottom of the priority list.  The other roads were completed before the BANANA movement got going to the degree of today.  There is really little difference between H and E, L, G, or Q or any of the interstates.

Western Maryland (from west to east Garrett, Alleganey and Washington Counties) was (and is) very Republican as compared to the rest of the state, though the administrations of the late Gov. William Donald Schaefer (D) and before him, Gov. Harry Hughes (also D) strongly supported completing Corridor E, in spite of (occasionally strong) environmental opposition.

QuoteOne of the great ironies of the whole environmental movement is the further from the "natural" (original) state of the land one is, the more likely one is to be an environmental extemist.  Consider California.  Unreclaimed, it might support 500K people, max.  An entirely artificial place, filled with people living from the benefits of projects completed by previous generations, none of which the EPA would allow today.

S.P., sage and correct comment.  Southern California is profoundly dependent on its freeway network, its ports, its high-voltage transmission lines (like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie)) and water transportation projects (like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct) and this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Aqueduct)). 

San Francisco, home to the national headquarters of the Sierra Club, likely would not exist in its current form without the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy_Aqueduct) (and yes, I know that John Muir, one of the founders of the Sierra Club, was opposed to construction of the O'Shaughnessy Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Shaughnessy_Dam) which impounds the waters of the Tuolumne River, which are then diverted to San Francisco and environs).

For more reading on so-called environmentalism in California, read this (http://www.newgeography.com/content/002610-urban-development-playing-twister-with-california%E2%80%99s-environmental-quality-act) on the NewGeorgaphy site.

For decades I have observed persons loudly (and often cravenly) opposed to the (relatively short) InterCounty Connector toll toad project in my home state of Maryland show up at public meetings and hearings in their single-occupant vehicles to claim that the road is not (and will never be) needed because mass transit is a an acceptable substitute and that "better land use patterns" (in other words, high-density apartment building development far from their single-family detached homes) will obviate the need for the road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 15, 2012, 07:19:42 PM
I am still curious as to why Froggie might think Corridor H is a detriment.

Talking environmentalism in general, seems to me that it would be environmentally correct to have a shorter and faster route from the Midwest to the DC area that would result in the use of less gasoline, and all the supposed problems that come from gas.

Any traffic from the Midwest (Denver-KC-STL-Louisville-Lexington-Huntington-Charleston corridor) driving to DC must go well out of the way to the north via I-79, I-68, I-70 and I-270, or well out of the way to the south using I-77, I-64, I-81 and I-66. This is extra mileage, which would result in the use of more gas if the terrain was level, but add the mountains and even more gas gets burned. Corridor H will provide more of a straight route and will shorten the drive from Charleston to DC. And it seems to me that the mountain crossings are easier than the other routes, as well.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
I've never used the stuff and don't like its vile smell.

I have never even so much as tried marijuana. I'm proud of that fact. And the smell of it gives me a terrible headache.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
A) Marijuana is wonderful.
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.
D) No, seriously, have you smoked up yet?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 08:39:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Absolutly.  Cancer is "natural".  The ordinary state of a body.  Today, man has IMPROVED upon his body by learning how to cure and prevent 1000s of types of cancer, and other diseases.
Way to miss the point. Even though cancer is part of the ordinary state, it affects the body, just as something that is part of the environment can impact the environment.

Unless you just like playing word games for the purpose of trolling.

Hurricanes and tornadoes and tsunamis are part of nature, as well.

Post Merge: January 16, 2012, 03:16:26 AM

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
A) Marijuana is wonderful.
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.

Expressway construction cost per mile is about 1/2 that of a freeway.  They provide the benefits of 4 lanes and limited access, at a much more affordable cost, and are quite appropriate for rural interregional highways in the 7,000 to 15,000 AADT range.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 15, 2012, 08:58:10 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.

1. But it will once the entire through route is built and it diverts some traffic off I-68 to the north and I-64 to the south.
2.) When did Randy Hersh adopt Steve Alpert's identity?

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.

They build them with few traffic lights and sign them for 65 mph. Plenty good enough.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 10:15:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
A) Marijuana is wonderful.

I dislike the stuff.  But I still support its legalization.

QuoteB) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.

Wonder if they said the same thing about the original Pennsylvania Turnpike?  Or Corridor E/I-68?

Or any number of proposed projects elsewhere? 

"This proposed highway is not needed" is a phrase I have heard more than a few times.

QuoteC) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.

As long as the road does not bear an Interstate designation, I think expressways are fine.

QuoteD) No, seriously, have you smoked up yet?

Not me!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

The cuts are not visible from 99% of the land area.

The cuts are an important part of the human environment, just like buildings in cities.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2012, 10:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

The cuts are not visible from 99% of the land area.

The cuts are an important part of the human environment, just like buildings in cities.
That last statement proves that you're just arguing for argument's sake.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 16, 2012, 12:11:11 AM
Kentucky does pretty much the same thing as West Virginia when it comes to building roads through the mountains. You ought to check out the two newest sections of US 119 for evidence.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on January 16, 2012, 12:17:16 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 02:05:57 PMOne of the great ironies of the whole environmental movement is the further from the "natural" (original) state of the land one is, the more likely one is to be an environmental extemist.  Consider California.  Unreclaimed, it might support 500K people, max.  An entirely artificial place, filled with people living from the benefits of projects completed by previous generations, none of which the EPA would allow today.

S.P., sage and correct comment.  Southern California is profoundly dependent on its freeway network, its ports, its high-voltage transmission lines (like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie)) and water transportation projects (like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct) and this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Aqueduct)).

California does depend on infrastructure to carry its population and support its economy, but S.P.'s statement is just wrong.  California's population has been above 500,000 since 1870, when there were no surfaced roads, no aqueducts, and no electricity.  California had almost 7 million people when the first freeway opened.  The era of aqueduct construction began around 1910 (construction on Hetch Hetchy started 1914, Owens Valley aqueduct started 1913), when the population was 2.3 million, and since the main purpose of those aqueducts was to cater for planned rather than existing development, the break-even point on water sales lagged construction by decades--in the case of the Colorado River aqueduct this was 1954 for a facility which was conceived in 1923 and opened in 1935.

California is a large and resource-rich state and this has allowed it to sustain decade-on-decade population increases of more than 18% in every decade after statehood (except in the last two decades, with growth rates of 13.8% from 1990-2000 and 10% from 2000-2010), despite a small, late-developing, and poorly articulated railroad system, a long history of low per-capita and per-mile highway spending before Collier-Burns, and relatively low per-capita freeway provision (in terms both of centerline and lane mileage).

Added infrastructure in California would probably pay its way but it goes too far to say that it is "an entirely artificial place."  Today's population would probably fit in the California of 1940, albeit at some penalty in standard of living.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 06:44:22 AM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

The cuts are not visible from 99% of the land area.

The cuts are an important part of the human environment, just like buildings in cities.
That last statement proves that you're just arguing for argument's sake.

No, it is arguing from a point of reality.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 07:24:32 AM
Typical right-wing solipsistic behavior. If you don't agree with it it's not real.

Post Merge: January 17, 2012, 04:17:06 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2012, 07:19:42 PM
a shorter and faster route from the Midwest to the DC area
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66. 

As to California, its a comeback to say that the figure is "only" one out of 50 Californians could actually be supported by the land, unreclaimed, rather than one out of 100?

As to pot, I don't use the stuff.  I used to really not care, but the more potheads I am around, the more I think its a "chicken and egg" deal.  Is it that people that belive crazy crap also smoke pot, or that pot makes you believe crazy crap.  I am begining to think its the latter.

As to WV and expressways, our "corridor standard" is wonderful.  As our great governor once said "if you don't want to look at it, feel free to drive the old route, I'll see you next week when you get here.".  Really the mountainside cuts (which KY, TN, etc also do) are 0.001% of the surface, and if you take a walk in the woods a mile in any direction, you will find plenty of "natural" mountains to look at.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66. 
(I assume you mean 79, not 78.) Maybe by passenger cars looking to avoid congestion (in which case I-64 to I-79 to Corridor H would be better, as well as shorter). But trucks benefit from flat highways, which Corridor H is not. Add to that the fact that I-70 to I-270 is shorter (as is the toll bypass via I-68), and the only reason to use Corridor H as a trucker is if you have stops along the way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 12:24:30 PM
The flatness of a completed H is actually pretty equal to either 70/270 70/79 (yes I made a typo) / 68/70/270.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on January 16, 2012, 12:35:10 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AMAs to California, it's a comeback to say that the figure is "only" one out of 50 Californians could actually be supported by the land, unreclaimed, rather than one out of 100?

Who said "only"?  What is your attribution for that quote?

In any case, "one out of 50 . . . one out of 100" misrepresents your original claim, let alone the rebuttal.  It is usually a bit silly to fact-check counterfactuals, but your claim about the carrying capacity of "land, unreclaimed" in California bears such a tenuous relationship to the historical demography of that state that it invites a skeptical and suspicious reading of your arguments about Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 16, 2012, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).

Not really. I-70 makes that northward jaunt to Indianapolis, whereas I-64 is a straighter shot. Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood

I-64/I-79/Corridor H only involves going through Louisville and Charleston, and they are not as big as Indy and Columbus. Plus the scenery is a lot prettier than slogging across Illinois, Indiana and Ohio on I-70, which I've done.

If I'm traveling east on I-70 approaching STL, I choose I-64.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 79, then H, then 66.

How would you get from Columbus to Corridor D? Ohio hasn't finished US 33 yet.

To me the whole point of taking I-64 would be to avoid Indy and Columbus.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 06:09:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2012, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).

Not really. I-70 makes that northward jaunt to Indianapolis, whereas I-64 is a straighter shot.
And I-79 winds through the mountains. According to Google Maps, from St. Louis to Washington, DC:
*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/68/70/270: 845 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/68/70/270: 847 miles
*I-64/79/H/I-66: 848 miles (using US 219-WV 93-Greenland Gap to fill the gap)
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/H/I-66: 862 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/H/I-66: 864 miles
*I-70/D/I-79/68/70/270: 863 miles
*I-64/71/D/I-79/68/70/270: 869 miles
*I-64/79/68/70/270: 872 miles
*I-64/81/66: 879 miles

Personally, if I were making the drive, I'd probably go H one way and I-70 the other. And there are a fair number of decent alternates in the middle (such as cutting down to D on I-74 or US 33). Hell, I could probably choose a route based on where I'd be during rush hour.

But it's clear that Corridor H won't provide any significant advantage over the current routes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 08:43:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 06:09:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2012, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).

Not really. I-70 makes that northward jaunt to Indianapolis, whereas I-64 is a straighter shot.
And I-79 winds through the mountains. According to Google Maps, from St. Louis to Washington, DC:
*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/68/70/270: 845 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/68/70/270: 847 miles
*I-64/79/H/I-66: 848 miles (using US 219-WV 93-Greenland Gap to fill the gap)
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/H/I-66: 862 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/H/I-66: 864 miles
*I-70/D/I-79/68/70/270: 863 miles
*I-64/71/D/I-79/68/70/270: 869 miles
*I-64/79/68/70/270: 872 miles
*I-64/81/66: 879 miles

Personally, if I were making the drive, I'd probably go H one way and I-70 the other. And there are a fair number of decent alternates in the middle (such as cutting down to D on I-74 or US 33). Hell, I could probably choose a route based on where I'd be during rush hour.

But it's clear that Corridor H won't provide any significant advantage over the current routes.

29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures.  That is significant.  Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.

With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --

Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2012, 09:43:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 08:43:36 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 06:09:32 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2012, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).

Not really. I-70 makes that northward jaunt to Indianapolis, whereas I-64 is a straighter shot.
And I-79 winds through the mountains. According to Google Maps, from St. Louis to Washington, DC:
*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/68/70/270: 845 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/68/70/270: 847 miles
*I-64/79/H/I-66: 848 miles (using US 219-WV 93-Greenland Gap to fill the gap)
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/H/I-66: 862 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/H/I-66: 864 miles
*I-70/D/I-79/68/70/270: 863 miles
*I-64/71/D/I-79/68/70/270: 869 miles
*I-64/79/68/70/270: 872 miles
*I-64/81/66: 879 miles

Personally, if I were making the drive, I'd probably go H one way and I-70 the other. And there are a fair number of decent alternates in the middle (such as cutting down to D on I-74 or US 33). Hell, I could probably choose a route based on where I'd be during rush hour.

But it's clear that Corridor H won't provide any significant advantage over the current routes.

29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures.  That is significant.  Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.

With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --

Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood


Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2012, 09:50:06 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66.

I agree - but put the emphasis on completed above, including Corridor H from Wardensville, W.Va. to "suburban" Strasburg, Va.

QuoteAs to California, its a comeback to say that the figure is "only" one out of 50 Californians could actually be supported by the land, unreclaimed, rather than one out of 100?

California as we know it today, would not exist without the aqueducts, high-voltage transmission lines, railroads and Interstate highways.

QuoteAs to pot, I don't use the stuff.  I used to really not care, but the more potheads I am around, the more I think its a "chicken and egg" deal.  Is it that people that belive crazy crap also smoke pot, or that pot makes you believe crazy crap.  I am begining to think its the latter.

It's the politics of Prohibition, and it has been going on far longer than the real Prohibition.  The United States would be much better off putting an end to this expensive nonsense.  And it would probably bring some financial benefit to West Virginia in the form of increased tax revenue, as the current (illegal) cultivation of cannabis does not contribute much tax money to anyone.

QuoteAs to WV and expressways, our "corridor standard" is wonderful.  As our great governor once said "if you don't want to look at it, feel free to drive the old route, I'll see you next week when you get here.".  Really the mountainside cuts (which KY, TN, etc also do) are 0.001% of the surface, and if you take a walk in the woods a mile in any direction, you will find plenty of "natural" mountains to look at.

I've no problem with West Virginia's four-lane divided expressways, be they U.S. 48/Corridor H or W.Va. 9 (the two expressways in the Mountaineer State that I have driven substantial segments of).

Which Governor are you speaking of?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on January 16, 2012, 10:06:40 PM
Is the boldface really necessary?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 16, 2012, 09:43:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 08:43:36 PM
29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures.  That is significant.  Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.

With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --

Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood


Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.

I-68 is more than a "few" miles, it's more like 20.

Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi

Truckers report very slow speeds on the numerous steep grades on I-68.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 16, 2012, 09:43:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 08:43:36 PM
29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures.  That is significant.  Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.

With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --

Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood


Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.

I-68 is more than a "few" miles, it's more like 20.

Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi

Truckers report very slow speeds on the numerous steep grades on I-68.

*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles

I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.

EDIT: I-68 route becomes 592, compared to 584. Your 614 is at best mistaken, perhaps disingenuous, at worst politicking (=lying).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 17, 2012, 04:22:21 AM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 16, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.

He might be using a different starting point in Indy or ending point in D.C. than you were.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 05:45:03 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 10:34:58 PM
Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi
Careful! I don't know where you're getting 614 miles, but drag the line to I-68 and it's 592. A whopping 8 miles extra.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 16, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 16, 2012, 09:43:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 16, 2012, 08:43:36 PM
29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures.  That is significant.  Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.

With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --

Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood


Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.

I-68 is more than a "few" miles, it's more like 20.

Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi

Truckers report very slow speeds on the numerous steep grades on I-68.

*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles

I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.

EDIT: I-68 route becomes 592, compared to 584. Your 614 is at best mistaken, perhaps disingenuous, at worst politicking (=lying).

When you are losing an argument, you retaliate with personal abuse.

I got it from Google Maps.

I know what truckers say about I-68 ... you don't know that they think.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
I got it from Google Maps.
You got it wrong. Google Maps says 592 miles, not 614.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=washington+dc&daddr=39.6982,-79.33052+to:indianapolis&hl=en&sll=39.359785,-78.684082&sspn=1.909058,4.216003&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-ylb5PZa3sa3iTEqXYjUIkVSwg%3BFRi_XQIdKINF-ymP3Sk4rLPKiTGk9kNbdai6mQ%3BFcTRXgIdBlXd-ikDanmn_1BriDF86rlA9p2O1g&vpsrc=0&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
I got it from Google Maps.
You got it wrong. Google Maps says 592 miles, not 614.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=washington+dc&daddr=39.6982,-79.33052+to:indianapolis&hl=en&sll=39.359785,-78.684082&sspn=1.909058,4.216003&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-ylb5PZa3sa3iTEqXYjUIkVSwg%3BFRi_XQIdKINF-ymP3Sk4rLPKiTGk9kNbdai6mQ%3BFcTRXgIdBlXd-ikDanmn_1BriDF86rlA9p2O1g&vpsrc=0&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9


I surmise that that depends on where Google Maps sets the exact point for "Washington, DC", etc. .... also, unless you zoom in and look at the whole route you might not realize that it didn't go exactly where you wanted it to.

I did this I-68/I-70 comparison on paper maps long before there was an on-line mapping tool. Per Rand McNally --

Between I-68/I-70 junction in MD and I-79/I-70 east junction in PA --
Via I-68 is 166 miles
Via I-70 is 152 miles

I-68 is 9.2% longer, which is significant.

Also, truckers report that I-68's grades make it significantly slower in average speed than on the PA Turnpike.  Time for them is money, and they would not necessarily prefer I-68 as an alternate to I-70, even with the tolls on the Turnpike.

I-68 is a beautiful highway, but it is not a panacea.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 10:02:26 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2012, 08:07:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
I got it from Google Maps.
You got it wrong. Google Maps says 592 miles, not 614.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=washington+dc&daddr=39.6982,-79.33052+to:indianapolis&hl=en&sll=39.359785,-78.684082&sspn=1.909058,4.216003&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-ylb5PZa3sa3iTEqXYjUIkVSwg%3BFRi_XQIdKINF-ymP3Sk4rLPKiTGk9kNbdai6mQ%3BFcTRXgIdBlXd-ikDanmn_1BriDF86rlA9p2O1g&vpsrc=0&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9

I surmise that that depends on where Google Maps sets the exact point for "Washington, DC", etc. .... also, unless you zoom in and look at the whole route you might not realize that it didn't go exactly where you wanted it to.
??? You had the same figure as me for I-70 all the way (584 miles), so unless you dragged the DC marker 22 miles to the east, your 614-miles route wasn't I-70/68.

Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Between I-68/I-70 junction in MD and I-79/I-70 east junction in PA --
Via I-68 is 166 miles
Via I-70 is 152 miles

I-68 is 9.2% longer, which is significant.
That percentage is meaningless unless you're going from Hancock to Washington. If I'm going a block away, I can make the trip 200% longer by going around the block. But as part of a cross-country trip, those two extra blocks are nothing.

Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 09:40:19 AM
Also, truckers report that I-68's grades make it significantly slower in average speed than on the PA Turnpike.  Time for them is money, and they would not necessarily prefer I-68 as an alternate to I-70, even with the tolls on the Turnpike.

I-68 is a beautiful highway, but it is not a panacea.
But we're getting away from the big issue, which is that there's a reason truckers use I-70 over I-68: grades. Somehow I think that's going to be a problem on Corridor H too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6dbmN2YjOk#t=444s
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 10:11:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2012, 09:50:06 PM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66.

Even if the section from Wardensville to Strasburg doesn't get finished anytime soon, that's only a 20-mile stretch of two-lane that is not a bad drive at all. I'd prefer it over I-68/I-70/I-270 or I-64/I-81.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2012, 10:53:57 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 10:11:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2012, 09:50:06 PM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66.

Even if the section from Wardensville to Strasburg doesn't get finished anytime soon, that's only a 20-mile stretch of two-lane that is not a bad drive at all. I'd prefer it over I-68/I-70/I-270 or I-64/I-81.

In fairness, S.P. Cook wrote the words you attributed to me.

Regarding scenery, I think (a completed) Corridor H (combined with I-66 in Virginia) and I-79/I-68/I-70 are reasonably nice routes, though an uncompleted segment between Wardensville and Strasburg gives me (some) pause.

According to VDOT, Va. 55/U.S. 48 at the Virginia/West Virginia line only carried about 2,300 vehicles a day in 2010 - between the state line and I-81 it varies from 2,300 to 5,700 at I-81.  If Corridor H in West Virginia is a success and "induces" greater volumes of traffic (I-68 at Sidling Hill carries just over 20,000 per day), I would hope that Virginia would agree to improve its (short) section of H at some point. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 10:11:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 16, 2012, 09:50:06 PM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66.

Even if the section from Wardensville to Strasburg doesn't get finished anytime soon, that's only a 20-mile stretch of two-lane that is not a bad drive at all. I'd prefer it over I-68/I-70/I-270 or I-64/I-81.

There are long-distance benefits such as the route from St. Louis to DC, but as with most highways there are multiple route justifications.

Corridor H and I-66 corridor have multiple interregional roles.  The corridor itself would connect D.C., Northern VA, Northeastern WV, and Central WV, with a modern highway with 4 or more lanes.  In conjunction with other highways such as I-81, I-79, I-64 and Corridor G, it connects panhandle WV with Northeastern WV, Northeastern WV with western and southern WV, and D.C. and Northern VA with Northeastern WV with western and southern WV.

In sum, Corridor H will serve a collection of roles, that would be better handled with a modern 4-lane highway, than any form of 2-lane highway (2-lane "super 2" highways tend to have high rates of head-on collisions).
-- local access
-- interregional connections
-- national connections

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2012, 12:21:25 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 16, 2012, 10:06:40 PM
Is the boldface really necessary?

When speaking in writing, which usually means without face-to-face contact, I do not think it does any harm.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 17, 2012, 06:15:56 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 16, 2012, 11:39:02 PM
*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles

I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.

EDIT: I-68 route becomes 592, compared to 584. Your 614 is at best mistaken, perhaps disingenuous, at worst politicking (=lying).

When you are losing an argument, you retaliate with personal abuse.

I got it from Google Maps.

I know what truckers say about I-68 ... you don't know that they think.

Actually, I'm winning the argument, and there's no abuse. When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.) Show us your original link that gave 614 instead of 592 and prove your point.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on January 17, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 17, 2012, 12:21:25 PMWhen speaking in writing, which usually means without face-to-face contact, I do not think it does any harm.

Actually, it does.  It is distracting and adds little to your argument since in writing, unlike speech, members of your audience can re-read what you have written to be sure they understand what you are trying to communicate.  Also, if you use boldface more often in threads where large numbers of other posters disagree with your point of view, you invite them to construe it as a poker tell.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: qguy on January 17, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 17, 2012, 06:15:56 PM
When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.)

You're kidding, right?

You are right that this isn't the place. So please don't pick it up and argue it with me; I'm not interested in picking a fight. Just realize that there a lot of us on the other side of the political spectrum that are of the well-considered opinion (arrived at by both observation and personal experience) that it's just the opposite.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on January 17, 2012, 08:40:32 PM
I did my own Indianapolis-to-DC route comparison (traffic circle in downtown Indianapolis to Zero Milestone in DC, to be precise), and came up with all of the distance values that have been referenced so far in this thread, plus 620 miles for a Corridor H variant routing.  The best Corridor H routing I have been able to find (passing through Parkersburg, Buckhannon, Elkins, Petersburg, and Moorefield, all of which I have seen referenced in various Corridor H construction plans I have found here and there) is 600 miles, which compares unfavorably with 584 miles by the existing shortest freeway route (I-70/I-270, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike through Somerset County).  This 600-mile routing runs along some state highways (e.g., SR 47) in West Virginia which look very tortuous.

I think some of the apparent discrepancies reported upthread (different mileages for the same general routing) are the result of loops where a routing crosses itself.  Moorefield seems to be particularly bad for this, probably because of the half-finished bit of Corridor H just to the east of town.

In terms of travel time for passenger cars, I-70/I-68 (592 miles) is the best at 10 hours 22 minutes.  I don't know if Google takes into account the delays to passenger cars caused by slow trucks.  The Pennsylvania Turnpike routing (584 miles) is third best at 10 hours 42 minutes.  (Second best is actually a variant which goes off-freeway Lancaster-Parkersburg-Morgantown:  603 miles, 10 hours 39 minutes.)  At this point I think it is a mug's game to try to estimate the mileage and driving time associated with a finished Corridor H routing because the driving time will almost certainly drop considerably, although the distance will probably not drop enough to eliminate the mileage advantage of the Pennsylvania Turnpike routing.  The 600-mile routing that currently exists has a reported travel time of 11 hours 24 minutes.

In regard to the other arguments offered for not building Corridor H, I think they need to be developed more.  The aesthetic impact of large rock cuts is real, but unless the viewshed alteration has deleterious effects (e.g., on a wilderness recreation industry) which can be quantified in dollars and cents, the rock cuts are too easy to write off as the price of progress.  I think the likelihood that Corridor H will have punishing grades is a more serious objection.  Trucks need grades as close to 3% as possible in order to make good time in hilly terrain; this is why they stick to the Pennsylvania Turnpike through Somerset County even though that is an absolutely miserable routing, with severe winter weather and fog in the summer.

I personally don't think it is unreasonable to criticize West Virginia, and for that matter Kentucky, Virginia, and the other Appalachian states, for relying too heavily on long grades and high rock cuts to traverse mountainous terrain in lieu of valley viaducts and tunnels.  It has long been my intuition that we, as a country, have priced ourselves out of mountain tunnels by requiring safety measures which are normally dispensed with in southern European countries where vastly greater numbers of freeway tunnels through mountains have operated for years with no safety problems.  However, in fairness to the Appalachian states, many of the safety features which make tunnels uneconomic (such as 24-hour monitoring and bans on dangerous cargoes) are mandated by FHWA through the federal-aid program.  It is also easier to make an economic case for extensive provision of structures to maintain low ruling grades through mountains when the proportion of freight that goes by road is much higher than it is in the US.  Road freight has a modal share of about 30% by mass in the US, while in many European countries this value is closer to 90%.

(I don't really have a dog in this fight.  Because I will almost certainly never have a chance to use it in the next 20 years or so, Corridor H will not benefit me personally, and I live largely out of reach of the indirect effects of it.  I have a personal interest in Corridor H only to the extent that I am able to obtain copies of the construction plans for the various parts of it.  Since WVDOT puts letting plans on Bid Express instead of making them available for the public to download, I can't say I'd be very sad if the entire WVDOT highway construction budget was zeroed out.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 17, 2012, 08:53:05 PM
Quote from: qguy on January 17, 2012, 07:10:11 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 17, 2012, 06:15:56 PM
When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.)

You're kidding, right?

You are right that this isn't the place. So please don't pick it up and argue it with me; I'm not interested in picking a fight. Just realize that there a lot of us on the other side of the political spectrum that are of the well-considered opinion (arrived at by both observation and personal experience) that it's just the opposite.

Given that I don't discuss my politics here, I don't understand how "The Situation" can state anything about them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 09:17:42 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 17, 2012, 08:40:32 PM
I did my own Indianapolis-to-DC route comparison (traffic circle in downtown Indianapolis to Zero Milestone in DC, to be precise), and came up with all of the distance values that have been referenced so far in this thread, plus 620 miles for a Corridor H variant routing.  The best Corridor H routing I have been able to find (passing through Parkersburg, Buckhannon, Elkins, Petersburg, and Moorefield, all of which I have seen referenced in various Corridor H construction plans I have found here and there) is 600 miles, which compares unfavorably with 584 miles by the existing shortest freeway route (I-70/I-270, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike through Somerset County).  This 600-mile routing runs along some state highways (e.g., SR 47) in West Virginia which look very tortuous.

Indianapolis to DC using Corridor H makes no sense. Some variation of I-70 and I-76, or I-70 and I-68, is the most logical route from Indy.

Run St. Louis to DC via I-70 and via I-64/I-79/Corridor H for a better comparison.

The Corridor H routing now won't go anywhere near Petersburg, since it is complete from Knobley Road (northwest of Petersburg and west of Moorefield) to the north of Moorefield and to Wardensville. You'd use US 33 to Elkins, US 219 to Thomas, WV 93 to Bismarck, and then either WV 42 and Knobley Road or WV 93, Scherr Road, Greenland Gap Road and Knobley Road to hit the completed Corridor H.

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 17, 2012, 06:15:56 PMWhen you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.)

Naturally, I would disagree. It's been my experience that conservatives tend to use facts and logic more than emotions.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 17, 2012, 09:36:35 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 09:17:42 PM

Naturally, I would disagree. It's been my experience that conservatives tend to use facts and logic more than emotions.

depends on which kind of conservative: low-tax proponent, or religious fundamentalist?  (how those two camps ended up under the same party's flag in the US is an extraordinary cockup of historical coincidence.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 17, 2012, 09:41:49 PM
Well there's been precious little facts or logic by ANYONE in this thread, regardless. (I have dedicated myself to being as trollish as possible because of all the inanity being bantered about.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 11:26:24 PM
Actually, I think I've provided some logical reasons why, when completed, Corridor H would be a logical through route over I-70 from St. Louis to DC.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 17, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
I disconcur. Since that's a made up word, I win the argument by using it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 18, 2012, 06:39:06 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 09:17:42 PM
Run St. Louis to DC via I-70 and via I-64/I-79/Corridor H for a better comparison.
That's the first comparison I made. I-70 wins.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 18, 2012, 08:21:31 AM
I also ran the St. Louis-DC comparison.  And yes, I-70 wins.

Taking a straight I-70 shot to Frederick (then 270 down to DC) yields 827 miles, though this involves tolls on the PA Turnpike between New Stanton and Breezewood, plus the Breezewood situation.

Using I-79 and I-68 to avoid the Turnpike and Breezewood yields 835 miles.

The "direct route" through West Virginia that Google Maps recommends, continuing on US 33 from Elkins to WV 55, is 842 miles.

A rough approximation of the Corridor H route is 848 miles, though I believe this will be a few miles less once construction concludes.

Conclusion:  I-70 is close to 20 miles shorter.  And having to deal with Breezewood is more than countered by the 21 miles of 2-lane US 48 between Wardensville and Strasburg.  The toll/Breezewood avoidance route likewise is more than 10 miles shorter than Corridor H along mostly-65 MPH Interstate.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on January 18, 2012, 09:16:02 AM
I did a quick check of St. Louis-to-DC routings and found the mileage values Froggie reports.  However, the 842-mile "direct route" involving I-64 has a reported driving time of 14 hours 26 minutes, which is the best of the three I tried (I-70/Pennsylvania Turnpike, I-70/I-68, I-64), despite being the longest by 7 miles.  I-70/Pennsylvania Turnpike had the longest reported driving time of 14 hours 46 minutes.

I continue to believe that I-70/Pennsylvania Turnpike will be the preferred route for truckers because of the grades.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on January 20, 2012, 01:57:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 17, 2012, 11:26:24 PM
Actually, I think I've provided some logical reasons why, when completed, Corridor H would be a logical through route over I-70 from St. Louis to DC.

I agree, if it is ever completed to it's intended destination.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on March 17, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/550875/Corridor-H-board-pushes-ahead.html?nav=5014

http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/550876/Senate-bill-makes-highway-project-a--national-priority-.html?nav=5014
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on March 26, 2012, 01:46:36 PM
So, who's going to pay the tab for the Va. portion of the road?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 26, 2012, 02:08:15 PM
As of right now, nobody. Virginia doesn't have any plans to build its portion. I don't know if that will change after WV gets its part built or not. Truth be told, the Virginia portion of US 48 is not that bad of a road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on March 26, 2012, 02:27:00 PM
Since some Kentucky corridors are two-lane, there's no reason you can't call the Virginia portion complete.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on March 26, 2012, 09:30:47 PM
I've driven US 48 in VA... it's a decent road, and it wouldn't be too difficult to "arterialize" the road like they did with US 522 north of Winchester. A short bypass around Lebanon Church would be in order.

There was a story in a local paper last year (I believe it was the Buckhannon paper) where the republican gubernatorial candidate claimed that he spoke to the gov. of VA regarding Corridor H. He claimed that the VA gov. would be interested in working with a republican gov. from WV to get H done. Seems unlikely to me, but that's politicians for you. I wish I could provide a link, but that paper never did put the article on their web site (which is just about useless, anyway).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 26, 2012, 09:31:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on March 26, 2012, 02:27:00 PM
Since some Kentucky corridors are two-lane, there's no reason you can't call the Virginia portion complete.

The Kentucky (and Tennessee) two-lane corridors have passing lanes and most have 10-foot paved shoulders. Definitely not the case with US 48/VA 55.

In my experience that route is the easiest east-west border crossing in that area among surface routes, excepting US 50. US 33, US 250, SR 84 and SR 39 are pretty wicked.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on March 27, 2012, 12:36:50 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 26, 2012, 09:30:47 PM
I've driven US 48 in VA... it's a decent road, and it wouldn't be too difficult to "arterialize" the road like they did with US 522 north of Winchester. A short bypass around Lebanon Church would be in order.

There was a story in a local paper last year (I believe it was the Buckhannon paper) where the republican gubernatorial candidate claimed that he spoke to the gov. of VA regarding Corridor H. He claimed that the VA gov. would be interested in working with a republican gov. from WV to get H done. Seems unlikely to me, but that's politicians for you. I wish I could provide a link, but that paper never did put the article on their web site (which is just about useless, anyway).

The original plan for U.S. 48/Va. 55, from the top of North Mt. at the border to I-81 at least when I went to the Corridor H meetings years ago, was a completly new highway parallelling the existing one, for the most part slightly to the north of existing Rt. 55. Estimated cost at the beginning was around 90-100M. I don't think our Gov-ner will commit anything to that, since the big deal is finishing Metro to Dulles airport. I will surprised if Corridor H in Va. will ever be built in my lifetime, maybe for you youngsters...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on March 28, 2012, 09:25:27 PM
Mike, I don't believe your gov-ner will commit to it either. When I read that story, I took it with a grain of salt - we all know that politicians will say or claim just about anything, regardless of party affiliation!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on April 30, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F556163_10100703340886150_12904118_50977683_1411683014_n.jpg&hash=e4b8edc76e05175b6191afc561ea3e83cd880376)

Corridor H/US 48's western terminus at Knobley Road/CO 3 in Grant County, West Virginia northwest of Petersburg. Segments to the west are not signed US 48 currently.

(And yes, a lot of Corridor H has been completed or is under construction in West Virginia. I have more photos to process from the trip, which did not involve photographing Corridor H, but includes a few shots of the ROW clearing and construction along WV 93 east of Davis to Knobley Road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on April 30, 2012, 09:30:00 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on April 30, 2012, 09:27:07 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash3%2F556163_10100703340886150_12904118_50977683_1411683014_n.jpg&hash=e4b8edc76e05175b6191afc561ea3e83cd880376)

Corridor H/US 48's western terminus at Knobley Road/CO 3 in Grant County, West Virginia northwest of Petersburg. Segments to the west are not signed US 48 currently.

(And yes, a lot of Corridor H has been completed or is under construction in West Virginia. I have more photos to process from the trip, which did not involve photographing Corridor H, but includes a few shots of the ROW clearing and construction along WV 93 east of Davis to Knobley Road.

Looks like they have made a lot of progress on the bridge beyond the Knobley Road access since the last time I was there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on July 03, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr519%2Fdavidlewis19%2Fknobleyroad.jpg&hash=80f2defc46b152ae210c60d59d2bacbec132140a)
Travelled up the the construction area last Monday (6/25). This is near the same site as the above photo, closer to the bridge.

Post Merge: July 03, 2012, 08:18:22 PM

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr519%2Fdavidlewis19%2Flookingeast.jpg&hash=db454d68d154dc4f6fbb8d2740f3db3746a0e014)
This image is at the east end of the bridge carrying US 48 over county routes 1 and 42/3 northeast of Scherr, looking eastward. The approaches to the bridges are not in yet, but the road is paved on both sides of the bridge. As for the access road between WV 93 north of Scherr and US 48, it is paved except for the bridge approaches and the intersection with 93. You can see its bridge over CR 1 from route 93. The big bridge over 93 north of here is done.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on July 03, 2012, 02:42:55 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fr519%2Fdavidlewis19%2Fgoatsunderbridge.jpg&hash=5d7d5cf1d46ebdd4efc71e045a2d6550cecc663f)
There is another bridge over CR 1 not too far north of the one over county routes 1 and 42/3. Here's a photo of its underside - with goats under the bridge!

I would have taken a few more photos but had tripod trouble, so I gave up.

To the west: grading continues on both sides of WV 42 south of Mt. Storm; a short relocation of 42 at the crossing is present. Grassy Ridge Road will overpass the new road; its bridge construction is well under way. The interchange between Bismarck and the dam will be getting girders installed next week. You can see the construction of the bridge over the river off to your right before you get to the RR crossing. Earthmoving continues about a mile past the Tucker County line. Trees have been cut down on the right of way until about a mile before Davis along WV 93.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on July 13, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/ (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/)
Title: Corridor H Upgrade to I-66?
Post by: Grzrd on July 18, 2012, 10:34:07 AM
This Op-Ed from a candidate for West Virginia's 2nd Congressional District (http://sundaygazettemail.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201207170102?page=1) makes the Homeland Security case for converting Corridor H to I-66:

Quote
Corridor H is easily the most important infrastructure project in the state and, when completed, will result in our greatest return on investment.
Unfortunately, Corridor H has long been labeled a pork-barrel project nationally with virtually no politically defensible reason to exist when viewed from that perspective.
But recasting Corridor H's political image can and should be a top priority for West Virginia's congressional delegation.
It begins by making the case for funding its completion as Interstate 66 under the auspices of Homeland Security as a planned evacuation route for Washington and Northern Virginia.
....
Direct access to the Virginia Inland Port in Front Royal, Va., could benefit West Virginia tremendously by opening the state's heartland to a wide range of new international business and industrial opportunities.
This is especially true given the soon-to-be-completed Panama Canal expansion, coupled with the fact that the inland port serves as a designated U.S. Customs and U.S. Department of Agriculture point of entry ....
Let's borrow a page from the Eisenhower administration and expand upon what has been proven to be one of the greatest economic development projects in our nation's history.
I-66 is worth fighting for, and when it is completed it will yield one of the highest returns of any investment in infrastructure in West Virginia history.

An interesting dream ...
I wonder if the Homeland Security angle would also work for the VA 28 to I-366 conversion?  :bigass:
Title: Re: Corridor H Upgrade to I-66?
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
QuoteI-66 is worth fighting for, and when it is completed it will yield one of the highest returns of any investment in infrastructure in West Virginia history.

are we anticipating now that all that hot air down in Washington DC will spontaneously ignite, necessitating an evacuation?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on July 18, 2012, 12:20:22 PM
I have read this stuff before in another newspaper article regarding Mr. Swint's candidacy... I wonder if he realizes how many at-grade intersections there are on the existing sections of Corridor H that would have to be eliminated in order to meet interstate highway standards.

Some of the at-grade intersections that currently exist do need some safety improvements such as longer deceleration lanes.

His statements regarding I-68 and I-73/74 in WV are incorrect. He needs to really play up the connection to Front Royal and its possible economic benefits, and not worry about whether it's US 48 or I-66.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on July 18, 2012, 01:51:40 PM
<<< I wonder if he realizes how many at-grade intersections there are on the existing sections of Corridor H that would have to be eliminated in order to meet interstate highway standards. >>>

It would be very expensive, and most likely require a new NEPA EIS study on what was/is a controversial highway.

Isn't the average spacing of at-grade intersections about 1/2 mile?  That would be a huge project involving lots of right-of-way acquisition.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 19, 2012, 05:13:49 PM
QuoteIsn't the average spacing of at-grade intersections about 1/2 mile?

The average spacing is just under a mile.  Shortest spacing is 2/10ths, while the longest is 2-and-a-quarter.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on July 19, 2012, 05:43:05 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 19, 2012, 05:13:49 PM
QuoteIsn't the average spacing of at-grade intersections about 1/2 mile?

The average spacing is just under a mile.  Shortest spacing is 2/10ths, while the longest is 2-and-a-quarter.

Much too close for rural Interstate interchange spacing, which is typically ranging between 2 and 8 miles, with 4 or 5 miles on the average.

So each intersection would need to be evaluated for construction of one of 3 treatments --
1) build grade-separation bridge for crossroad, and 4 ramps
2) build grade-separation bridge for crossroad, with no ramps
3) sever crossroad, no grade-separation bridge

Local population would have opinions about whether they would want to see access to the highway eliminated at a particular intersection, or have their local road severed or rerouted to another bridge crossing via construction of a service road.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 19, 2012, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: Beltway on July 19, 2012, 05:43:05 PM
Local population would have opinions about whether they would want to see access to the highway eliminated at a particular intersection, or have their local road severed or rerouted to another bridge crossing via construction of a service road.

I would think that most people would be very unhappy to lose access to such a nice, new highway.  Even more unhappy if they lose access and the road that used to intersect with Corridor H is blocked-off.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 19, 2012, 09:46:10 PM
This is all craziness, anyway. There's no need for this road to become an interstate. It could serve the purpose as an evacuation route just as it is. If there is an evacuation necessary, just block the intersecting routes. There aren't any traffic lights until you get west of Elkins (at the US 250/WV 92 split) and by that point, evacuation traffic could have been dispersed to any number of local roads.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on July 19, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
I agree that it should work fine in its present form as a 4-lane expressway with interchanges at major junctions and intersections at minor junctions.

The main goal is to get it all built including the 10 miles in Virginia to connect to I-81 and I-66.

Traffic probably won't exceed 15,000 AADT or so even by 2035 assuming a fully completed highway between I-79 and I-81.  Should operate fine with its current design.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 21, 2012, 01:40:57 AM
Saw this posted in the "USHwys" Yahoo group today.

http://www.roadandrailpictures.com/us48links.htm

Some photos from this page show an "End US 48" sign at the end of the ramp to Patterson Creek Road. Must be an error.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on July 27, 2012, 10:38:18 AM
At present, US 48 ends at Knobley Road, and Patterson Creek Road is one interchange east. That segment, east from there to Moorefield, had opened just slightly before the section west to Knobley Road, and an "END US 48" sign was applied to the US 48 WB to Patterson Creek Road ramp. It's now outdated but just hasn't been removed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 11:07:58 AM
Quote from: Beltway on July 19, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
The main goal is to get it all built including the 10 miles in Virginia to connect to I-81 and I-66.

If this July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:

Quote
... the legislation ... eliminat[es] the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ShawnP on July 28, 2012, 11:47:03 AM
One trip on WV 72 has me completely sold on any Corridor H upgrades. I would like Interstate quality but can live with expressway like building.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 28, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 11:07:58 AM
If this July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:

Quote
... the legislation ... eliminat[es] the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars.


Not exactly.  The devil is in the details.

As I understand it, the previous system was thus:

There was an "ARC" pot of money that would fund ARC Corridors and only ARC Corridors on an 80-20 basis.  This was a seperate pot of money from "regular" DOT money.  Esentually this was an "earmark", because a state could not tap the money for any other project.  A state had a choice of spending its 20% match to tap the 80% or (the oppositon party would say) "gave back" the 80% money.

Now, if I have this correct, there is no ARC pot of money, nor are there really any "earmarks".  Each state just gets $X and can spend them on any "core project" it wishes.   The "core projects" include any uncompleted ARC Corridor and 1000s of other roads such as the "High Priority Corridors", and some new thing called the "National Freight System".  And, new to MAP 21, each state must spend enough to meet a federal maintence standard (apparently if a state's roads fall to a certain level of disrepair, it has to spend some of its appropriation on that, and not new construction). 

To continue with Corridor H, Virginia COULD build its part of Corridor H with 100% federal money, yes.  But that would be out of the finite regular amount appropriated to Virginia as a whole, not "free money".  Virginia could just as easily build a new road in NOVA, or the Tidewater or whatever from the list of dozens and dozens of "core projects". 

The bill does, however, require each state to come up with a "plan" on how it will eventually finish each Corridor, but that that is little more that them saying where on the list of "core projects" they place a particular road.

This does seem to be a "brave new world" as, in the politics of each state (even WV, where although the entire state is in the ARC, all of the Corridors are finished save H) as Appalachian politicians can no longer say that if the state does not build a particular road, it is just walking away from 80% funding and can't spend the money elsewhere anyway.  Now it can.  The politics of each ARC state would thus come into play here.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2012, 02:49:36 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 28, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 11:07:58 AM
If this July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:

Quote
... the legislation ... eliminat[es] the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars.


Not exactly.  The devil is in the details.

As I understand it, the previous system was thus:

There was an "ARC" pot of money that would fund ARC Corridors and only ARC Corridors on an 80-20 basis.  This was a seperate pot of money from "regular" DOT money.  Esentually this was an "earmark", because a state could not tap the money for any other project.  A state had a choice of spending its 20% match to tap the 80% or (the oppositon party would say) "gave back" the 80% money.

S. P., I believe it was also possible to match "regular" federal highway construction money with ARC money, effectively allowing an ARC highway to be built with 100% federal dollars. 

I was told that Maryland completed Corridor E (I-68) between Cumberland and Hancock with 100% federal dollars.  Have not independently verified same, but it is from a source I trust.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 28, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
Now, if I have this correct, there is no ARC pot of money, nor are there really any "earmarks".  Each state just gets $X and can spend them on any "core project" it wishes.   The "core projects" include any uncompleted ARC Corridor and 1000s of other roads such as the "High Priority Corridors", and some new thing called the "National Freight System".  And, new to MAP 21, each state must spend enough to meet a federal maintence standard (apparently if a state's roads fall to a certain level of disrepair, it has to spend some of its appropriation on that, and not new construction). 

Though that's not much of a "stick," since there is so little new construction taking place in the U.S. these days.

This provision should also have been linked to new rail projects, to prevent federal funding of new (and frequently questionable) rail transit lines and extensions unless the highway system (and rail systems, if any) were maintained to a certain "standard of good repair" (that's a rail phrase, but I think it can be applied to highways as well).

Quote from: SP Cook on July 28, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
To continue with Corridor H, Virginia COULD build its part of Corridor H with 100% federal money, yes.  But that would be out of the finite regular amount appropriated to Virginia as a whole, not "free money".  Virginia could just as easily build a new road in NOVA, or the Tidewater or whatever from the list of dozens and dozens of "core projects".

Among more than a few elected members of the Virginia General Assembly, Northern Virginia is at the absolute bottom of the list of priorities when it comes to funding.  And people in Northern Virginia are (in many cases) themselves to blame for this state of affairs.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 28, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
The bill does, however, require each state to come up with a "plan" on how it will eventually finish each Corridor, but that that is little more that them saying where on the list of "core projects" they place a particular road.

This does seem to be a "brave new world" as, in the politics of each state (even WV, where although the entire state is in the ARC, all of the Corridors are finished save H) as Appalachian politicians can no longer say that if the state does not build a particular road, it is just walking away from 80% funding and can't spend the money elsewhere anyway.  Now it can.  The politics of each ARC state would thus come into play here.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out - especially the segments of Corridor H between Kerens and Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on July 28, 2012, 05:37:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2012, 02:49:36 PM

Among more than a few elected members of the Virginia General Assembly, Northern Virginia is at the absolute bottom of the list of priorities when it comes to funding.  And people in Northern Virginia are (in many cases) themselves to blame for this state of affairs.


Sounds like something that a NOVA politician claimed ... Just look at the long list of projects on the VDOT website projects page to see that they get a lot more than any other area, and this has always been the case.  Plus they have gotten large amounts of special funding for projects such as Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Springfield Interchange, etc.  Even the I-495 HOT Lanes Project, while mostly PPTA private funding, did get $400 million in state funding, and federally guaranteed TIFIA loans.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: BigRedDog on July 28, 2012, 10:28:37 PM
Quote from: ShawnP on July 28, 2012, 11:47:03 AM
One trip on WV 72 has me completely sold on any Corridor H upgrades. I would like Interstate quality but can live with expressway like building.

While I understand your sentiment and don't disagree with the Corridor H upgrades, I thought WV 72 was a lot of fun to drive and was a beautiful in mid-October.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ShawnP on July 29, 2012, 09:42:31 AM
It was beautiful no doubt but a shocker how narrow it was. I went thru in early October in 2010 and it was peak season. I was shocked at how much wildlife was out in the open. Saw Deer, Foxes and yes even bear in the distance.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
I cannot fathom the amount of preparation H would require to be upgraded to interstatus requirements, there is no way the work could be accomplished smoothly no matter how much DC lubes the funding mechanism
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on July 29, 2012, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2012, 12:17:26 PM
I cannot fathom the amount of preparation H would require to be upgraded to interstatus requirements, there is no way the work could be accomplished smoothly no matter how much DC lubes the funding mechanism
Ha ha ha.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 29, 2012, 10:35:45 PM
Speaking of ARC corridors and federal funding...

Didn't Tennessee use 100 percent state funding to finish US 23 south of the Erwin area to the North Carolina state line, so as to avoid some federal environmental requirements that would have delayed construction? I am sure I have read this elsewhere in the past.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 01, 2012, 10:37:28 AM
I've heard of the DHS/evac. route funding game before. Where are all of these refugees going to stay, and who says we want them?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on August 01, 2012, 11:54:06 AM
They'll stay in the Superdome.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on August 19, 2012, 08:49:39 PM
Corridor H does not need to be an interstate highway.  It should work perfectly fine the way it is supposed to be built (assuming it does get finished).  US 50 from Clarksville to Parkersburg, OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Sammer on September 20, 2012, 07:36:36 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 19, 2012, 08:49:39 PM
OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.
Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on September 21, 2012, 05:42:24 PM
Quote from: Sammer on September 20, 2012, 07:36:36 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 19, 2012, 08:49:39 PM
OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.
Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.
That is true, actually.  With the three traffic lights (I call the triplets) between I-275 and old OH 74 backing traffic up in that area, anything east of that is rather enjoyable.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on October 14, 2012, 10:08:08 PM
Drove up to the Mount Storm area today to enjoy the autumn colors and check out the construction. The section from Knobley Road to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr appears to be ready to open any day now - all paving is done, lines are painted, signs are erected. I was so tempted to drive around that single little "road closed" sign sitting on the connector just off Route 93 (of course, about the time I would have done that, there would have been a state cop lying in wait somewhere), and I did see a pickup truck and a couple motorcycles on the new highway. They're probably waiting until closer to election day to have a formal ribbon cutting.

Beyond that part, a lot of progress has been made with grading up around Bismarck. Bridge piers are going up just downstream from the dam. There are signs along Route 93 between Davis and the Grant Co. line showing construction segment boundaries; only section 4 appears to have any earth-moving done in it, the others just have the ROW cleared, but that's been done for awhile now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 16, 2012, 11:12:59 PM
Quote from: dave19 on October 14, 2012, 10:08:08 PM
Drove up to the Mount Storm area today to enjoy the autumn colors and check out the construction. The section from Knobley Road to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr appears to be ready to open any day now - all paving is done, lines are painted, signs are erected. I was so tempted to drive around that single little "road closed" sign sitting on the connector just off Route 93 (of course, about the time I would have done that, there would have been a state cop lying in wait somewhere), and I did see a pickup truck and a couple motorcycles on the new highway. They're probably waiting until closer to election day to have a formal ribbon cutting.

Beyond that part, a lot of progress has been made with grading up around Bismarck. Bridge piers are going up just downstream from the dam. There are signs along Route 93 between Davis and the Grant Co. line showing construction segment boundaries; only section 4 appears to have any earth-moving done in it, the others just have the ROW cleared, but that's been done for awhile now.

Keep us up-to-date when ya see it opened so I can update my file @ the CHM project. ;)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Henry on October 17, 2012, 10:59:00 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 21, 2012, 05:42:24 PM
Quote from: Sammer on September 20, 2012, 07:36:36 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on August 19, 2012, 08:49:39 PM
OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.
Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.
That is true, actually.  With the three traffic lights (I call the triplets) between I-275 and old OH 74 backing traffic up in that area, anything east of that is rather enjoyable.
Seconded on that! Probably going to be a movement to renumber I-74 in NC, since that isn't connecting back to Cincinnati anytime soon.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 18, 2012, 12:09:37 PM
How were the foliage colors up there last weekend? Thinking about taking the old Cutlass up there for a blast soon.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on October 18, 2012, 01:17:05 PM
They're about at peak colors to a little past. Better go pretty soon...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 25, 2012, 10:35:23 AM
New section of Corridor H from Knobley Road to Scherr (WV 93, I guess) opened on Tuesday. http://www.statejournal.com/story/19911180/grant-county-section-of-corridor-h-opens-this-week?utm_source=StateJournal&utm_medium=twitter
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 25, 2012, 11:17:30 AM
http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map5.html
"it is anticipated that the first 5.3 miles from Knobley Road to WV 93 will be completed in the fall of 2012"

Presumably that's what just opened: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.1946&lon=-79.1341&zoom=13&layers=M

And sorry about any edit conflicts - we were both trying to change it at the same time :)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 25, 2012, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 25, 2012, 10:35:23 AM
New section of Corridor H from Knobley Road to Scherr (WV 93, I guess) opened on Tuesday. http://www.statejournal.com/story/19911180/grant-county-section-of-corridor-h-opens-this-week?utm_source=StateJournal&utm_medium=twitter

Welcome, Brian! :-)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 25, 2012, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 25, 2012, 11:23:02 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 25, 2012, 10:35:23 AM
New section of Corridor H from Knobley Road to Scherr (WV 93, I guess) opened on Tuesday. http://www.statejournal.com/story/19911180/grant-county-section-of-corridor-h-opens-this-week?utm_source=StateJournal&utm_medium=twitter
Welcome, Brian! :-)

Thanks.  I need to remember to poke around here more.  Since MTR imploded I've cut back on my general community roadgeekery.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on October 25, 2012, 07:12:50 PM
Just for background (not wanting to set off a big political postwar), the area in question is among the most Republican parts of WV.  With little coal the natural "vote the way granddaddy shot" unionist loyalties remain strong (similar to parts of Hal Roger's distict in HB's state, etc), unchanged by the advent of the unionized mine workers.  The governor's race is pretty close, although I think the democrat will win, but the rush to open this road is to insure that populace that he, unlike some previous democrat governors, actually is commited to H (which I believe he actually is, for what it is worth).

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 25, 2012, 09:32:11 PM
Good to know Repubs love pork too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 25, 2012, 10:31:22 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 25, 2012, 07:12:50 PM
Just for background (not wanting to set off a big political postwar), the area in question is among the most Republican parts of WV.  With little coal the natural "vote the way granddaddy shot" unionist loyalties remain strong (similar to parts of Hal Roger's distict in HB's state, etc), unchanged by the advent of the unionized mine workers.  The governor's race is pretty close, although I think the democrat will win, but the rush to open this road is to insure that populace that he, unlike some previous democrat governors, actually is commited to H (which I believe he actually is, for what it is worth).

Actually, WVDOH and the governor's office have been very quiet about Corridor H opening.  I haven't seen any press releases, just the AP article.  No ribbon-cutting ceremony for the highway.  There was one earlier in the week in Keyser for the new US 220 bridge.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 29, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Traveled on the new section to Rt. 93 last Weds., will have pics soon..Real nice, awesome scenery
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 30, 2012, 11:03:43 AM
And real snow covered right now. Areas around Corridor H have received up to 1' of snow already, with another 1' to 2' expected by Wednesday evening. This is one of the earliest heavy snowfalls ever.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2012, 12:48:27 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 25, 2012, 07:12:50 PM
Just for background (not wanting to set off a big political postwar), the area in question is among the most Republican parts of WV.  With little coal the natural "vote the way granddaddy shot" unionist loyalties remain strong (similar to parts of Hal Roger's distict in HB's state, etc), unchanged by the advent of the unionized mine workers.  The governor's race is pretty close, although I think the democrat will win, but the rush to open this road is to insure that populace that he, unlike some previous democrat governors, actually is commited to H (which I believe he actually is, for what it is worth).

Curiously, a succession of Democratic Maryland governors have spent a whole lot of (mostly federal) dollars to complete what is now I-68, even though it is pretty reliably Republican (it has long been in the congressional 6th District represented by Roscoe Bartlett (R), though the district may have been sufficiently gerrymandered recently to assure his defeat in the election next week).  These projects date back to the 1960's, when the old Cumberland Bypass (the now very substandard segment of the freeway through downtown Cumberland) was completed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on October 30, 2012, 01:53:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2012, 12:48:27 PM
Curiously, a succession of Democratic Maryland governors have spent a whole lot of (mostly federal) dollars to complete what is now I-68, even though it is pretty reliably Republican (it has long been in the congressional 6th District represented by Roscoe Bartlett (R), though the district may have been sufficiently gerrymandered recently to assure his defeat in the election next week).  These projects date back to the 1960's, when the old Cumberland Bypass (the now very substandard segment of the freeway through downtown Cumberland) was completed.

Because ADHS Corridor "E" was seen as a benefit to the whole state, and it has an inter-state function with the West Virginia segment to connect I-70 in Maryland with I-79 in WV.  In addition to promoting economic development in Western Maryland, which was rather isolated from modern highway access.

Maryland named their segment the National Freeway, as a bypass of the National Road.  One of the prime project benefits promoted by the MD state government in the 1970s and 1980s was that it would connect the Port of Baltimore with the Ohio Valley.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2012, 04:07:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2012, 01:53:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2012, 12:48:27 PM
Curiously, a succession of Democratic Maryland governors have spent a whole lot of (mostly federal) dollars to complete what is now I-68, even though it is pretty reliably Republican (it has long been in the congressional 6th District represented by Roscoe Bartlett (R), though the district may have been sufficiently gerrymandered recently to assure his defeat in the election next week).  These projects date back to the 1960's, when the old Cumberland Bypass (the now very substandard segment of the freeway through downtown Cumberland) was completed.

Because ADHS Corridor "E" was seen as a benefit to the whole state, and it has an inter-state function with the West Virginia segment to connect I-70 in Maryland with I-79 in WV.  In addition to promoting economic development in Western Maryland, which was rather isolated from modern highway access.

Maryland named their segment the National Freeway, as a bypass of the National Road.  One of the prime project benefits promoted by the MD state government in the 1970s and 1980s was that it would connect the Port of Baltimore with the Ohio Valley.

The larger reason (according to a longtime senior planner with SHA, now retired) was that "induced" demand for highway capacity that might result from the construction of what became I-68 was desirable.  In other words, the state wanted more highway traffic headed to and coming from that part of the state.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on October 30, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2012, 04:07:36 PM
Quote from: Beltway on October 30, 2012, 01:53:04 PM
Because ADHS Corridor "E" was seen as a benefit to the whole state, and it has an inter-state function with the West Virginia segment to connect I-70 in Maryland with I-79 in WV.  In addition to promoting economic development in Western Maryland, which was rather isolated from modern highway access.

Maryland named their segment the National Freeway, as a bypass of the National Road.  One of the prime project benefits promoted by the MD state government in the 1970s and 1980s was that it would connect the Port of Baltimore with the Ohio Valley.

The larger reason (according to a longtime senior planner with SHA, now retired) was that "induced" demand for highway capacity that might result from the construction of what became I-68 was desirable.  In other words, the state wanted more highway traffic headed to and coming from that part of the state.

I have MDSHA public hearing brochures from the 1970s and 1980s for the National Freeway projects.

Stated prime project benefit goals did include connecting the Port of Baltimore with the Ohio Valley, as well as connecting the rest of the state to Western Maryland and to the Ohio Valley.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 31, 2012, 02:07:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 30, 2012, 04:07:36 PM
The larger reason (according to a longtime senior planner with SHA, now retired) was that "induced" demand for highway capacity that might result from the construction of what became I-68 was desirable.  In other words, the state wanted more highway traffic headed to and coming from that part of the state.

Once Corridor H is finished, I will certainly use I-68 a lot less than I use it now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2012, 10:37:04 PM
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on November 02, 2012, 11:22:23 PM
Probably Joe Goodsoldier Memorial Bridge. Otherwise I doubt it - it's just a long ramp.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 03, 2012, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2012, 10:37:04 PM
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?

To US 48? Or To WV 93?  :-D
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 04, 2012, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2012, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2012, 10:37:04 PM
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?

To US 48? Or To WV 93?  :-D

It's just a connector, basically a glorified ramp.  It's doubtful it will have a name of its own unless Grant County decides it needs ones for E911 purposes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 05, 2012, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 04, 2012, 12:13:17 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2012, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2012, 10:37:04 PM
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?

To US 48? Or To WV 93?  :-D

It's just a connector, basically a glorified ramp.  It's doubtful it will have a name of its own unless Grant County decides it needs ones for E911 purposes.

That's what I kinda thought would be the case, but just wanted to be sure before I submitted an update for the CHM project extending US-48. ;)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on November 05, 2012, 06:46:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 03, 2012, 12:05:57 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 02, 2012, 10:37:04 PM
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?

To US 48? Or To WV 93?  :-D

H.B., you nailed it!  I was there earlier today.  The connector has no signed name or separate route number.  On US 48, it's signed only as "To WV 93".  On WV 93, it's signed only as "To US 48".
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 24, 2012, 11:44:47 PM
I drove the new part of Corridor H today.  It's a very nice road with concrete travel lanes and shoulders.  About half of the new section, the part nearest CR 3, has a Jersey barrier median.  The rest has a narrow grass median.

Now that the road has a better connection to existing state routes, it seems that traffic is picking up a bit.  Still not a ton of cars but it wasn't completely deserted as it has been in the past.

With the new pieces of Corridor H that are now open, this route is starting to look like a viable alternative for heading from the I-68 corridor to the Shenandoah Valley.  I suspect this route will start to pop-up on more people's radar screens especially once the last piece to Bismarck is done in about two years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 24, 2012, 11:53:39 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 24, 2012, 11:44:47 PM
With the new pieces of Corridor H that are now open, this route is starting to look like a viable alternative for heading from the I-68 corridor to the Shenandoah Valley.  I suspect this route will start to pop-up on more people's radar screens especially once the last piece to Bismarck is done in about two years.

If driving to DC, I would pick Corridor H over either I-68 to I-70, or I-64 to I-81 to I-66, without hesitation right now.

Kerens to Davis isn't that bad of a road, and neither is Wardensville to Strasburg. Davis to Mount Storm Lake is practically like a Super-2.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 25, 2012, 11:19:45 AM
I posted photos from the new part of Corridor H to Flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/bmpowell/sets/72157606237347352/with/8217668114/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bmpowell/sets/72157606237347352/with/8217668114/).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 25, 2012, 06:01:10 PM
Thanks for these. I head up that way a lot to do some backpacking in the mountains, and have watched various segments of Corridor H inch along. The Kerens - Davis segment isn't that bad - for a two-lane, and moves fairly quick. I've been stuck behind some logging trucks on the one long grade but it's easy to pass them on the incline.

I'm not sure why the Davis - Mt. Storm segment is such a high priority though. WV 93 was built on a new alignment in 1963-1964 to serve Mt. Storm Lake and its (very large) power plant that was finished in 1965. It has practically no traffic - although snow clearing may take a higher priority than years past with it being four-laned and a corridor route.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on November 25, 2012, 08:15:04 PM
This thread makes me miss Racist Randy  :-/ :-/ :-/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 25, 2012, 10:52:25 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on November 25, 2012, 06:01:10 PM
Thanks for these. I head up that way a lot to do some backpacking in the mountains, and have watched various segments of Corridor H inch along. The Kerens - Davis segment isn't that bad - for a two-lane, and moves fairly quick. I've been stuck behind some logging trucks on the one long grade but it's easy to pass them on the incline.

The drive from Kerens to Davis is not dissimilar to the drive I make to work every day -- around 30 miles through rural, hilly to mountainous terrain. If I drive a similar route every day, driving this part of US 219 while on my way to points east and north is not a big deal.

QuoteI'm not sure why the Davis - Mt. Storm segment is such a high priority though. WV 93 was built on a new alignment in 1963-1964 to serve Mt. Storm Lake and its (very large) power plant that was finished in 1965. It has practically no traffic - although snow clearing may take a higher priority than years past with it being four-laned and a corridor route.

It's a quick fix. Basically, all that has to be done is build a stream crossing below the dam and then build two lanes parallel to the existing route. Very little earth-moving will have to be done from the west side of the dam on to Davis. It's a great PR move; shows that progress is being made. Not to mention that it will be a lot cheaper than building from Davis on to Parsons and then on to Kerens.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 26, 2012, 08:02:33 PM
Quote
QuoteI'm not sure why the Davis - Mt. Storm segment is such a high priority though. WV 93 was built on a new alignment in 1963-1964 to serve Mt. Storm Lake and its (very large) power plant that was finished in 1965. It has practically no traffic - although snow clearing may take a higher priority than years past with it being four-laned and a corridor route.

It's a quick fix. Basically, all that has to be done is build a stream crossing below the dam and then build two lanes parallel to the existing route. Very little earth-moving will have to be done from the west side of the dam on to Davis. It's a great PR move; shows that progress is being made. Not to mention that it will be a lot cheaper than building from Davis on to Parsons and then on to Kerens.

Looking at the plans WVDOH has for Corridor H at http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/ (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/), I'd say probably half of the Davis-Bismarck segment will actually be on a new alignment.  It's not just a dualization.  From a PR perspective it does show more getting done but it doesn't really add any functional value.  I'd have rather seen the money spent on Kerens-Parsons or Parsons-Davis where there would a practical improvement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2012, 08:37:40 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 26, 2012, 08:02:33 PM
I'd have rather seen the money spent on Kerens-Parsons or Parsons-Davis where there would a practical improvement.

I agree. 

Existing U.S. 219 from Kerens to Davis is a pretty twisty and winding road, and having a new highway on a new alignment will be a major (and probably expensive) improvement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 28, 2012, 12:08:17 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 26, 2012, 08:02:33 PMLooking at the plans WVDOH has for Corridor H at http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/ (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/), I'd say probably half of the Davis-Bismarck segment will actually be on a new alignment.  It's not just a dualization.

That seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.

QuoteFrom a PR perspective it does show more getting done but it doesn't really add any functional value.  I'd have rather seen the money spent on Kerens-Parsons or Parsons-Davis where there would a practical improvement.

Agreed. And I still think there needs to be a US 219/US 250 bypass of Elkins.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 28, 2012, 06:27:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2012, 12:08:17 AM
Agreed. And I still think there needs to be a US 219/US 250 bypass of Elkins.

WVDOH actually has plans for 3-phase Elkins bypass but there is no funding currently identified.  Phase 1 would be 2 lanes from WV 92 near its Corridor H intersection, crossing the Tygart Valley River twice, and ending near Sullivan Junction (where Scott Ford and Ward Roads intersect).  Phase 2 would be 4 lanes from there to US 219/US 250.  Phase 3 would be 4 lanes from US 219/US 250 along the Isner Creek Road corridor to US 33 where the 4-lane segment ends east of Elkins.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 12, 2012, 10:14:57 AM
Drove the new route last week as part of my trip to the Pennsylvania meet. Lots of construction along WV 93; they've made a lot of progress since the last time I was across that area.

Found it interesting that there is no signage for US 48 at the WV 42/WV 93 intersection at the bottom of the hill at Scherr, the way there is at Knobley Road on WV 42.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 12, 2012, 10:47:20 AM
QuoteThat seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.

I believe there are 2 reasons for this.  First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project.  This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.

The second reason is that many of the curves along WV 93 don't meet design standards for 65 MPH.  Especially one almost 90-degree curve west of the dam.  I believe this is why only about 5 miles of the existing WV 93 alignment will be used for the dualization.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 12, 2012, 12:36:31 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2012, 10:47:20 AM
QuoteThat seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.

I believe there are 2 reasons for this.  First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project.  This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.

The second reason is that many of the curves along WV 93 don't meet design standards for 65 MPH.  Especially one almost 90-degree curve west of the dam.  I believe this is why only about 5 miles of the existing WV 93 alignment will be used for the dualization.

Never meant to imply that WV should not improve the existing carriageway. It does look like in some places, they will be building a second carriageway and then improving the existing. There's no good way to expand the dam to four lanes so it makes sense that a bridge would be built below the dam.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2012, 10:47:20 AM
QuoteThat seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.

I believe there are 2 reasons for this.  First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project.  This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.

Virginia is not alone in such practices. 

Maryland has done it as well.  An especially egregious example is Maryland 4 in Calvert County, between Md. 260 (Anne Arundel County line) and Prince Frederick.  Have you ever driven from metropolitan D.C. to NAS Patuxent River by way of Md. 4 (instead of Md. 5 and Md. 235)?

Some sections of U.S. 29 in Howard County were also dualized using the "cheap way out" method.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on December 12, 2012, 01:21:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 12, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 12, 2012, 10:47:20 AMThat seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.

I believe there are 2 reasons for this.  First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project.  This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.

I've been on that stretch of Rt. 4, it is terrible. As far as Rt. 48/proposed in Va. is concerned, there are pieces of it that will either use or parallel the existing route according to the original design I saw, especially thru GWNF.

how the heck did you quote like that?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 12, 2012, 10:04:18 PM
Try driving on US 460 in Virginia in rain. While the improved carriageway was very nice with shoulders, good sight distances, smooth pavement - when it reverted to the old carriageway (and swapped between the old and new quite frequently), it was quite terrible. Narrower lanes, poor sight distances - with a lot of sharp crests, and wavy pavement.

As for Corridor H, I estimated that 70% of the roadway (and general alignment) west of the dam would be used based on my last trip. They were smoothing out some curves with preliminary grading, but there were difficulties with alignment selection due to Canaan Valley and Canaan Valley Institute bordering it to the south.

There is an old rail grade for part of the length, an old WM line, that should be repurposed for a rail to trail. It'd be a great connection to the ongoing efforts to convert the WM line through Thomas into a trail to connect the Blackwater Canyon Trail (http://www.americanbyways.com/2012/06/15/blackwater-canyon-trail/).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 18, 2012, 06:39:06 AM
QuoteAs for Corridor H, I estimated that 70% of the roadway (and general alignment) west of the dam would be used based on my last trip. They were smoothing out some curves with preliminary grading, but there were difficulties with alignment selection due to Canaan Valley and Canaan Valley Institute bordering it to the south.

I'd looked up the actual plans awhile back.  About 5 miles worth will use the existing lanes.  Your percentage is about right for the general alignment.

QuoteThere is an old rail grade for part of the length, an old WM line, that should be repurposed for a rail to trail. It'd be a great connection to the ongoing efforts to convert the WM line through Thomas into a trail to connect the Blackwater Canyon Trail

Concur.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: jpi on December 20, 2012, 12:57:07 AM
I was going to check out the progress on corridor H this weekend when Steph and I head home to PA for Christmas but thanks to winter storm Draco, looks like I will have to put this off until the spring.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 20, 2012, 06:22:59 AM
Quotethanks to winter storm Draco

(off-topic)  Please tell me you're saying this in jest and not actually using these bastard winter storm names from TWC...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 20, 2012, 08:22:08 AM
People outside of The Weather Channel actually use those names?  I purposely don't watch TWC so I don't know how hard they've been pushing it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on December 20, 2012, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 20, 2012, 08:22:08 AM
People outside of The Weather Channel actually use those names?  I purposely don't watch TWC so I don't know how hard they've been pushing it.

Parts of Ontario and Quebec are due to get a big chunk of the winter storm TWC calls "Draco".  The Weather Network (Canadian counterpart to TWC) isn't playing along with that name, nor is it contriving a name of its own. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 20, 2012, 10:01:54 AM
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2012, 06:32:42 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 20, 2012, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 20, 2012, 08:22:08 AM
People outside of The Weather Channel actually use those names?  I purposely don't watch TWC so I don't know how hard they've been pushing it.

Parts of Ontario and Quebec are due to get a big chunk of the winter storm TWC calls "Draco".  The Weather Network (Canadian counterpart to TWC) isn't playing along with that name, nor is it contriving a name of its own. 

"Draco?"  As in Malfoy? As in Harry Potter (admittedly a Warner Brothers production, but the Harry Potter theme park is part of the NBCUniversal operation in Orlando).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 21, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on December 20, 2012, 10:01:54 AM
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...

I honestly thought that "Storm Stories" was a decent program.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on December 21, 2012, 04:16:43 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 21, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on December 20, 2012, 10:01:54 AM
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...

I honestly thought that "Storm Stories" was a decent program.

Agreed.  But now TWC is straying too much into non-weather programming.  "Coast Guard Alaska" (TWC's contribution to the glut of Alaska "reality" shows) and "Ice Pilots" come to mind.  It's getting harder and harder to get actual weather information when you tune in. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2012, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: oscar on December 21, 2012, 04:16:43 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 21, 2012, 01:11:43 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on December 20, 2012, 10:01:54 AM
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...

I honestly thought that "Storm Stories" was a decent program.

Agreed.  But now TWC is straying too much into non-weather programming.  "Coast Guard Alaska" (TWC's contribution to the glut of Alaska "reality" shows) and "Ice Pilots" come to mind.  It's getting harder and harder to get actual weather information when you tune in. 

You have been in Alaska.  What  is your opinion of those shows?

I personally like Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic Channel (because I like cop reality shows, but also because this show seems to strive to show the entire huge state, and not just Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as a lot of the gorgeous Alaska landscape).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on December 21, 2012, 12:00:01 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2012, 09:10:45 AM
Quote from: oscar on December 21, 2012, 04:16:43 AM

Agreed.  But now TWC is straying too much into non-weather programming.  "Coast Guard Alaska" (TWC's contribution to the glut of Alaska "reality" shows) and "Ice Pilots" come to mind.  It's getting harder and harder to get actual weather information when you tune in. 

You have been in Alaska.  What  is your opinion of those shows?

I personally like Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic Channel (because I like cop reality shows, but also because this show seems to strive to show the entire huge state, and not just Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as a lot of the gorgeous Alaska landscape).

There is such a glut of Alaska-based shows, that I don't try to watch them all.  My favorite was "Flying Wild Alaska" (series just concluded), which featured the really remote places in northwestern Alaska.  I also watch "Ice Road Truckers", though it includes even more obviously phony drama than usual, including but not limited to the use of trick photography to make the Dalton Highway look even scarier than it really is.

I've seen snippets of "Alaska State Troopers" and "Coast Guard Alaska," but not enough to inspire me to watch those shows regularly.  Ditto "Ice Pilots" which is set only in northern Canada.  I have never watched "Deadliest Catch" (landlubber that I am, even though I spent a few days in Dutch Harbor), and while I DVR'd all the episodes of "Sarah Palin's Alaska" I haven't gone back to watch any of them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 12:09:40 PM
Quote from: oscar on December 21, 2012, 12:00:01 PMMy favorite was "Flying Wild Alaska" (series just concluded)

I like that show, but they really do time it around the commercials - exaggerating a dramatic point just before a break. 

it helps to

a) watch using Netflix/Amazon/whatnot, where there is no pause
b) remember that they have interviews with the presented subjects, so clearly they made it out alive

but still, after the break, they return and immediately resolve the problem (other pilot takes over, that kind of thing).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on January 26, 2013, 08:32:39 PM
Button-copy sign about to bite the dust...
http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/558791/Icy-roads-hamper-travel-in-region.html?nav=5014
The Intermountain web site also has a gallery of 51 Corridor H construction photos. None has a caption saying where exactly they were taken, and they have a load of stupid watermarks all over them. They were taken from a helicopter; after the first 5 photos they start west of the dam and go east, though not always in order, over to the newly opened part, then back to the dam area.
http://cu.theintermountain.com/NewsEvents/Corridor-H-construction/27605428_bLs6Ms#!i=2324534397&k=fMMMmWm
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 27, 2013, 12:16:09 AM
Those watermarks make those pictures un-viewable.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 27, 2013, 10:44:59 AM
Quote from: dave19 on January 26, 2013, 08:32:39 PM
Button-copy sign about to bite the dust...
http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/558791/Icy-roads-hamper-travel-in-region.html?nav=5014
R.I.P. www.alpsroads.net/roads/wv/us_33
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 27, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
Most of the button copy between Weston and Elkins has been replaced already. Only the exit signs at Buckhannon, a couple of county route crossing signs and a couple of signs at the US 250 intersection remain. I'm surprised the existing ones have survived as long as they have.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on January 27, 2013, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 27, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
I'm surprised the existing ones have survived as long as they have.
Yeah, that's why I posted that. And those watermarked pix certainly suck; I have no idea why they thought that was necessary.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 28, 2013, 10:01:55 AM
The button copy signs on I-64 from Beckley east to Sam Black Church, dating to 1988, were replaced I think in 2012 or 2011. The signs on I-64 near Huntington were replaced very recently - new sign supports, LED lighting and all.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 28, 2013, 02:24:13 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 28, 2013, 10:01:55 AM
The signs on I-64 near Huntington were replaced very recently - new sign supports, LED lighting and all.

With Clearview.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 08, 2013, 10:03:29 AM
http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/589796.html
Some bank on Corridor H being completed sooner rather than later; others not as optimistic
January 18, 2013
By Katie Kuba - Ogden Newspapers
         
BUCKHANNON - The completion of Corridor H might seem miles away to some West Virginians, but Jim Strader is banking on it being done sooner rather than later.

[...]

In fact, the road is slated to be 75 percent complete in the Mountain State by the end of 2013, a fact many people in Randolph, Tucker and other counties may not realize, said Robbie Morris, executive director of the Randolph County Development Authority.

"Unless you make regular trips to the Eastern Panhandle or to the D.C. and Baltimore area, you don't really see it," Morris said. "People view the progress on the Corridor from where it stands at Kerens, and nothing's being done from Kerens to Parsons ... but that doesn't mean nothing's being done."

Most of the current construction work visible from the air is concentrated near Mount Storm, where backhoes, dozers and other pieces of heavy equipment dot the landscape. Along W.Va. 93, there are several places where forest has been cleared to make way for the highway. Buttresses for bridges are beginning to come together, and several bridges have decks installed and are nearing completion. As the road snakes its way around mountains near Scherr Mountain, the pathway for the future road is visible.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:33:26 AM
There's a glaring error in that story.

QuoteFirst proposed in 1964, the 143-mile-long highway is the only leg of the federal Appalachian Corridor System - a network of roads designed to open Appalachia up to economic development - that has yet to be finished, according to information from the Corridor H Authority, a group advocating for the Corridor's completion.

US 119 in Kentucky isn't finished yet. The portion from the Harlan/Letcher county line to Whitesburg is not done. Some portions are under construction or recently went to contract, but the Pine Mountain crossing remains as an obstacle. The current idea is to tunnel under the mountain, but that will cost a lot of money.

I think there is also a portion of highway in Tennessee in the Cookeville area that isn't even under consideration for construction at this time.

20 years ago I can see why reporters would make errors like this, because you didn't have the Internet to research this stuff. Today, a quick glance at the ARC Website will show what corridors are not yet completed. There's no excuse for this type of easily-avoided error.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on February 08, 2013, 10:42:11 AM
There's also I-99 (Corridor U-1) south of Corning, not complete yet. And Corridor X-1 is porkier than most. Bits and pieces of others are also not done (A, C, K, V, X...).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on February 08, 2013, 06:50:16 PM
H is the only remaining corridor in West Virginia.  That's most likely what they were referring to.  Given the small geographical (and exclusively West Virginian) area of the paper's coverage, it's the most logical conclusion.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 08, 2013, 06:50:16 PM
H is the only remaining corridor in West Virginia.  That's most likely what they were referring to.  Given the small geographical (and exclusively West Virginian) area of the paper's coverage, it's the most logical conclusion.

Entirely possible, and I did not think of that likelihood.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on February 09, 2013, 06:18:14 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 08, 2013, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 08, 2013, 06:50:16 PM
H is the only remaining corridor in West Virginia.  That's most likely what they were referring to.  Given the small geographical (and exclusively West Virginian) area of the paper's coverage, it's the most logical conclusion.

Entirely possible, and I did not think of that likelihood.

I'm sure that is what the author is refering to.  The last section of D was finished a few years ago, and, excepting that, all ARC projects were finished by the early 90s.  The political perception among people in that area is that the order in which Interstates and Corridors were finished was highly political.  Really, if you look at traffic volumes, and national and local impact, WV pretty much built its roads in reverse order of importance.

On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on February 09, 2013, 06:52:26 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 09, 2013, 06:18:14 AM
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.
Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina are closer to completion: http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusofCompletionoftheADHS.asp http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusoftheAppalachianDevelopmentHighwaySystemasofSeptember302011.asp
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: jpi on February 15, 2013, 01:27:11 AM
On a trip to Knoxville a couple weeks ago, I took the "scenic" route which led me along TN 52 from Red Boiling Springs east to Celina, first time in 2 years I was in that part of TN and discoverde a BIG 4 lane project for TN 52 from Celina to outside of Livingston. Nice stretch of highway, about 4 miles of it now 4 lane app. corridor grade. I wonder if this is supposed to come down to the Cookeville area and tie into a new interchange that is planned on I-40 west of Cookeville.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on February 15, 2013, 01:48:11 AM
That's Corridor J: http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/adhs_status_report_2011/ADHS2011StatusReportTennessee.pdf
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 01:51:17 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 09, 2013, 06:18:14 AM
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.

Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?

Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on February 15, 2013, 01:56:50 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 01:51:17 AM
Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?

Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).
Quote from: NE2 on February 09, 2013, 06:52:26 AM
http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusofCompletionoftheADHS.asp http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusoftheAppalachianDevelopmentHighwaySystemasofSeptember302011.asp
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2013, 03:37:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 01:51:17 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 09, 2013, 06:18:14 AM
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.

Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?

Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).

I don't look for anything else to be done on Corridor O (US 220) since Pennsylvania has abandoned plans to build its portion of the route from the state line to Bedford. The road quality deteriorates considerably when you cross the state line going north.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 06:01:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2013, 03:37:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 01:51:17 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 09, 2013, 06:18:14 AM
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.

Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?

Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).

I don't look for anything else to be done on Corridor O (US 220) since Pennsylvania has abandoned plans to build its portion of the route from the state line to Bedford. The road quality deteriorates considerably when you cross the state line going north.

Wonder if Pennsylvania was afraid that an upgrade of U.S. 220 between Bedford and Maryland  might cost the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission revenue?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mr_Northside on February 15, 2013, 07:27:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 06:01:40 PM
Wonder if Pennsylvania was afraid that an upgrade of U.S. 220 between Bedford and Maryland  might cost the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission revenue?

I doubt the welfare of the PTC's revenues had anything to do with it.
I think the fact that they're trying to focus resources ($$$) one county over to finally get an upgraded US-219 between Somerset and I-68 probably had a good bit to do with it. 
I can't remember for sure, but they may have actually shifted the ARC  south of the Turnpike from US-220 to US-219 to try and get more $$$.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 15, 2013, 10:10:07 PM
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 15, 2013, 07:27:00 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 06:01:40 PM
Wonder if Pennsylvania was afraid that an upgrade of U.S. 220 between Bedford and Maryland  might cost the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission revenue?

I doubt the welfare of the PTC's revenues had anything to do with it.
I think the fact that they're trying to focus resources ($$$) one county over to finally get an upgraded US-219 between Somerset and I-68 probably had a good bit to do with it. 
I can't remember for sure, but they may have actually shifted the ARC  south of the Turnpike from US-220 to US-219 to try and get more $$$.

Actually, I think US 220 got swapped out for US 322.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on February 15, 2013, 10:24:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2013, 10:10:07 PM
Actually, I think US 220 got swapped out for US 322.
Yep. N always went south to E.

And then US 322 got swapped for US 15-PA 147 in 2010: http://www.csvt.com/assets/pdfs/ADHS%20Map%20with%20Corridor%20P-1.pdf

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe7%2F1966_map_of_the_Appalachian_Development_Highway_System.jpg%2F3568px-1966_map_of_the_Appalachian_Development_Highway_System.jpg&hash=a9437edb7ffa00e43d34199b4381f37547c23156)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1966_map_of_the_Appalachian_Development_Highway_System.jpg
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on February 16, 2013, 02:17:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 15, 2013, 03:37:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2013, 01:51:17 AM
Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?

Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).

I don't look for anything else to be done on Corridor O (US 220) since Pennsylvania has abandoned plans to build its portion of the route from the state line to Bedford. The road quality deteriorates considerably when you cross the state line going north.

I drive that stretch of US 220 several times a year.  Traffic easily flows 55+ through here.  While some wider shoulders and turn lanes would be nice, the only real issue I have with the existing road is that traffic is heavy enough that passing can be difficult.  A couple of passing lanes would easily solve this problem.  A full relocation would really be a waste of money.

US 219 to the west, on the other hand, would greatly benefit from its planned full relocation.  The existing alignment is very indirect, has some sharp curves, and is pretty slow.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 16, 2013, 02:37:32 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on February 16, 2013, 02:17:12 PM
I drive that stretch of US 220 several times a year.  Traffic easily flows 55+ through here.  While some wider shoulders and turn lanes would be nice, the only real issue I have with the existing road is that traffic is heavy enough that passing can be difficult.  A couple of passing lanes would easily solve this problem.  A full relocation would really be a waste of money.

US 219 to the west, on the other hand, would greatly benefit from its planned full relocation.  The existing alignment is very indirect, has some sharp curves, and is pretty slow.

Agreed about passing on 220, especially given the amount of truck traffic I've witnessed on that road.

Also agreed on 219. I drove it once, coming home from State College, and said "never again." I will be much more likely to use 219 once the road from I-68 to Somerset is complete.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 26, 2013, 05:10:58 AM
The Journal (Martinsburg, W.Va.): Study: highways should be finished (http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/592569/Study--highways-should-be-finished.html)

QuoteHAGERSTOWN - Completing Corridor H is one of the most important projects identified in the Appalachian Regional Commission Interstate 81 Corridor Study.

Quote"One of the most important gaps that should be completed is connecting Corridor H to I-81 to provide direct access to I-81 and the Virginia Inland Port," the study concludes. "This would provide intermodal access for much of northern West Virginia and an east/west highway for Virginia to Cincinnati, Ohio; Indianapolis, Ind.; and Chicago."

QuoteThe study, titled Network 81: Defining the I-81 Corridor, was presented Monday during the I-81 Corridor Coalition annual conference, which is being held in Hagerstown. The coalition consists of state and local governments along the I-81 corridor from New York to Tennessee, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.

Quote"West Virginia is building a four-lane, high-speed highway up to the Virginia line, where it becomes a two-lane highway," said Ray Pethtel, who authored the study and is the former interim executive director of the I-81CC.

For those that may not remember, Ray Pethtel was Virginia's Commissioner of Highways for two periods, first 1986 to 1994, and then in 2002.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 14, 2013, 10:25:51 PM
Charleston Daily Mail: Mock Corridor H decorates Capitol (http://www.dailymail.com/News/statehouse/201304140079)

QuoteThe Corridor H Authority laid a "stage version" of Corridor H on the second floor of the Capitol on Friday, connecting the Senate chambers to the House of Delegates. The mock highway was dotted with significant markers, information booths and video about Corridor H's path, with special detail paid to a 25-mile uncompleted section midway along the route.

The Inter-Mountain.Com: Corridor H - Legislators view model of highway (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/560666/Corridor-H.html?nav=5014)

QuoteLocal economic leaders from a seven-county region gathered in Charleston Friday to lobby for the completion of Corridor H - and garnered pledges of support from state lawmakers.

QuoteThe Corridor H Authority, a group that advocates for the completion of the highway by the year 2020, set up a lifelike model of the 130-mile highway in the State Capitol Rotunda so legislators could actually see what has - and hasn't - been completed on the road, which begins at the intersection of Interstate 79 and U.S. Route 33 near Weston and will end at the junction of Interstates 81 and 66 in Front Royal, Va.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 04:14:55 PM
Took a trip on the "eastern" part of Corridor H for the first time in many years this past weekend (there was only one relatively small part open between Baker and Wardensville the last time I was out that way).  Did not take any pictures, though I may do that in the future.  Some observations:

There has been a lot of discussion about what should happen east of Wardensville - to I-81 in Virginia near Strasburg.  I noticed that U.S. 48/Va. 55 is now marked as a "scenic byway," but only in Shenandoah County (not Frederick County). The grade from the ridgecrest of North Mountain (at the Va./W.Va. state line) down to Wardensville is steeper than I remember, and there was plenty of summertime traffic (more traffic there than on eastern Corridor H itself).

The current eastern terminus of Corridor H approaching Wardensville is at the end of a pretty steep downhill grade.

All of eastern Corridor H is marked as a bike trail (on the  shoulders), yet the bridges on the massive bridges that carry the highway across many of the valleys have very narrow shoulders.  And the grades are still plenty steep.  Wonder how much bike traffic will use it?

The rock cuts through the ridges are massive, as big (in terms of scale) as I-68 crossing Sideling Hill in Maryland.

The vistas from eastern Corridor H are absolutely spectacular.  With a little selling, this could be an uncongested alternative to Skyline Drive during leaf season.

Eastern Corridor H comes to an end (for now) at a connector to W.Va. 93 near Greenland, but the massive bridge that carries Corridor H over W.Va. 93 appears to be complete.  Once off of Corridor H, I drove north (east according to WVDOH) on 93 to U.S. 50 to turn east toward Romney.  The trip on U.S. 50 reminded me why Corridor H is a good project. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
I went through there today, the full length of the currently-open eastern portion. Not sure how pictures will come out: Ms1995hoo was taking pictures as I drove but does not always do well because she tries to "frame" the pictures too much, and at some point my dashcam froze. So I'll see as the week goes on whether I have any good pictures.

I concur with cpzilliacus about what a great road that is. The speed limit is 65 and I had my cruise control set at 75. Very few other cars on the road. I didn't feel comfortable going faster because of the curves and because the car was somewhat heavily loaded (two sets of golf clubs plus a four-day weekend's worth of luggage). I noted the bike route signs too, but I would NOT want to ride a bike on there at all.

I came from the opposite direction from cpzilliacus. We were at the Omni Bedford Springs for the weekend (our anniversary is July 28) and we decided to go see Fallingwater afterwards. So from Fallingwater I came down PA-381 and US-40 to US-219, took that to Oakland and stopped for gas, and then I picked up US-50 east to WV-42. The view from the top of WV-42 where the Corridor H construction is underway, and from where you can see the huge bridge cp mentions, is a stunning view.

Corridor H is now my default route to or from either Western Maryland, Pittsburgh, or farther west. I'm simply utterly tired of I-270 and I-70 in Maryland. It's just too bad there's no new option across Virginia other than VA-7, US-50, I-66, or US-211 (unless I go WAY too far out of the way, and the Wife Acceptance Factor for that is LESS THAN ZERO....she indulged me quite a bit today with the Corridor H route). I'm always looking for new routes through very familiar territory.


Edited to add: I don't know what happened, but it appears my dashcam malfunctioned and got very little of Corridor H itself. Guess that just means another trip out there is in order, maybe the weekend in September when Ms1995hoo will be out of town. Good opportunity to go clinch a bunch of West Virginia routes.


Edited a second time to fix a typo.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on July 29, 2013, 07:56:31 PM
Biking it is no problem, especially with the light traffic. When I was in Austin, TX for a while, I biked on many of the local highways and freeways that were not interstates, and were signed for cyclists. The shoulders were wide and cyclists had the option of continuing down the ramp or across the lane and onto the mainline shoulder. I actually saw quite a few cyclists out on those highways out there.

I've biked Corridor H and some of the routes out there (WV 93, US 219, etc.). Very scenic. Yeah, the grades on Corridor H are long, but it's not incredibly steep.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 08:35:52 PM
Yeah, for me it's the long grades. I'm not in good enough shape to bike that sort of road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on July 29, 2013, 07:56:31 PM
I've biked Corridor H and some of the routes out there (WV 93, US 219, etc.). Very scenic. Yeah, the grades on Corridor H are long, but it's not incredibly steep.

I am not in any  shape to be biking Corridor H either (but maybe at some point in the future, the Mountaineer State could do a Tour de West Virginia?).  It would make West Virginia look great to a television audience, just like the Tour de France does.

As for bikes and safety, the shoulders are plenty wide enough for safe bike use.  My problem is the very  narrow shoulders on some of those long and high bridges.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on July 29, 2013, 09:50:18 PM
So don't use the shoulder. We've already discussed this ad nauseam and there's no point in going through the motions again.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
I went through there today, the full length of the currently-open eastern portion. Not sure how pictures will come out: Ms1995hoo was taking pictures as I drove but does not always do well because she tries to "frame" the pictures too much, and at some point my dashcam froze. So I'll see as the week goes on whether I have any good pictures.

I did not bother with any images at all, since I was driving so much of it for the very first time.

One other comment, FWIW - I noticed a lot of dead spots in terms of cellular phone coverage along eastern Corridor H.  Wonder if WVDOT will be encouraging the cell providers to build some new cell sites along it? There would seem to be plenty of space along the ridgetops for cell towers.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
I concur with cpzilliacus about what a great road that is. The speed limit is 65 and I had my cruise control set at 75. Very few other cars on the road. I didn't feel comfortable going faster because of the curves and because the car was somewhat heavily loaded (two sets of golf clubs plus a four-day weekend's worth of luggage). I noted the bike route signs too, but I would NOT want to ride a bike on there at all.

Yeah, the little bit of traffic that there is dwindles as one goes west.

I will add that the grades on Corridor H are a little steeper than on I-68 between Cumberland and Hancock.  On 68 I did not once have to shift the truck out of overdrive - on Corridor H I  had to drop down one gear to maintain 65 on some of the grades.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
I came from the opposite direction from cpzilliacus. We were at the Omni Bedford Springs for the weekend (our anniversary is July 28) and we decided to go see Fallingwater afterwards. So from Fallingwater I came down PA-381 and US-40 to US-219, took that to Oakland and stopped for gas, and then I picked up US-50 east to WV-42. The view from the top of WV-42 where the Corridor H construction is underway, and from where you can see the huge bridge cp mentions, is a stunning view.

This road should be "marketed" to residents of the D.C. and Baltimore media markets as great drive for the views.  I don't know if there was a deliberate effort by WVDOT to route and align the road to make the views more spectacular, but they have done just that.

And  coming up to the (current) east end west end of eastern Corridor H at W.Va. 93, the windmills on the ridge near Mount Storm are pretty neat as well.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
Corridor H is now my default route to or from either Western Maryland, Pittsburgh, or farther west. I'm simply utterly tired of I-270 and I-70 in Maryland. It's just too bad there's no new option across Virginia other than VA-7, US-50, I-66, or US-211 (unless I go WAY too far out of the way, and the Wife Acceptance Factor for that is LESS THAN ZERO....she indulged me quite a bit today with the Corridor H route). I'm always looking for new routes through very familiar territory.

I don't mind I-70 and I-68 at all.  I do mind I-270 between Germantown and Frederick, which is an inadequate road for the amount of traffic it has to serve - and the blame for that state of affairs should mostly be placed at the doorstep of the Montgomery County Council, which has stonewalled widening proposals for many years. 

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 29, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
Edited to add: I don't know what happened, but it appears my dashcam malfunctioned and got very little of Corridor H itself. Guess that just means another trip out there is in order, maybe the weekend in September when Ms1995hoo will be out of town. Good opportunity to go clinch a bunch of West Virginia routes.

That sounds like a good reason.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Well, you guys passed close to my house, should have stopped in for a beer...Yes, cell coverage is minimal out there, no ugly towers, or other signs of urban life needed out that way, but that is not a sermon, just a thought...

The deal with the Wardensville-Va. line is that it will not be built until:

Rt. 55 becomes "unserviceable", or..
Money with time limitations in which to spend it, or
Congress appropiates money for completion.

Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 30, 2013, 08:53:59 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2013, 09:58:58 PM
....

This road should be "marketed" to residents of the D.C. and Baltimore media markets as great drive for the views.  I don't know if there was a deliberate effort by WVDOT to route and align the road to make the views more spectacular, but they have done just that.

And  coming up to the (current) east end at W.Va. 93, the windmills on the ridge near Mount Storm are pretty neat as well.

....

The other thing is that it's a far more direct and faster way to places like the Canaan Valley than the traditional routes via I-70 and I-68. It might, and I have to emphasize "might," be faster to Deep Creek Lake as well depending on one's point of origin–while you still have the two-lane sections of WV-42, US-50, and either US-219 or MD-560 depending on your route, you can move right along on those because everyone else is using the Interstate.

In my case, the primary motivation, aside from checking out the construction, was simply wanting a different route through very familiar territory. I'm sure we've all been in that situation.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 09:37:50 AM
A friend who lives in Springfield has a place near Jennings Randolph lake, goes to the end of 48, just a short run up 93 to 50, and he's there, says it saves him 40-45 min from driving up 50 thru Winchester.  I have told a lot of folks here at work (Reston) to go out on 48 in the fall to see color rather than the "tame" and crowded Skyline Drive...

If you really want to do a neat all day, or most of the day drive, go to the end of 48, go south back thru Petersburg, then south to Seneca Rocks, then 33 east back to I-81...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2013, 11:52:05 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Well, you guys passed close to my house, should have stopped in for a beer...Yes, cell coverage is minimal out there, no ugly towers, or other signs of urban life needed out that way, but that is not a sermon, just a thought...

A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage.  And I suppose it will happen over time.

Been listening to Pastor Lon's commercials on WTOP?  ;-)

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
The deal with the Wardensville-Va. line is that it will not be built until:

Rt. 55 becomes "unserviceable", or..
Money with time limitations in which to spend it, or
Congress appropiates money for completion.

I think it's the  last one that will get it done.  There was also a "stand still" agreement that I think was part of the Record of Decision for Corridor H between Wardensville and the Virginia border (and maybe  all the way to Strasburg).

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.

I  cannot answer that.  Though in this case Virginia is playing the obstructionist role that Maryland has played on a project that many in Virginia want to see built. 

As for running the highway through someones property, that is always a problem, though  they are supposed to be made whole as part of any condemnation process.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 12:29:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2013, 11:52:05 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Well, you guys passed close to my house, should have stopped in for a beer...Yes, cell coverage is minimal out there, no ugly towers, or other signs of urban life needed out that way, but that is not a sermon, just a thought...

A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage.  And I suppose it will happen over time.

Been listening to Pastor Lon's commercials on WTOP?  ;-)

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
The deal with the Wardensville-Va. line is that it will not be built until:

Rt. 55 becomes "unserviceable", or..
Money with time limitations in which to spend it, or
Congress appropiates money for completion.

I think it's the  last one that will get it done.  There was also a "stand still" agreement that I think was part of the Record of Decision for Corridor H between Wardensville and the Virginia border (and maybe  all the way to Strasburg).

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.

I  cannot answer that.  Though in this case Virginia is playing the obstructionist role that Maryland has played on a project that many in Virginia want to see built. 

As for running the highway through someones property, that is always a problem, though  they are supposed to be made whole as part of any condemnation process.

I understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)

Used to hear Pastor Lon's words of wisdom on WTOP, but listen to Sirius/WMAL mostly now.

I still have the original (thick!) binder for the planning of Corridor H, got it at a meeting I went to in Wardensville a long time ago....

I don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 30, 2013, 01:42:35 PM
QuoteI understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)

When the segment from Moorefield over to Knobley Rd opened a couple years ago, there were several officials at the dedication ceremony (I was present) that used the "emergency evacuation route" line in promoting the corridor's completion.

QuoteI don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?

Completely benefits West Virginia...CP's comments about the Port of Virginia notwithstanding.  I just don't see a lot of truck traffic using it to get to the Port of Virginia even if it was completed.  And traffic volumes by far don't even come close to warranting 4-lanes.  Virginia has other 2-lane segments far more in need of 4-laning than VA 55.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on July 30, 2013, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 01:42:35 PM
QuoteI understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)

When the segment from Moorefield over to Knobley Rd opened a couple years ago, there were several officials at the dedication ceremony (I was present) that used the "emergency evacuation route" line in promoting the corridor's completion.

"Emergency evacuation" was also the excuse for jamming down Arlington's throats a few miles of auxiliary lanes on westbound I-66 inside the Capital Beltway.  I was one of the few in Arlington to support the project, but I found the evacuation excuse unconvincing there, as I do for Corridor H. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 31, 2013, 12:18:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 01:42:35 PM
Completely benefits West Virginia...CP's comments about the Port of Virginia notwithstanding.  I just don't see a lot of truck traffic using it to get to the Port of Virginia even if it was completed.  And traffic volumes by far don't even come close to warranting 4-lanes.  Virginia has other 2-lane segments far more in need of 4-laning than VA 55.

Kentucky and Tennessee built a lot of ARC corridors as two-lane roads. Now, 40 or so years later, they're coming back and either widening the existing routes or building new segments of the routes as four-lane highways.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 02:59:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 01:42:35 PM
QuoteI don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?

Completely benefits West Virginia...CP's comments about the Port of Virginia notwithstanding.  I just don't see a lot of truck traffic using it to get to the Port of Virginia even if it was completed.  And traffic volumes by far don't even come close to warranting 4-lanes.  Virginia has other 2-lane segments far more in need of 4-laning than VA 55.

Same reasoning that Montgomery County, Md. politicians use to oppose new crossings of the Potomac River - it "only benefits Virginia."  We are a United States, and that kind of thinking should (IMO) be dismissed. 

Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and  had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.

That's also why I dislike the two-way operation on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge so much. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 02:59:00 PM

Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and  had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.

what is so different about it it, with respect to a regular two-lane? 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 02:59:00 PM

Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and  had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.

what is so different about it it, with respect to a regular two-lane? 

(1) Higher speeds.

(2) More than a few drivers forget that they are on a two-lane highway (and not a four lane).  When I-95 was first completed from Bangor, Maine to Houlton, it was also a Super-2 (except at the interchanges).  There were many signs warning drivers that they were on a two-lane highway.

Md. 90 (Ocean City Expressway) in Worcester County is almost a Super-2, and has suffered plenty of head-on crashes, even with mandatory headlight use and special "rumble" treatment in the middle. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 03:36:52 PM

(1) Higher speeds.

got it.  I think I'm just used to two-laners out west which may as well be super-2 given the lack of side roads. 

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
I think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.

Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.

One of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all), and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass. I encountered several situations on Monday on US-219 in far western Maryland where truck drivers easily could have moved to the right halfway onto the shoulder to help let the long line of cars get by, but failed to do so. In Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.

Anyway, returning to Corridor H, if/when the West Virginia portion is ever finished, I'll be interested in seeing to what extent it siphons off any long-distance traffic that currently uses I-70 to I-68; going to southern Ohio, for example, it's easy to use Corridor H, I-79, and Corridor D, and for travel to Charleston and beyond out I-64 I could certainly see Corridor H to southbound I-79 being preferable to mixing it up with all the trucks on I-81. I wonder to what extent people see the US shield instead of the Interstate shield and automatically rule it out as an option because they assume it will be a slow road riddled with traffic lights. Of course, if the Virginia portion stays as it is today you'll have people who won't consider going that way just because they automatically rule out two-lane roads. I've given people directions to various places over the years using two-lane roads and many of them have objected because they assume the two-lane roads will be too slow (though the funny thing there is that with the route I use between Fairfax County and Charlottesville–the one via Fredericksburg, Orange and Gordonsville, emerging at Shadwell–the two-lane portions move along a lot better than the I-95 portion most of the time).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 06:03:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
I think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.

I believe this is correct.  At least among drivers who spend most of their time behind the wheel on divided highways of four or more lanes.  Busy high-speed two lane roads are increasingly rare.  MdTA added two lanes on the west side approach on 695 to the F. S. Key Bridge in the 1980's, and in the late 1990's, they reconstructed the east side approach (past the now-defunct Sparrows Point steel mill) to four lanes. 

The busiest high(er)-speed two lane roads anywhere close to Washington, D.C. that I can think of are U.S. 15 and parts of U.S. 50 in Loudoun County, Va.; U.S. 15 in Frederick County, Md. (between U.S. 340 and Point of Rocks); U.S. 340 between Harpers Ferry, W.Va. and Knoxville, Md. (passes through a small slice of Loudoun County); Md. 2 between Md. 4 in Calvert County and Edgewater - there are a lot of bad wrecks along this road); Md. 27 between I-270 and Westminster; Md. 32 between Clarksville and Sykesville in Howard County; and Md. 404 between U.S. 50 and the Delaware border on the Eastern Shore (Md. 404 is slowly morphing into a four lane divided highway).

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.

It takes experience and some teaching to learn how to pass on a two-lane highway.  If she's not used to it, I can understand her concern.

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
One of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all), and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass. I encountered several situations on Monday on US-219 in far western Maryland where truck drivers easily could have moved to the right halfway onto the shoulder to help let the long line of cars get by, but failed to do so. In Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.

In part because the shoulders, though they are usually paved, are not full-depth (in terms of subgrade), so their use for anything except breakdowns is discouraged or in some states illegal. 

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
Anyway, returning to Corridor H, if/when the West Virginia portion is ever finished, I'll be interested in seeing to what extent it siphons off any long-distance traffic that currently uses I-70 to I-68; going to southern Ohio, for example, it's easy to use Corridor H, I-79, and Corridor D, and for travel to Charleston and beyond out I-64 I could certainly see Corridor H to southbound I-79 being preferable to mixing it up with all the trucks on I-81. I wonder to what extent people see the US shield instead of the Interstate shield and automatically rule it out as an option because they assume it will be a slow road riddled with traffic lights. Of course, if the Virginia portion stays as it is today you'll have people who won't consider going that way just because they automatically rule out two-lane roads. I've given people directions to various places over the years using two-lane roads and many of them have objected because they assume the two-lane roads will be too slow (though the funny thing there is that with the route I use between Fairfax County and Charlottesville–the one via Fredericksburg, Orange and Gordonsville, emerging at Shadwell–the two-lane portions move along a lot better than the I-95 portion most of the time).

I have driven Va. 3 and (mostly) Va. 20 from Fredericksburg to Charlottesville, and it seemed to have very little traffic moving along at decent enough speeds, though I recall the local law enforcement doing some radar checks of passing traffic in a few places.

More than a few drivers will reject a non-freeway route, or, as you suggest above, a route which  has two-lane roads (and it's not much  fun stuck behind a truckload of logs or finished lumber on a steep grade like Va./W.Va. 55/U.S. 48 between Strasburg and Wardensville.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 06:03:43 PMBusy high-speed two lane roads are increasingly rare.

and here I am thinking of just how awfully many of them there are.  out here, it is CA-138.  in Pennsylvania, it is US-6.  Mass. has particular segments of MA-2.  just slogging roads with a high speed limit that is never met in real life. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 06:40:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 06:03:43 PM
....

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.

It takes experience and some teaching to learn how to pass on a two-lane highway.  If she's not used to it, I can understand her concern.

....

That's the weird part: She's a couple of years older than I am and she grew up in Dayton, Ohio, and drove on lots of two-lane roads, so you'd think she'd be used to it. Maybe living in the DC area and driving a lot less than I do has caused her passing skills to get rusty!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 07:43:09 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 30, 2013, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 30, 2013, 01:42:35 PM
QuoteI understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)

When the segment from Moorefield over to Knobley Rd opened a couple years ago, there were several officials at the dedication ceremony (I was present) that used the "emergency evacuation route" line in promoting the corridor's completion.

"Emergency evacuation" was also the excuse for jamming down Arlington's throats a few miles of auxiliary lanes on westbound I-66 inside the Capital Beltway.  I was one of the few in Arlington to support the project, but I found the evacuation excuse unconvincing there, as I do for Corridor H. 

You did not get banished from Arlington County for uttering such heresy?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 07:49:24 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 06:40:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 06:03:43 PM
....

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.

It takes experience and some teaching to learn how to pass on a two-lane highway.  If she's not used to it, I can understand her concern.

....

That's the weird part: She's a couple of years older than I am and she grew up in Dayton, Ohio, and drove on lots of two-lane roads, so you'd think she'd be used to it. Maybe living in the DC area and driving a lot less than I do has caused her passing skills to get rusty!

I think it takes practice to be able to safely execute passing on a 2 lane arterial highway.

Such roads (often  serving as what we in the U.S. would classify  as a principal arterial) are pretty common in Finland and  Sweden (and they  have relatively  more Super-2's as well), so drivers (including truck and bus drivers) know how to safely pass on them. 

Though a relative of mine (a good and experienced driver) was badly injured in a head-on wreck on a Nordic Super-2 many years ago (he is fine now).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2013, 11:52:05 AM
A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage. 

Someone pointed out to me elsewhere that some or all of eastern Corridor H is within the United States National Radio Quiet Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone), which it is!

In addition to the relatively small (and spread-out) resident population, that might explain why there is relatively little cell phone coverage along most of eastern Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 08:13:31 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 12:29:42 PM
Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.

I suspect that the financial arrangements can be worked out.  Especially since it's not "regular" federal highway funding, but ARC highway funding.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 12:29:42 PM
I understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)

I am not so confident that just getting everyone to get in their car and drive to West Virginia would work very well.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 12:29:42 PM
Used to hear Pastor Lon's words of wisdom on WTOP, but listen to Sirius/WMAL mostly now.

He's on WMAL and Sirius? I was not aware of that.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 12:29:42 PM
I still have the original (thick!) binder for the planning of Corridor H, got it at a meeting I went to in Wardensville a long time ago....

The arguments about Corridor H have been going on  for decades, and apparently it will be several more decades until it is complete all the way from I-79 at Weston to I-81.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on July 30, 2013, 12:29:42 PM
I don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?

I agree that most of the benefits of getting four lane Corridor H connected to I-81 will accrue to West Virginia, though as we have been discussing here quite a bit, I believe there is some benefit to improving truck access to the Virginia Inland Port, located on U.S. 340/522 north of Front Royal.  But I also think it could have an added benefit of removing at least some truck trips from I-81 between Strasburg and I-64 west near Lexington. That ought to win the project some added support in Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PMI think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.

I think traffic volumes are a more important variable.  A two-lane road is considered to be operating at an acceptable level of service (which for this roadway type is defined in terms of percentage of driving time spent following other vehicles) at AADTs of up to 10,000 VPD in level terrain.  For rolling and mountainous terrain this value drops to 7,000 VPD and 5,000 VPD respectively.  This means that an increase in traffic that is small in both absolute and percentage terms is far more likely to "break" a two-lane road (in terms of LOS) than a four-lane freeway.

The East Coast butts up against the Appalachians, so a fair proportion of its two-lane rural arterial mileage falls within the rolling and mountainous categories.  This region of the country has also seen significant population growth, especially in the Baltimore-Washington area, and that kind of growth brings an increase in traffic volumes in periurban rural areas as well as suburbanization.  I would expect that in the last twenty years, there has been a considerable increase in the mileage of two-lane state highway for which it is no longer a realistic prospect to execute a successful overtaking maneuver during daylight hours.

QuoteOne of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all) . . .

Shoulder provision is a function of state DOT design policy, which is typically less generous in this regard in Eastern states than in the Midwest or West, where it is increasingly the norm not just to build a shoulder, but also to surface it with a material that will support movement at high speed.

Quote. . . and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass.

I think it is unrealistic to expect this courtesy as a matter of course, again because of state-by-state variation in design standards.  Some states extend the crossfall of the traveled way over the shoulder, while other states use a steeper crossfall on the shoulder.  In states that do the latter, a typical crossfall over the traveled way may be 2% (crossfalls range from about 1.5% to 2.5% in the US) while the shoulder crossfall is 4%.  It is difficult to steer smoothly while straddling a grade break that large.

There are also variations in how guardrail is treated, and how shoulder drainage is handled on superelevated curves.  Some states reduce shoulder width to accommodate guardrail.  Some states also start rolling out the superelevation on the high side of the road virtually at the edge line, which leaves only a very narrow width of shoulder that is suitable for maneuvering, generally to recover from tracking errors rather than to allow someone else to pass.

QuoteIn Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.

You haven't visited Mexico outside Cancún and the surrounding resort areas, have you?  In the parts I have travelled in (mainly Chihuahua and Sonora), there are generally no shoulders, so drivers turn out to allow following vehicles to pass.  In Canada it helps that traffic densities are generally very low outside the 100-mile-wide belt just north of the US border, but there are plenty of places where two-lane roads operate at bad LOS and drivers don't generally pull onto the shoulder to let others pass--when traffic increases beyond a certain point, that just becomes an exercise in exchanging front position in one queue for tail position in another.  When I visited western Canada in 2003, I found long lengths of BC 99 between Vancouver and Whistler and TCH 1 northeast of Kamloops (now being four-laned) that operated that way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 10:08:38 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PMI think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.

I think traffic volumes are a more important variable.  A two-lane road is considered to be operating at an acceptable level of service (which for this roadway type is defined in terms of percentage of driving time spent following other vehicles) at AADTs of up to 10,000 VPD in level terrain.  For rolling and mountainous terrain this value drops to 7,000 VPD and 5,000 VPD respectively.  This means that an increase in traffic that is small in both absolute and percentage terms is far more likely to "break" a two-lane road (in terms of LOS) than a four-lane freeway.

In Maryland the states (at least to some extent) must follow county (usually) and municipal (somewhat rarely, since we don't have that many municipalities) planning documents when it comes to the number of lanes in a road.  As a result, there are many two-lane roads that are well over capacity (Md. 32 in Howard County, Md. 27 in Montgomery, Howard and Carroll Counties and Md. 2 in Calvert and Anne Arundel Counties are probably three of the worst), yet the counties in these cases do not want to add lane capacity or  otherwise improve the road - and all of them have had some pretty severe wrecks over the years.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
The East Coast butts up against the Appalachians, so a fair proportion of its two-lane rural arterial mileage falls within the rolling and mountainous categories.  This region of the country has also seen significant population growth, especially in the Baltimore-Washington area, and that kind of growth brings an increase in traffic volumes in periurban rural areas as well as suburbanization.  I would expect that in the last twenty years, there has been a considerable increase in the mileage of two-lane state highway for which it is no longer a realistic prospect to execute a successful overtaking maneuver during daylight hours.

In Maryland and Virginia, the suburban and exurban sprawl has only somewhat  reached out to the Blue Ridge and its foothills, and some of that is due to "leapfrog" development caused by agricultural preservation efforts by closer-in counties.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
QuoteOne of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all) . . .

Shoulder provision is a function of state DOT design policy, which is typically less generous in this regard in Eastern states than in the Midwest or West, where it is increasingly the norm not just to build a shoulder, but also to surface it with a material that will support movement at high speed.

Most Maryland state highways classified as minor arterial or higher have shoulders of 10 or 12 feet if they were built or rebuilt since the 1960's.  Some older roads do not.  But the bigger contrast is crossing into Pennsylvania, where shoulders are pretty rare along arterial highways.  Especially annoying in places with high concentrations of Amish people, like Lancaster County, where there is substantial horse-drawn vehicular traffic. 

Three Maryland counties have substantial Amish populations, Cecil, Charles and St. Mary's.  Most of the state highways (always numbered) have decently wide shoulders, and those shoulders get a lot of use by horse-drawn traffic.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
Quote. . . and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass.

I think it is unrealistic to expect this courtesy as a matter of course, again because of state-by-state variation in design standards.  Some states extend the crossfall of the traveled way over the shoulder, while other states use a steeper crossfall on the shoulder.  In states that do the latter, a typical crossfall over the traveled way may be 2% (crossfalls range from about 1.5% to 2.5% in the US) while the shoulder crossfall is 4%.  It is difficult to steer smoothly while straddling a grade break that large.

I agree.  And in some places, driving on the shoulder, even for a good reason, can lead to a citation or summons.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
There are also variations in how guardrail is treated, and how shoulder drainage is handled on superelevated curves.  Some states reduce shoulder width to accommodate guardrail.  Some states also start rolling out the superelevation on the high side of the road virtually at the edge line, which leaves only a very narrow width of shoulder that is suitable for maneuvering, generally to recover from tracking errors rather than to allow someone else to pass.

And then there is the SNAP pattern cut in to most paved shoulders now, which many people do not want to drive on, even though it is not supposed to do any damage to the car.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 12:26:21 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PM
Anyway, returning to Corridor H, if/when the West Virginia portion is ever finished, I'll be interested in seeing to what extent it siphons off any long-distance traffic that currently uses I-70 to I-68; going to southern Ohio, for example, it's easy to use Corridor H, I-79, and Corridor D, and for travel to Charleston and beyond out I-64 I could certainly see Corridor H to southbound I-79 being preferable to mixing it up with all the trucks on I-81.

This is the argument that I frequently had with the late Randy Hersh about Corridor H.

By rights, it should become the preferred route from St. Louis and points east to Washington, D.C. once it's finished. As of now, your choices are either to follow I-79/I-68/I-70/I-270, or I-77 (WV Turnpike) I-64/I-81/I-66. One goes too far out of the way to the north and involves having to deal with Cumberland, the other goes too far out of the way to the south, has tolls and a long underposted 60 mph section. An all I-70 route from STL eastward involves a short concurrency with I-57; going through Indy, Columbus and Wheeling; the substandard section in SW Pennsylvania; tolls on the PA Turnpike and Breezewood with its attendant traffic problems.

Even at this point, enough of Corridor H is finished that if I was driving to DC from Kentucky, I would not hesitate to use it despite having to deal with two-lane US 219 from Kerens to Davis over I-68.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 01:47:21 AM
Yawn. You've definitely pushed this bogus talking point before. According to the Goog, Corridor H is 10 miles longer than 70-79-68-70-270. It's a tradeoff of cities on one route vs. cities on the other (I-64 to H also overlaps I-57, and passes through Louisville and Charleston). Creating a roughly equivalent alternate route is a poor reason for an expensive porkway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 01, 2013, 02:08:45 AM
But remember, SPUI, HB hates cities and traffic.  So to him, the Corridor H route being longer is of no concern because it has less traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 02:12:07 AM
"No one drives on this highway. It's too crowded."

I can understand wanting to avoid traffic. But (a) the Corridor H routing also passes through major cities and (b) building a 150-mile four-lane through the mountains to serve the small amount of intercity traffic that would divert to it is not a reasonable use of pork funds.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 01, 2013, 06:35:45 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 03:39:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 03:36:52 PM

(1) Higher speeds.

got it.  I think I'm just used to two-laners out west which may as well be super-2 given the lack of side roads. 


Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 03:36:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2013, 03:00:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 02:59:00 PM

Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and  had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.

what is so different about it it, with respect to a regular two-lane? 

(1) Higher speeds.

(2) More than a few drivers forget that they are on a two-lane highway (and not a four lane).  When I-95 was first completed from Bangor, Maine to Houlton, it was also a Super-2 (except at the interchanges).  There were many signs warning drivers that they were on a two-lane highway.

Md. 90 (Ocean City Expressway) in Worcester County is almost a Super-2, and has suffered plenty of head-on crashes, even with mandatory headlight use and special "rumble" treatment in the middle. 

You must be about the same age as I am....I remmeber when 66 was only open between Centreville to the Beltway...and 95 stopped at Rocky Mount N.C. I basically got my driving education driving on 301 all the way into fla. when we visited Dad's family..

Also, to keep things slightly on topic, if any of you are going for a cruise on corridor H, be sure to stop at the Stray Cat Cafe in moorefield, good Mexican food, ice cold beer... :nod:
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 07:51:23 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 01:47:21 AM
Yawn. You've definitely pushed this bogus talking point before. According to the Goog, Corridor H is 10 miles longer than 70-79-68-70-270. It's a tradeoff of cities on one route vs. cities on the other (I-64 to H also overlaps I-57, and passes through Louisville and Charleston). Creating a roughly equivalent alternate route is a poor reason for an expensive porkway.

That's a rather serious red herring. "10 miles longer" doesn't automatically equal a longer travel time because it ignores so many other variables.

I'm not saying the cost of the road is/was justified; I'm speculating on how it might be used since it's indisputably there (in other words, it's pointless now to say the part already built shouldn't have been–rightly or wrongly, it has been). FWIW my dashcam picked up my comment to Ms1995hoo on Sunday that Corridor H is the ultimate pork-barrel project. Doesn't mean I can't/won't enjoy driving it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 12:26:21 AM
This is the argument that I frequently had with the late Randy Hersh about Corridor H.

By rights, it should become the preferred route from St. Louis and points east to Washington, D.C. once it's finished. As of now, your choices are either to follow I-79/I-68/I-70/I-270, or I-77 (WV Turnpike) I-64/I-81/I-66. One goes too far out of the way to the north and involves having to deal with Cumberland, the other goes too far out of the way to the south, has tolls and a long underposted 60 mph section. An all I-70 route from STL eastward involves a short concurrency with I-57; going through Indy, Columbus and Wheeling; the substandard section in SW Pennsylvania; tolls on the PA Turnpike and Breezewood with its attendant traffic problems.

Even at this point, enough of Corridor H is finished that if I was driving to DC from Kentucky, I would not hesitate to use it despite having to deal with two-lane US 219 from Kerens to Davis over I-68.

At least for the time being (and especially when it is completed to Davis next year (according to WVDOT), I agree with you (and at some point, eastern Corridor H may start to fill with some traffic - now it's a drivers delight).  Though I have only driven U.S. 219 between Davis and Kerens in daylight, and I presume there are a lot of critters (especially deer) along and in that road at dusk and at night.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 09:32:27 AM
At least for the time being (and especially when it is completed to Davis next year (according to WVDOT), I agree with you (and at some point, eastern Corridor H may start to fill with some traffic - now it's a drivers delight).  Though I have only driven U.S. 219 between Davis and Kerens in daylight, and I presume there are a lot of critters (especially deer) along and in that road at dusk and at night.

Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin. I just search their website but couldn't find that particular item, so the next time I have to pay a visit to the toilet I will check the magazine rack to try to find it!

As I noted earlier, the funny thing about the eastern portion of Corridor H is that while the traffic is light enough to allow you to go pretty much as fast as you want, the road has enough significant curves and hills to act as a natural check on your speed, depending of course on what you're driving and other variables. When I pushed it over 75 mph shortly after entering from the current western end at WV-93 I quickly backed off because it just felt too fast. No doubt I'd probably feel more comfortable going faster in my RX-7 than in my Acura sedan (the Acura is far more top-heavy by comparison), but the RX-7's engine is so much smaller and older that I probably couldn't go all that much faster!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 01:47:21 AM
Yawn. You've definitely pushed this bogus talking point before. According to the Goog, Corridor H is 10 miles longer than 70-79-68-70-270. It's a tradeoff of cities on one route vs. cities on the other (I-64 to H also overlaps I-57, and passes through Louisville and Charleston). Creating a roughly equivalent alternate route is a poor reason for an expensive porkway.

Yeah, but if you get your way and tear down I-64 in Louisville, the route will go around, not through.  :pan:

Traffic in Charleston really isn't an issue now with the completion of the second bridge for I-64 at South Charleston.

But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors? Why is it any different than, say, Columbus to Asheville? Cincinnati to Parkersburg and Clarksburg? London to Chattanooga by way of Somerset, Burkesville and Cookeville? Lake City to Pikeville? Pikeville to Charleston? Pikeville to Blacksburg/Christiansburg by way of Bluefield? Beckley to Sutton? Middlesboro/Harrogate to Morristown? Bedford to Corning/Elmira? Morgantown to Hancock? (Remember, I-68 is also an ARC corridor. Was it pork?)

The ARC corridors were intended to open up inaccessible areas for economic development.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin.

Doesn't surprise me. Anytime I travel I-79 in the fall, the carcass count never ceases to amaze me. And I remember meeting the guy at Lewisburg, WV who'd hit one the night before and said there were so many on I-64 between Lewisburg and I-81 that traffic was doing about 35 mph on the interstate.

Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2013, 02:08:45 AM
But remember, SPUI, HB hates cities and traffic.  So to him, the Corridor H route being longer is of no concern because it has less traffic.

Plus, I could very easily make up the time lost by those 10 extra miles and then some. The only real advantage the northern route has is that it avoids Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
....

Quote from: froggie on August 01, 2013, 02:08:45 AM
But remember, SPUI, HB hates cities and traffic.  So to him, the Corridor H route being longer is of no concern because it has less traffic.

Plus, I could very easily make up the time lost by those 10 extra miles and then some. The only real advantage the northern route has is that it avoids Virginia.

Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).




I found the Car and Driver item about the deer. It's on page 16 of the February 2013 issue and it includes a map showing the odds of hitting a deer in any given state as calculated by State Farm (they've been doing it since 2007). West Virginia has led the rankings every year. Odds for selected states:

Five most dangerous states:
West Virginia, 1:40
South Dakota, 1:68
Iowa and Michigan, 1:72
Pennsylvania, 1:76

Other states below 1:100–Montana (1:78), Wisconsin (1:79), and Minnesota (1:80); Virginia and Arkansas (1:103) and North Dakota (1:105) just miss.

Five least dangerous states:
Hawaii, 1:6801 (also the lowest in raw collision numbers with 134)
Arizona, 1:1658
Nevada, 1:1429
Florida, 1:991
California, 1:940

It says the total number of reported collisions between vehicles and deer in the U.S. "in the last reported year" was 1,231,710. Top five states in raw numbers of collisions: Pennsylvania (115,571), Michigan (97,856), New York (80,262), Ohio (67,699), and Wisconsin (52,525). That means those states taken together represented 33.6% of the total reported collisions. ("Reported collisions" is important because not everyone reports deer strikes and not all drivers are insured.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 01, 2013, 11:12:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2013, 11:52:05 AM
A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage. 

Someone pointed out to me elsewhere that some or all of eastern Corridor H is within the United States National Radio Quiet Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone), which it is!

In addition to the relatively small (and spread-out) resident population, that might explain why there is relatively little cell phone coverage along most of eastern Corridor H.

NRQZ isn't the issue.  It's the low population and traffic levels relative to the expense because of the terrain causing the dead spots.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on August 01, 2013, 11:33:21 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
I found the Car and Driver item about the deer. It's on page 16 of the February 2013 issue and it includes a map showing the odds of hitting a deer in any given state as calculated by State Farm (they've been doing it since 2007). West Virginia has led the rankings every year. Odds for selected states:

Five least dangerous states:
Hawaii, 1:6801 (also the lowest in raw collision numbers with 134)

Plus, the average cost per collision is lower, since there are no native large mammals on the islands.  There's the occasional feral donkey or wayward horse, but pigs, dogs and cats, and birds are the biggest wildlife collision problems.  But if you run down a nene (Hawaiian goose, endangered by among other things their walking across roads without looking both ways first), the damage to your car can be the least of your problems.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 12:03:59 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 01, 2013, 11:33:21 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
I found the Car and Driver item about the deer. It's on page 16 of the February 2013 issue and it includes a map showing the odds of hitting a deer in any given state as calculated by State Farm (they've been doing it since 2007). West Virginia has led the rankings every year. Odds for selected states:

Five least dangerous states:
Hawaii, 1:6801 (also the lowest in raw collision numbers with 134)

Plus, the average cost per collision is lower, since there are no native large mammals on the islands.  There's the occasional feral donkey or wayward horse, but pigs, dogs and cats, and birds are the biggest wildlife collision problems.  But if you run down a nene (Hawaiian goose, endangered by among other things their walking across roads without looking both ways first), the damage to your car can be the least of your problems.

Heh. I've never been to the Big Island, but I love this sign seen in a picture my brother took. (I suppose we're getting off topic.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FRoad%2520sign%2520pictures%2Fd282dc50.jpg&hash=dc27874febc549899326ae5f6a042c8f4c4cb12c)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on August 01, 2013, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 12:03:59 PM
(I suppose we're getting off topic.)

But worth it anyway.  I'd forgotten about that introduced species, or the interesting warning sign.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
California, 1:940


the only state in which I've ever hit a deer.  I hit one once, and swerved into an embankment to avoid one, causing damage to the car, another time.  both times, though, I wasn't going particularly fast.

my closest call to a nasty accident was Utah - I came over a hill going about 50mph on UT-9 (the road to Zion) and there were two deer, one in each lane.  I drove between the two, with maybe a combined total of 6 inches of room to spare.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 12:58:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).

Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 12:58:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).

Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia.  :bigass:

True enough–well, it's illegal to use, not to possess, anyway. I have a V-1 as well from my law school days in North Carolina, though I haven't upgraded it to the newest model. I used to use it in Virginia all the time on trips to and from Durham by driving at night and using the concealed display module. Never got caught. What I always hated about using the V-1 in Maryland is that it seemed like on the I-95 corridor I got an inordinate number of false positives whenever I'd pass under an overpass. But that's when the bogey counter is nice because if it always says "1" and then suddenly one day it says "2," you know something's up.

I haven't used it in several years because lately I just don't usually go fast enough to bother. I wasn't at all concerned about getting nailed for speeding at 75 mph on Corridor H earlier this week, for example, even though the V-1 was in a drawer at home. I still enjoy the idea of going nice and fast, but the low Wife Acceptance Factor for extremely high speeds coupled with my appreciation for our rather low insurance premiums make me not bother very often.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin. I just search their website but couldn't find that particular item, so the next time I have to pay a visit to the toilet I will check the magazine rack to try to find it!

I did not look very closely to see if any part of Corridor H (and I have driven the western part between Kerens and Weston in the past) is fenced.  Though  it might not matter that much, because the critters can enter at the at-grade intersections and at the interchanges.  Even on Md. 200, which is completely and heavily fenced, I nearly hit a deer on an exit ramp last week.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
As I noted earlier, the funny thing about the eastern portion of Corridor H is that while the traffic is light enough to allow you to go pretty much as fast as you want, the road has enough significant curves and hills to act as a natural check on your speed, depending of course on what you're driving and other variables. When I pushed it over 75 mph shortly after entering from the current western end at WV-93 I quickly backed off because it just felt too fast. No doubt I'd probably feel more comfortable going faster in my RX-7 than in my Acura sedan (the Acura is far more top-heavy by comparison), but the RX-7's engine is so much smaller and older that I probably couldn't go all that much faster!

In my F250 truck, 65 felt "right" for most of Corridor H.   I had to downshift to maintain speed on some of the grades going up, and I deliberately downshifted to use the engine to keep me between 55 and 65 MPH on the long downward grade (westbound) to Moorefield since I had not driven it before.

Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2013, 11:12:55 AM
NRQZ isn't the issue.  It's the low population and traffic levels relative to the expense because of the terrain causing the dead spots.

I do not know enough about radio waves to know what impact cell towers might have on the Quiet Zone, but I suppose that the cell tower antennae be designed to "direct" their signals where there is less (or no?) impact on the Green Bank Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bank_Telescope) and the National Security Agency's SIGINT gathering operations at Sugar Grove.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors? Why is it any different than, say, Columbus to Asheville? Cincinnati to Parkersburg and Clarksburg? London to Chattanooga by way of Somerset, Burkesville and Cookeville? Lake City to Pikeville? Pikeville to Charleston? Pikeville to Blacksburg/Christiansburg by way of Bluefield? Beckley to Sutton? Middlesboro/Harrogate to Morristown? Bedford to Corning/Elmira? Morgantown to Hancock? (Remember, I-68 is also an ARC corridor. Was it pork?)

Excellent questions and observations. 

My answer is that Corridor H is closer to Washington, D.C., and there are people from the D.C. area that have moved to the Potomac Highlands counties of West Virginia to get away from it all, and do not want this nice new highway in their backyards (and perhaps some of them learned their anti-highway antics in the freeway wars of the D.C. area).  And there's the matter of the short section of the corridor in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, which anti-highway activists in Virginia have (in the past) gotten all upset about.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
The ARC corridors were intended to open up inaccessible areas for economic development.

As a former head of planning for the Maryland State Highway Administration put it, I-68 (Corridor E) was about "inducing" demand and stimulating economic activity in the three Western Maryland counties that it serves, and in adjoining parts of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
Plus, I could very easily make up the time lost by those 10 extra miles and then some. The only real advantage the northern route has is that it avoids Virginia.

Even though I drive on its streets and highways every day, that is how I feel about the District of Columbia with its automated commuter tax collection devices ooops, automated speed enforcement systems all over the  city.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on August 01, 2013, 02:04:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 12:58:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).

Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia.  :bigass:

True enough–well, it's illegal to use, not to possess, anyway. I have a V-1 as well from my law school days in North Carolina, though I haven't upgraded it to the newest model. I used to use it in Virginia all the time on trips to and from Durham by driving at night and using the concealed display module. Never got caught. What I always hated about using the V-1 in Maryland is that it seemed like on the I-95 corridor I got an inordinate number of false positives whenever I'd pass under an overpass. But that's when the bogey counter is nice because if it always says "1" and then suddenly one day it says "2," you know something's up.

I haven't used it in several years because lately I just don't usually go fast enough to bother. I wasn't at all concerned about getting nailed for speeding at 75 mph on Corridor H earlier this week, for example, even though the V-1 was in a drawer at home. I still enjoy the idea of going nice and fast, but the low Wife Acceptance Factor for extremely high speeds coupled with my appreciation for our rather low insurance premiums make me not bother very often.

I understand that the newest breed of radar detector detectors can sniff out V-1s in use.  I would assume that the Virginia and maybe D.C. cops have made the upgrade.  So I suggest you continue leaving your V-1 at home for short trips into WV (less hazardous environment than, say, Montgomery County MD).   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 01, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
Some of the opposition dealt with Corridor H running close to Dolly Sods Wilderness/Bear Rocks, adjacent to Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Canaan Valley (National Natural Landmark, unique northern boreal community, highest valley east of the Mississippi), its proximity to Greenland Gap (National Natural Landmark) among other naturally sensitive areas..

One of the early proposals for Corridor H, dating to the US 33 days, had the highway running through Greenland Gap. That was quickly eliminated for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 03:32:37 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 01, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
Some of the opposition dealt with Corridor H running close to Dolly Sods Wilderness/Bear Rocks, adjacent to Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Canaan Valley (National Natural Landmark, unique northern boreal community, highest valley east of the Mississippi), its proximity to Greenland Gap (National Natural Landmark) among other naturally sensitive areas..

Isn't that why Corridor H rather "threads the needle" where (when  headed west) it turns sharply to the north, bypassing Greenland Gap (on the right when going west and then north), and then the sharp turn to the west to cross W.Va. 93 on the (unopened) bridge and then another turn to the south and then west again to hook up with existing W.Va. 93 as it passes Dominion Virginia Power's coal-fired Mount Storm Generating Station? 

The selected route also bypasses Dolly Sods, which is left alone well to the south of Mount Storm Lake.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 01, 2013, 02:25:41 PM
One of the early proposals for Corridor H, dating to the US 33 days, had the highway running through Greenland Gap. That was quickly eliminated for obvious reasons.

I thought the U.S. 33 alternative was well to the south of Greenland Gap and Dolly Sods?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 01, 2013, 04:08:31 PM
I suspect so. Corridor H from Davis eastward to the crest of the Allegheny Front also uses WV 93's existing alignment, with some modifications, so the impact is going to be lower than something totally new. I am surprised at how much WV 93 west of the lake is being discarded - it was only built in 1964.

As for the US 33 alternative - I'm not sure. I've read some reports that mentioned a WV 93 relocation going through Greenland Gap, and then Corridor H. I wonder if their information was skewed or if it was an editor confusing WV 93 for US 33.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 04:46:18 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 01, 2013, 02:04:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 01:30:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 12:58:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 10:46:08 AM
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).

Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia.  :bigass:

True enough–well, it's illegal to use, not to possess, anyway. I have a V-1 as well from my law school days in North Carolina, though I haven't upgraded it to the newest model. I used to use it in Virginia all the time on trips to and from Durham by driving at night and using the concealed display module. Never got caught. What I always hated about using the V-1 in Maryland is that it seemed like on the I-95 corridor I got an inordinate number of false positives whenever I'd pass under an overpass. But that's when the bogey counter is nice because if it always says "1" and then suddenly one day it says "2," you know something's up.

I haven't used it in several years because lately I just don't usually go fast enough to bother. I wasn't at all concerned about getting nailed for speeding at 75 mph on Corridor H earlier this week, for example, even though the V-1 was in a drawer at home. I still enjoy the idea of going nice and fast, but the low Wife Acceptance Factor for extremely high speeds coupled with my appreciation for our rather low insurance premiums make me not bother very often.

I understand that the newest breed of radar detector detectors can sniff out V-1s in use.  I would assume that the Virginia and maybe D.C. cops have made the upgrade.  So I suggest you continue leaving your V-1 at home for short trips into WV (less hazardous environment than, say, Montgomery County MD).   

Frankly, it's been several years since I used it; last time was on a trip to Mont-Tremblant and I pulled over at the last rest area before the border to hide it in our luggage since mere possession of a detector is illegal in Quebec. We've made several drives to Florida since then (ranging as far down as Miami) and I haven't brought it on any of those, though maybe last December I might have wanted it when I got fed up with traffic jams and was doing in excess of 90 mph on I-95 between St. Augustine and Daytona. Didn't encounter any cops, though.

Nowadays I suppose I'd have a bit of a problem running a radar detector and a dashcam at the same time, actually, unless I were to buy a dual-plug adapter for the lighter plug (assuming that wouldn't interfere with the six-speed manual). While I have two separate lighter plugs, one of those is inside the center armrest and I therefore use that one for an iPhone charger.

Looking back at this past weekend's trip (home to Bedford Springs, PA, via the Oldtown Low Water Toll Bridge on Friday, then on Monday out the Pennsylvania Turnpike to Fallingwater and back home via US-40, US-219, US-50, WV-42, Corridor H, and I-66) the only time I really went particularly fast was the brief push up to 80 at the western end of Corridor H before deciding it felt too fast. I suppose I was doing 65 in a 55 on most of the two-lane roads, but I was never particularly concerned about getting pulled over, and the only time we saw a cop who would have nailed us (at the Mason-Dixon Line on US-40), Ms1995hoo spotted him in advance before we crossed into Maryland.

Corridor H is the type of road that, if it were in Virginia, would be posted at 60 mph (due to the at-grade intersections) and would receive a fair amount of utterly unnecessary speed enforcement. I'm glad West Virginia seems a bit more enlightened on both fronts. I think we might have passed maybe five other vehicles (at most) in the entire eastern segment from the WV-93 access road to Wardensville.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 04:49:40 PM
Some readers of this thread may have already seen it, but Gribblenation (http://www.gribblenation.com/) has a superb overview of the history and controversies associated with Corridor H that makes for interesting reading.

Conflict in the Mountains: The Story of Corridor H in West Virginia (http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 04:46:18 PM
Frankly, it's been several years since I used it; last time was on a trip to Mont-Tremblant and I pulled over at the last rest area before the border to hide it in our luggage since mere possession of a detector is illegal in Quebec. We've made several drives to Florida since then (ranging as far down as Miami) and I haven't brought it on any of those, though maybe last December I might have wanted it when I got fed up with traffic jams and was doing in excess of 90 mph on I-95 between St. Augustine and Daytona. Didn't encounter any cops, though.

I don't usually drive fast enough to need a detector [virtual knock on wood], have never owned one, and it's not really worth speeding in the District of Columbia anyway, where I do a fair amount of driving.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 04:46:18 PM
Nowadays I suppose I'd have a bit of a problem running a radar detector and a dashcam at the same time, actually, unless I were to buy a dual-plug adapter for the lighter plug (assuming that wouldn't interfere with the six-speed manual). While I have two separate lighter plugs, one of those is inside the center armrest and I therefore use that one for an iPhone charger.

I have two as well.  One is usually for my Galaxy Tab (Android) tablet, on which I keep Inrix running most of the time.  The other one is for my cell phones (one for work, one for personal).

I have a "splitter" as well, but it is easy  to overload (and blow a fuse) in my experience.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 04:46:18 PM
Looking back at this past weekend's trip (home to Bedford Springs, PA, via the Oldtown Low Water Toll Bridge on Friday, then on Monday out the Pennsylvania Turnpike to Fallingwater and back home via US-40, US-219, US-50, WV-42, Corridor H, and I-66) the only time I really went particularly fast was the brief push up to 80 at the western end of Corridor H before deciding it felt too fast. I suppose I was doing 65 in a 55 on most of the two-lane roads, but I was never particularly concerned about getting pulled over, and the only time we saw a cop who would have nailed us (at the Mason-Dixon Line on US-40), Ms1995hoo spotted him in advance before we crossed into Maryland.

Speed limit enforcement on I-68 is usually light-to-none, but every once in a while (on warm season weekends) I have observed that the MSP, and the Sheriff's Offices of Garrett and Allegany Counties (with help from the Cumberland municipal police) will do "saturation" speed limit enforcement on I-68.  The Cumberland cops can use up the ink in their pens writing tickets on I-68 through Cumberland (where the posted limit is appropriately 40 MPH).

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 04:46:18 PM
Corridor H is the type of road that, if it were in Virginia, would be posted at 60 mph (due to the at-grade intersections) and would receive a fair amount of utterly unnecessary speed enforcement. I'm glad West Virginia seems a bit more enlightened on both fronts. I think we might have passed maybe five other vehicles (at most) in the entire eastern segment from the WV-93 access road to Wardensville.

I did see one West Virginia trooper car driving east on 48 between W.Va. 93 and Knobley Road.

Though  Virginia, to its immense credit, has posted 70 MPH speed limit signs on I-66 between I-81 and U.S. 15 at Haymarket.  Just wish that VDOT would get a decent barrier on the median of the old part of I-66 around Marshall (it was an "orphaned" section of Interstate for many years).  As it is now, there is little to deter "crossover" head-on wrecks there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 05:38:27 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 31, 2013, 08:15:11 PM
....

Quote from: 1995hoo on July 31, 2013, 03:53:20 PMIn Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.

You haven't visited Mexico outside Cancún and the surrounding resort areas, have you?  In the parts I have travelled in (mainly Chihuahua and Sonora), there are generally no shoulders, so drivers turn out to allow following vehicles to pass.  In Canada it helps that traffic densities are generally very low outside the 100-mile-wide belt just north of the US border, but there are plenty of places where two-lane roads operate at bad LOS and drivers don't generally pull onto the shoulder to let others pass--when traffic increases beyond a certain point, that just becomes an exercise in exchanging front position in one queue for tail position in another.  When I visited western Canada in 2003, I found long lengths of BC 99 between Vancouver and Whistler and TCH 1 northeast of Kamloops (now being four-laned) that operated that way.

Never been to Cancun, actually, but the rest of my travel in Mexico has all been on the Yucatan or Cozumel, so yes, I know that's not necessarily representative of the entire country. Still, driving south on Route 307 down past Tulum it's quite nice when you're going 130 in a 110 zone and the guy in the car in front of you moves partly or entirely onto the shoulder to help you get past (and I did the same when someone would come up on me going 140 or 150).

I haven't driven in western Canada (did not rent a car when we visited Vancouver), but I've travelled quite a bit around eastern Canada ranging from Sault Ste. Marie and Cochrane east to the western part of the Island of Newfoundland. Outside of Quebec, I found the idea of moving to the shoulder to be very common when road design permitted it, especially in Nova Scotia. No doubt part of it is that because Canadians probably spend more time, on average, on two-lane roads than the average American driver, they better understand how frustrating it is to be stuck for long periods unable to pass.

The point someone–I think cpzilliacus–made about the increasing use of rumble strips on shoulders being a deterrent to moving to the right is certainly very valid. I'm somewhat ambivalent towards those on the whole, but I must say the ones on the center stripe can be damn annoying when you're looking to pass a large vehicle and you need to pull left more or less onto the center line to see whether it's clear enough to begin to pass.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors?

IMHO, a combination of factors.

- The area covered by H is historically "vote the way granddaddy shot" Republican.  That caused two things to happen.  First, it went right to the bottom of the priority list in a heavily democrat state, with all the corridors elsewhere in the state finished first.  That allowed time for the BANANA crowd to get organized.  As I stated elsewhere, none of the great public works that make modern life possible would be built today.  Second, the state's interest in fighting it was limited, since the political gain was limited.

- The area really is thinly populated.  Among the lowest population densities east of the Mississippi.  So that leaves not that many people to agitate and organize against the enemies of progress.

- Its not a coal producing area, really, other than Tucker County, which is already served by an H ending at Elkins and other roads.  A lot of the corridors (G, L, B, Q, E) really help in the modern production of coal via the land improvement method (so called mountaintop removal or strip mining).  The coal companies really don't care if H gets built or not.

- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont, Maine, upstate NY, etc.  Old hippies that want to play farmer, generally supported by parents that are glad to see them finally out of the house.  Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness, the last thing these people want to see is a good road, so they would have to SHARE their little slice of heaven with others. 

- The "economic development" aspect, to be fair, is overblown.  The only economic potential of that virtually vertical part of the country is tourism.  Nobody is going to build an auto plant in Moorefield.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 06:12:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 05:38:27 PM

Never been to Cancun, actually, but the rest of my travel in Mexico has all been on the Yucatan or Cozumel, so yes, I know that's not necessarily representative of the entire country. Still, driving south on Route 307 down past Tulum it's quite nice when you're going 130 in a 110 zone and the guy in the car in front of you moves partly or entirely onto the shoulder to help you get past (and I did the same when someone would come up on me going 140 or 150).

gotta love Mexican drivers.  very courteous in general.  the opposite end of the speed spectrum is true as well: a few months ago I was driving MX-2 from Imuris to Cananea across a large mountain pass, and there were lines upon lines of trucks doing 10-15mph.  everyone was doing all they could to allow for cars to get around, including waving out the window that it is safe to pass around a blind curve.

the only drivers I've seen in Mexico that are obstructionist hogs are, you guessed it... Americans.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness
Fuck you.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 07:19:48 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors?

IMHO, a combination of factors.

- The area covered by H is historically "vote the way granddaddy shot" Republican.  That caused two things to happen.  First, it went right to the bottom of the priority list in a heavily democrat state, with all the corridors elsewhere in the state finished first.  That allowed time for the BANANA crowd to get organized.  As I stated elsewhere, none of the great public works that make modern life possible would be built today.  Second, the state's interest in fighting it was limited, since the political gain was limited.

In a perfect (probably fantasy) world, party affiliations would simply not matter when it comes to highway projects.  It took a GOP Governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich (only served one term in the one of the most-Democratic states in the Union), to undo some of the worst policies of his predecessor, Parris Glendening, and get an EIS done for Md. 200. 

Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
- The area really is thinly populated.  Among the lowest population densities east of the Mississippi.  So that leaves not that many people to agitate and organize against the enemies of progress.

That's true - though have any county or state elected officials (e.g. legislators) from the  Corridor H area really been opposed to the project?

Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
- Its not a coal producing area, really, other than Tucker County, which is already served by an H ending at Elkins and other roads.  A lot of the corridors (G, L, B, Q, E) really help in the modern production of coal via the land improvement method (so called mountaintop removal or strip mining).  The coal companies really don't care if H gets built or not.

The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal - and lots of coal, and apparently it all arrives on rubber tires or by a conveyor system for seams closer to the plant (there is a railroad spur that comes up to the plant property from the Potomac River, but I don't think it is used by any coal trains).  On the flipside, the coal has obviously been getting to Mount Storm without Corridor H.

And the other significant natural resource along much of Corridor H are trees - and lots and lots of trees.  Logs that are not going to be transported to the sawmill or pulpmill by light rail.  And the finished lumber from the sawmills needs to be transported to market, probably by truck.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont, Maine, upstate NY, etc.  Old hippies that want to play farmer, generally supported by parents that are glad to see them finally out of the house.  Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness, the last thing these people want to see is a good road, so they would have to SHARE their little slice of heaven with others.

Absolutely correct.  And I believe lot of those newcomers are from areas closer to Washington, D.C., where some people are taught  that highway engineers and planners are the spawn of Satan.

Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
- The "economic development" aspect, to be fair, is overblown.  The only economic potential of that virtually vertical part of the country is tourism.  Nobody is going to build an auto plant in Moorefield.

I agree that there's not likely to be much heavy industry, but in addition to forestry, there is a fair amount of farming along Corridor H (including chicken farms that the environmentalists have tried to limit and shut down, usually claiming they want to save the Chesapeake Bay (the Eastern Continental Divide crosses Corridor H someplace between the power plant and Davis, and everything to the east along Corridor H is in the Chesapeake's watershed)), and I assert that the farmers will benefit by being able to get their chickens and other products to market a little easier and at lower cost.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 01, 2013, 07:20:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM

- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont, Maine, upstate NY, etc.  Old hippies that want to play farmer, generally supported by parents that are glad to see them finally out of the house.  Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness, the last thing these people want to see is a good road, so they would have to SHARE their little slice of heaven with others. 

So glad you can be of such use to this forum.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on August 01, 2013, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness
Fuck you.

Kook fight!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2013, 07:52:32 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 01, 2013, 07:47:58 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 01, 2013, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness
Fuck you.

Kook fight!
Take it outside.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on August 01, 2013, 11:52:46 PM
   I drove up to the Mt. Storm area two days ago. There has been a significant amount of earth moving and grading along WV 93 in Tucker County since the last time I was up there about two months ago. That area is divided into five sections, and all but one has had a lot of work done in them.
   Almost all of the beams are in place for the bridge over the Stony River (below the dam breast). The overpass of the railroad spur leading into the power plant is taking shape (and yes, there is rail traffic in and out of there - I didn't see any on this trip, but the rail head was shiny; I have had to stop for a train there on another occasion).
   It looks like they are ready to start paving east of WV 42. The bridges over where 42 will be relocated are in place (42 will be straightened out and pass underneath US 48). From there to the interchange west of Bismarck, it looks like they are about done with grading, but not as ready for paving as the area east of WV 42 is.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 02, 2013, 12:08:17 AM
OK, so what is the next segment to open and when?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 12:20:28 AM
Quote from: dave19 on August 01, 2013, 11:52:46 PM
The overpass of the railroad spur leading into the power plant is taking shape (and yes, there is rail traffic in and out of there - I didn't see any on this trip, but the rail head was shiny; I have had to stop for a train there on another occasion).

This is interesting. 

I have never seen a train in or out of Mount Storm when I have driven by  there (admittedly much less frequently than you). 

I  know the tracks go down the mountain to the old Western Maryland line that runs roughly parallel to the Potomac River - and between Bayard (where the spur to the power plant diverges) and Davis, the line has been out of service for many years - I believe it once continued to Parsons and presumably beyond.

Maybe Dominion Virginia Power is now having coal shipped in on those train tracks?  At one time, all of the coal burned at Mount Storm was coming by truck from a mine in southern Garrett County, Md., but that mine may be mined-out at this point.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 12:25:09 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 02, 2013, 12:08:17 AM
OK, so what is the next segment to open and when?

WVDOT has a pretty detailed Corridor H (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/) Web site. .

According to the Davis to Bismark page (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map4.html) on that site:

QuoteA contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 02, 2013, 06:10:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 07:19:48 PM

The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal

The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location.  They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 02, 2013, 06:48:39 AM
Quote- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont,

You really don't understand rural Vermont.  Contrary to popular belief, there has been little "newcomer population" in Vermont outside of far southwestern Vermont, the Rutland area, and the area immediately around Burlington.

QuoteA contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.

Delays in both cases.  As I recall, when that 2010 contract was signed, the goal at the time was to have both segments completed by the end of this year.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 02, 2013, 08:14:55 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 02, 2013, 06:10:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 07:19:48 PM

The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal

The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location.  They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.

80%: http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-4/features/managing-the-plant-dominion-mt-storm.html

Mount Storm coal fired power plant produces 1,600 MW and contribute 12.5 million tons of CO2, 3,139 tons of sulfur dioxides, 22,464 tons of nitrous oxides and 340 lbs. of mercury each year. Nearby, the NedPower Mountain Storm wind turbines produce 264 MW of power on 132 turbines.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 02, 2013, 10:11:47 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 08:14:55 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 02, 2013, 06:10:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 07:19:48 PM

The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal

The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location.  They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.

80%: http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-4/features/managing-the-plant-dominion-mt-storm.html

Mount Storm coal fired power plant produces 1,600 MW and contribute 12.5 million tons of CO2, 3,139 tons of sulfur dioxides, 22,464 tons of nitrous oxides and 340 lbs. of mercury each year. Nearby, the NedPower Mountain Storm wind turbines produce 264 MW of power on 132 turbines.

Jumping in, Sherman where are you going to put the additional 800 windmills to produce the same amount of electricity? 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 02, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?

Without going into specifics, coal production is declining sharply, partially because coal seams are becoming too thin, the quality is becoming too poor (e.g. too much sulphur), fracking in unveiling plentiful, cheaper and cleaner burning sources of energy. If we think that the Mount Storm power station will be around burning coal for another 30 to 40 years - then I'd suggest checking out all of the abandoned and disused mining sites within 30 miles of the plant. There are only a handful of mining operations in existence with only a few high volume underground mines left.

Plus, there are now limits on how much fish you can catch in Summersville Lake thanks to mercury contamination (just for one instance). You can consume bass and catfish just once a month, and walleye six times a year.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2013, 11:34:18 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?

A May 15 Seattle Times article (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020993836_windfarmsbirdsxml.html) reports on an Associated Press investigation which concludes that even wind farms can have severe environmental consequences:

Quote
The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation found.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Each killing of a protected bird is a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind-energy company has been prosecuted ....
"It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,"  said Tom Dougherty, a longtime environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West. "But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high."

When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or would expose trade secrets or implicate enforcement investigations.
"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent.

I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 12:06:14 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 02, 2013, 06:10:07 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 07:19:48 PM

The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal

The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location.  They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.

That's what I thought.  But I also read (some years ago) in one of the Maryland papers (maybe the Baltimore Sun - see 2006 article below) that the easily extractable coal in that mine in southern Garrett County was pretty well exhausted.

After the discussion above, I looked at the Google images of the former Western Maryland Railway tracks between Bayard, W.Va. and Piedmont, W.Va. (across the Potomac River from Luke, Md.) and I did see what appear to be long (but empty) strings of coal hopper cars, which makes me think that maybe some of the coal burned at Mount Storm is coming in on those rails.

After 29 years, coal runs out at Western Maryland mine - Last ton to be pulled next week - operations to end soon (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-09-23/news/0609230142_1_coal-mining-western-maryland-coal-runs)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?

That is a relatively low-impact way to put  some of the land to good use.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Without going into specifics, coal production is declining sharply, partially because coal seams are becoming too thin, the quality is becoming too poor (e.g. too much sulphur), fracking in unveiling plentiful, cheaper and cleaner burning sources of energy. If we think that the Mount Storm power station will be around burning coal for another 30 to 40 years - then I'd suggest checking out all of the abandoned and disused mining sites within 30 miles of the plant. There are only a handful of mining operations in existence with only a few high volume underground mines left.

And I understand that coal in the West (in particular Wyoming) is much  easier and cheaper to mine (as compared to coal mines east of the Mississippi River), and even with  the added cost of transport by railroad, is cost-effective for some coal-fired generation in the East.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Plus, there are now limits on how much fish you can catch in Summersville Lake thanks to mercury contamination (just for one instance). You can consume bass and catfish just once a month, and walleye six times a year.

If I had my way, the nation would be looking to displace coal-fired electric generation with nuclear.  Unlike wind and solar power, nuke power works very well (as does coal) to supply baseload power to the grid.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 12:13:48 PM
If I had my way, the nation would be looking to displace coal-fired electric generation with nuclear.  Unlike wind and solar power, nuke power works very well (as does coal) to supply baseload power to the grid.

but think of the children who will be born with two heads!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 02, 2013, 06:48:39 AM
Quote- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont,

You really don't understand rural Vermont.  Contrary to popular belief, there has been little "newcomer population" in Vermont outside of far southwestern Vermont, the Rutland area, and the area immediately around Burlington.

I had a cousin once removed that lived in various places in Vermont (he loved the state), but was definitely an "outsider" (he was born in Finland, but spent a lot of his youth in the U.S., in particular in Cos Cob, Connecticut).  Interestingly, he did live near Rutland for a while, and also in Burlington.

Quote from: froggie on August 02, 2013, 06:48:39 AM
QuoteA contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.

Delays in both cases.  As I recall, when that 2010 contract was signed, the goal at the time was to have both segments completed by the end of this year.

At least it's getting built.  Wonder what the delay  was caused by?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 02, 2013, 01:27:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2013, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 09:52:05 AM
Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin. I just search their website but couldn't find that particular item, so the next time I have to pay a visit to the toilet I will check the magazine rack to try to find it!

I did not look very closely to see if any part of Corridor H (and I have driven the western part between Kerens and Weston in the past) is fenced.  Though  it might not matter that much, because the critters can enter at the at-grade intersections and at the interchanges.  Even on Md. 200, which is completely and heavily fenced, I nearly hit a deer on an exit ramp last week.

The road is fenced, but right-of-way fences mean nothing to a deer.  They jump right over them.

Quote
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2013, 11:12:55 AM
NRQZ isn't the issue.  It's the low population and traffic levels relative to the expense because of the terrain causing the dead spots.

I do not know enough about radio waves to know what impact cell towers might have on the Quiet Zone, but I suppose that the cell tower antennae be designed to "direct" their signals where there is less (or no?) impact on the Green Bank Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bank_Telescope) and the National Security Agency's SIGINT gathering operations at Sugar Grove.
Corridor H is far enough away that cell signals aren't a major problem.  The towns have cell coverage (and there are full-power radio stations, too).  It's a matter of there not being enough customers to justify the cell towers outside of the towns.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 02, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2013, 12:20:28 AM
Quote from: dave19 on August 01, 2013, 11:52:46 PM
The overpass of the railroad spur leading into the power plant is taking shape (and yes, there is rail traffic in and out of there - I didn't see any on this trip, but the rail head was shiny; I have had to stop for a train there on another occasion).

This is interesting. 

I have never seen a train in or out of Mount Storm when I have driven by  there (admittedly much less frequently than you). 

I  know the tracks go down the mountain to the old Western Maryland line that runs roughly parallel to the Potomac River - and between Bayard (where the spur to the power plant diverges) and Davis, the line has been out of service for many years - I believe it once continued to Parsons and presumably beyond.

Maybe Dominion Virginia Power is now having coal shipped in on those train tracks?  At one time, all of the coal burned at Mount Storm was coming by truck from a mine in southern Garrett County, Md., but that mine may be mined-out at this point.

VEPCO (Dominion predecessor) had the spur built when they constructed the power plant specifically so they could get coal delivered by rail.  They own the line.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 02, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2013, 11:34:18 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?

A May 15 Seattle Times article (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020993836_windfarmsbirdsxml.html) reports on an Associated Press investigation which concludes that even wind farms can have severe environmental consequences:

Quote
The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation found.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Each killing of a protected bird is a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind-energy company has been prosecuted ....
"It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,"  said Tom Dougherty, a longtime environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West. "But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high."

When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or would expose trade secrets or implicate enforcement investigations.
"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent.

I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......

Drawing straw arguments doesn't help. Let's face it, there are NIMBY's on both sides. Remember Senator Kennedy who championed solar and wind farms? Until they "blocked" his view off of the Cape, despite the towers being so far away from shore that they would be all but invisible.

For all of the ills of coal, the consequences of fracking, and the associated risks with nuclear, wind and solar would be obvious choices. There are tradeoffs with every utility choice that we make, some that impact humans more so than others; some that impact animals more so than others. I know that with early wind farms, the studies did not take into account migratory patterns with birds. With the recent projects in West Virginia - along US 219 and now near Bluefield, migratory patterns were taken into account in the EIS.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2013, 03:01:58 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
Drawing straw arguments doesn't help

Neither does the ad hominem tactic of accusing someone of intentionally misrepresenting your position.  I merely pointed out that wind farms have negative environmental consequences, too. Please point out where I misrepresented your position.




Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
there are NIMBY's on both sides.

Of course, that was the essential point of my post after I quoted the article:

Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2013, 11:34:18 AM
I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......




Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
There are tradeoffs with every utility choice that we make

Agreed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on August 02, 2013, 06:25:12 PM
I still can't believe they blew up entire mountains just for the coal.  I'm so glad they didn't do that to my beloved Ouachitas.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on August 02, 2013, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: stonefort on August 02, 2013, 05:38:39 PM
Consequences of fracking?
You mean affordable energy? Decent living standards for the middle class?
Environmentalism is just a religion. It's a warmed over nature cult.

I mean things like earthquakes in places like fucking Oklahoma where earthquakes aren't supposed to happen.  Live through a few 5.6 earthquakes (and wondering if the "big one" is going to hit) and we'll talk.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Brandon on August 02, 2013, 07:13:24 PM
Quote from: bugo on August 02, 2013, 06:27:47 PM
Quote from: stonefort on August 02, 2013, 05:38:39 PM
Consequences of fracking?
You mean affordable energy? Decent living standards for the middle class?
Environmentalism is just a religion. It's a warmed over nature cult.

I mean things like earthquakes in places like fucking Oklahoma where earthquakes aren't supposed to happen.  Live through a few 5.6 earthquakes (and wondering if the "big one" is going to hit) and we'll talk.

Earthquakes happen everywhere, not just in California or Alaska.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 02, 2013, 08:25:10 PM
In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1)?

Where poisonous waste was disposed of in storm sewers (http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/02/youngstown_gas_driller_indicte.html) that led to massive fish kills in the Mahoning River? And we're not talking about a little bit - how about 20,000+ gallons?

And water quality issues and fracking go hand-in-hand (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-29/politics/40887594_1_cabot-s-fracking-methane).

Yes, we are not ripping apart mountaintops for cheap energy, but we are still causing damage both to the environment and to human health. I appreciate that there has been over $2 billion in investment in Youngstown for just V&M Star (producing piping and other associated steel for fracking sites), $1 billion in Cadiz, $1 billion near New Castle for a cracker plant and elsewhere. It's jobs that can pay quite well. It's employment in areas that have been devastated by years of declining economic fortunes.

Having documented and photographed the entire rust belt and coal producing regions for major publications, magazines and two upcoming books, I offer my opinion in that all we are seeking is a short term gain for long term consequence. If anyone has ever ventured to southwest West Virginia and other coal reliant regions, you can see what has happened. Take McDowell County, home to Welch and one of the first municipal parking garages in the United States. The county peaked at nearly 100,000 residents 60 years ago, and stands under 22,000 today. It will dip under 18,000 by 2020 at the current rate of decline. Welch, the county seat, had nearly 6,800 and will dive under 2,000 by 2020. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. It's median income is one of the lowest. It's school system has been under state control for over a decade, and has some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. Coal began its march out of Appalachia decades ago, first due to mechanization, then to energy slumps before seeing an uptick in the 1980s and 1990s - and then declining due to exhaustion of seams and now fracking.

One of the firms I did work for hired about 30% of their staff from West Virginia's coal producing counties. These guys and gals traveled up from the mountains to work on some sites in eastern Ohio, staying in RV's, hotels and even tents to make a decent wage. Most were not married, and those that did were very much depressed and sent money home every other week. Travel out to the Dakota's, and you'll see temporary cities galore.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:22:39 PM
Methinks the moderators might consider a thread-split......
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on August 02, 2013, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 08:25:10 PM
In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1)?

Where were those earthquakes on the Richter scale?  Were they little ones like those in Oklahoma most clearly linked to fracking -- the kind that are routine in California, that Californians take in stride?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: corco on August 02, 2013, 10:06:27 PM
QuoteHaving documented and photographed the entire rust belt and coal producing regions for major publications, magazines and two upcoming books, I offer my opinion in that all we are seeking is a short term gain for long term consequence. If anyone has ever ventured to southwest West Virginia and other coal reliant regions, you can see what has happened. Take McDowell County, home to Welch and one of the first municipal parking garages in the United States. The county peaked at nearly 100,000 residents 60 years ago, and stands under 22,000 today. It will dip under 18,000 by 2020 at the current rate of decline. Welch, the county seat, had nearly 6,800 and will dive under 2,000 by 2020. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. It's median income is one of the lowest. It's school system has been under state control for over a decade, and has some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. Coal began its march out of Appalachia decades ago, first due to mechanization, then to energy slumps before seeing an uptick in the 1980s and 1990s - and then declining due to exhaustion of seams and now fracking.

Right- for me, if we dumped the money we're dumping into developing fracking technology right now into developing technology to make renewable energy more productive...those are also skilled, high paying jobs right there and those aren't subject to boom-bust nearly as much as fracking is.

It's not like we're lowering energy costs. We're making more energy in America right now, which don't get me wrong- that's awesome and critical to national security and why I can't be totally opposed to fracking, but it costs a heck of a lot more to frack oil than it does to get it by conventional means, and those conventionally producing countries can just and do just cut supply to keep the prices up. We still have little control over it.

And that price is going to go up- the deeper that oil is, the more it's going to cost to drill it. The oil industry just has to wait for prices to sustain a slightly higher level and they can go after the Niobrara Shale, but they can't get that out and make money at the current price levels. People who think that we can flood the market with cheap shale oil and lower gas prices...that's not how shale works. It's really expensive to get out of the ground.  Unless the economy tanks again, energy of any kind is not going to get cheaper over the long run no matter how much we produce as long as we maintain something resembling a free market system and I'd challenge anybody to find an economic model that demonstrates otherwise. In a strong economy, energy is an inelastic need- there's no incentive for any company to produce inexpensive energy or for competition to drive prices down. The only way prices drop is if we have another 2008 and people stop buying things altogether, reducing the demand for fuel to the point that prices have to go down.

One thing I don't understand- the fact is we're going to need to dump a ton of money into R&D to keep getting energy. We're either going to have to develop new, cost effective ways to get oil deeper and deeper from the earth or we're going to have to develop new, cost effective ways to get the same energy from other sources. There's no way around that. Why is the focus on the first? The cynic in me thinks it's a fear that moving away from oil will change our lifestyle into some hippie environmentalist lifestyle that nobody wants, but is there any proof that that's either a valid supposition or something that would actually happen?

I'm curious- those of you who are in favor of putting resources into fracking in lieu of putting resources into developing alternative energy - why? Why is this the case? Do you envision this being a permanent thing, or do you envision a transition taking place? 

Or is it more of a moderation thing? Obviously we can't flip the switch tomorrow and ditch oil- even if we put a lot of resources into developing other energy sources we're still going to be dependent on oil for a long time and the transition will probably take a generation or three. There's pretty much no way around that either, but when do you think we need to begin to start to really move in that direction? Or do you think we're already headed in that direction but in the meantime we need to keep finding more oil, even if the diversion of resources slows down the development of those other sources?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 10:13:59 PM
When I hear "frack" I still think of the "profanity" in the original 1970s version of Battlestar Galactica.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on August 02, 2013, 10:41:13 PM
Quote from: oscar on August 02, 2013, 09:53:35 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 02, 2013, 08:25:10 PM
In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1)?

Where were those earthquakes on the Richter scale?  Were they little ones like those in Oklahoma most clearly linked to fracking -- the kind that are routine in California, that Californians take in stride?

The geology of California is not the same as the geology of Oklahoma.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on August 02, 2013, 11:17:20 PM
Quote from: corco on August 02, 2013, 10:06:27 PM
I'm curious- those of you who are in favor of putting resources into fracking in lieu of putting resources into developing alternative energy - why? Why is this the case? Do you envision this being a permanent thing, or do you envision a transition taking place? 

Or is it more of a moderation thing? Obviously we can't flip the switch tomorrow and ditch oil- even if we put a lot of resources into developing other energy sources we're still going to be dependent on oil for a long time and the transition will probably take a generation or three. There's pretty much no way around that either, but when do you think we need to begin to start to really move in that direction? Or do you think we're already headed in that direction but in the meantime we need to keep finding more oil, even if the diversion of resources slows down the development of those other sources?

Fracking is largely about natural gas, not just oil.  Natural gas is a little harder to use to power our cars, but does lends itself to large-scale electric power generation, especially as a cleaner substitute for coal.

I'm not sure fracking's an either-or proposition compared to alternative fuels, anyway.  There's room for both, at least until the recoverable oil and gas resources peter out.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: corco on August 02, 2013, 11:25:54 PM
QuoteFracking is largely about natural gas, not just oil.  Natural gas is a little harder to use to power our cars, but does lends itself to large-scale electric power generation, especially as a cleaner substitute for coal.

I'm not sure fracking's an either-or proposition compared to alternative fuels, anyway.  There's room for both, at least until the recoverable oil and gas resources peter out.

Right, I just said "oil" for simplicity, but yeah. Out here we just call them the "oil fields" but there's definitely a lot more to it than that.

Okay, that seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. I guess the follow up would be- in an ideal world, are you in favor of funneling oil profit towards the development of alternative energy? How do you envision the economics playing out that allow alternative energy to eventually usurp oil and gas use? Should energy prices just continue rising until renewable energy is profitable enough for mass scale implementation, or where should the money come from for the R&D to lower the price of renewable energy generation?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:55:43 PM
OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.

I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).

There's still a pretty good segment of Corridor (mumble), which involves US 119 through southeastern Kentucky, not yet built. Will the same howls of objection be heard when the final link, the tunnel under Pine Mountain, gets underway?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Revive 755 on August 03, 2013, 11:03:31 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 02, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
but think of the children who will be born with two heads!

<Almost makes snide comment regarding second head, thinks better of it>
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2013, 12:18:34 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:55:43 PM
OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.

IMO, most of the reasons for objecting to Corridor H are without merit.  Especially the environmental objections, since the design of the new segments appears to be state-of-the-art in terms of things like stormwater controls, and vehicle emissions are less and less of a problem as the on-highway vehicle fleet turns over.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:55:43 PM
I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).

There are plenty of people in  the United States that think good highways are inherently evil, and presumably want to return the nation to the transportation system that we had in about 1920, when most intercity travel was by railroad (or in some cases interurban) and a large percentage of the urban and suburban population was (as they call it) "carfree."  Yes, there were suburbs in the United States in 1920.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:55:43 PM
There's still a pretty good segment of Corridor (mumble), which involves US 119 through southeastern Kentucky, not yet built. Will the same howls of objection be heard when the final link, the tunnel under Pine Mountain, gets underway?

The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H)  might be  great enough that it's a non-issue.  Let's hope so.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2013, 12:26:26 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 02, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
VEPCO (Dominion predecessor) had the spur built when they constructed the power plant specifically so they could get coal delivered by rail.  They own the line.

That was not clear to me, since (as S P Cook pointed out) the Mount Storm Generating Station was sited where it is in part to be near large supplies of coal (that would presumably not arrive on rail). I thought the railroad spur may have been there to allow delivery of heavy machinery to the plant that might be easier to move on rail instead of by truck.

In the electric generating business, Mount Storm is known as a "mouth of mine" plant.  There are several others relatively close in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  I think Mount Storm may be the easternmost plant of this type (I believe it may be the only one in the Chesapeake Bay watershed - the rest of them are in the Ohio River watershed).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 12:29:56 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2013, 12:18:34 AM
The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H)  might be  great enough that it's a non-issue.  Let's hope so.

There's an environmentally sensitive area (Bad Branch Falls) in that general vicinity, but my understanding is that they're taking steps to deal with it appropriately, even at this very preliminary stage of the planning process.

But that may not stop the DC-ites (many of whom, as was pointed out, will be able to use H to get to the ski areas near Davis) from complaining. A new route for KY 715 in Wolfe County, as part of the overall London-to-Ashland corridor, is in the works. It passes near a popular rock climbing area frequented by out-of-staters. We've had a number of comments from Buckeyes about this project. There is an area that is crying out for better access to the interstate system for economic development purposes, and some Ohioans want to stop the road project?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2013, 01:00:59 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 12:29:56 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 04, 2013, 12:18:34 AM
The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H)  might be  great enough that it's a non-issue.  Let's hope so.

There's an environmentally sensitive area (Bad Branch Falls) in that general vicinity, but my understanding is that they're taking steps to deal with it appropriately, even at this very preliminary stage of the planning process.

That's the right time to deal with sensitive environmental issues, and I think good highway engineers and planners know that they need to handle them during planning and preliminary engineering. 

Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 12:29:56 AM
But that may not stop the DC-ites (many of whom, as was pointed out, will be able to use H to get to the ski areas near Davis) from complaining. A new route for KY 715 in Wolfe County, as part of the overall London-to-Ashland corridor, is in the works. It passes near a popular rock climbing area frequented by out-of-staters. We've had a number of comments from Buckeyes about this project. There is an area that is crying out for better access to the interstate system for economic development purposes, and some Ohioans want to stop the road project?

Under the U.S. federal system, this sort of thing goes on frequently.  Over and over again, I saw representatives from large and small municipalities located relatively far from the route of Md. 200 (including at least one not even in Maryland) raising environmental objections to the project.  And the one county to be served by the project (Prince George's) had two long County Council resolutions against the project, even though they included weasel language deep in both endorsing the project in their own  jurisdiction.

Getting to your last sentence above, access (and improved access) to the national highway network by places in need of economic development should be stated as a goal in national transportation policy by Congress, but more than a few of the nice people there don't seem to grasp how important that is to underserved parts of the nation.  That obviously includes large parts of Appalachia, but it also (in my opinion) includes at least some roadless areas of Alaska.

Economic development is the fundamental reason that I believe Corridor H (including the sections between Wardensville and Strasburg, Va.; and between Kerens and Davis) should be completed. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 04, 2013, 03:36:34 AM
QuoteOK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.

Population centers and pre-existing corridors.  Most of the other corridors you mentioned have (at least by rural-standards), medium population centers to anchor the ARC corridor to, not to mention generally following long-existing highway corridors (US 50, US 52, US 119, US 460, etc etc).  No such pre-existing corridor or (except for Buckhannon and Elkins) population centers exist along Corridor H.  Within West Virginia, some of these corridors (thinking US 50 and US 460 here) had high enough traffic to where they probably would have been 4-laned even without the ARC regional highway program, much as parts of US 340 and WV 9 are up in the WV Panhandle.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on August 04, 2013, 11:24:28 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2013, 08:55:43 PMI wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).

I don't get the impression that many of the people objecting to Corridor H are in fact very young.  NE2, I think, is aged upwards of 30.  Steve Alpert is, I believe, also over 30, and although I don't recall him objecting to Corridor H per se, he has criticized the design of various segments for excessive use of cut and fill.  Although I do not believe he is now a member of this forum and certainly has not been active if he has, back in the MTR days Larry Gross objected to Corridor H (receiving attacks and heavy criticism from S.P. Cook for doing so), and I am fairly sure he is aged over 50.

Randy Hersh also never struck me as having a particular anti-rural bias.  Yes, he spent most of his life in the vicinity of large cities (grew up in Mayfield Heights, which is a Cleveland suburb; worked in Cleveland for several years; drove cab in Miami for several years; spent most of the remainder of his life and cab-driving career in densely urbanized northern New Jersey), but he also travelled extensively and had a good feel for what roads can and cannot do in terms of bringing economic development to rural areas.  I incline to take his objections to Corridor H at face value:  unlikely to siphon long-distance east-west traffic off the established Interstate routes, unlikely to bring much economic development to the area of rural West Virginia it serves since that area's primary obstacle to economic growth is the lack of an educated workforce, but definitely likely to siphon funding away from necessary asset preservation, for which his go-to example was the long-delayed reconstruction of I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:22:39 PM
Methinks the moderators might consider a thread-split......
I've been away for a couple of days, but I applaud a few people in this thread for consistently bringing it back on-topic from the energy discussion to Corridor H. It's all tied together with the environment aspect, which seems to be the most controversial part. Although traffic volumes aren't very high in general in WV, the road quality is so poor that I find it hard to argue with the ongoing upgrade. Could it be graded for 4 lanes and paved for 2? Probably not, because the road will encourage high speeds and truck use, and it's better to have that separated.
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.

The concerns are really only with a very small area within the overall corridor; that being the Blackwater Falls area. I think you can take just about any new highway construction project and have similar enviro concerns outside that one area.

There are a lot of wind farms in the area of Corridor H, so the topics are a bit related.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 04, 2013, 11:24:28 AM
I don't get the impression that many of the people objecting to Corridor H are in fact very young.  NE2, I think, is aged upwards of 30.  Steve Alpert is, I believe, also over 30, and although I don't recall him objecting to Corridor H per se, he has criticized the design of various segments for excessive use of cut and fill.  Although I do not believe he is now a member of this forum and certainly has not been active if he has, back in the MTR days Larry Gross objected to Corridor H (receiving attacks and heavy criticism from S.P. Cook for doing so), and I am fairly sure he is aged over 50.

Well, they're younger than me. (I'm 51). And they were in their early to mid 20s when they got involved in MTR many, many years ago. I think Steve's had the same complaints about virtually all new West Virginia construction. Corridor H is not unlike a lot of the recent construction in eastern Kentucky, specifically newer segments of US 119 northeast of Pikeville and the under-construction US 460 south of Pikeville.

Larry Gross objected to everything.  :bigass:

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 04, 2013, 11:24:28 AM
Randy Hersh also never struck me as having a particular anti-rural bias.  Yes, he spent most of his life in the vicinity of large cities (grew up in Mayfield Heights, which is a Cleveland suburb; worked in Cleveland for several years; drove cab in Miami for several years; spent most of the remainder of his life and cab-driving career in densely urbanized northern New Jersey), but he also travelled extensively and had a good feel for what roads can and cannot do in terms of bringing economic development to rural areas.  I incline to take his objections to Corridor H at face value:  unlikely to siphon long-distance east-west traffic off the established Interstate routes, unlikely to bring much economic development to the area of rural West Virginia it serves since that area's primary obstacle to economic growth is the lack of an educated workforce, but definitely likely to siphon funding away from necessary asset preservation, for which his go-to example was the long-delayed reconstruction of I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore.

Have you forgotten his cheerleading of floods in Kentucky, the tornadoes in Kentucky last March, the Texas wildfires, and other disasters? He seemed overly happy anytime something bad happened in a non-urban part of the world. Yet I'm sure he would have been horrified by Hurricane Sandy and the destruction it wrought on urban areas in the NYC region.

He also seemed very unsupportive not only of Corridor H, but practically any new rural construction.

Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.

Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether...  :-P
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 04, 2013, 04:51:25 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2013, 09:22:39 PM
Methinks the moderators might consider a thread-split......
I've been away for a couple of days, but I applaud a few people in this thread for consistently bringing it back on-topic from the energy discussion to Corridor H. It's all tied together with the environment aspect, which seems to be the most controversial part. Although traffic volumes aren't very high in general in WV, the road quality is so poor that I find it hard to argue with the ongoing upgrade. Could it be graded for 4 lanes and paved for 2? Probably not, because the road will encourage high speeds and truck use, and it's better to have that separated.
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.

Yeah, frankly, when I made that suggestion I was more concerned that there seemed to be some incipient nastiness that's since been dialed back.

I never posted on MTR (my USENET usage was pretty much all prior to 1997 on UVA sports groups) so I have nothing to say about those folks. I've glanced at MTR on RARE occasions over the years and so I know enough to refrain from talking about a group with which I'm unfamiliar beyond the origins of "viatology"!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 05:11:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.

Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether...  :-P

Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked.  :-D And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on August 04, 2013, 05:13:38 PM
Is that the one about goats?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on August 04, 2013, 06:36:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 04:40:55 PMWell, they're younger than me. (I'm 51). And they were in their early to mid 20s when they got involved in MTR many, many years ago. I think Steve's had the same complaints about virtually all new West Virginia construction. Corridor H is not unlike a lot of the recent construction in eastern Kentucky, specifically newer segments of US 119 northeast of Pikeville and the under-construction US 460 south of Pikeville.

Yes, with the possible exception of Larry Gross, they (and I) are younger than you, but I wouldn't say any of them is "very young."  I have never met any of them in person, but I would think most of them have lived in places with enough new construction for them to have some lived experience of the benefits and drawbacks of new highways.

In regard to Steve and the criticisms he has expressed of excessive cut and fill, I actually happen to sympathize with them.  I have seen the construction plans for a lot of West Virginia's recent rural expressway work (it used to be possible to download them off WVDOT's FTP server before it was taken offline about a year ago), and the contour grading sheets make it blatantly obvious that leveling of mountains and filling of valleys is going on.  The natural landscape of West Virginia is a resource, just like the minerals beneath the surface, and it seems shortsighted to waste it and thereby forfeit opportunities for high-margin economic activity, like ecotourism, rather than to try and see whether the business case for extensive use of tunnels and high-level valley viaducts, as on the Spanish and German motorway networks, could be translated to this side of the Atlantic.

QuoteLarry Gross objected to everything.  :bigass:

It is fair to say that he supported new highway construction in the same way one might support making omelets without breaking any eggs.

QuoteHave you forgotten his [Randy Hersh's] cheerleading of floods in Kentucky, the tornadoes in Kentucky last March, the Texas wildfires, and other disasters? He seemed overly happy anytime something bad happened in a non-urban part of the world. Yet I'm sure he would have been horrified by Hurricane Sandy and the destruction it wrought on urban areas in the NYC region.

Most of the cheerleading for natural disasters in Kentucky and West Virginia had more to do with "Don't like H.B. Elkins" (not only you personally, but also what he construed as your no-new-taxes position), rather than "Hate rural America."  In the case of Texas and wildfires, a quick MTR search turns up this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/Texas$20wildfires/misc.transport.road/lJ4cTVM9kuw/BXEjlYmQDxgJ

"Couldn't happen to a better bunch of idiots" is in part a reference to the fact that the area of Texas involved (mostly the Panhandle) is heavily dependent on fossil water.  It doesn't prove a "Randy hates rural America" argument--the rural US is much larger than that and there were plenty of natural disasters elsewhere, such as the Greensburg tornado in 2007, the Missouri River flooding in 2011, etc. about which Randy had very little to say.

I established early on a rule, from which I only rarely deviated, of never defending Randy's posts on MTR, because that was consistent with my philosophy of not saying anything unless I believed it had a reasonable prospect of adding to general enlightenment or convincing someone else who was open to persuasion.  This is why I won't say it was proper for Randy to sing the praises of catastrophes which just happened to be local to whomever he was feuding with in MTR at the time, any more than it was for him to go on about black people the way he did.  It is nevertheless true, however, that the name-calling and other abuse went in both directions.  Those who fault Randy for not taking the high road have only themselves to blame for not doing so on their own account and thereby setting a positive example.

QuoteHe also seemed very unsupportive not only of Corridor H, but practically any new rural construction.

I have a feeling that combing my email archive for mentions of new rural highway construction which Randy supported would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.  Besides Interstate guide signing, his emphases were very much on asset preservation (not just full-depth reconstruction like I-70 Frederick-Baltimore, but also replacement of fracture-critical bridges) and relocation to improve urban amenity (burial of the Gowanus Expressway tunnel being a case in point).  And, to be frank, with some largely rural states (including my own) pushing freeway projects on the basis of sub-10,000 AADT, I have to say Randy's views on this issue were not all that far from the MTR mainstream.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2013, 12:32:58 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.

The concerns are really only with a very small area within the overall corridor; that being the Blackwater Falls area. I think you can take just about any new highway construction project and have similar enviro concerns outside that one area.

A few more thoughts:

(1) I've stayed at Blackwater Falls State Park.  It is indeed a gem, and deserves protection (and the area within the park is in a sense protected by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act).  I assert that even the most-fervent supporters of Corridor H don't want the park damaged by highway construction.

(2) If the decision is made to build more wind-powered generating units along the ridgetops around Mount Storm (and elsewhere - there are some along  U.S. 219 south of Davis), then Corridor H makes transporting the towers (they appear to come in segments) and blades (which are huge) easier and presumably less expensive.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 04, 2013, 06:36:16 PM
In regard to Steve and the criticisms he has expressed of excessive cut and fill, I actually happen to sympathize with them.  I have seen the construction plans for a lot of West Virginia's recent rural expressway work (it used to be possible to download them off WVDOT's FTP server before it was taken offline about a year ago), and the contour grading sheets make it blatantly obvious that leveling of mountains and filling of valleys is going on.  The natural landscape of West Virginia is a resource, just like the minerals beneath the surface, and it seems shortsighted to waste it and thereby forfeit opportunities for high-margin economic activity, like ecotourism, rather than to try and see whether the business case for extensive use of tunnels and high-level valley viaducts, as on the Spanish and German motorway networks, could be translated to this side of the Atlantic.

Having seen all of both sections of Corridor H that are open to traffic, I did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.  Most of the valleys and hollows were spanned by some very high bridges.  There were more than a few massive mountain cuts, however.   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 05, 2013, 01:17:07 AM
QuoteI did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.

There are two notable grade changes on the completed segment of Corridor H where there was a lot of fill placed in what was formerly valley.  One is about 5 miles east of Moorefield (on the other side of the ridge from the Clifton Hollow bridge).  The other is as you make the climb up from where the scenic view spot is west of Moorefield, where you make what is close to a U-shaped turn.  That one especially filled in a lot of valley.  The bridge over WV 93 also has a lot of fill on the west side of it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 05, 2013, 07:16:59 AM
Yes Virginia, there are stupensously long trains hauling coal into Mt. Storm. Saw a couple of them while visiting at Jennings Randolph Lake.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 05, 2013, 12:23:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 01, 2013, 06:12:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 01, 2013, 05:38:27 PM

Never been to Cancun, actually, but the rest of my travel in Mexico has all been on the Yucatan or Cozumel, so yes, I know that's not necessarily representative of the entire country. Still, driving south on Route 307 down past Tulum it's quite nice when you're going 130 in a 110 zone and the guy in the car in front of you moves partly or entirely onto the shoulder to help you get past (and I did the same when someone would come up on me going 140 or 150).

gotta love Mexican drivers.  very courteous in general.  the opposite end of the speed spectrum is true as well: a few months ago I was driving MX-2 from Imuris to Cananea across a large mountain pass, and there were lines upon lines of trucks doing 10-15mph.  everyone was doing all they could to allow for cars to get around, including waving out the window that it is safe to pass around a blind curve.

the only drivers I've seen in Mexico that are obstructionist hogs are, you guessed it... Americans.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2013, 06:11:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2013, 10:25:49 AM
But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors?

IMHO, a combination of factors.

- The area covered by H is historically "vote the way granddaddy shot" Republican.  That caused two things to happen.  First, it went right to the bottom of the priority list in a heavily democrat state, with all the corridors elsewhere in the state finished first.  That allowed time for the BANANA crowd to get organized.  As I stated elsewhere, none of the great public works that make modern life possible would be built today.  Second, the state's interest in fighting it was limited, since the political gain was limited.

- The area really is thinly populated.  Among the lowest population densities east of the Mississippi.  So that leaves not that many people to agitate and organize against the enemies of progress.

- Its not a coal producing area, really, other than Tucker County, which is already served by an H ending at Elkins and other roads.  A lot of the corridors (G, L, B, Q, E) really help in the modern production of coal via the land improvement method (so called mountaintop removal or strip mining).  The coal companies really don't care if H gets built or not.

- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont, Maine, upstate NY, etc.  Old hippies that want to play farmer, generally supported by parents that are glad to see them finally out of the house.  Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness, the last thing these people want to see is a good road, so they would have to SHARE their little slice of heaven with others. 

- The "economic development" aspect, to be fair, is overblown.  The only economic potential of that virtually vertical part of the country is tourism.  Nobody is going to build an auto plant in Moorefield.

True, but a new Sheetz went up....
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Grzrd on August 05, 2013, 01:18:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 05:11:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.
Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether...  :-P
Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked.  :-D And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.

To augment HB's answer for agentsteel, and facing the similar problem of no longer having the correct thread to post it in, the Iowa chapter of a national organization has a six-page compilation of  Bible Quotes In Support of Stewardship (http://iowa.sierraclub.org/icag/2004/1104quotes.pdf). Genesis 1:26 and other "God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature" quotations can be found on pages 3 and 4.

Back to roads after this post; I just wanted to give agentsteel additional info.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 05, 2013, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 05, 2013, 01:18:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 05:11:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2013, 04:40:55 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 04, 2013, 02:21:32 PM
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.
Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether...  :-P
Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked.  :-D And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.

To augment HB's answer for agentsteel, and facing the similar problem of no longer having the correct thread to post it in, the Iowa chapter of a national organization has a six-page compilation of  Bible Quotes In Support of Stewardship (http://iowa.sierraclub.org/icag/2004/1104quotes.pdf). Genesis 1:26 and other "God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature" quotations can be found on pages 3 and 4.

Back to roads after this post; I just wanted to give agentsteel additional info.

that's not the primary source.

"steward over your animals [God, 3750BC]" is, by definition, a secondary source citing a primary one.  I want the primary one directly.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 05, 2013, 02:10:51 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 05, 2013, 01:17:07 AM
QuoteI did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.

There are two notable grade changes on the completed segment of Corridor H where there was a lot of fill placed in what was formerly valley.  One is about 5 miles east of Moorefield (on the other side of the ridge from the Clifton Hollow bridge).  The other is as you make the climb up from where the scenic view spot is west of Moorefield, where you make what is close to a U-shaped turn.  That one especially filled in a lot of valley.  The bridge over WV 93 also has a lot of fill on the west side of it.

I noticed one place on the right going west where it was very obvious that fill (perhaps from some of the mountain cuts) had been used to fill-in a valley.   It was obvious because there was a farmhouse.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2013, 12:40:18 PM
From the "Birmingham" thread..

Quote from: Grzrd on March 27, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
That said, the enactment of MAP-21 last summer altered the ARC funding formula to allow 100% federal funding for ADHS projects

Well, there's the answer for building Virginia's part of Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Grzrd on August 13, 2013, 12:49:20 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2013, 12:40:18 PM
From the "Birmingham" thread..
Quote from: Grzrd on March 27, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
That said, the enactment of MAP-21 last summer altered the ARC funding formula to allow 100% federal funding for ADHS projects
Well, there's the answer for building Virginia's part of Corridor H.

Related post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg164394#msg164394) earlier in this thread.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 15, 2013, 07:45:16 AM
Indeed.  Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia.  It's a lot more complicated than that.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2013, 10:24:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2013, 07:45:16 AM
Indeed.  Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

I agree. 

Rep. Wolf is opposed (but then he seems opposed to nearly all highway improvement projects these days).

What I don't know are the positions of the local elected officials in Shenandoah County  and Frederick County, Va.  In order to get from the crest of North Mountain to I-81, it would presumably have to pass through both counties.  There's no mention of needed/desired future improvements to U.S. 48/Va. 55 on the Web sites of Frederick County or Shenandoah County (I checked).

Proponents of Corridor H in West Virginia would be smart to reach out to their neighbors in those two counties if they want an improved highway connection between Wardensville and I-81 at Strasburg.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 16, 2013, 06:25:50 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2013, 10:24:49 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2013, 07:45:16 AM
Indeed.  Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

I agree. 

Rep. Wolf is opposed (but then he seems opposed to nearly all highway improvement projects these days).

What I don't know are the positions of the local elected officials in Shenandoah County  and Frederick County, Va.  In order to get from the crest of North Mountain to I-81, it would presumably have to pass through both counties.  There's no mention of needed/desired future improvements to U.S. 48/Va. 55 on the Web sites of Frederick County or Shenandoah County (I checked).

Proponents of Corridor H in West Virginia would be smart to reach out to their neighbors in those two counties if they want an improved highway connection between Wardensville and I-81 at Strasburg.

As a resident, there is really no concensus one way or another among elected officials of Frederick/Shenandoah Co's., on Corridor H at this time. If the Feds/state want to build it, they will, counties have little input into it. As I have mentioned before, I attended pre-construction meetings on Corridor H in both counties, and Hardy Co. W.V.,  and as far as Rt 55/48 are concerned, nothing will be done in W.V. unless the exisiting road becomes "unserviceable", no conditions like that exist in Va., the road will be continue to be maintained as usual.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 16, 2013, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on August 16, 2013, 06:25:50 AM
As a resident, there is really no concensus one way or another among elected officials of Frederick/Shenandoah Co's., on Corridor H at this time.

That is the impression I draw from the lack of any mention on the planning maps of both counties.  Though I suppose if they were really opposed, the county elected officials in both could have language saying that, though they do not (or maybe I should put it this way - I searched the Web sites of both counties with  Google, and found no mention of Corridor H (or U.S. 48) either way).  Shenandoah County had a few hits on Route 55, but nothing that appeared related to Corridor H. 

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on August 16, 2013, 06:25:50 AM
If the Feds/state want to build it, they will, counties have little input into it. As I have mentioned before, I attended pre-construction meetings on Corridor H in both counties, and Hardy Co. W.V.,  and as far as Rt 55/48 are concerned, nothing will be done in W.V. unless the exisiting road becomes "unserviceable", no conditions like that exist in Va., the road will be continue to be maintained as usual.

There is some precedent in Virginia of the Commonwealth building highways that were bitterly opposed by local elected officials.  Probably the best (as in most-loudly opposed) example was I-66 across Arlington County in the 1970's, when most planned highways inside the Capital Beltway were removed from planning maps on both sides of the Potomac River, with the notable exception of I-66 and the cancelled (in the 1990's) Barney Circle Modification (since replaced by the reconstructed 11th Street Bridge and the interchange at its south end).

Arlington wanted I-66 cancelled and the Metrorail Orange Line constructed (which  is what happened with  the Green Line in Northeast D.C. and Prince George's County, Maryland), but VDH made it clear that there would be no money for the Orange Line without I-66, and the result is the downsized I-66 (Custis Memorial Parkway) with the Metrorail line down the median seen there today.

I also recall (from the Gribblenation article (http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/)) this:

QuoteFinally, the furthest east segment, Wardensville to the VA line, is in the most limbo.  Construction of this segment was deferred 20 years as a result of a February 2000 agreement with CHA.

As was stated upthread, I do not think construction funding is much of an issue, even though Virginia has billions of dollars in unfunded highway repair and improvement backlogs.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 19, 2013, 06:55:17 AM
But, to get an answer....there will be a House of Rep. member, local and state reps at the upcoming Shenandoah Co. Fair, will ask the question of them....
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2013, 05:59:50 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on August 19, 2013, 06:55:17 AM
But, to get an answer....there will be a House of Rep. member, local and state reps at the upcoming Shenandoah Co. Fair, will ask the question of them....

The answer should be interesting. Thanks for asking it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on August 19, 2013, 11:04:11 PM
http://www.gilmerfreepress.net/index.php/site/corridor_h_construction_could_help_troubled_stream/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2013, 02:59:38 PM
Quote from: dave19 on August 19, 2013, 11:04:11 PM
http://www.gilmerfreepress.net/index.php/site/corridor_h_construction_could_help_troubled_stream/

This reminds me of the environmental stewardship work that is being funded as part of the Md. 200 project.

It's a lot of stream restoration and stormwater management retrofit work.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on August 21, 2013, 06:40:14 AM
That was offered up as part of the effort to quiet the environmentalists who were opposing construction of that section, and kept things locked up in court for a while.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 21, 2013, 10:15:11 AM
It's sad that it is the responsibility of WVDOH to fund and complete the project, not the coal companies that caused such damage to occur in the first place.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2013, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on August 21, 2013, 06:40:14 AM
That was offered up as part of the effort to quiet the environmentalists who were opposing construction of that section, and kept things locked up in court for a while.

To most radical environmentalists, environmental mitigation, even to mitigate damage inflicted by projects and entities having little or nothing to do with the highway project in question, means nothing. 

Getting the highway project cancelled is a priority above all else.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2013, 11:48:02 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 21, 2013, 10:15:11 AM
It's sad that it is the responsibility of WVDOH to fund and complete the project, not the coal companies that caused such damage to occur in the first place.

That is a recurring theme over much of West Virginia  (and  I have not been to many of the counties in the southern part of the state, where I have been told the damage is much  greater than it is in the vicinity of Corridor H).  And there are is still some mining taking place near the Mount Storm generating station.

It's a problem in Maryland  and Pennsylvania as well.   Maryland's Department of the Environment has spent a small fortune to mitigate acid mine drainage from abandoned mines in the upper Potomac River watershed - one especially bad mine is located at Kempton in extreme southwest Garrett County, a short distance from the source of the Potomac at Fairfax Stone (and not especially far from the interim terminus of Corridor H near Davis).

When I-81 was newly constructed, the damage from coal strip mining was very obvious between U.S. 209 (Exit 107) and I-80 near Hazleton (Exit 151).  But in the intervening years, trees have grown up to hide most of that ugliness.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 02, 2013, 06:45:07 PM
I have posted quite a few images from Corridor H on Facebook.  Link via the posting below:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10306.msg244300#msg244300 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10306.msg244300#msg244300)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 03, 2013, 12:45:21 PM
Nice pics. Are they installing a runaway truck ramp EB from the top of the mt.? Wonder what % grade that works out to?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 03, 2013, 01:15:29 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 03, 2013, 12:45:21 PM
Nice pics. Are they installing a runaway truck ramp EB from the top of the mt.? Wonder what % grade that works out to?

Thank you.

There is no evidence of one along the open section of Corridor H that this ties into at W.Va. 93 (Scherr).

But since you asked, and it's an interesting question, I looked at the unopened section with Google (the images are fairly recent), and it appears that such a ramp is being built for eastbound (downhill) traffic just before the big bridge (completed for a while now) that will carry Corridor H over W.Va. 93.

Look for yourself here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=scherr,+wv&ll=39.228763,-79.162416&spn=0.018583,0.038581&hnear=Scherr,+Grant,+West+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=15).  That certainly might be a runaway ramp.

The steepest grade I have seen posted on Corridor H is 5% or maybe 6%.  I assume this will not be any steeper.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 01:17:30 PM
are there any formal standards for which situations must have a runaway truck ramp installed?  or is it a seat-of-the-pants "would be a good idea if we put one here" sort of thing?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 06:54:40 AM
Could be a runaway ramp, or the EB ramp for the Rt. 93 exit?? From the pics, looks like a steep enough drop from the top of the mt. to warrant one. I have not been up there since last fall, need to take a ride up there in the old ragtop soon. From the end of 48, how far is it up to Rt. 50 via Rt. 93?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 04, 2013, 09:19:11 AM
No, there is no eastbound ramp planned to WV 93.  The existing (and now open) access road on the east side of WV 93 comprises the access between the two routes.  Most likely, it's a runaway truck ramp.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 10:29:01 AM
Where does this access road go to?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 04, 2013, 10:39:21 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 10:29:01 AM
Where does this access road go to?

a beautiful house.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: J N Winkler on September 04, 2013, 10:59:17 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 01:17:30 PMare there any formal standards for which situations must have a runaway truck ramp installed?  or is it a seat-of-the-pants "would be a good idea if we put one here" sort of thing?

There are research reports on the economics of runaway truck ramp provision.  The latest edition of the AASHTO Green Book might also have warrants for runaway truck ramps along the lines of "When grade is steeper than X% or curves are involved, consider providing escape ramps."  Costs can be attributed both to runaway truck events and to construction and maintenance of ramps, so it is a conceptually simple cost-benefit comparison.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 04, 2013, 09:19:11 AM
No, there is no eastbound ramp planned to WV 93.  The existing (and now open) access road on the east side of WV 93 comprises the access between the two routes.  Most likely, it's a runaway truck ramp.

I agree with Adam's comment above.  The connector between U.S. 48 and W.Va. 93 is obviously intended to be permanent.  I assume that 93 will be rerouted onto Corridor H once the  sections between Scherr and Bismarck (and ultimately Davis) open to traffic.

Speaking of steep, that connector road between the current terminus of U.S. 48 and W.Va. 93 is very steep, at about 10% (!).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 11:22:31 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 04, 2013, 10:59:17 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 01:17:30 PMare there any formal standards for which situations must have a runaway truck ramp installed?  or is it a seat-of-the-pants "would be a good idea if we put one here" sort of thing?

There are research reports on the economics of runaway truck ramp provision.  The latest edition of the AASHTO Green Book might also have warrants for runaway truck ramps along the lines of "When grade is steeper than X% or curves are involved, consider providing escape ramps."  Costs can be attributed both to runaway truck events and to construction and maintenance of ramps, so it is a conceptually simple cost-benefit comparison.

Traffic headed east ("down the mountain," in this case the Allegheny Front) will have a relatively straight stretch until the ramp, then the road will curve pretty sharply  to the right (south).  So it is a logical place for such a ramp.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 11:43:50 AM
I'm surprised that there are no "To US 48" signs at the intersection of WV 42 and WV 93. They sure went up in a hurry on WV 42 when Corridor H was opened as far west as Knobley Road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 11:43:50 AM
I'm surprised that there are no "To US 48" signs at the intersection of WV 42 and WV 93. They sure went up in a hurry on WV 42 when Corridor H was opened as far west as Knobley Road.

Great minds think alike.  I was asking myself that question.  Maybe WVDOT figured that the section between W.Va. 93 and Bismarck will be open so soon that they did not want to bother - though on the other hand, such signage would be useful even after U.S. 48 is open to Bismarck and then to Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 12:10:28 PM
Based on what I saw when I drove through there (8/16), they are at least a full calendar year away from opening anything to the west of WV 93. There's a bridge that will take US 48 across WV 42/WV 93 up near the top of the mountain. They'll have to route 42/93 traffic under it so they can blast through where the current road now passes. I couldn't tell if there is going to be an interchange there or not, but there is going to be one where 48 crosses 93 between 42 and Mt. Storm Lake. That would be the next logical section of independent use that could be opened.

Once the four-lane is finished all the way to Davis, I think US 48 could be signed along existing US 219 to Elkins and then on US 33 west to Weston.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 01:02:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 12:10:28 PM
Based on what I saw when I drove through there (8/16), they are at least a full calendar year away from opening anything to the west of WV 93. There's a bridge that will take US 48 across WV 42/WV 93 up near the top of the mountain. They'll have to route 42/93 traffic under it so they can blast through where the current road now passes. I couldn't tell if there is going to be an interchange there or not, but there is going to be one where 48 crosses 93 between 42 and Mt. Storm Lake. That would be the next logical section of independent use that could be opened.

A lot  of that work appears to have been completed, and it looks like they were ready to start pavement work west of the mountain crest in the direction of Mount Storm Lake and the DVP electric generating station.  The bridge that will carry Corridor H over the railroad spur that serves the power plant appeared to be ready to have stringers hung and the deck paved. A short section of the westbound lanes between the power plant and the Grant Count/Tucker County line has actually been paved.

But - the elevation there is high (by east-of-the-Mississippi standards).  According to Google, the elevation at the crest of the mountain, where U.S. 48 will cross W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93, is between 2800 and 3000 feet above sea level, and then the alignment rises to between 3200 and  3400 feet near the lake. 

That means that the construction season is shorter than it is at lower elevations.  How much shorter, I don't know.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 12:10:28 PM
Once the four-lane is finished all the way to Davis, I think US 48 could be signed along existing US 219 to Elkins and then on US 33 west to Weston.

I think that's a great idea.  I hope WVDOT is planning that.

I do wonder if the published plans for final engineering and design, and construction start between Parsons and Davis are really as far in the future as WVDOT says on its Web page for the  section (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map3.html) - 2025 and 2031 respectively.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.
As far as climate for construction goes... according to a friend who was running heavy equipment during the construction of the first section going west from Wardensville, they worked during any good weather, regardless of temperature, biggest limiting factors were fog/heavy snow, or saturated soil. And, maybe an early completion bonus for the G.C.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 04, 2013, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.

Agreed on both points.  I get the impression (from those persons and groups in favor of Corridor H) that they would love to move those dates closer to now - by  a lot.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
As far as climate for construction goes... according to a friend who was running heavy equipment during the construction of the first section going west from Wardensville, they worked during any good weather, regardless of temperature, biggest limiting factors were fog/heavy snow, or saturated soil.

But it gets to be more of a challenge to pour (and cure) concrete when it is cold.  It can be done, but a lot of "extra" heating is needed when it is cold (I've seen large construction projects built out of concrete under way in Finland and Sweden during the long Nordic winters - the contractors put up massive amounts of scaffolding and tarps around the project, and keep the air inside the tarps warmed while the concrete cures).

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
And, maybe an early completion bonus for the G.C.

Had not thought about that.  If there is a bonus to be paid for getting done ahead of schedule, that will motivate the contractor(s).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on September 04, 2013, 11:29:50 PM
Check this web page:
http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/
Several of the maps have been updated recently. Check maps 33 and 34 - that does look like a runaway truck ramp off the eastbound lanes in the location discussed upthread.
Other parts of that Corridor H site have not been updated in at least a year.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on September 05, 2013, 10:56:40 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.

According to this article (http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201307140047), work on the Davis to Scherr section should be wrapped up late this year or early next. That seems like a rather ambitious goal to me.

This story (http://www.wboy.com/story/20567690/corridor-h-progress-seen-during-helicopter-tour) claims that it will reach Davis sometime this year.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2013, 03:15:18 PM
Quote from: machpost on September 05, 2013, 10:56:40 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.

According to this article (http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201307140047), work on the Davis to Scherr section should be wrapped up late this year or early next. That seems like a rather ambitious goal to me.

The contractor has made a lot of progress on the segment between Bismarck and Scherr, and I suppose that could be done - but the bridges that will carry Corridor H  over W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93 - and over the railroad at the generating station - have not had their stringers hung yet (though the bridge piers appear to be complete and ready for the stringers).

Quote from: machpost on September 05, 2013, 10:56:40 AM
This story (http://www.wboy.com/story/20567690/corridor-h-progress-seen-during-helicopter-tour) claims that it will reach Davis sometime this year.

That seems optimistic, since the grading of the roadbed is not yet complete from Davis to the Grant County/Tucker County border.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on September 17, 2013, 11:16:16 AM
I passed through the present construction area last weekend, and they're working seven days a week. It looked like paving was complete at Bismarck, near the 93-42 split. Westward, along 93 toward Davis, a lot of work remains to be done. Depending on the amount of paving that still needs to be completed between Bismarck and Scherr, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that section open to traffic within a few months.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 17, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
Even if paving was done, it may still take them a couple months to finish things up and open the road.  I've seen that with previous segments (most notably Moorefield to Knobley Rd).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 07:02:11 AM
Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
Even if paving was done, it may still take them a couple months to finish things up and open the road.  I've seen that with previous segments (most notably Moorefield to Knobley Rd).

Yes, and the difference in elevation (which may matter to some extent) is impressive.  Bismarck is probably the highest point along the entire Corridor H, at over 3,000 feet above sea level.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 19, 2013, 10:40:44 AM
Being that the some of the leaves are starting to turn out my way, they should be in full color up on Corridor H in a couple of weeks or so...early this year for some reason.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 09:57:47 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 19, 2013, 10:40:44 AM
Being that the some of the leaves are starting to turn out my way, they should be in full color up on Corridor H in a couple of weeks or so...early this year for some reason.

Corridor H could attract a lot of tourists during leaf season - lots less congested than Skyline Drive, and no toll whoops, entrance fee.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 23, 2013, 07:14:40 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 09:57:47 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 19, 2013, 10:40:44 AM
Being that the some of the leaves are starting to turn out my way, they should be in full color up on Corridor H in a couple of weeks or so...early this year for some reason.

Corridor H could attract a lot of tourists during leaf season - lots less congested than Skyline Drive, and no toll whoops, entrance fee.

I've told a lot of folks here at work in The Big City to do just that, plus many, many other roads less traveled.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on September 23, 2013, 07:25:50 AM
OT fall color rant:

This:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wvforestry.com%2Fimages%2FFallColorMap06Final.JPG&hash=9ca07e385fbfd662c9afa07c3455e0ca649e0d79)

is WV's fall color map.  Been that way for as long as I can remember.

By county lines   :confused: 

Leaf colors change at the county lines? 

How hard would it be to do a map which takes into account the actual situation on the ground, which is to say takes into account elevation?

Rant over.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on September 23, 2013, 08:04:43 AM
Shouldn't the market fill that gap? Why do you want the government to give you the map?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on September 23, 2013, 10:12:18 AM
From my experience, that map is wrong, at least the northern part. There will still be color in eastern Hardy, Grant, Pendleton, and Frederick/Shenandoah on our side of the border, and the leaves will be gone on the Front/western slope.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 23, 2013, 09:55:35 PM
West Virginia's not the only state that produced a fall foliage map. Kentucky has a whole "ColorFall Kentucky" campaign that ramps up every year. The state tourism agency puts out maps (and I don't remember if they follow county lines or not) and spits out press releases like crazy.

Speaking of fall foliage, our peak is usually the third week of October. Which means the scenery for the US 460 meet should be great, especially up around Elkhorn City and Breaks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on September 23, 2013, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2013, 08:04:43 AM
Shouldn't the market fill that gap? Why do you want the government to give you the map?
Politics aside, I would think leaf enthusiasts would create maps themselves.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 01, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 19, 2013, 09:57:47 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 19, 2013, 10:40:44 AM
Being that the some of the leaves are starting to turn out my way, they should be in full color up on Corridor H in a couple of weeks or so...early this year for some reason.

Corridor H could attract a lot of tourists during leaf season - lots less congested than Skyline Drive, and no toll whoops, entrance fee.

Heh....the comment above seems more prescient than ever because Skyline Drive is now CLOSED due to the government shutdown.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
Quote from: Steve on September 23, 2013, 10:38:37 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 23, 2013, 08:04:43 AM
Shouldn't the market fill that gap? Why do you want the government to give you the map?
Politics aside, I would think leaf enthusiasts would create maps themselves.

With West Virginia, it is very much region dependent. The map is just a general guide. Here is how specific it is:

Dolly Sods usually peaks in late September and early October based on my last four years up there. It's one of the wettest areas in the state, one of the windiest and along the Allegheny Front. It's really awesome to watch from Bear Rocks the weather systems as they end and begin overhead.

At the bottom of the Sods, to the west, is Canaan Valley, which usually peaks a week after Dolly Sods.

To the east of the Sods is North Fork Mountain, one of the driest mountain ranges in the eastern United States. It's precipitation is minuscule compared to the rest of the state, and especially Dolly Sods. It's also much warmer and the colors won't start changing until mid October. I did a hike up to Dolly Sods in the winter with a friend a few years back and we were going through 2+ feet of snow at the Sods, and when we climbed up to North Fork Mountain the next day, we had less than one inch.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 01, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
With West Virginia, it is very much region dependent. The map is just a general guide. Here is how specific it is:

Dolly Sods usually peaks in late September and early October based on my last four years up there. It's one of the wettest areas in the state, one of the windiest and along the Allegheny Front. It's really awesome to watch from Bear Rocks the weather systems as they end and begin overhead.

There is massive elevation change there, especially headed to or from the Allegheny Front.  Even in the middle of summer, it's nearly always cooler at the top of the Front than it is to the east.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
At the bottom of the Sods, to the west, is Canaan Valley, which usually peaks a week after Dolly Sods.

Canaan Valley is still pretty high, but not as high as the Eastern  Continental Divide.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
To the east of the Sods is North Fork Mountain, one of the driest mountain ranges in the eastern United States. It's precipitation is minuscule compared to the rest of the state, and especially Dolly Sods. It's also much warmer and the colors won't start changing until mid October. I did a hike up to Dolly Sods in the winter with a friend a few years back and we were going through 2+ feet of snow at the Sods, and when we climbed up to North Fork Mountain the next day, we had less than one inch.

And even further east is Shenandoah County, Virginia (just east of Great North Mountain) - I recently learned that Shenandoah County is in a "mini" rain shadow, with mountain ranges to the east and west, and is one of the driest places in Virginia.  Hence a fair number of vineyards and wineries there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Takumi on October 01, 2013, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 01, 2013, 02:27:49 PM
Heh....the comment above seems more prescient than ever because Skyline Drive is now CLOSED due to the government shutdown.
Yes, I have plans to attend a car meet that involved driving on Skyline Drive this weekend. The VA 230 Prelude Meet doesn't have the same ring to it as The Skyline Drive Prelude meet, but hey, curvy mountain road hoonage is curvy mountain road hoonage, and given the leaves are just starting to change here, there should be some decent color up there Saturday. Plus that's $15 I can put elsewhere on the trip.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 02, 2013, 01:57:33 AM
I'd think the climb on US 211 would be better for "curvey mountain road hoonage" than VA 230.  Or is it because of too much traffic on 211?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 01, 2013, 04:45:08 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
With West Virginia, it is very much region dependent. The map is just a general guide. Here is how specific it is:

Dolly Sods usually peaks in late September and early October based on my last four years up there. It's one of the wettest areas in the state, one of the windiest and along the Allegheny Front. It's really awesome to watch from Bear Rocks the weather systems as they end and begin overhead.

There is massive elevation change there, especially headed to or from the Allegheny Front.  Even in the middle of summer, it's nearly always cooler at the top of the Front than it is to the east.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
At the bottom of the Sods, to the west, is Canaan Valley, which usually peaks a week after Dolly Sods.

Canaan Valley is still pretty high, but not as high as the Eastern  Continental Divide.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 01, 2013, 04:24:06 PM
To the east of the Sods is North Fork Mountain, one of the driest mountain ranges in the eastern United States. It's precipitation is minuscule compared to the rest of the state, and especially Dolly Sods. It's also much warmer and the colors won't start changing until mid October. I did a hike up to Dolly Sods in the winter with a friend a few years back and we were going through 2+ feet of snow at the Sods, and when we climbed up to North Fork Mountain the next day, we had less than one inch.

And even further east is Shenandoah County, Virginia (just east of Great North Mountain) - I recently learned that Shenandoah County is in a "mini" rain shadow, with mountain ranges to the east and west, and is one of the driest places in Virginia.  Hence a fair number of vineyards and wineries there.

Not sure if that applies this year or not. Shenandoah Co. has had more rain than in Frederick Co. You can tell the difference in the overall color of the trees, and fields. The farmers up there got 2 really good cuttings of hay this summer. I noticed the same effect on Sunday when I went to Capon Bridge for the Founder's Day Festival. I went over north Mt. on 55/48, then took 259 N. to Yellow Springs, then River Rd. to C. Bridge, everything's a lot greener there. (BTW, theat is a real nice little scenic drive for you City Folk). The Valley was once the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy", due to the clay soil which is rich in minerals. That's why the Union burned it at the end of the war.

BTW, the Fall Festival in Wardensville is next weekend (Oct. 11-13).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Takumi on October 02, 2013, 11:06:30 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 02, 2013, 01:57:33 AM
I'd think the climb on US 211 would be better for "curvey mountain road hoonage" than VA 230.  Or is it because of too much traffic on 211?

The meet's main site is Heavenly Acres Campground off VA 230 near Stanardsville. The meeting place is in Warrenton. The initial route between them was indeed US 211 to Skyline to US 33 to 230, but the organizer changed the route to US 29 to 230. I offered the compromise route of 211 to Sperryville, then US 522/VA 231 to rejoin US 29 at Madison, but he wasn't comfortable with the idea since he'd never driven it. SR 810 is right there, as well, even though it doesn't look like it has a whole lot of elevation changes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2013, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
Not sure if that applies this year or not.

I don't claim to know - and  I believe your local knowledge is a whole lot  better than mine.

I was educated to the microclimate of Shenandoah  County by the owner of a vineyard and winery just west of I-81 at Tom's Brook.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
Shenandoah Co. has had more rain than in Frederick Co. You can tell the difference in the overall color of the trees, and fields. The farmers up there got 2 really good cuttings of hay this summer. I noticed the same effect on Sunday when I went to Capon Bridge for the Founder's Day Festival. I went over north Mt. on 55/48, then took 259 N. to Yellow Springs, then River Rd. to C. Bridge, everything's a lot greener there. (BTW, theat is a real nice little scenic drive for you City Folk). The Valley was once the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy", due to the clay soil which is rich in minerals. That's why the Union burned it at the end of the war.

I have driven 259 from U.S. 50 south across a chunk of West Virginia (Baker and Lost River) and back to I-81/U.S. 11.  But not River Road.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
BTW, the Fall Festival in Wardensville is next weekend (Oct. 11-13).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 01:41:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2013, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
Not sure if that applies this year or not.

I don't claim to know - and  I believe your local knowledge is a whole lot  better than mine.



I was educated to the microclimate of Shenandoah  County by the owner of a vineyard and winery just west of I-81 at Tom's Brook.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
Shenandoah Co. has had more rain than in Frederick Co. You can tell the difference in the overall color of the trees, and fields. The farmers up there got 2 really good cuttings of hay this summer. I noticed the same effect on Sunday when I went to Capon Bridge for the Founder's Day Festival. I went over north Mt. on 55/48, then took 259 N. to Yellow Springs, then River Rd. to C. Bridge, everything's a lot greener there. (BTW, theat is a real nice little scenic drive for you City Folk). The Valley was once the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy", due to the clay soil which is rich in minerals. That's why the Union burned it at the end of the war.

I have driven 259 from U.S. 50 south across a chunk of West Virginia (Baker and Lost River) and back to I-81/U.S. 11.  But not River Road.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 02, 2013, 06:43:59 AM
BTW, the Fall Festival in Wardensville is next weekend (Oct. 11-13).

From Wardensville north to Rt. 50 @ Gore, a very scenic section, try it sometime. River Road leads WNW from 259 @ Yellow Springs to Capon Bridge.


Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 09, 2013, 10:06:32 AM
A lot of work is still ongoing west of Elkins on Corridor H that was completed IIRC 2003. It wasn't in that poor of condition, but it did have some minor joint separation (tar applied in the joints a few years back) and some patches that were done in asphalt. It's being extensively patched with concrete and diamond grinded.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 09, 2013, 10:06:32 AM
A lot of work is still ongoing west of Elkins on Corridor H that was completed IIRC 2003. It wasn't in that poor of condition, but it did have some minor joint separation (tar applied in the joints a few years back) and some patches that were done in asphalt. It's being extensively patched with concrete and diamond grinded.

I was on it back in early September and it seemed to be in very good condition.

Do you know if WVDOH is going to sign "western" Corridor H as U.S. 48 before the missing segment  between Kerens and Davis is built?

H.B. suggested it might be time to sign U.S. 219 as U.S. 48 through Parsons.  I think it's a good idea.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 09, 2013, 11:06:09 AM
WV had to do something once the road from US 220 to Knobley Road was completed. They opted to sign US 48 to that point and then go back and sign it along WV 55. They could have done what they did with the short segment of Coalfields Expressway near Beckley and sign it as WV 48, but they opted for the US route signage. So I think it's therefore logical to sign US 48 on the new route when it opens, then along existing US 219 and US 33.

I also think it's time for Virginia to remove the VA 55 signage west of I-81 and West Virginia to take down WV 55 signs on that long section of highway that is also co-signed with other routes. Right now the only section of WV 55 that is not signed with another route is at the highway's very southwestern end.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 09, 2013, 02:53:36 PM
It is quite confusing, with US 33, 219 and 250, WV 55, 92 and 259 all occupying it at some point. The old alignments should be reserved for those more minor routes, with the mainline being reserved for either US 33 or US 48.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
Slightly off-topic but somewhat related....connecting from the eastern portion of Corridor H to the eastern end of Corridor D at Clarksburg. Assuming clinches and seeing the western part of Corridor H are not an issue, what would you folks consider the best route? Follow "Future Corridor H" (for lack of a better term) through Thomas and Parsons to Elkins, or go up to Route 50 and take that west?

Last time, heading east, we took Corridor D to I-79, then Corridor H to Elkins before turning southeast to Seneca Rocks. I have not travelled the section between Elkins and Thomas, nor have I travelled US-50 between US-219 in Maryland and I-79. I'm sure in terms of travel time Corridor H is the faster route, but just how is that part of US-50? I assume it's a two-lane road. That doesn't bother me much unless it's super-twisty with minimal passing zones.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 09, 2013, 03:10:42 PM
In hindsight, building Corridor H along US 50 to Clarksburg might have been a better option. It would only add about 10 miles to Charleston-bound traffic, while saving 30-35 miles (over the I-79 jog) for Parkersburg-bound traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2013, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 03:03:52 PM
Last time, heading east, we took Corridor D to I-79, then Corridor H to Elkins before turning southeast to Seneca Rocks. I have not travelled the section between Elkins and Thomas, nor have I travelled US-50 between US-219 in Maryland and I-79. I'm sure in terms of travel time Corridor H is the faster route, but just how is that part of US-50? I assume it's a two-lane road. That doesn't bother me much unless it's super-twisty with minimal passing zones.

If you are coming from the future west end of eastern Corridor H in Davis (where W.Va. 93 (Power Plant Highway) ends) make a right onto W.Va. 32  and follow that to U.S. 219.  W.Va. 32 ends at U.S. 219 - you can go straight ahead if you want to go north to Oakland, Md., or make a left across the large bridge over the North Fork of the Blackwater River to head south.  Aside from Oakland, you can also head north to Fairfax Stone State Park, the source of the Potomac River, which is a short distance east of U.S. 219 off of Kempton Road.

U.S. 219 between Thomas and Kerens (where western Corridor H picks-up) is nearly all two-lane arterial.

Going south on 219 from Thomas, you pass a windfarm on the west side of the  Allegheny range, and there is a scenic view on the right after that.  Then there is a long and decently steep grade downhill to Parsons, with sharp horseshoe-type curve about halfway down. 

Watch out for strict speed limit enforcement through the corporate part of Parsons by the Tucker County Sheriff's Office (I don't know if Parsons has a municipal police department).  Like  some other small West Virginia towns, there is a Sheetz in downtown Parsons.  From Parsons to Kerens, U.S. 219 is a reasonably straight 50 or 55 MPH road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. I know what the route is. I was asking which route you guys think is the better way west to Ohio from "eastern" Corridor H: "western" Corridor H (and the connecting roads required to get there) or north to US-50?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2013, 04:30:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. I know what the route is. I was asking which route you guys think is the better way west to Ohio from "eastern" Corridor H: "western" Corridor H (and the connecting roads required to get there) or north to US-50?

Sorry. 

I have not driven much of U.S. 50 west of Redhouse, Maryland toward I-79 (driven all of it between Redhouse and Ocean City, and all of its miles in California).  Looks like a lot of sharp curves between Redhouse and Bridgeport, W.Va. on Google.

West of Bridgeport, I believe it is a four-lane divided ARC Corridor D) highway to Parkersburg.

Corridor H (mostly U.S. 33) from Kerens to I-79 at Weston is a decent road, much like eastern Corridor H, but with a few signalized intersections.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on October 09, 2013, 08:02:29 PM
Going via Elkins is way less twisty than US 50...

US 219 can be driven at 45-55 nearly everywhere outside of towns while US 50 has switchbacks.

Even though it is 24 miles shorter via US 50, it is only 8 minutes faster.  And this assumes you don't get stuck behind a coal truck, which happens to me almost every time I go riding around WV...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 09, 2013, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 03:50:43 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. I know what the route is. I was asking which route you guys think is the better way west to Ohio from "eastern" Corridor H: "western" Corridor H (and the connecting roads required to get there) or north to US-50?

Corridor H to I-79 to Corridor D. The two-lane section of US 219 between Thomas and Montrose is not that long, really, and not too terribly bad of a road. I've driven US 50 from Clarksburg east to the Romney area once, and wouldn't recommend it.  My memory is that it's a slow route with few passing zones, more trucks than you might expect and some not-so-fun mountains. I think the longer mileage involved in using H would be more than made up because the speed limit on H is 65 (drive 70-75) and the speed limit on I-79 is 70 (drive 75-80).

If I was going to take US 50, at this moment with the way the roads currently exist, I'd go north on WV 93 to hit it, instead of going all the way to US 219 (WV 24 makes a nice little cut-off that doesn't involve going into Maryland on 219, if you do choose that option). I've never driven WV 42 between Bismarck and US 50; it might be a decent option as well.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 09:49:47 PM
We took 42 south from 50 this past July on our way home from Fallingwater at the end of an anniversary weekend trip to Pennsylvania (from Fallingwater we went south to US-40, east to US-219, south to US-50, east to WV-42, south to WV-93, and back north to the access road for Corridor H). It was fine, moved right along, and it was a short distance. I was more concerned about Route 50 west of there and it sounds like it might be more hassle than it's worth. If it would allow me to clinch US-50 in Maryland that'd be one thing, but since I've never been out past Salisbury to Ocean City and I doubt I'll ever go there it's not really an issue.

Thanks for the feedback. I anticipate a trip to Dayton on fairly short notice sometime soon and I'd rather go via one of those routes than via Pennsylvania's Interstates.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 09, 2013, 11:38:46 PM
QuoteThanks for the feedback. I anticipate a trip to Dayton on fairly short notice sometime soon and I'd rather go via one of those routes than via Pennsylvania's Interstates.

Not related to Corridor H, but in light of this, have you considered a Cumberland-Uniontown-Washington PA routing (I-68 to US 40 to PA 43 to I-70 in our case)?  We did this about 5 years ago heading west from BWI and it wasn't too bad.  Much more direct than going through West Virginia, and avoids both Breezewood and the PA Turnpike proper.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 10, 2013, 07:56:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 09, 2013, 11:38:46 PM
QuoteThanks for the feedback. I anticipate a trip to Dayton on fairly short notice sometime soon and I'd rather go via one of those routes than via Pennsylvania's Interstates.

Not related to Corridor H, but in light of this, have you considered a Cumberland-Uniontown-Washington PA routing (I-68 to US 40 to PA 43 to I-70 in our case)?  We did this about 5 years ago heading west from BWI and it wasn't too bad.  Much more direct than going through West Virginia, and avoids both Breezewood and the PA Turnpike proper.

We did a route similar to that last time: I-68 to Exit 14 for US-219, then up US-40 (which is just north of I-68 when you exit at 219) to Uniontown and up the toll road to I-70. The toll road, in particular, was a nice drive (aside from crummy weather) because it was new and there was almost nobody else on the road. I think we saw two other cars in the entire stretch. But I think this time if we went I-68 we would continue to I-79 and then drop down to Corridor D. It's a much better road than I-70, has almost no traffic, and is way more scenic.

The other thing is, my wife has driven to Dayton many times, way more often than I have, and she was very happy to learn of an alternate to I-70. So that's a reason to go another way. Any time an alternate route has a high Wife Acceptance Factor it's a GOOD thing!

The interesting thing was that on our last trip, coming home via Corridor D and Corridor H (with that detour to Seneca Rocks) was a shorter distance than the I-70/I-68/Uniontown route we used on the way out, although I didn't make a note of exactly how much shorter (I could certainly work it out using Google Maps or something).

Edited to add: OK, it was only three miles shorter. But on the way out we also went around the east side of the Beltway and across the ICC (the HO/T lanes were not yet open), and we would no longer do that. So I'd guess about 10 miles difference in the end.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 10, 2013, 11:56:24 AM
There are a couple of cut-offs that could be used from US 33 to Clarksburg. First is US 250 to Grafton and then hit US 50, but the one time I drove that route, I don't remember it being particularly fast. (Although you would get to see the Phillipi covered bridge). Second is WV 20 from Buckhannon, but I've never driven it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 10, 2013, 12:28:46 PM
Speed isn't necessarily always the most important thing if there's something interesting on the way. Frankly, part of the reason I asked the question was due to boredom with the Interstate. I'm sure all of you have been in that position at some point.

Thanks for the tip on Philippi. I looked it up on Street View. Didn't know there was a covered bridge there until you mentioned it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on October 10, 2013, 01:35:59 PM
If Phillipi interests you, it would be better to use WV 72 and WV 38 leaving US 219 at Parsons.  WV 38 isn't bad at all.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 03, 2009, 08:04:55 PM
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO  take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.
There is absolutely no need to improve US 48 from 81 through WV into an interstate.  This area is sparesly populated and long distance traffic is already served by 70/68/64.  Let's not destroy nature here.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 10, 2013, 05:21:28 PM
Philippi probably has the last covered bridge on a mainline U.S. Route (bypassed 2001 by a truck route, but the mainline didn't move).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 10, 2013, 06:40:03 PM
Additionally, Corridor H is 65 MPH. Interstates are only 5 MPH higher in West Virginia, so there is marginal time difference considering the cost of having to remove all of those newly built intersections - as far and few between as they are. Interchanges already exist for every major cross road, which is something other states should do (ahem, Kentucky).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 11, 2013, 09:22:17 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 03, 2009, 08:04:55 PM
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO  take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.
There is absolutely no need to improve US 48 from 81 through WV into an interstate.  This area is sparesly populated and long distance traffic is already served by 70/68/64.  Let's not destroy nature here.

Thank you very much! I live in this area, enough has been changed by the mass immigration of City Folk and their ilk.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 11, 2013, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 03, 2009, 08:04:55 PM
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO  take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.

It makes sense to have one route number for the corridor since it's designed to be a through route between I-79 and I-81. Otherwise you have US 33 to US 219 to WV 32 to WV 93 to WV 55 to VA 55.

Although having the westernmost 30-something miles of US 48 co-signed with US 33 (and the last 15 miles also signed with US 119) and then having US 48 arbitrarily end at I-79 while US 33 and 119 continue on sticks in my craw a little. Not to mention that about 30 miles of US 48 will also be signed with US 219 when the construction is finally finished.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on October 11, 2013, 12:01:41 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 11, 2013, 09:22:17 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: leifvanderwall on October 03, 2009, 08:04:55 PM
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO  take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.
There is absolutely no need to improve US 48 from 81 through WV into an interstate.  This area is sparesly populated and long distance traffic is already served by 70/68/64.  Let's not destroy nature here.

Thank you very much! I live in this area, enough has been changed by the mass immigration of City Folk and their ilk.
I visit that area, it is absolutely beautiful and pure without chain restaurants.
We have enough east-week routes through the mountains and do not need to waste limited resources on new roads to induce sprawl in lightly traveled areas.
Instead use those funds to fix current gridlocked roads and corridors.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 11, 2013, 12:40:00 PM
Only "chain" restaurant is Four Corners at Star Tannery, just before you go up North Mt. They have a chain to block off the back of the restaurant... badabing.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 11, 2013, 01:56:02 PM
http://www.arc.gov/adhs
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 11, 2013, 02:08:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 09, 2013, 03:10:42 PM
In hindsight, building Corridor H along US 50 to Clarksburg might have been a better option. It would only add about 10 miles to Charleston-bound traffic, while saving 30-35 miles (over the I-79 jog) for Parkersburg-bound traffic.

No, it would not have been.  Corridor H is far more useful in providing connectivity to the surrounding area and south on its current alignment through Elkins and Buckhannon than if it had been an extension of Corridor D.  Grafton is small and the rest of the area is lightly populated.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 13, 2013, 02:17:33 PM
I don't think anyone's arguing that a 4-lane US 33 from Weston to Elkins is unjustified.  I think the point being made is that it would have made more sense to tie Corridor H more directly into Corridor D.  From a systems perspective, extending Corridor D east along US 50 to Winchester makes more sense than the Corridor H routing east of Elkins.  Heck, you could even tie it into Corridor H (and I-66) by using WV 42 between Mt. Storm and Bismark....would've avoided some of the environmental sensitivity/issues between Parsons and Thomas.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 06:52:45 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 13, 2013, 02:17:33 PM
I don't think anyone's arguing that a 4-lane US 33 from Weston to Elkins is unjustified.  I think the point being made is that it would have made more sense to tie Corridor H more directly into Corridor D.  From a systems perspective, extending Corridor D east along US 50 to Winchester makes more sense than the Corridor H routing east of Elkins.  Heck, you could even tie it into Corridor H (and I-66) by using WV 42 between Mt. Storm and Bismark....would've avoided some of the environmental sensitivity/issues between Parsons and Thomas.

Of course, the original Corridor H routing was supposed to tie into I-81 at Harrisonburg, hence that isolated four-lane portion east of Elkins that was among the first segments of the route built before the corridor was rerouted.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 08:00:12 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 06:52:45 PM
Of course, the original Corridor H routing was supposed to tie into I-81 at Harrisonburg, hence that isolated four-lane portion east of Elkins that was among the first segments of the route built before the corridor was rerouted.
Nope:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcartweb.geography.ua.edu%2Flizardtech%2Fiserv%2Fgetimage%3Fcat%3DNorth%2520America%2520and%2520United%2520States%26amp%3Bitem%3DUS1965a.sid%26amp%3Bpage%3D%26amp%3Bcp%3D0.65%2C0.34%26amp%3Blev%3D2%26amp%3Bwid%3D600%26amp%3Bhei%3D400%26amp%3Bprops%3Dimg%2528Name%2CDescription%2529%26amp%3Bbg%3Dffffff%26amp%3B&hash=956bbb039dbf38f54c9739ba3e76b977f82c8563)

from http://cartweb.geography.ua.edu/lizardtech/iserv/calcrgn?cat=North%20America%20and%20United%20States&item=/US1965a.sid&wid=500&hei=400&props=item%28Name,Description%29,cat%28Name,Description%29&style=simple/view-dhtml.xsl
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 08:27:58 PM
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 08:27:58 PM
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.
You're not talking about the second map on this page, are you? http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 14, 2013, 02:03:48 AM
The Gribblenation page SPUI linked to has it documented.  Corridor H was never intended to go to Harrisonburg.  The initial plan was to continue it east of Elkins along US 33 (hence "The Racetrack", the isolated 4-lane on 33 east of Elkins) to near Seneca Rocks, where the two options were to either head northeast towards Petersburg and Moorefield and east to Strasburg, or continue east to meet I-81 at New Market (and US 211).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 08:27:58 PM
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.
You're not talking about the second map on this page, are you? http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/

No, the map I remember had a proposed route marked as US 33. That map doesn't have a route number. My old maps are packed away in three or four different places and I don't have handy access to them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on October 14, 2013, 03:35:03 PM
Um, the second map on that page does have it marked as US 33...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 14, 2013, 10:29:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 14, 2013, 10:13:01 AM
Quote from: NE2 on October 13, 2013, 08:35:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2013, 08:27:58 PM
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.
You're not talking about the second map on this page, are you? http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/

No, the map I remember had a proposed route marked as US 33. That map doesn't have a route number. My old maps are packed away in three or four different places and I don't have handy access to them.

Go back to that page and search for "1995 WVDOT Map showing the new northern route of Corridor H.".  The map shows that route as US-33.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on October 15, 2013, 09:28:11 PM
   I drove through the construction area last Friday. I was hoping the weather would improve the further east I went, but it got worse. In Tucker County, there are a couple sections where it looks like they're ready to pave the eastbound lanes; I'm guessing they'll move both lanes of traffic onto the new pavement while they build the westbound ones.
   The fog got much thicker as I crossed into Grant County. The railroad overpass looked about complete. It looked like they had actually paved at least one of the big bridges below the dam breast. I turned onto Grassy Ridge Road and looked out off the overpass - the eastbound lanes were paved in both directions as far as the eye could see, and the paving was coming up to near the overpass on the westbound lanes. (Shoulders were not paved yet.)
   On Route 42 south of the gas station, traffic was redirected onto the new right of way. The ends weren't complete and flaggers were there. The US 48 overpass was done, and construction workers had their cars parked on it. It's only been two or three months since I was last up that way, probably closer to three, and I was surprised how much work has been done since then.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 16, 2013, 07:24:06 AM
April 29, 2012

Along WV 93:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxHUKJPS.jpg&hash=bb144082e0ac23344de5d4a50b125259622825c4)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpqu1aqt.jpg&hash=e1972393d57b99fbaa3611a77b5e9f0e47e786f1)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNFHxAFi.jpg&hash=5409128efcfa77b1066df8162d3ab7db28b3e01d)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fp1Pkbfn.jpg&hash=999f10e7c28e53a4376562ae2694beeeec95bec2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FD3kUQRX.jpg&hash=94cb6284dc0110881f93b115884b69f03cdc7e8a)

East of WV 93, this segment has since opened to an access road to WV 93:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1lcLOff.jpg&hash=043ac4f5c26630c160bfd28227827a78134461e0)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0Lky8Cj.jpg&hash=8961bb963c2b6ee2f0615b04d94ed3a02e08a4ec)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSGTqWWl.jpg&hash=cb3135d56442fce92d6c96bb5d9f277ef1199420)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGLrjnv2.jpg&hash=a429454722cf4b24715e3734e084bcd6af265e0e)

Feel free to use this on your web-sites with attribution.

--

A bit later:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6pKfR5F.jpg&hash=4d590db4cbb0538b4c6c5c13c414b8181deb24a6)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAQaO186.jpg&hash=fb4126dc7de7be1f3e1d9dbc4cd23b99c140261d)

Since opened:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJdfCwaH.jpg&hash=e72c7202d0da5f2dce8f529996bcdb744d36d48a)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKsmbqsk.jpg&hash=6c4f1b497a07fc4284eff23ff7bd31fda0cd12a0)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F15Axtju.jpg&hash=90faa2779403dff092ae4222c41c435800c101e8)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUe0sMHH.jpg&hash=cfffe69b049040781152c98ce56981313e224903)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmgWmudO.jpg&hash=83958f5afd239a880e28f095946c537302242aa9)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 16, 2013, 07:52:45 AM
Nice pics! Looks like not much in the way of foliage color up ther yet. Hope to ride up there myself sometime this weekend.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 16, 2013, 12:41:45 PM
Oh, these are older. Fall foliage is either peak or past peak up there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 17, 2013, 12:10:09 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on October 16, 2013, 12:41:45 PM
Oh, these are older. Fall foliage is either peak or past peak up there.

Still very nice pictures.  Thanks for sharing. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 22, 2013, 06:16:01 AM
Who has one of these except me?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDBFuhd6.jpg&hash=06eda05eadb398a55e6105f1041b3dd36028b733) (http://imgur.com/DBFuhd6)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 22, 2013, 06:16:01 AM
Who has one of these except me?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDBFuhd6.jpg&hash=06eda05eadb398a55e6105f1041b3dd36028b733) (http://imgur.com/DBFuhd6)

Not me. 

Looks interesting, of course, and presumably not available online (I looked some time back).

Revealing that the cover of this document by WVDOT reads Elkins to I-81

Wonder if VDOT or the county elected officials in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties were even given a chance to comment on its contents?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 22, 2013, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 22, 2013, 06:16:01 AM
Who has one of these except me?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDBFuhd6.jpg&hash=06eda05eadb398a55e6105f1041b3dd36028b733) (http://imgur.com/DBFuhd6)

Not me. 

Looks interesting, of course, and presumably not available online (I looked some time back).

Revealing that the cover of this document by WVDOT reads Elkins to I-81

Wonder if VDOT or the county elected officials in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties were even given a chance to comment on its contents?


I got that at the first Corridor H meeting I went to in Wardensville. Got another one at another meeting in Strasburg. Nowhere in this study was a route from Harrisonburg to Elkins mentioned. The preferred early path was thru Moorefield/Petersburg/Seneca rocks, but was poo-poohed, glad they didn't spoil that scenery.. That truly is God's country down there. Reps. from Shenandoah Co. were present at the Strasburg meeting as I recall.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 22, 2013, 02:26:48 PM
WTRF-TV: Study: Speeding up Corridor H good for W.Va. (http://www.wtrf.com/story/23741412/corridor-h-economic-impact-study-to-be-released)

QuoteA new study says West Virginia would receive $1.25 billion in new revenue and an uninterrupted link to the Inland Port in Front Royal, Va., if Corridor H is completed ahead of schedule.

QuoteThe study conducted by RQA Group says the highway's construction would add another $800 million to the state's economy.

QuoteThe Corridor H Authority released the findings of the study on Monday.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on October 22, 2013, 11:45:52 PM
Related article, FWIW:
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201310210091
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 23, 2013, 06:29:18 AM
And another one from our side of the mountain:

http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2013/10/revival_sought_for_long_forgotten_highway_proposal-mobile.html
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
This Steve Foster is obviously clueless when it comes to what's happening on this side of the border.

"I'm sure there are people in Richmond aware of Corridor H"

Of course they're aware.  They're aware that the whole push for Corridor H completion is coming from West Virginia economic interests, but there's little benefit (study claims to the contrary) for Virginia directly.  I also got a laugh out of Foster's claim that it would "relieve traffic congestion on I-81".  That is complete bunk.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2013, 07:58:22 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
This Steve Foster is obviously clueless when it comes to what's happening on this side of the border.

"I'm sure there are people in Richmond aware of Corridor H"

Of course they're aware.  They're aware that the whole push for Corridor H completion is coming from West Virginia economic interests, but there's little benefit (study claims to the contrary) for Virginia directly.

Though someone in the Commonwealth of Virginia apparently expects at least some truck trips to come to the Inland Port in Front Royal from West Virginia, as indicated by the somewhat battered sign below which the nice people from VDOT installed on U.S. 50 eastbound in Frederick County just prior to Va. 37 (and the corporate limits of Winchester - it is visible on GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=39%C2%B0+11'+27.156%22+N+78%C2%B0+12'+16.32%22+W&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=39.18566,-78.163334&sspn=0.129595,0.253716&gl=us&t=m&z=16)):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2FDSC02246.jpg&hash=80ff711e1ea330e7899a394d0ddd34252d472c84)

Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
I also got a laugh out of Foster's claim that it would "relieve traffic congestion on I-81".  That is complete bunk.

To the extent that better highway access to the Inland Port will encourage West Virginia shippers in the Potomac Highlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potomac_Highlands_of_West_Virginia) counties of West Virginia and places to the west of the Eastern Continental Divide to take better advantage of it for overseas shipments, that would reduce truck vehicle miles travelled (VMT) on the Virginia highway network (compared to trucking it to seaports in Hampton Roads or (in some cases) Baltimore), but I believe you are correct - I do not see where it would provide much relief for I-81, which badly needs to be widened across most of Virginia.

As H.B. suggested elsewhere, a completed Corridor H also provides a viable network link for automobile and truck traffic from the I-79 corridor to I-81 and I-66, which may result in more truck traffic to the Inland Port from places significantly further away than Corridor H.  A rule of thumb says that most freight has to travel at least 400 miles before shipment by railroad becomes a viable alternative to transport by truck.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
"I'm sure there are people in Richmond aware of Corridor H"

Now in Foster's defense, I know that there are people on the VDOT staff in Richmond that have some familiarity with Corridor H. 

I know that because I have discussed Corridor H with a few of them (not recently).

I also know (because I just checked) that there is nothing in the VDOT Six Year Program for Va. 55 or U.S. 48, and implicitly, nothing for Corridor H. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 25, 2013, 06:07:52 AM
Operation of the Inland Port was at one time going to be turned over to the private sector, has been sort of a money loser, no rail service much west of Front Royal (or Front Roll, as we locals call it), or south in the western part of the Shenandoah Valley. Not a tremendous amount of industial activity in W.V. either, Moorefield has Pilgrim's Pride (KFC supplier), chicken farms, American Woodmark has closed, Grant Co. Mulch, near Petersburg, some nat. gas pipeline activity, logging, not much else. Tourism is becoming the big industry in W.V.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 25, 2013, 11:06:08 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 25, 2013, 06:07:52 AM
Operation of the Inland Port was at one time going to be turned over to the private sector, has been sort of a money loser, no rail service much west of Front Royal (or Front Roll, as we locals call it), or south in the western part of the Shenandoah Valley. Not a tremendous amount of industial activity in W.V. either, Moorefield has Pilgrim's Pride (KFC supplier), chicken farms, American Woodmark has closed, Grant Co. Mulch, near Petersburg, some nat. gas pipeline activity, logging, not much else. Tourism is becoming the big industry in W.V.

My understanding of the Virginia Inland Port was that it was, above all, intended to make Hampton Roads more competitive with Baltimore.  The Hampton Roads is obviously much closer to the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean, but Baltimore is significantly closer by highway or rail to the markets of the Midwestern states.  The Inland Port was supposed to be about attracting truck traffic (esepecially) that would otherwise head down I-70 to Baltimore, and it is about 50 miles less travel distance from (for example) Pittsburgh.

As for industrial activity in West Virginia, I agree there's not much in the Potomac Highlands.  Agriculture is pretty dominant.  But there is one major industry that would seem to benefit from better access to the Inland Port - wood and other forest products.  There are quite a few large sawmills and wood processing facilities in the area (including several that front onto the western part of Corridor H between Weston and Elkins).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 25, 2013, 12:03:36 PM
A lot of it goes to the (old Wesvaco) pulp mill in Luke Md.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Buck87 on October 26, 2013, 05:53:28 PM
A friend and I stumbled across this highway in September of 2011 while driving from Cincinnati to Northern VA. He was driving and going entirely by his GPS, which after a long stretch of US 50 to WV 42 started sending us down what, at the time, seemed like completely random back roads. We wondered WTF his GPS was doing, but followed the route it suggested. After several minutes of general confusion we happened across a very new looking interchange for something called US 48, which neither the GPS nor his outdated Rand McNally acknowledged. So we went ahead and jumped on it eastbound, finding it funny that his GPS screen was showing us in the middle of nowhere. This 4 lane road was a very welcome sight after what had been a very stressful and annoying stretch of 2 lane roads since reaching the end of corridor D.

What seems odd to me was that his GPS clearly was updated enough to know exactly where to send us (looking back at it, I'm pretty sure it was Scherr to Greenland Gap to Patterson Creek) but then didn't mention anything about getting on US 48 once we got to it or show it on the map at all.

I hadn't done much research on what that road was until now, so this thread was a very interesting and informative read for me (when it was on topic)
 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2013, 11:54:18 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 25, 2013, 12:03:36 PM
A lot of it goes to the (old Wesvaco) pulp mill in Luke Md.

Agreed.  Though there are a lot of trees (hardwoods?) in the High Allegheney Mountains of Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia that are felled for uses other than pulp.

Given how nearly all other industry in Western Maryland has gone out of business or otherwise moved away (except prisons), I am amazed and gratified (as a Maryland taxpayer) that the Luke plant survives.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2013, 12:09:28 AM
Quote from: Buck87 on October 26, 2013, 05:53:28 PM
A friend and I stumbled across this highway in September of 2011 while driving from Cincinnati to Northern VA. He was driving and going entirely by his GPS, which after a long stretch of US 50 to WV 42 started sending us down what, at the time, seemed like completely random back roads. We wondered WTF his GPS was doing, but followed the route it suggested. After several minutes of general confusion we happened across a very new looking interchange for something called US 48, which neither the GPS nor his outdated Rand McNally acknowledged. So we went ahead and jumped on it eastbound, finding it funny that his GPS screen was showing us in the middle of nowhere. This 4 lane road was a very welcome sight after what had been a very stressful and annoying stretch of 2 lane roads since reaching the end of corridor D.

What seems odd to me was that his GPS clearly was updated enough to know exactly where to send us (looking back at it, I'm pretty sure it was Scherr to Greenland Gap to Patterson Creek) but then didn't mention anything about getting on US 48 once we got to it or show it on the map at all.

I hadn't done much research on what that road was until now, so this thread was a very interesting and informative read for me (when it was on topic)

Good story. Thank you for sharing.

I always assume that many (most?) GPS units out there have not been updated to include the newest sections of U.S. 48.  Sounds very much like the network assignment algorithms in your GPS favor four lane divided highways over two laners like U.S. 50 between Gormania, W.Va. and Gore, Va. (plenty of steep grades (not all of which have climbing lanes, though many do) and twisting and turning along most of it). 

I have not driven much of U.S. 50 west of Redhouse, Maryland into Preston County, W.Va., but from the maps it looks like a pretty challenging road.  East of where you turned onto W.Va. 42, it is a tiring and (IMO) dangerous road at night or in the rain, though the scenery is nice and sometimes spectacular during hours of daylight on a clear day.

Note: network assignment is a phrase from travel demand forecasting models, I am not sure if it is correct to use it in the context of GPS routing software or not.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 28, 2013, 06:49:18 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2013, 11:54:18 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 25, 2013, 12:03:36 PM
A lot of it goes to the (old Wesvaco) pulp mill in Luke Md.

Agreed.  Though there are a lot of trees (hardwoods?) in the High Allegheney Mountains of Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia that are felled for uses other than pulp.

Given how nearly all other industry in Western Maryland has gone out of business or otherwise moved away (except prisons), I am amazed and gratified (as a Maryland taxpayer) that the Luke plant survives.

A lot of small/medium-sized logging/timber operations rely on that mill to take their products. The veneer/flooring/furniture markets are coming back slowly, prices and demand were way down for a long time. ...And, what ever happened to the old missle plant west of Cumberland?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on November 20, 2013, 10:20:07 PM
Some hope for completion of the Virginia end of Corridor H:

QuoteSupporters of Corridor H got an unexpected boost Nov. 20 with the release of a State of Virginia highway construction schedule that lists a 2026 completion date for Corridor H within the state.

The Appalachian Regional Commission, in its Appalachian Development Highway System 2013 Completion Plan Report, targets September 2026 as the finish time for the 14.4 miles of highway that will run from the West Virginia line to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va.

http://www.statejournal.com/story/24025767/corridor-h-supporters-encouraged-by-virginia-completion-date-projection
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2013, 10:44:48 PM
Quote from: machpost on November 20, 2013, 10:20:07 PM
Some hope for completion of the Virginia end of Corridor H:

QuoteSupporters of Corridor H got an unexpected boost Nov. 20 with the release of a State of Virginia highway construction schedule that lists a 2026 completion date for Corridor H within the state.

The Appalachian Regional Commission, in its Appalachian Development Highway System 2013 Completion Plan Report, targets September 2026 as the finish time for the 14.4 miles of highway that will run from the West Virginia line to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va.

http://www.statejournal.com/story/24025767/corridor-h-supporters-encouraged-by-virginia-completion-date-projection

I'll believe it when I see it in the VDOT Six Year Program.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 21, 2013, 05:40:48 AM
I'll believe it when spades and shovels are turning dirt in the ground.  Even the Six Year Program is no guarantee...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2013, 09:28:50 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 21, 2013, 05:40:48 AM
I'll believe it when spades and shovels are turning dirt in the ground.  Even the Six Year Program is no guarantee...

I am sure that there will be opposition, if not from Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, then opposition encouraged by an anti-highway group from elsewhere in the Commonwealth - or one or more front groups for same.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.

http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 21, 2013, 11:58:38 AM
Aw, crap. Time to scratch US 48 off my clinched list (again).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on November 21, 2013, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.

http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter

Bypassing the steep grade and switchbacks of Scherr Mountain is going to be a big deal. I would expect truck traffic on this route to increase right away. I will not miss getting stuck behind tractor-trailers going 10mph on that stretch!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 12:39:16 PM
Quote from: machpost on November 21, 2013, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.

http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter

Bypassing the steep grade and switchbacks of Scherr Mountain is going to be a big deal. I would expect truck traffic on this route to increase right away. I will not miss getting stuck behind tractor-trailers going 10mph on that stretch!

I hope WVDOH moves WV 42 and WV 93 onto the Corridor H alignment going up the mountain.  There's no good reason to keep it on the existing road.

When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 21, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 12:39:16 PM
When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).

What in the world would be the purpose of that? I'd think the opening of US 48 would take traffic out of that intersection, and I can't imagine that this intersection would need lights. Unless they are temporary signals for bridge repairs or something.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: BrianP on November 21, 2013, 01:56:47 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.

http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter
QuoteAs the 4.7 mile section opens, Walker said work is already well underway on another 16.2 mile section of Corridor H from Mt. Storm into Davis.  That stretch of roadway could open to traffic by early 2015.
I thought that stretch was expected to be done by summer 2014. :(
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 21, 2013, 02:25:47 PM
I suspect the harsh winter that's already been experienced up there so early has put a stop to all work.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on November 21, 2013, 02:59:00 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 12:39:16 PM
When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).

What in the world would be the purpose of that? I'd think the opening of US 48 would take traffic out of that intersection, and I can't imagine that this intersection would need lights. Unless they are temporary signals for bridge repairs or something.

I would imagine that once Corridor H reaches Davis, Route 93 will terminate at its junction with 42.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 21, 2013, 03:50:10 PM
Quote from: machpost on November 21, 2013, 12:07:05 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 10:58:03 AM
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.

http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter

Bypassing the steep grade and switchbacks of Scherr Mountain is going to be a big deal. I would expect truck traffic on this route to increase right away. I will not miss getting stuck behind tractor-trailers going 10mph on that stretch!

Agreed. 

Though in my opinion, almost worse going down the mountain (10% grade according to the signs).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 22, 2013, 06:50:47 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 20, 2013, 10:44:48 PM
Quote from: machpost on November 20, 2013, 10:20:07 PM
Some hope for completion of the Virginia end of Corridor H:

QuoteSupporters of Corridor H got an unexpected boost Nov. 20 with the release of a State of Virginia highway construction schedule that lists a 2026 completion date for Corridor H within the state.

The Appalachian Regional Commission, in its Appalachian Development Highway System 2013 Completion Plan Report, targets September 2026 as the finish time for the 14.4 miles of highway that will run from the West Virginia line to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va.

http://www.statejournal.com/story/24025767/corridor-h-supporters-encouraged-by-virginia-completion-date-projection

I'll believe it when I see it in the VDOT Six Year Program.


So, let's see the VDOT report.... Maybe the new governor will spend out our surplus on that... but I'm going to be a good boy and not get into politics again :}
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 22, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 21, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 21, 2013, 12:39:16 PM
When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).

What in the world would be the purpose of that? I'd think the opening of US 48 would take traffic out of that intersection, and I can't imagine that this intersection would need lights. Unless they are temporary signals for bridge repairs or something.

Not sure.  When I was through here, the signal heads weren't up but there were brand new steel poles installed in the WVDOH T-intersection 3 pole configuration.  They're definitely not temporary and given the configuration, I suspect they're not just flashers.  WVDOH normally just mounts flashers diagonally across an intersection.

While they've been in poor repair, WVDOH did have flashers on the Stop Ahead and Stop signs as you approached on WV 93 westbound previously.  My guess is people tended to drive through the intersection and they wanted to draw attention to it?

With Corridor H being built, it seems like it would make sense to just realign the intersection so WV 93 westbound to WV 42 southbound becomes the through movement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on November 22, 2013, 09:51:49 PM
http://www.wboy.com/story/24038326/update-ribbon-cutting-held-for-newest-section-of-corridor-h-highway
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 23, 2013, 06:32:51 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on November 22, 2013, 06:50:47 AM
So, let's see the VDOT report.... Maybe the new governor will spend out our surplus on that... but I'm going to be a good boy and not get into politics again :}

I believe construction cost of ADHS corridors is 100% federal funding, so while VDOT will have to manage the process of design, engineering and construction of the Commonwealth's part of Corridor H (just like it is doing with Corridor Q right now), I do not think it has to spend any state dollars doing so. 

As I understand it, states do have to maintain the ADHS corridors once built, and I do not think ADHS money is available for that, though there are some formula-driven funds for upkeep of infrastructure that would presumably include any ADHS corridor.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 23, 2013, 06:36:50 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 22, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
While they've been in poor repair, WVDOH did have flashers on the Stop Ahead and Stop signs as you approached on WV 93 westbound previously.  My guess is people tended to drive through the intersection and they wanted to draw attention to it?

When I was up that way this past summer, during one of my trips through there, all of the red flashers were dark for westbound (almost southbound there)  traffic on W.Va. 93. 

I sent an e-mail to the only WVDOT staff person I know (he is based in Charleston), and he knew that intersection and told me he would forward my message to the right persons at WVDOH.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 24, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
QuoteI believe construction cost of ADHS corridors is 100% federal funding, so while VDOT will have to manage the process of design, engineering and construction of the Commonwealth's part of Corridor H (just like it is doing with Corridor Q right now), I do not think it has to spend any state dollars doing so. 

States can utilize up to 100% Federal funding for the ADHS corridors.  Doesn't mean they have to.  Furthermore, it should be noted that there's no longer a dedicated ADHS funding stream.  MAP-21 changed ADHS funding to where it got rolled into the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding pot.  So while states can utilize 100% funding for ADHS projects, such funding takes away from their STP appropriation.

If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition.  And if they were smart, they'd be spending their STP allocation on the 2 lane roads that REALLY DO need widening, like VA 3 in Culpeper County, US 15 north of US 29 (from 29 to Haymarket seems to have less opposition than north of Leesburg), or VA 20 in Orange County.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2013, 03:46:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 24, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition.  And if they were smart, they'd be spending their STP allocation on the 2 lane roads that REALLY DO need widening, like VA 3 in Culpeper County, US 15 north of US 29 (from 29 to Haymarket seems to have less opposition than north of Leesburg), or VA 20 in Orange County.

Hmm, every project you mention above, with the exception of U.S. 15 between Buckland and Haymarket, is in the self-proclaimed "service area" of the anti-all-highways Piedmont Environmental Council. 

And even western Prince William County, while not included in the PEC "service area," is still an area that the PEC considers it has the right to comment on (and oppose) projects that displease it, like Disney's America, the proposed site (back in 1994 and 1995) became huge development of mostly single-family detached homes (probably not what the PEC had in mind for that land).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on November 25, 2013, 01:20:36 PM
I measured 5 miles and 8 minutes of total savings vs. the old 42/93 alignment and elimination of the double-back on 93. 

Seems that this new segment now slightly crests 3000' in elevation at the top.  Is this a first for Corridor H?  How far away does one have to go to find a segment of Interstate highway, or for that matter any segment of 4-lane divided highway, at this high of an elevation?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 08:26:55 PM
Quote from: CVski on November 25, 2013, 01:20:36 PM
I measured 5 miles and 8 minutes of total savings vs. the old 42/93 alignment and elimination of the double-back on 93. 

Seems that this new segment now slightly crests 3000' in elevation at the top.  Is this a first for Corridor H?  How far away does one have to go to find a segment of Interstate highway, or for that matter any segment of 4-lane divided highway, at this high of an elevation?

Yes, according to Google (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.215431,-79.209974&hl=en&num=1&t=p&z=15) it is currently at just over 3000' as it crests the Allegheny Front.  It will get even higher west of the generating station, at better than 3400' at the Eastern Continental Divide.

I-68 (Corridor E) never makes it to 3000' in Maryland or in West Virginia (the highest it gets is about 2800').

I-70, I-76 and I-80 in Pennsylvania never get that high.

I thought I-64 might get close cresting Afton Mountain in Virginia, but no - barely 2000' (seems that it should be higher).

Heading further south, I-77 does breach the 3000' barrier in Virginia north of its overlap with I-81 (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.024895,-81.106875&ll=37.021572,-81.103134&spn=0.016755,0.031714&num=1&t=p&gl=us&z=15)) before it reaches the Big Walker Mountain Tunnel.

Other ideas?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on November 25, 2013, 09:03:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 08:26:55 PM
I thought I-64 might get close cresting Afton Mountain in Virginia, but no - barely 2000' (seems that it should be higher).
If it weren't for Rockfish Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockfish_Gap), I-64 might have gone via Lynchburg and the James River.

Perhaps someone bored can grab basic elevation GIS data and map out the 3000' contour.

I-26 apparently reaches 3760 feet at Sams Gap (NC-TN line).

I-77 only reaches about 2700 feet based on where the fill ends and cut begins. The Goog's data is based on the 1968 USGS topo, which predates I-77's construction.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on November 25, 2013, 09:17:58 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 08:26:55 PM
Quote from: CVski on November 25, 2013, 01:20:36 PM
I measured 5 miles and 8 minutes of total savings vs. the old 42/93 alignment and elimination of the double-back on 93. 

Seems that this new segment now slightly crests 3000' in elevation at the top.  Is this a first for Corridor H?  How far away does one have to go to find a segment of Interstate highway, or for that matter any segment of 4-lane divided highway, at this high of an elevation?

Yes, according to Google (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.215431,-79.209974&hl=en&num=1&t=p&z=15) it is currently at just over 3000' as it crests the Allegheny Front.  It will get even higher west of the generating station, at better than 3400' at the Eastern Continental Divide.

I-68 (Corridor E) never makes it to 3000' in Maryland or in West Virginia (the highest it gets is about 2800').

I-70, I-76 and I-80 in Pennsylvania never get that high.

I thought I-64 might get close cresting Afton Mountain in Virginia, but no - barely 2000' (seems that it should be higher).

Heading further south, I-77 does breach the 3000' barrier in Virginia north of its overlap with I-81 (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.024895,-81.106875&ll=37.021572,-81.103134&spn=0.016755,0.031714&num=1&t=p&gl=us&z=15)) before it reaches the Big Walker Mountain Tunnel.

Other ideas?

Is it possible to determine elevation in Google Maps, or did you just match the coordinates to a topo map?

I'm impressed that Google Maps already has the new roadway showing up already.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2013, 09:24:30 PM
Quote from: machpost on November 25, 2013, 09:17:58 PM
Is it possible to determine elevation in Google Maps, or did you just match the coordinates to a topo map?

I'm impressed that Google Maps already has the new roadway showing up already.

(1) Go to Google Maps.

(2) Enter these coordinates:  39.215464,-79.209888

(3) On the right upper corner, you should see the box for Satellite. Under that is a pull-down box labelled Traffic. Click Traffic.

(4) The menu should expand.  Click Terrain and you will have the contours.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: dave19 on November 25, 2013, 11:35:44 PM
I drove on the newest section of the road today. I had hoped it would be open to the interchange between the lake and Bismarck, but the west end (for now) is at the intersection with a new access road a bit west of WV 42. It's at the left side of this map: http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/corh_sh_32.pdf
The access road has a sign goof - JCT WV 48! But the signs on US 48 itself are OK.
BTW: The scenic overlook is not complete yet.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on November 26, 2013, 06:34:02 AM
Virginia does not mave many primary routes that reach 3000 feet...

US 250 in Highland County
VA 16 north of Marion
VA 311 north of New Castle
VA 160 approaching Ky
US 33 at the WV line area
US 58 in the Grayson Highlands area

VA 362 is the highest road in Virginia as best I can tell.  The DeLorme has it reaching about 1425 m or around 4700 ft.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 24, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition.

Adam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 11:57:00 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 26, 2013, 06:34:02 AM
Virginia does not mave many primary routes that reach 3000 feet...

US 250 in Highland County
VA 16 north of Marion
VA 311 north of New Castle
VA 160 approaching Ky
US 33 at the WV line area
US 58 in the Grayson Highlands area

VA 362 is the highest road in Virginia as best I can tell.  The DeLorme has it reaching about 1425 m or around 4700 ft.

Maryland has very few that high, and I believe all of them are in Garrett County (I am not sure that there is any elevation over 3,000 feet in any of the other counties).  U.S. 50 over Backbone Mountain/Eastern Continental Divide is signed at 3095 feet (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.301428,-79.415274&spn=0.016239,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.301426,-79.415146&panoid=zsupZMH9HhdRNGb1rrp5jg&cbp=12,307.2,,1,-2.11), almost certainly the highest point on the state-maintained network.  Md. 135 appears to reach 3000', and Md. 38 might. Md. 135 has what is likely the nastiest descent in the state as well.  Check out the signs here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.491589,-79.119029&spn=0.016327,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.491562,-79.118906&panoid=DCUIq-91RqZ1ifVyvJdOZQ&cbp=12,124.85,,0,6.9), here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.48937,-79.113278&spn=0.016328,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.489331,-79.113173&panoid=-1_qnCvxJ-8D5kwjjjPVsg&cbp=12,129.03,,0,-0.79), the mandatory truck stop here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.487151,-79.10697&spn=0.016328,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.48721,-79.107125&panoid=B1hOfPHcRmmdnQPsQFurEw&cbp=12,136.82,,0,12.86), more signs here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.484998,-79.101906&spn=0.016329,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.485064,-79.102019&panoid=OFmFGcUds3tFO9X1hbdZHA&cbp=12,136.42,,0,12), a truck escape ramp here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.481918,-79.096413&spn=0.01633,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.481978,-79.09652&panoid=3Pq4I4q4OTYK3ZRbdFJovA&cbp=12,170.94,,0,16.07), a second mandatory truck stop here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.478804,-79.09152&spn=0.01633,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.478727,-79.091414&panoid=ty845eBHXUEiWrWhqF2P1g&cbp=12,154.89,,0,-3.28), another set of warning signs (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.475293,-79.083753&spn=0.016331,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.475243,-79.083634&panoid=B48FI9lB-WlYmc2p2mcqvg&cbp=12,132.55,,0,0.62), still more (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.475326,-79.075599&spn=0.016331,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.475448,-79.075247&panoid=DMABZk2CEpw4XIwhFJYZ-A&cbp=12,68.3,,0,13.7), and finally the sharp turn to the right (check out the apparent number of fatalities) here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:39.308333,-79.453333&hl=en&ll=39.48109,-79.067659&spn=0.01633,0.031714&t=p&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.48117,-79.067506&panoid=ubBXFNRcPv9q1Z-RSnmCLA&cbp=12,56.36,,0,5.41).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 26, 2013, 12:02:53 PM
QuoteAdam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?

Yes, there's some.  It wasn't just your archnemesis the PEC who pressured Congressman Wolf years ago.

I'd oppose it myself on the grounds that there are higher priorities elsewhere in the state, and even within Frederick/Shenandoah Counties...(I-81, anyone?)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on November 26, 2013, 12:03:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 11:21:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on November 24, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition.

Adam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?

There was at the time VDOT abandoned its interest...see the bottom of this article - http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2013/10/revival-sought-for-long-forgotten-highway-proposal.php

This topic sentence suggests the Winchester Star has changed its position of opposition to something more favorable (have to create an account to read the editorial)...

"Twenty years ago, there was not a more ardent opponent of Corridor H than this newspaper. We stood steadfast with folks on both sides of the state line in saying that the 120-mile highway linking..."

http://www.winchesterstar.com/article/our_view_corridor_h


Mapmikey



Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 12:48:20 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 12:02:53 PM
QuoteAdam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?

Yes, there's some.  It wasn't just your archnemesis the PEC who pressured Congressman Wolf years ago.

They are not my nemesis - arch or othwise.  I just think they are craven phonies, that's all.  If they were honest, they would demand that everyone living on big-acreage estates in their "service area" adopt an Amish lifestyle, and outlaw motorized traffic.  As it is, they say nothing about forcing their own membership to adopt such a lifestyle, but want to keep others and their motor vehicles (especially the grubby middle class) away from their horsefarms and manors, even though those roads are public assets, not PEC assets.

Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 12:02:53 PM
I'd oppose it myself on the grounds that there are higher priorities elsewhere in the state, and even within Frederick/Shenandoah Counties...(I-81, anyone?)

I-81 is not an ADHS corridor anywhere, is it?  Perhaps because it is already built and was on the maps when the ADHS system was laid-out in the 1960's?  The ADHS is about "inducing" demand in economically disadvantaged parts of Appalachia by building new highways.   The money that needs to be spent in Virginia improving I-81 is pretty substantial, and the Corridor H money would not go very far. I-81 needs to be widened so it is at least six (and in some sections preferably eight) lanes wide all the way from Bristol to Winchester - and actually all the way north to I-78 near Lebanon, Penna. 

Regarding I-81, VDOT was going in the right direction with the proposed truck tolling project of a few years ago that crashed and burned (I think it was during the Warner Administration).  In my fantasy world, the entire thing would be converted to an all-electronic toll road with all motor vehicle traffic (not just trucks) required to pay, with the tolls high enough to fund the needed widening and interchange reconstructions, and maybe strengthening the pavement and bridges to carry substantially higher gross combination loads (as you know, some turnpikes allow longer and heavier trucks than the Interstate system). 

As bad as the proposed tolling of I-80 in Pennsylvania was, they did have one good idea - they wanted to make short trips on I-80 free of toll (easy to do with all-electronic toll collection). If tolling of I-81 comes back (as I think it eventually will), then giving away short trips to cars and motorcycles should considered.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on November 26, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
So, us Va. residents, in addition to paying our taxes, should be forced to pay tolls on I-81? How do you segregate us locals out of the toll mix, if I'm using I-81 daily, to travel 2 mi., I should not have to pay a toll. That idea was shot down, but elimiating the gas tax was no answer either...
Mr. Foster, and others in the CHA are delusional to assume Va. will build our end of Corridor H, nor is it up to them to design it, that has already been done. They are the real phonies here. We simply do not have the money, and other projects await.... Unless the Feds cough it up, and they do not have the money either... unless they print more.  The opposition yrs. ago was more fierce in Shen. Co. than Frederick, and my personal opposition comes from having it pass close to my home, and destroying a beautiful area in the GWNF. I do not see how the Inland Port is going to benefit from the additional traffic coming from W.V., there is simply not that much industry there period. And what about the attempted groveling to procure funds from DHS to complete the road thru Va., for "Emergency evacuation from the D.C. Metro area"... sheesh 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 26, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
QuoteI-81 is not an ADHS corridor anywhere, is it?  Perhaps because it is already built and was on the maps when the ADHS system was laid-out in the 1960's?  The ADHS is about "inducing" demand in economically disadvantaged parts of Appalachia by building new highways.

(most relevant part)

First off, your argument about inducing demand has far more relevance to Corridor Q (US 460) than it does to VDOT finishing Corridor H...to which Virginia would receive little benefit (as has been discussed upthread).

Secondly, because funding ADHS projects now takes away from a given state's STP allotment, completing either corridor must now compete with "regular" VDOT projects statewide for funding.  This is where my argument that there are higher priorities elsewhere comes into play.  I cited I-81 as an example both because it's both local to Frederick and Shenandoah Counties but also because there are smaller projects here and there that could easily be done along I-81 (i.e. climbing lanes, interchange improvements, bridge shoulders, etc etc) to improve its operations, which would fit well within the cost envelope that completing Corridor H entails.


If West Virginia wants Corridor H so bad (since they receive virtually all of the benefit from it), *THEY* can pay for it.  And while a completed Corridor H would be a "nice-to-have" in Virginia, I cannot support funding it when there are numerous other and more pressing needs elsewhere in the state.  I can support funding spot improvements to existing VA 55, but not to Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on November 26, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
So, us Va. residents, in addition to paying our taxes, should be forced to pay tolls on I-81? How do you segregate us locals out of the toll mix, if I'm using I-81 daily, to travel 2 mi., I should not have to pay a toll. That idea was shot down, but elimiating the gas tax was no answer either...

Well, you probably have a choice - a substantially higher motor fuel tax rate (statewide), or tolls - if you want a reconstructed I-81.  Not likely with the current cast of characters in Washington, but there is also a substantial federal role (or there should be) for I-81, for it is a Interstate in the truest sense.  As for you paying to use I-81, what I suggest is that short trips in four-wheel vehicles and motorcycles (under a certain distance) on a tolled I-81 be "free" for anyone with a transponder (or whatever technology is in use at the time).

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on November 26, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
Mr. Foster, and others in the CHA are delusional to assume Va. will build our end of Corridor H, nor is it up to them to design it, that has already been done. They are the real phonies here. We simply do not have the money, and other projects await.... Unless the Feds cough it up, and they do not have the money either... unless they print more.  The opposition yrs. ago was more fierce in Shen. Co. than Frederick, and my personal opposition comes from having it pass close to my home, and destroying a beautiful area in the GWNF. I do not see how the Inland Port is going to benefit from the additional traffic coming from W.V., there is simply not that much industry there period. And what about the attempted groveling to procure funds from DHS to complete the road thru Va., for "Emergency evacuation from the D.C. Metro area"... sheesh 

The federal government can (and IMO should) "print" more money for transportation improvement projects. Were you there before the planning maps came out for Corridor H in the 1960's? 

As for the funding of Corridor H in Virginia, it actually makes some sense for West Virginia to step up and figure out how to fund it.  Remember, I have no economic stake in it either way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2013, 04:05:54 PM
Some improvements to existing US 48/VA 55 would help. I can see doing something to the hill climb/descent east of the state line, such as four-laning that section or at least adding a truck lane westbound, and then making some improvements to give the existing route more of a "Super 2" feel -- wider shoulders, turning lanes, maybe some spot relocations -- but a new terrain four-lane route is probably not needed. If West Virginia builds the route all the way to the state line, once you get to the base of the mountain you're only looking about a 15-mile or so drive over to I-81 that, even as it stands now, is not that bad of a road (despite what Randy Hersh always claimed).

I've driven all the major east-west state line crossings north of White Sulphur Springs except WV/VA 84, and I've been right up to the state line on the WV side of that one. With the exception of US 50 and (obviously) I-64, the US 48 crossing as it exists now is the easiest of all of them. Much easier than WV/VA 39, US 250 and US 33.

I've said before but now that the section bypassing the Fore Knobs is finished, I'll say it again. Even with the section between Kerens and Davis not yet build, the Corridor H route is to the point now where for me it's a viable alternative to I-68.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 04:23:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
QuoteI-81 is not an ADHS corridor anywhere, is it?  Perhaps because it is already built and was on the maps when the ADHS system was laid-out in the 1960's?  The ADHS is about "inducing" demand in economically disadvantaged parts of Appalachia by building new highways.

(most relevant part)

First off, your argument about inducing demand has far more relevance to Corridor Q (US 460) than it does to VDOT finishing Corridor H...to which Virginia would receive little benefit (as has been discussed upthread).

Corridor H was put on the map for a reason.  As was Corridor Q, and the rest of them. 

On what basis are you ranking the unbuilt (or uncompleted) ARC corridors? 

Are they a cure-all?  No.

Does it help?  I think they do.  And Corridor H, unlike Q, opens up a large swath of West Virginia to the Eastern megalopolis for tourism and other trade. 

Then there's the matter of geography.  What four-lane highway crosses West Virginia going east-west now?  One.  I-64. A long way from the Corridor H. 

Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
Secondly, because funding ADHS projects now takes away from a given state's STP allotment, completing either corridor must now compete with "regular" VDOT projects statewide for funding.  This is where my argument that there are higher priorities elsewhere comes into play.  I cited I-81 as an example both because it's both local to Frederick and Shenandoah Counties but also because there are smaller projects here and there that could easily be done along I-81 (i.e. climbing lanes, interchange improvements, bridge shoulders, etc etc) to improve its operations, which would fit well within the cost envelope that completing Corridor H entails.

Then there's this - I-81, like the rest of the Interstate system, is a federal system, not built for one state (no matter what local elected officials claim).  West Virginia, for reasons of terrain, got almost none of I-81 inside its border. But it runs close to the Mountaineer State for much of its long passage through Virginia, and West Virginia has as much right to use I-81 as residents of the Commonwealth do. 

Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
If West Virginia wants Corridor H so bad (since they receive virtually all of the benefit from it), *THEY* can pay for it.  And while a completed Corridor H would be a "nice-to-have" in Virginia, I cannot support funding it when there are numerous other and more pressing needs elsewhere in the state.  I can support funding spot improvements to existing VA 55, but not to Corridor H.

Having been stuck behind trucks on the existing road between I-81 and Wardensville, and been impressed by the long queues of traffic that quickly formed (and have been forming for many years, back to the 1980's when I first drove it, up and down the grades), and the crosses along the side of the road (presumably marking fatal wrecks) in West Virginia, have convinced me that the new road is needed. 

But I think that having West Virginia use at least some of its STP money to get it built is not entirely a bad thing.  Think of the precedent that could be cited to get the Western Bypass/Techway built across the Potomac River to Maryland!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 27, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2013, 04:23:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
If West Virginia wants Corridor H so bad (since they receive virtually all of the benefit from it), *THEY* can pay for it.  And while a completed Corridor H would be a "nice-to-have" in Virginia, I cannot support funding it when there are numerous other and more pressing needs elsewhere in the state.  I can support funding spot improvements to existing VA 55, but not to Corridor H.

Having been stuck behind trucks on the existing road between I-81 and Wardensville, and been impressed by the long queues of traffic that quickly formed (and have been forming for many years, back to the 1980's when I first drove it, up and down the grades), and the crosses along the side of the road (presumably marking fatal wrecks) in West Virginia, have convinced me that the new road is needed. 

But I think that having West Virginia use at least some of its STP money to get it built is not entirely a bad thing.  Think of the precedent that could be cited to get the Western Bypass/Techway built across the Potomac River to Maryland!

West Virginia has enough other needs of its own.  It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on November 27, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 27, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
West Virginia has enough other needs of its own.  It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.
It's already built roads in Kentucky (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.7026,-82.302961&spn=0.013769,0.028346&t=m&z=16), so why not?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2013, 11:32:00 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 27, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
West Virginia has enough other needs of its own.  It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.

It really points up a bigger policy issue that Congress appears to be afraid to deal with (or perhaps empower the Executive Branch to handle administratively), and that's easing interstate travel and commerce (of many kinds).

When one state wants to improve access to another state, but the second state (for reasons of NIMBYism or otherwise) does not, what should happen? Especially when it's about hooking up new or improved sections of the interstate (note lower-case "i") network, or improving access to intermodal facilities that serve interstate or international travel markets.  In Virginia, that's the matter of Corridor H; there's W.Va./Va. 9; and the (now dormant) Eastern and Western bypass highways of Washington, D.C. (both of which relate to improved ground access to both Dulles and BWI).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 27, 2013, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2013, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 27, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
West Virginia has enough other needs of its own.  It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.
It's already built roads in Kentucky (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.7026,-82.302961&spn=0.013769,0.028346&t=m&z=16), so why not?

Not the same thing.  Corridor G crosses into Kentucky north of Williamson because it was cheaper and gave a better horizontal alignment than if the road stayed on the West Virginia side.  The WV-built section of the corridor connects cities in West Virginia.

A lot of the industries clamoring for Corridor H's completion say they want an outlet to the Virginia Inland Port near Front Royal.  Perhaps the Virginia Port Authority could kick in some cash to upgrade the Virginia section of US 48 since they'd stand to benefit from extra traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2013, 12:44:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2013, 11:32:00 AMIn Virginia, that's the matter of Corridor H; there's W.Va./Va. 9; and the (now dormant) Eastern and Western bypass highways of Washington, D.C. (both of which relate to improved ground access to both Dulles and BWI).

And conversely, US 522, US 340 and US 50. Four lanes in Virginia; two lanes in West Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2013, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2013, 12:44:12 PM
And conversely, US 522, US 340 and US 50. Four lanes in Virginia; two lanes in West Virginia.

Agreed.  Though U.S. 50 does not (IMO) need to be widened if Corridor H is completed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2013, 07:57:50 PM
Corridor H connecting businesses with customers (http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/29/corridor-h-connecting-businesses-with-customers)

QuoteThe newest section of Corridor H will make it much easier and safer for folks from the eastern shore to make to the mountains of West Virginia.

QuoteBill Smith, with the Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau, says the long-awaited opening of a 4.7-mile stretch of the four-lane highway from Scherr to Bismarck, earlier this month, replaces a road filled with hairpin turns.

Quote"From the lower part of Route 93 up Bismarck, that spans 2,000 vertical feet in four miles. The old Route 93 was hampered with a whole lot of sharp switchbacks which was fairly treacherous driving,"  according to Smith.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
I drove the new part of Corridor H this evening.  It was dark, so no pics.

The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield.  Two lanes in each direction.  I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one.  It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.

The new poles I noticed going up at southern WV 42/WV 93 intersection near Scherr on my last trip through are for flashers.  Yellow for WV 42, red for WV 93 westbound.  It's the most elaborate flasher setup I've ever seen from WVDOH.  They even had some pole-mounted flashers.

WV 42 and WV 93 are still signed on their old route.  I think they really should be moved to overlap with Corridor H heading up the hill.  I didn't see any "To US 48" signage from WV 42 at either end of the new section.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield.  Two lanes in each direction.  I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one.  It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.

I don't recall seeing climbing lanes on any part of the "eastern" segment of Corridor H between Wardensville and Scherr.

Does there appear to be room to add a climbing lane later?

Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
The new poles I noticed going up at southern WV 42/WV 93 intersection near Scherr on my last trip through are for flashers.  Yellow for WV 42, red for WV 93 westbound.  It's the most elaborate flasher setup I've ever seen from WVDOH.  They even had some pole-mounted flashers.

Wonder why they are doing that now?  I think H.B. asked a similar question upthread.

Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
WV 42 and WV 93 are still signed on their old route.  I think they really should be moved to overlap with Corridor H heading up the hill. 

I agree.  W.Va. 55 has was moved to Corridor H as each section opened.  What's a few more route numbers multiplexed with U.S.48?

And should the old section of 42/93 (going up the Allegheny Front) then be numbered as a fractional spur route of U.S. 48? Probably the first one?  At least I have never seen a fractional spur of 48 before.

Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
I didn't see any "To US 48" signage from WV 42 at either end of the new section.

WVDOH has seemed remarkably reluctant to post trail blazers pointing to the various western ends of eastern U.S. 48.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 02, 2013, 01:56:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield.  Two lanes in each direction.  I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one.  It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.

I don't recall seeing climbing lanes on any part of the "eastern" segment of Corridor H between Wardensville and Scherr.

Does there appear to be room to add a climbing lane later?
Since it was night, I couldn't tell if there was enough room to add a climbing lane on the right later.  They could put it in the median with a Jersey barrier if they really needed it.  I doubt traffic will come to that point, though.

I don't believe any other parts of the eastern Corridor H have climbing lanes.  There are two places west of Elkins that have climbing lanes, but there's more traffic on that section than the eastern part will ever get.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
The new poles I noticed going up at southern WV 42/WV 93 intersection near Scherr on my last trip through are for flashers.  Yellow for WV 42, red for WV 93 westbound.  It's the most elaborate flasher setup I've ever seen from WVDOH.  They even had some pole-mounted flashers.

Wonder why they are doing that now?  I think H.B. asked a similar question upthread.

I guess they were looking for a more permanent solution than the old stop sign-mounted blinkers, but they really could have just realigned the roadways to eliminate the problem entirely.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:40:57 PM
And should the old section of 42/93 (going up the Allegheny Front) then be numbered as a fractional spur route of U.S. 48? Probably the first one?  At least I have never seen a fractional spur of 48 before.
It would likely be a CR 42/xx number since it would branch off WV 42, not US 48.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
I didn't see any "To US 48" signage from WV 42 at either end of the new section.

WVDOH has seemed remarkably reluctant to post trail blazers pointing to the various western ends of eastern U.S. 48.

They did put some signage up at the Knobley Road intersection with WV 42 when that was the temporary end, but everything else has been spotty.  It looks like they did put up additional signage by US 220 at Moorefield.  I e-mailed WVDOH to complain back in September because US 48 was poorly marked.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 04, 2013, 10:15:33 PM
Had the opportunity to drive it today, which also for me includes the section from Knobley Rd to WV 93 (had not been on that segment either before today).  A vast improvement climbing the Allegheny Front.  Also continued west on WV 93 to Davis to check status of that construction.  I can see why they're saying 2015 now for getting it to Davis...there's a good chunk of it in Tucker County where they've barely begun earth movement.

From what I saw of the status, I think they'll be shooting for incremental openings as completion progresses westward from Bismark...probably starting with the section going to the interchange with 93 (concrete paving is underway on this segment), then probably to past Mt. Storm, then to near the Tucker/Grant County line.  In Tucker County, though there's been a lot less progress, there are a couple sections that I think will open early to 2-way traffic on the new lanes...this being because grade changes involving WV 93's existing lanes need to occur in those sections.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 04, 2013, 11:47:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 04, 2013, 10:15:33 PM
Had the opportunity to drive it today, which also for me includes the section from Knobley Rd to WV 93 (had not been on that segment either before today).  A vast improvement climbing the Allegheny Front.  Also continued west on WV 93 to Davis to check status of that construction.  I can see why they're saying 2015 now for getting it to Davis...there's a good chunk of it in Tucker County where they've barely begun earth movement.

Thanks for the report!  Not sure I will head out that way until we get warmer weather in the spring.

Was there much snow on the ground?

I thought I saw someone (WVDOT or DOH?) say that Corridor H will reach W.Va. 32 in 2014?  Once over the Stony River and the railroad spur into the DVP generating station, the landscape looks relatively flat all the way to Davis (trending slightly downhill from the Grant County/Tucker County line).

Quote from: froggie on December 04, 2013, 10:15:33 PM
From what I saw of the status, I think they'll be shooting for incremental openings as completion progresses westward from Bismark...probably starting with the section going to the interchange with 93 (concrete paving is underway on this segment), then probably to past Mt. Storm, then to near the Tucker/Grant County line.  In Tucker County, though there's been a lot less progress, there are a couple sections that I think will open early to 2-way traffic on the new lanes...this being because grade changes involving WV 93's existing lanes need to occur in those sections.

The incremental opening approach makes loads of sense, since it the construction effort has been east-to-west for quite a few years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 05, 2013, 05:28:25 AM
QuoteWas there much snow on the ground?

VERY little (basically none except for VERY isolated patches).  Will probably change this weekend.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on December 07, 2013, 01:17:22 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2013, 11:40:57 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2013, 09:52:29 PM
The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield.  Two lanes in each direction.  I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one.  It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.

I don't recall seeing climbing lanes on any part of the "eastern" segment of Corridor H between Wardensville and Scherr.

Does there appear to be room to add a climbing lane later?

I drove the new segment two weekends ago, just after it opened.  It looked to me like there was no obvious provision to add climbing lanes either, but the concrete pavement seems wide enough to restripe it as three travel lanes rather than the two existing lanes plus concrete shoulders.  Adding a climbing lane could be as easy as adding asphalt shoulders on each side of the concrete pavement, which IIRC there's room for except on bridges, or on some bridge approaches where a Jersey wall hugs the left shoulder.  Kind of like what was done with I-15 north of Escondido CA, which initially was only two lanes in each direction at the insistence of then-Caltrans director Adriana Gianturco.  But the road was built with two concrete travel lanes, and two 12' concrete shoulders, in each direction (plus widened bridges), so adding asphalt shoulders allowed her more sensible successor to quickly and cheaply widen the freeway to four travel lanes in each direction.

In some places, bridges on Corridor H might need to be widened to accommodate three travel lanes, without screwing the bicyclists.  On some long bridges (like the one over US 220), bicyclists already have to uncomfortably use part of the right lane as well as the tiny shoulder, and hope that motorists do the right thing and move left.  But I don't recall any bridges on the new segment (and I'm not sure there are any elsewhere on Corridor H) in the spots where a climbing lane could possibly be needed. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on December 07, 2013, 04:07:22 PM
Here's some of my photos of the Corridor H extension, which I took on Saturday 11/20, the day after the extension opened.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-WB-w-of-WV93-connector_DSC1630.jpg)

Westbound US 48, just west of the connector to WV 93 which was US 48's old west end.  There is a wind farm on the ridge the extension slices through, and you'll be seeing lots of turbines in these photos.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-WB-at-Elklick-Run-bridge_DSC1642.jpg)

Continuing on westbound US 48, to the Elklick Run bridge over WV 93.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-WB-uphill-appeoaching-turbines_DSC1648.jpg)

Westbound US 48, on the uphill climb approaching the wind farm, taken at an intersection with either an unpaved private driveway or an under-construction public road.  There are several other places where provision is made for a future intersection of some kind, but none with an open public road. 

(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-west-end-at-WV42-connector_DSC1668.jpg)

US 48's new (for now) west end, at a paved road signed only as "To WV 42".  The connector actually goes north to WV 93, but just east of its northern junction with WV 42, so it makes sense to sign it as "To WV 42" (also heads off confusion with the "To WV 93" connector, which is still open, at US 48's old west end).  In the background to the left is the Grassy Ridge Rd. overpass for the next US 48 segment (see below).

(//www.alaskaroads.com/north-end-ToWV42-connector_DSC1694.jpg)

The north end of the connector, at WV 93 less than 0.2 miles west of WV 42.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/south-end-ToWV42-connector_DSC1728.jpg)

The south end of the connector.  The WV 48 sign is presumably a contractor sign-o, like many others in the area.  At least US 48 is properly signed as such on the new highway itself.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-EB-from-WV42-connector-overlook_DSC1677.jpg)

Continuing on the connector road south of US 48, which goes to a construction yard and somebody's driveway, you can get some good views of US 48 to the east, including the pair of bridges over WV 42/93.  There will also be an official scenic overlook on the eastbound highway east of here, but it isn't yet open.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/WV42-under-US48_DSC1760.jpg)

WV 42/93 passes under the now-opened US 48 extension.  A short segment of WV 42/93 was realigned as part of the US 48 construction project.

(//www.alaskaroads.com/WV93-WB-west-of-WV42-jct_DSC1764.jpg)
(//www.alaskaroads.com/WV93-WB-at-US48-connector_DSC1775.jpg)

Just west of the WV 42/93 junction, and then approaching the connector road to US 48, there are more WV 48 sign-os (plus one correct sign).

(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-uc-WB-from-Grassy-Ridge-overpass_DSC1741.jpg)
(//www.alaskaroads.com/US48-uc-EB-from-Grassy-Ridge-overpass_DSC1748.jpg)

The construction work underway on the next Corridor H segment, from the Grassy Ridge Rd. overpass (facing west, then east), with pavement laid down for the eastbound lanes and about to be for the westbound lanes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 08, 2013, 10:32:43 AM
Oscar, these are nice pictures. Thank you for sharing them.

The bridge that carries Grassy Ridge Road over Corridor H is a fine place to snap some pictures of the highway, and having Nedpower's windmills in the distance (when looking east) or Dominion Virginia Power's Mount Storm Generating Station in the view (when looking west) just makes the images even better.

And the picture you captured of the just-opened Corridor H headed east downhill from the crest of the Allegheny Front, with the windmills on the left, is really good.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 08, 2013, 02:03:56 PM
I concur. Great photos. They'll have to tide me over until I can make it back up that way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 15, 2013, 12:04:19 PM
TheInterMountain.com: RCDA supports Corridor H partnership plan (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/566750/RCDA-supports-Corridor-H-partnership-plan.html)

QuoteELKINS - The Randolph County Development Authority board voted unanimously Monday to support a Corridor H Authority resolution pushing for a public/private partnership to help complete the highway by 2020.

QuoteRCDA Executive Director Robbie Morris read the resolution, which stated the partnership is vital to the growth of Randolph County.

QuoteMorris said a recent study on the completion of Corridor H by 2020 - instead of the projected completion date of 2036 or after - suggests a positive economic impact of at least $1.254 billion in income for the state.

QuoteMorris said the completion of the section of Corridor H from Kerens to Parsons will mean the entire highway is 87 percent complete.

Quote"The public/private partnership is authorized by the 2013 Legislative session that allows the Department of Highways to enter into contacts for private funding for state projects," Morris said. "Basically the construction company will finance the project and the state will pay them back. The law went into effect July 1, and is basically like a mortgage."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 12, 2014, 01:18:18 PM
http://www.connect-clarksburg.com/connect.cfm?func=view&section=News&item=County-Commission-Offers-Support-For-Corridor-H-Completion-2790&fb_source=message

I don't recall ever hearing that one proposed eastern terminus was New Market.

And is it definite that Virginia will build its portion?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 12, 2014, 02:03:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2014, 01:18:18 PM
I don't recall ever hearing that one proposed eastern terminus was New Market.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg252922#msg252922
http://www.corridorh2020.com/History.html claims it too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 12, 2014, 10:45:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2014, 01:18:18 PM
http://www.connect-clarksburg.com/connect.cfm?func=view&section=News&item=County-Commission-Offers-Support-For-Corridor-H-Completion-2790&fb_source=message

I don't recall ever hearing that one proposed eastern terminus was New Market.

Harrisonburg, following U.S. 33, was discussed at some point.  But I think that went away when Corridor  H was re-routed to the north to not run near Seneca Rocks in West Virginia.  I don't recall ever seeing that the eastern terminus was to be New Market.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2014, 01:18:18 PM
And is it definite that Virginia will build its portion?

Not according to what is online in VDOT's Six Year Improvement Program (http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/allProjects.aspx) (often just called the "six year plan"). I just checked it again for Shenandoah and Frederick Counties, and there is nothing that mentions even preliminary engineering for U.S. 48 and/or Va. 55.

Both counties are in VDOT's Staunton District.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 13, 2014, 05:11:47 PM
Despite what some in West Virginia are saying, I doubt it's a "definite" that Virginia will build their portion.  After an hour-long search this afternoon, I've found only two references to Corridor H or its completion within Virginia.  The only reference specifically mentioning this supposed 2026 completion comes from an ADHS Completion Plan Report (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSCompletionPlanReport-9-2013.pdf) dated last September.  The presumption many are making is that VDOT provided the date to the Appalachian Regional Commission.  I've also noted some conflicting discrepancies regarding dates within this document (Mississippi Corridor V, for example, which lists "June 2014" as a completion date but also notes plain as day that completion plans for Corridor V are on hold due to lack of funding).  So without verification elsewhere (and given Virginia's history with Corridor H), I take this 2026 date with a large grain of salt.

Corridor H is also mentioned in this CTB presentation (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2013/feb/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_7_Final_FY_2014_2019_SYIP_Presentation.pdf) from a year ago.  It only mentions that "Corridor H is a commitment after Corridor Q is completed".  Nothing else, and no dates.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2014, 08:32:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2014, 05:11:47 PM
Despite what some in West Virginia are saying, I doubt it's a "definite" that Virginia will build their portion.

I think that Virginia will get around to it eventually, but it may be many years before they even get Corridor H to the preliminary engineering (PE) stage. 

If West Virginia wants Virginia to move this up on the priorities list and get it into the Six Year Plan, then I suspect that West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin will need to pick up the phone and call Virginia's new Gov. Terry McAuliffe [perhaps when the Elk River environmental disaster is sufficiently remediated so that people can bathe in their homes] offer congratulations on McAuliffe's inauguration and then talk about Corridor H.

Virginia's new Secretary of Transportation, Aubrey Lane, appears from his online bio (https://governor.virginia.gov/cabinet/transportation/) to have spent much of his professional life in the Hampton Roads area (and Virginia Beach in particular), so he may not be personally familiar with Corridor H, though I assume that some members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board are.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2014, 05:11:47 PM
After an hour-long search this afternoon, I've found only two references to Corridor H or its completion within Virginia.  The only reference specifically mentioning this supposed 2026 completion comes from an ADHS Completion Plan Report (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSCompletionPlanReport-9-2013.pdf) dated last September.  The presumption many are making is that VDOT provided the date to the Appalachian Regional Commission.  I've also noted some conflicting discrepancies regarding dates within this document (Mississippi Corridor V, for example, which lists "June 2014" as a completion date but also notes plain as day that completion plans for Corridor V are on hold due to lack of funding).  So without verification elsewhere (and given Virginia's history with Corridor H), I take this 2026 date with a large grain of salt.

I got the impression that the states in the Appalachian Regional Commission footprint were given a directive by the federal government to come up with completion dates for the ARC corridors within their borders, and Virginia did so - probably because they had to supply some sort of date.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2014, 05:11:47 PM
Corridor H is also mentioned in this CTB presentation (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2013/feb/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_7_Final_FY_2014_2019_SYIP_Presentation.pdf) from a year ago.  It only mentions that "Corridor H is a commitment after Corridor Q is completed".  Nothing else, and no dates.

Since Corridor Q is still under construction, it makes sense for VDOT to get it all under contract for construction.  But it seems to me that they could be doing some PE for Corridor H (though it's clear from the Six Year Program that there is no funding for any PE contemplated right now).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on January 13, 2014, 09:01:31 PM
What are the deficiencies in Virginia, given that a two-lane road can handle the traffic?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 14, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
QuoteIf West Virginia wants Virginia to move this up on the priorities list and get it into the Six Year Plan, then I suspect that West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin will need to pick up the phone and call Virginia's Governor [several years after the Elk River environmental disaster is sufficiently remediated so that people will have forgotten about it] and offer to pay for Corridor H with West Virginia funds.

FTFY.

QuoteI got the impression that the states in the Appalachian Regional Commission footprint were given a directive by the federal government to come up with completion dates for the ARC corridors within their borders, and Virginia did so - probably because they had to supply some sort of date.

Probably, but as I noted there are noticeable disparities in the dates listed in the ARC report, so I'd take anything in that report with a large grain of salt.

QuoteWhat are the deficiencies in Virginia, given that a two-lane road can handle the traffic?

Mainly just a lack of shoulders and turn lanes.  I have long said (including earlier in this thread) that spot improvements to VA 55 would be more than adequate to handle current and future traffic volume.  To be perfectly fair, it's not like we haven't had 2-lane ARC corridors before (or even presently...there's a couple in Tennessee IIRC)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on January 14, 2014, 11:04:21 AM
I'll agree with that. The W.V. side of 55 going down North Mt. into Wardensville needs to be widened/straightened. Not many in Va. are even remotely interested in Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 14, 2014, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on January 14, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Mainly just a lack of shoulders and turn lanes.  I have long said (including earlier in this thread) that spot improvements to VA 55 would be more than adequate to handle current and future traffic volume.  To be perfectly fair, it's not like we haven't had 2-lane ARC corridors before (or even presently...there's a couple in Tennessee IIRC)

And a lot of two-lane ARC corridors in Kentucky, too. I think that some minor widening and straightening of the existing US 48/VA 55 route, and the addition of a passing lane here and there, would certainly help the existing road. I don't think it's a bad drive at all; certainly as it exists now it's a lot better than many of the roads connecting county seats in eastern Kentucky.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2014, 10:31:14 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on January 14, 2014, 11:04:21 AM
Not many in Va. are even remotely interested in Corridor H.
VA has plenty of economic generators. WV, not so much.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 16, 2014, 10:33:51 AM
To tie this discussion into the one about the proposed Mountain Parkway widening project in Kentucky, the two-lane segment of the Mountain Parkway is considered an ARC corridor (I can never remember the letter designation) even though it wasn't built with ARC funds. So there's a two-lane corridor.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: BrianP on January 16, 2014, 03:10:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2014, 10:33:51 AM
To tie this discussion into the one about the proposed Mountain Parkway widening project in Kentucky, the two-lane segment of the Mountain Parkway is considered an ARC corridor (I can never remember the letter designation) even though it wasn't built with ARC funds. So there's a two-lane corridor.
I looked it up.  There are two corridors involved with the Mountain Parkway: I & R.  Both include two lane sections. 

I see there is new aerial imagery of Corridor H.  I see the new western end of the highway as well as some of the construction progress west of there.  There's a curious gap along the route where no work has started.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 16, 2014, 08:42:41 PM
QuoteThere's a curious gap along the route where no work has started.

If you're referring to along WV 93 east of Thomas, I noticed that too in the field a couple months ago.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on February 18, 2014, 07:31:47 AM
 Took a ride to Mt. Storm yesterday, will upload pics as soon as I figure out how to get them from Photobucket to here...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on February 18, 2014, 07:37:24 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on February 18, 2014, 07:31:47 AM
Took a ride to Mt. Storm yesterday, will upload pics as soon as I figure out how to get them from Photobucket to here...

The easiest way to do it is to click on the image in Photobucket, then look for the box of links on the right. Select the one that contains the "IMG" code.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 13, 2014, 11:09:19 PM
WBOY-TV: Corridor H Update Presented at Quarterly Meeting of Elkins-Randolph Chamber of Commerce (http://www.wboy.com/story/24959183/corridor-h)

Quote"It's beautiful road, and there's lot of great terrain that's available for development all along Weston to Wardensville then into Virginia, there's just great possibilities," said Robbie Morris, executive director of Randolph County Development Authority.

QuoteVirginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on March 14, 2014, 01:13:25 AM
QuoteIt's beautiful road, and there's lot of great terrain that's available for development all along Weston to Wardensville then into Virginia, there's just great possibilities," said Robbie Morris, executive director of Randolph County Development Authority.

There's so much topographically/environmentally wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin...


QuoteVirginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.

Again, I have not seen anything within VDOT or CTB literature to verify this.  As before, it's probably a "placeholder" date that VDOT submitted to the annual AHDS report.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 14, 2014, 01:52:10 AM
Robbie Morris was an advocate of the dam that would have flooded Canaan Valley, the highest elevation valley in the eastern United States - and one of the most biodiverse region in the United States. To him, it's all development and industry at whatever cost. The only jobs that are out that way in the industrial park on WV 93 is some small shops that employ less than 100 total and a jail.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 14, 2014, 10:40:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 01:13:25 AM
QuoteIt's beautiful road, and there's lot of great terrain that's available for development all along Weston to Wardensville then into Virginia, there's just great possibilities," said Robbie Morris, executive director of Randolph County Development Authority.

There's so much topographically/environmentally wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin...

Environmentally wrong because some groups want no economic development along Corridor H?

Remember that one of the ideas behind the ADHS is to "induce" demand through economic development.

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 01:13:25 AM
QuoteVirginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.

Again, I have not seen anything within VDOT or CTB literature to verify this.  As before, it's probably a "placeholder" date that VDOT submitted to the annual AHDS report.

2026 is a few years beyond the planning horizon that VDOT uses for its Six Year Program.

On the other hand, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va. 10th) is retiring, and he was one of the more-vocal opponents of Corridor H on the Virginia side of North Mountain.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on March 14, 2014, 11:55:18 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 01:13:25 AM
....

QuoteVirginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.

Again, I have not seen anything within VDOT or CTB literature to verify this.  As before, it's probably a "placeholder" date that VDOT submitted to the annual AHDS report.


I would not be terribly surprised if he's talked to a single individual within one of those entities who supports the project and is misleadingly imputing that person's statements to "Virginia" as a whole. That sort of thing is hardly uncommon.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on March 14, 2014, 12:14:59 PM
VA 55 west of I-81 does not seem to appear in VTrans 2025, VTrans2035 (2010) or the VTrans2035 update (Apr 2013).

The 2035 update contains a graphic within the linked document below that shows a service level for trucks still quite good on VA 55 in the year 2035...

At the end of the document is a list of highway projects considered "key" and VA 55 isn't there either...

http://www.vtrans.org/resources/VSTP/VSTPUpdate_FinalReport_AccessibleFinal_cChap345App.pdf

Apparently work is starting on VTrans 2040 soon.  Maybe it will be there...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on March 14, 2014, 04:16:47 PM
QuoteEnvironmentally wrong because some groups want no economic development along Corridor H?

Environmentally wrong because A) clear-cutting of forests (one of the things some want to do) basically eliminates wildlife habitat, especially in acidic soil such as what they have.  This is an ongoing issue in those areas where lumber/timber is a big business.  But because it's a big business and because of the demand for wood, it isn't going away anytime soon.  B) massive cuts/fills, necessary for large development in mountainous areas, changes drainage patterns significantly, usually resulting in some area or another experiencing higher flood risk.

Induced demand/development may have been all the rage 50 years ago when the ADHS was created.  But I'd like to think that we've gotten wiser to the environmental ramifications of such unchecked development since then.  Apparently I was wrong.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 14, 2014, 04:52:57 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 04:16:47 PM
QuoteEnvironmentally wrong because some groups want no economic development along Corridor H?

Environmentally wrong because A) clear-cutting of forests (one of the things some want to do) basically eliminates wildlife habitat, especially in acidic soil such as what they have.  This is an ongoing issue in those areas where lumber/timber is a big business.  But because it's a big business and because of the demand for wood, it isn't going away anytime soon.  B) massive cuts/fills, necessary for large development in mountainous areas, changes drainage patterns significantly, usually resulting in some area or another experiencing higher flood risk.

Much of the land along Corridor H between Kerens and the crest of the Allegheny Front is:

(1) owned by the USDA U.S. Forest Service; or
(2) mined-out coal deposits that have been burned in the Mount Storm Generating Station.

Now the USFS does not always operate rationally, but I don't think it generally allows clear-cutting of forests (and some parts of the Monongahela National Forest are designated as "wilderness," (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mnf/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5084288) which means no mechanized harvesting of timber at all).

Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 04:16:47 PM
Induced demand/development may have been all the rage 50 years ago when the ADHS was created.  But I'd like to think that we've gotten wiser to the environmental ramifications of such unchecked development since then.  Apparently I was wrong.

How much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on March 14, 2014, 10:13:46 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 14, 2014, 04:16:47 PM

Environmentally wrong because A) clear-cutting of forests (one of the things some want to do) basically eliminates wildlife habitat, especially in acidic soil such as what they have.

Really? You do realize that every square inch of the entire state of WV, save for Catherdral State Park, has been clear cut at least twice, most three or more times.

Yet, still plenty of wildlife.  In fact, more today than ever. 

Extremist hysteria is no substitute for critical thinking.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on March 16, 2014, 12:32:43 PM
QuoteHow much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?

Not enough to warrant 4 lanes.

QuoteExtremist hysteria is no substitute for critical thinking.

If we were truly doing critical thinking, we wouldn't have put a dime into Corridor H because the traffic level just doesn't justify the expense.  I have always maintained that the traffic volume is not sufficient to warrant the cost of this project.  If West Virginia wants it built?  They should fund it themselves, especially since they reap the vast majority of purputed benefits.  The environmental ramifications are only secondary.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 16, 2014, 01:30:50 PM
Quote from: dave19 on March 15, 2014, 09:42:00 PM
I wonder why they installed rusted guardrail on the most recently opened section.

It's on the whole eastern portion. Probably a nod to the scenic nature of the highway.

Quote from: froggie on March 16, 2014, 12:32:43 PM
If we were truly doing critical thinking, we wouldn't have put a dime into Corridor H because the traffic level just doesn't justify the expense.  I have always maintained that the traffic volume is not sufficient to warrant the cost of this project.  If West Virginia wants it built?  They should fund it themselves, especially since they reap the vast majority of purputed benefits.

Couldn't the same be said about many, if not most of the other ARC corridors? I can think of a number of others that are pretty lightly traveled. The concept of the Appalachian system wasn't centered on traffic volumes. It was built around economic development and improving accessibility. Most of the other corridors involved improving existing through routes (US 23, US 119, etc.). This is one of the few that involves a lot of new terrain construction over a string of routes that isn't a logical corridor. The convoluted US 119-US 25E-TN 63 and KY 80-KY 90-KY 61-TN 53-TN 56-unbuilt connector to Cookeville-TN 111 corridors followed routes that few would consider to be direct alignments, but they improved existing roads, more to the benefit of communities along the route rather than through traffic. (Not too many people are going to go from Chattanooga to London via Cookeville and Burkesville).

Cue SPUI and his "but it's still closer to take 79 and 68 through Morgantown and Hancock" comment, but Corridor H will still be a better route from Kentucky and West Virginia and other locations in this area to DC, with less traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 17, 2014, 07:47:22 PM
Quote from: froggie on March 16, 2014, 12:32:43 PM
QuoteHow much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?

Not enough to warrant 4 lanes.

Though "sprawl" was a reason touted in opposition to the project (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHpro.html).  The opponents cannot have it both ways, yet that is what they have tried to do.

I have long suspected that people with money from the D.C. area were opposed to the project, but have only recently noticed that one of the plaintiff parties in the Clinton Administration-era federal lawsuit (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHsuit.txt) against Corridor H was something called Reynolds Estates Landowners, with address in Springfield, Fairfax County, Va. (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=9207+shotgun+court,+springfield+va&ll=38.763415,-77.2629&spn=0.004091,0.007929&sll=38.763143,-77.262960&layer=c&cbp=13,189.76,,0,0&cbll=38.763415,-77.2629&gl=us&hnear=9207+Shotgun+Ct,+Springfield,+Virginia+22153&t=m&z=17&iwloc=A&panoid=41ZrFKvDu0bUIX8q166a5g) Why would someone located in Fairfax County (conveniently close to Va. 286, the Fairfax County Parkway) be a party to a federal lawsuit against a highway mostly in West Virginia?

Quote from: hbelkins on March 16, 2014, 01:30:50 PM
Couldn't the same be said about many, if not most of the other ARC corridors? I can think of a number of others that are pretty lightly traveled. The concept of the Appalachian system wasn't centered on traffic volumes. It was built around economic development and improving accessibility. Most of the other corridors involved improving existing through routes (US 23, US 119, etc.). This is one of the few that involves a lot of new terrain construction over a string of routes that isn't a logical corridor. The convoluted US 119-US 25E-TN 63 and KY 80-KY 90-KY 61-TN 53-TN 56-unbuilt connector to Cookeville-TN 111 corridors followed routes that few would consider to be direct alignments, but they improved existing roads, more to the benefit of communities along the route rather than through traffic. (Not too many people are going to go from Chattanooga to London via Cookeville and Burkesville).

It is (or should be, in my opinion) a national priority to connect residents of these areas (and their land) to the national transportation network - and that means highways better than existing U.S. 50, U.S. 219, U.S. 33 and U.S. 250 (I suspect that both Adam, H.B. and many readers of this forum are familiar with all of them).

Perhaps I am going too far in use of rhetoric, but did anyone suggest that Corridor G between Pikeville, Kentucky and Charleston, West Virginia should not have been built?  Or that it should have been built as two-lane undivided?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 16, 2014, 07:02:42 AM
Bump.... Anybody been out to Bismarck to see how construction is going lately? I have not been up there since President's Day.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on July 16, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
Maybe old news, but..
http://www.times-news.com/local/x1535585868/Revamped-U-S-220-would-have-big-residential-impact
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on August 11, 2014, 11:11:41 AM
Quote from: froggie on March 16, 2014, 12:32:43 PM
QuoteHow much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?

Not enough to warrant 4 lanes.

QuoteExtremist hysteria is no substitute for critical thinking.

If we were truly doing critical thinking, we wouldn't have put a dime into Corridor H because the traffic level just doesn't justify the expense.  I have always maintained that the traffic volume is not sufficient to warrant the cost of this project.  If West Virginia wants it built?  They should fund it themselves, especially since they reap the vast majority of purputed benefits.  The environmental ramifications are only secondary.
You are 100% correct.  This is a clear waste of limited resources that would much be better spent repairing exisiting infrastructure and leaving the backwoods alone.
There are enough through routes and the population in Eastern WV is extremely sparse.
They need, if anything, better schools and health care, not mega roads
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 11, 2014, 12:24:10 PM
Once again, someone fails to grasp the concept of the Appalachian Development Highway System.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 11, 2014, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 11, 2014, 12:24:10 PM
Once again, someone fails to grasp the concept of the Appalachian Development Highway System.

Agreed.

As a senior staff member with a state highway agency in one of the ADHS states told me, as far as he was concerned, the purpose of the ADHS network is to induce demand.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 11, 2014, 09:33:55 PM
In addition, it was designed to be a system, like the interstate system, not a collection of individual roads.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtantillo on August 12, 2014, 06:23:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 11, 2014, 09:33:55 PM
In addition, it was designed to be a system, like the interstate system, not a collection of individual roads.

And coupled with the Interstate system in those states, it actually makes a pretty decent, cohesive system. Corridor H is a big "missing gap" in that system.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 12, 2014, 08:22:25 PM
Despite the advent of the corridors in West Virginia, the state is still near bottom of the list for healthcare, education and nearly every metric for economic well being. It may be used, but it hasn't exactly brought prosperity.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 13, 2014, 06:32:34 AM
The ARC, and more broadly the entire social program system of that era, is made up of two things.  A few things such as the corridors, forced consolidation of lower education, improvements to higher education, which alleviate poverty, and the rest of it (give away programs that make work optional) that cause it. 

Do not make the mistake of confusing one with the other.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 05, 2014, 10:43:21 AM
Had to drive on the newest segment of Corridor H Saturday. An access road leads from WV 93/42 to Corridor H and down the Allegheny Front. There is an overlook going eastbound of the Lunice Creek valley and beyond. Other than the power and gas lines marring the otherwise unspoiled landscape, it's a great view: http://goo.gl/maps/9hA5K

The segment between US 219 and WV 93/42 is well under construction. Most of the eastbound lanes have been poured and traffic will shift to those lanes while the westbound lanes are graded and constructed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2014, 11:04:00 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 05, 2014, 10:43:21 AM
Had to drive on the newest segment of Corridor H Saturday. An access road leads from WV 93/42 to Corridor H and down the Allegheny Front. There is an overlook going eastbound of the Lunice Creek valley and beyond. Other than the power and gas lines marring the otherwise unspoiled landscape, it's a great view: http://goo.gl/maps/9hA5K

The segment between US 219 and WV 93/42 is well under construction. Most of the eastbound lanes have been poured and traffic will shift to those lanes while the westbound lanes are graded and constructed.

Where on 219 is it supposed to emerge? If you zoom in close enough, you can find Google Maps showing a route passing just on the northern edge of Davis, but their routing looks speculative to me because it shows a long route through the parkland west of there and I was under the impression no route through that area had been selected. Hence, it makes me skeptical of the accuracy of their map of the planned route east of that area.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 05, 2014, 11:15:12 AM
Pretty much right here: http://goo.gl/maps/HHCkF

To the east, it closely hugs the existing alignment due to the prevalence of the Canaan Valley NWR. To the west, it swings up due to the nearby state parks and geological features.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 05, 2014, 11:57:21 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 05, 2014, 11:15:12 AM
Pretty much right here: http://goo.gl/maps/HHCkF

To the east, it closely hugs the existing alignment due to the prevalence of the Canaan Valley NWR. To the west, it swings up due to the nearby state parks and geological features.

OK, so it is about where Google Maps shows. Thanks. I drove on the then-entire eastern portion of Corridor H this past July (prior to the opening of the segment down the Allegheny Front), but we were coming south from Fallingwater and so approached down WV-42 from US-50 rather than from the direction of Davis and Thomas, hence why I haven't seen where it's due to emerge. I've been trying to find an excuse to get back out there some weekend but haven't found the time recently.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 05, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
Fall colors start changing in about two weeks and peak out by early to mid October, depending on elevation. Dolly Sods is always a must-see for the vistas. Canaan Valley for the wetlands and wildlife. Blackwater Falls for the ... waterfalls (there are 3). And of course, all of the awesome locally owned restaurants and shops in Thomas and Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2014, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 05, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
Fall colors start changing in about two weeks and peak out by early to mid October, depending on elevation. Dolly Sods is always a must-see for the vistas. Canaan Valley for the wetlands and wildlife. Blackwater Falls for the ... waterfalls (there are 3). And of course, all of the awesome locally owned restaurants and shops in Thomas and Davis.

Going to try for a look-see along Corridor H and also turn back and check out the (now repaired) Oldtown low-water toll bridge this weekend.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on October 25, 2014, 11:02:40 AM
Quote from: dave19 on October 21, 2014, 10:26:52 PM
http://www.wboy.com/

Interesting TV station call sign -- counterpart to Pennsylvania's WGAL. 

Looks like it's time to pencil in another pre-Thanksgiving road trip out there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mtfallsmikey on October 27, 2014, 10:56:49 AM
Was up there last weekend, the interchange at Rt. 93 not quite ready, paving done. Foliage was near peak. Saw a W.V. State Trooper near Moorefield, first one I've ever seen on the road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on October 27, 2014, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 27, 2014, 10:56:49 AM
Was up there last weekend, the interchange at Rt. 93 not quite ready, paving done. Foliage was near peak. Saw a W.V. State Trooper near Moorefield, first one I've ever seen on the road.

For folks traveling the remaining 2-lane portion of Route 93 between Bismarck and Davis, I've been advised that the 45 MPH speed limit is being heavily enforced, with tickets being issued for exceeding that speed by as little as 2-3 MPH.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 08:36:53 PM
Why is that a 45 mph zone? Because of adjacent construction? Because most every time I've driven that road, i was able to do 65-70 mph and there was very little traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on October 27, 2014, 08:39:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 08:36:53 PM
Why is that a 45 mph zone? Because of adjacent construction? Because most every time I've driven that road, i was able to do 65-70 mph and there was very little traffic.

Probably a lot of adjacent construction.  It was a real mess around this time last year.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2014, 10:47:25 PM
Quote from: machpost on October 27, 2014, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on October 27, 2014, 10:56:49 AM
Was up there last weekend, the interchange at Rt. 93 not quite ready, paving done. Foliage was near peak. Saw a W.V. State Trooper near Moorefield, first one I've ever seen on the road.

For folks traveling the remaining 2-lane portion of Route 93 between Bismarck and Davis, I've been advised that the 45 MPH speed limit is being heavily enforced, with tickets being issued for exceeding that speed by as little as 2-3 MPH.

I have observed some speed limit enforcement on W.Va. 93 approaching W.Va. 32, and near or within the corporate limits of Thomas.  I think the enforcement was by the Tucker County Sheriff's Office, but I am not 100% certain about that.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on October 29, 2014, 10:08:29 AM
Quote from: oscar on October 27, 2014, 08:39:43 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 27, 2014, 08:36:53 PM
Why is that a 45 mph zone? Because of adjacent construction? Because most every time I've driven that road, i was able to do 65-70 mph and there was very little traffic.

Probably a lot of adjacent construction.  It was a real mess around this time last year.

Correct. There appears to be active construction, seven days a week, nearly all the way to Davis now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on November 21, 2014, 05:50:28 PM
Just arrived in Canaan Valley from NOVA.  The new 1.5 mile segment of highway is now open from Bismarck to the interchange just below the dam.  In addition, two-way traffic has been moved from the old road over to the new carriage way for the entire (6-8 mi?) stretch from the railroad crossing up to Beaver Creek at the Tucker County line.   Still marked at 45 mph everywhere.  There are some interesting new vistas, including a view down into the quarry just after passing the Mettiki coal mine entrance.   As it crosses the eastern divide, Corridor H must be reaching a new highest point as far as elevation, before you descend slightly down to Davis.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on November 24, 2014, 08:18:53 PM
Correction:  New segment is 1.9 miles in length.  Shortly after passing the RR crossing above Mt. Storm, two-way traffic runs for about 1 mile on the new road, then detours back to old Rt. 93 for 3 miles, and then returns back to the new carriage way for just about 5 more miles.  All traffic returns to old Rt 93 at the Beaver Creek crossing, just in front of the Rubenstein Juvenile Center.       
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 24, 2014, 10:17:06 PM
I drove Corridor H between Davis and I-81 yesterday.  As CVski says, there are about 8 miles between the Rubenstein Center and Mount Storm Lake now where traffic is on the newly built eastbound lanes.  The 4-lane part from the interchange east of Mount Storm Lake to the WV 42 Bismarck connector is also open.

All of the construction has concrete travel lanes and shoulders.  About half of the new Davis-Bismarck section has Cor-Ten guardrails like the other recently built eastern sections of Corridor H.  The rest has traditional galvanized guardrail.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on November 24, 2014, 10:28:41 PM
Quote from: CVski on November 24, 2014, 08:18:53 PM
Correction:  New segment is 1.9 miles in length.  Shortly after passing the RR crossing above Mt. Storm, two-way traffic runs for about 1 mile on the new road, then detours back to old Rt. 93 for 3 miles, and then returns back to the new carriage way for just about 5 more miles.  All traffic returns to old Rt 93 at the Beaver Creek crossing, just in front of the Rubenstein Juvenile Center.       

I was there earlier today (more to follow later, including a few photos).  My car's nav system, which uses ~2007 maps (never updated), indicates that much of the "new carriage way" is twinning of the old carriageway, with only a few short departures from the old alignment (in addition to the larger deviations noted by CVski).

Two more quick notes:

US 48 signage is on the new road west to the WV 93 interchange, and at the interchange itself directing traffic to US 48 eastbound.  But there is none west of there, including the parts of WV 93 following what will be the new Corridor H carriageways.

Also, all westbound traffic must exit at the WV 93 interchange and use WV 93 past the Mt. Storm plant, before returning to what will be the new Corridor H carriageways.  Eastbound traffic has to do the same moves in reverse. 

Barricades block off new pavement and bridges that will later provide a direct connection, bypassing the Mt. Storm plant.  How soon might that bypass open?  The parts I could see looked close to ready, but there's a lot I couldn't see.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on November 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
Here are many of the photos I took on my Corridor H construction tour last Monday.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-WB-at-CommDr-jct_DSC5470.jpg&hash=6973258221cd089b4f3d2b16e54082837d6c411d)

^   The newly-extended US 48 westbound, just west of the old end at Communications Drive (signed as "To WV 42").  The US 48 extension is signed here, on the eastbound lanes just east of the new WV 93 interchange, and in both directions on WV 93 at that interchange.  This new US 48 marker needs a more solid mounting (perhaps using two supports rather than just one, like many other signs), since it was flapping around a bit that windy day, and I had to wait for a break between wind gusts for the sign to steady enough for me to photograph it.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-CommDr-jct_DSC5449.jpg&hash=d88553d906f4cf996cd5128f98d77f13cb15dcbf)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-CommDr-jct-signs-closeup_DSC5459.jpg&hash=f7001c4bca03cdf502b8e5087e6eee267bffcaa1)

^   Two photos from Communications Drive southbound of its intersection with US 48.  The closeup photo shows a WV 48 sign-o (maybe the same contractor who previously put up other sign-os elsewhere in the vicinity).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-WB-app-jct-WV93_DSC5488.jpg&hash=d6ee5ff4255ceef441310e95011513e9e9dc0e61)

^   Back on westbound US 48, approaching the WV 93 interchange, where all US 48 traffic is required to exit.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-WB-end-ramp-to-WV93_DSC5498.jpg&hash=872565d720383511c4f3efe7a66e36fa5bd4be1e)

^   The end of that exit ramp.  The route signs in the background are for WV 93.  There are no signs indicating that US 48 continues in either direction.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FWV93-WB-jct-US48_DSC5444.jpg&hash=c51dc877ad11fe177110e761a16e17ba5cba8541)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FWV93-EB-jct-US48_DSC5426.jpg&hash=61800214959fba120c97667e75da010aa72e0de2)

^   The new US 48-WV 93 interchange, from WV 93 westbound (with the Mt. Storm power plant in the background) then eastbound.  None of the signs so far indicate that WV 93 will be relocated at this point onto the new US 48 roadway west of here once it opens.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48future-bridge-over-RR_DSC5516.jpg&hash=b1913e73b1d440fd18433dfdffc7414a078287aa)

^   An unopened new bridge, which will carry US 48 over the railroad track to the Mt. Storm power plant.  The track is to the right of the center pier.  The road to the left of the pier may be just a construction access, rather than for a future ramp carrying westbound WV 93 traffic to westbound US 48.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48future-EB-from-WV93_DSC5524.jpg&hash=b7f47720333237c0567790295081f7724c85bf0a)

^   WV 93 meets the under-construction part of Corridor H here, at a perhaps-temporary at-grade intersection.  This photo shows the barricaded new pavement east of the intersection. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48future-WB-from-WV93-jct_DSC5529.jpg&hash=717861809d5f464d221b27cc78365b5204a67982)

^   Facing westbound from the same point, WV 93 traffic in both directions uses the concrete pavement on the left, that will be US 48's eastbound lanes.  The parallel future westbound lanes remain closed, and for now are mostly asphalt-surfaced (maybe they were the old WV 93 alignment?).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FWV93-EB-US48-project-sign_DSC5549.jpg&hash=2438a302f27b081db9b6be7dd50f758e83d23537)

^   This sign, on WV 93 eastbound, between WV 32 and the beginning of the Corridor H work zone, is the only one showing a US 48 marker that I saw west of the new WV 93 interchange northeast of Mt. Storm.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 30, 2014, 09:41:42 AM
QuoteAn unopened new bridge, which will carry US 48 over the railroad track to the Mt. Storm power plant.  The track is to the right of the center pier.  The road to the left of the pier may be just a construction access, rather than for a future ramp carrying westbound WV 93 traffic to westbound US 48.

Assuming the final construction plans are similar to the preliminary design (Google Earth suggests yes), the road going under the bridge will become part of a frontage road on the other side of US 48....with the frontage road following WV 93's old alignment.

QuoteFacing westbound from the same point, WV 93 traffic in both directions uses the concrete pavement on the left, that will be US 48's eastbound lanes.  The parallel future westbound lanes remain closed, and for now are mostly asphalt-surfaced (maybe they were the old WV 93 alignment?).

Not in this area.  You need to get about 4 miles west of here to get to a point where the WV 93 lanes are utilized.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 30, 2014, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: oscar on November 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
Here are many of the photos I took on my Corridor H construction tour last Monday.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-WB-at-CommDr-jct_DSC5470.jpg&hash=6973258221cd089b4f3d2b16e54082837d6c411d)

^   The newly-extended US 48 westbound, just west of the old end at Communications Drive (signed as "To WV 42").  The US 48 extension is signed here, on the eastbound lanes just east of the new WV 93 interchange, and in both directions on WV 93 at that interchange.  This new US 48 marker needs a more solid mounting (perhaps using two supports rather than just one, like many other signs), since it was flapping around a bit that windy day, and I had to wait for a break between wind gusts for the sign to steady enough for me to photograph it.

If the signpost was two U-channels back-to-back, that would not be out of the ordinary for WVDOH when protected by a guardrail.  I can't tell from your photo.

When I was through the area last weekend, I noticed the signage for WV 42 was poorly done.  It looks like they hastily put up some signs so they could open the road.  I hope better permanent signage will be coming.

Quote from: oscar on November 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-WB-end-ramp-to-WV93_DSC5498.jpg&hash=872565d720383511c4f3efe7a66e36fa5bd4be1e)

^   The end of that exit ramp.  The route signs in the background are for WV 93.  There are no signs indicating that US 48 continues in either direction.

As far as WVDOH is concerned, US 48 ends at that ramp for now.  They've been OK with leaving the route with a dangling end (it was at a county route before).  Even when it gets to Davis, I doubt they'll tie it into US 219 at Thomas.

Quote from: oscar on November 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FWV93-WB-jct-US48_DSC5444.jpg&hash=c51dc877ad11fe177110e761a16e17ba5cba8541)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FWV93-EB-jct-US48_DSC5426.jpg&hash=61800214959fba120c97667e75da010aa72e0de2)

^   The new US 48-WV 93 interchange, from WV 93 westbound (with the Mt. Storm power plant in the background) then eastbound.  None of the signs so far indicate that WV 93 will be relocated at this point onto the new US 48 roadway west of here once it opens.

Since WV 93 ends at Davis, there's really no reason to multiplex it with US 48 although that hasn't stopped WVDOH before.  I suspect it will be cut back to Mount Storm Lake or Scherr.  Personally, my preference would be to end WV 93 at its eastern Corridor H connector at Scherr and then realign WV 42 along old WV 93 and Corridor H to head up the mountain between Scherr and Bismarck.

Quote from: oscar on November 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48future-bridge-over-RR_DSC5516.jpg&hash=b1913e73b1d440fd18433dfdffc7414a078287aa)
^   An unopened new bridge, which will carry US 48 over the railroad track to the Mt. Storm power plant.  The track is to the right of the center pier.  The road to the left of the pier may be just a construction access, rather than for a future ramp carrying westbound WV 93 traffic to westbound US 48.

When the project is done, this area will just be access to the power plant.  The railroad crossing out of the shot to the right will be removed.  There is a new intersection going in east of the railroad tracks to connect to current WV 93.  The road under the bridge and the road going off to the left will both remain so that coal trucks heading to the power plant don't have to make left turns across Corridor H.  See the plan sheets at http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/corh_sh_29.pdf.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on November 30, 2014, 11:39:54 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 30, 2014, 09:52:15 AM
If the signpost was two U-channels back-to-back, that would not be out of the ordinary for WVDOH when protected by a guardrail.  I can't tell from your photo.

I don't know either.  But even if the signpost is solid (the post was not swaying in the wind, only the sign), the sign itself is not mounted well enough on the single post.  Considering how windy the area gets even when the weather is better (as suggested by the wind farm to the east), two bolts mounting the sign to a single post might not be enough, even if they're re-tightened, since they could come loose again as the sign flexes in the wind.  Two signposts could help in this location.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2014, 11:55:38 AM
Quote from: oscar on November 30, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
Here are many of the photos I took on my Corridor H construction tour last Monday.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaskaroads.com%2FUS48-WB-at-CommDr-jct_DSC5470.jpg&hash=6973258221cd089b4f3d2b16e54082837d6c411d)

Oscar, thanks for sharing these nice pictures.

Love how WVDOH likes to call its ADHS corridors "freeways," which they are usually not (they do meet my idea of expressways).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: dave19 on December 16, 2014, 06:34:22 PM
  I drove over to the Bismarck area today. It appears that the section bypassing the dam is going to open soon. I didn't see to much action today (nor did I expect to) - they were working on guardrail around the overpass at the Bismarck interchange, I saw someone driving a roller around in the railroad overpass area, and it looked like some drainage work was going on about halfway to Davis on the north side of the road.
  More signage has been installed since oscar was there last month, especially west of the railroad overpass. Incredibly, they are going to sign WV 93 concurrently with US 48 west of there. As you approach the dam from the west (from Davis), there is a BGS that says WV 93/Bismarck, 2 miles. Then, after crossing the railroad overpass, is a sign directing route 93 off to the right, back onto its present alignment, after the RR crossing but before the dam. (see the right side of this map: http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/corh_sh_29.pdf ) Shortly after that intersection,there is another BGS that says WV 93/Bismarck, 1 mile. East of the RR overpass, there are West US 48/West WV 93 assemblies.
  This makes no sense to me. It will probably confuse people who are not familiar with the area. I though that they would truncate 93 back to its historic terminus at Scherr, and I remember reading a web page somewhere that there was a plan to extend it east along US 50 and then have it replace WV 972.
  The WV 48 sign goof that appears in the photo upthread has been corrected. And that scenic overlook east of the WV 42 overpass is now open.
I'm not sure why the multiplex would be confusing to anyone. If anything, I think abruptly changing numbers while the corridor is still under construction would be more confusing to people.

FWIW, WVDOH has long liked useless multiplexes.  Today, WV 39 has a useless multiple with WV 16 for the last 6 miles into Gauley Bridge. Aside from the interchange connector at Moorefield, WV 55 is entirely multiplexed with other routes for its easternmost 211 miles. WV 92 and WV 28 also have 40+ mile multiplexes in the middle of their routes.  It used to be worse - WV 4 was formerly multiplexed with WV 20, US 33, WV 28, and US 50 from Buckhannon into Virginia.

I do agree the routes should be reshuffled.  I'd kill WV 55's multiplexes and move WV 42 onto part of current WV 93 and US 48 between Scherr and Bismarck. I'd either cut back WV 93 to Scherr or Mount Storm Lake. Hopefully DOH will review the issue once the have construction finished into Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 17, 2014, 03:50:21 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
FWIW, WVDOH has long liked useless multiplexes.  Today, WV 39 has a useless multiple with WV 16 for the last 6 miles into Gauley Bridge. Aside from the interchange connector at Moorefield, WV 55 is entirely multiplexed with other routes for its easternmost 211 miles. WV 92 and WV 28 also have 40+ mile multiplexes in the middle of their routes.  It used to be worse - WV 4 was formerly multiplexed with WV 20, US 33, WV 28, and US 50 from Buckhannon into Virginia.

I do agree the routes should be reshuffled.  I'd kill WV 55's multiplexes and move WV 42 onto part of current WV 93 and US 48 between Scherr and Bismarck. I'd either cut back WV 93 to Scherr or Mount Storm Lake. Hopefully DOH will review the issue once the have construction finished into Davis.

Indeed, it was worse. I have seen maps showing WV 4 co-signed with US 60 west of Charleston all the way to at least Huntington, if not the Kentucky state line. And isn't there still some WV 92 signage along WV 7 in Morgantown?

I thought that WV 55 was signed as one long route to denote a single scenic corridor. With the addition of US 48 east from Wardensville to the Virginia state line, there's only one small section of it that is independently signed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 04:51:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2014, 03:50:21 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
FWIW, WVDOH has long liked useless multiplexes.  Today, WV 39 has a useless multiple with WV 16 for the last 6 miles into Gauley Bridge. Aside from the interchange connector at Moorefield, WV 55 is entirely multiplexed with other routes for its easternmost 211 miles. WV 92 and WV 28 also have 40+ mile multiplexes in the middle of their routes.  It used to be worse - WV 4 was formerly multiplexed with WV 20, US 33, WV 28, and US 50 from Buckhannon into Virginia.

I do agree the routes should be reshuffled.  I'd kill WV 55's multiplexes and move WV 42 onto part of current WV 93 and US 48 between Scherr and Bismarck. I'd either cut back WV 93 to Scherr or Mount Storm Lake. Hopefully DOH will review the issue once the have construction finished into Davis.

Indeed, it was worse. I have seen maps showing WV 4 co-signed with US 60 west of Charleston all the way to at least Huntington, if not the Kentucky state line. And isn't there still some WV 92 signage along WV 7 in Morgantown?

I thought that WV 55 was signed as one long route to denote a single scenic corridor. With the addition of US 48 east from Wardensville to the Virginia state line, there's only one small section of it that is independently signed.
Yeah, WV 4 was multiplexed on the west end along US 60 over to Kentucky, too.  The signage for WV 92 along WV 7 between Reedsville and Morgantown finally came down a couple years ago.  According to some old maps, at point it actually also followed US 19 north to the PA line.

I think you're right on the WV 55 being intended as a scenic corridor since WV 150 (Highland Scenic Highway) was at one point along the part south/west of Elkins.  I've never actually seen it marketed as "follow WV 55 for scenery" or anything like that, though.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 11:07:57 PM
Quote from: dave19 on December 17, 2014, 10:10:43 PM
QuoteI'm not sure why the multiplex would be confusing to anyone. If anything, I think abruptly changing numbers while the corridor is still under construction would be more confusing to people.

It's not the multiplex that is potentially confusing; it's traveling eastbound and seeing a BGS that says WV 93/Bismarck - 2 miles, then continuing less than a mile and seeing signs telling you to turn right to continue onto East 93 but seeing another BGS further down the highway that says WV 93/Bismarck - 1 mile, that's what might cause some confusion.
OK.  It could be a case where they pull the WV thing of removing the shields from the BGS.

Quote from: dave19 on December 17, 2014, 10:10:43 PM
Agreed regarding the 55 and 92 situations. That's a lot of money spent on signs. 55 should be truncated at Craigsville, and that southern piece of 92 could be an extension of either WV 311 or 84.
I've thought a southern extension of WV 28 to replace WV 92 would make sense.  WV 92 didn't exist south of Belington until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s.  WV 28 previously followed what is now WV 92 from Dunmore to Minnehaha Springs, where it ended.  The current WV 28 between Dunmore and WV 39 and WV 92 south of WV 39 were county routes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 18, 2014, 08:21:00 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 11:07:57 PM
I've thought a southern extension of WV 28 to replace WV 92 would make sense.  WV 92 didn't exist south of Belington until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s.  WV 28 previously followed what is now WV 92 from Dunmore to Minnehaha Springs, where it ended.  The current WV 28 between Dunmore and WV 39 and WV 92 south of WV 39 were county routes.

I was going to say, I've seen old maps that show 92 extending down to White Sulphur Springs and WV 28 ending at US 250.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 19, 2014, 05:03:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 18, 2014, 08:21:00 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 17, 2014, 11:07:57 PM
I've thought a southern extension of WV 28 to replace WV 92 would make sense.  WV 92 didn't exist south of Belington until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s.  WV 28 previously followed what is now WV 92 from Dunmore to Minnehaha Springs, where it ended.  The current WV 28 between Dunmore and WV 39 and WV 92 south of WV 39 were county routes.

I was going to say, I've seen old maps that show 92 extending down to White Sulphur Springs and WV 28 ending at US 250.

I wonder if there was some intermediate period then where they truncated WV 28 and the re-extended it back down.  Southern WV 92 did not exist on the 1961 map, but it's there by the mid-1970s ones.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 21, 2014, 09:45:38 AM
If you go back far enough (the mid-30s), what is now 28 south of Petersburg to Dunmore then 92 via Frost to Minnehaha Springs was originally part of WV 42.  This was changed to WV 28, with WV 42 truncated to Petersburg, no later than 1938.

As Dave notes, the first map that shows WV 92 to the south is the 1970 map.  It is not shown on the 1968-69 map, so it can be surmised that WV 92 was extended ca. 1969.  Furthermore, for the first several years, WV 28/WV 92 were concurrent all the way to WV 39/Minnehaha Springs.  WV 28 wasn't given its current routing south of Dunmore until between 1976 and 1978.

On a related note, the maps show that what is now WV 28 south of Dunmore to WV 39 was paved by 1957.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2014, 12:01:16 PM
Corridor H complete?  According to Google Maps it is!  ;-)

Davis to Kerens (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=davis+wva&daddr=kerens+wva&hl=en&sll=39.128719,-79.464774&sspn=0.053665,0.09244&geocode=FY8OVQIdunZD-ymFFXiY1MtKiDEOWz5l5JeXQQ%3BFf1IUwId0SM--ykbOcTabuZKiDGLDuxUXu0nIA&t=h&mra=ls&z=12), though it insists on routing via U.S. 219.  :-(
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 02, 2015, 03:19:33 PM
WVMetroNews.com: Big projects planned for state highways in 2015 (http://wvmetronews.com/2015/01/01/big-projects-planned-for-state-highways-in-2015/)

[Emphasis added]

QuoteThe West Virginia Department of Transportation hopes to move forward on a number of highway projects in West Virginia during 2015.

QuoteState Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox recently told MetroNews the calendar this year includes advancements on several major projects already underway.

Quote"We've got West Virginia 10 down in Logan County. We have let all the mainline contracts and look forward to letting the contract on the paving this year,"  said Mattox. "We also continue work on Corridor H. We hope 2015 will see us complete Corridor H almost to the town of Davis."

QuoteThe next target for Corridor H will be the section from Parsons to Kerens. Mattox was optimistic that could be launched this year as well.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on February 11, 2015, 04:46:15 PM
Update available at http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map4.html.  Mostly what we already knew.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on May 28, 2015, 09:55:10 AM
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on May 28, 2015, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: machpost on May 28, 2015, 09:55:10 AM
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW

Cool. More new US 48 to drive when I go to Maryland in September. Will anything else be opened between now and then?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on May 28, 2015, 07:21:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 28, 2015, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: machpost on May 28, 2015, 09:55:10 AM
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW

Cool. More new US 48 to drive when I go to Maryland in September. Will anything else be opened between now and then?

The last I heard, it should be complete to Davis by sometime this fall. Probably more like November than September, if I had to guess.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on May 28, 2015, 07:36:59 PM
Pictures of the ribbon cutting are on the WVDOT Facebook page
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 29, 2015, 07:45:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 28, 2015, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: machpost on May 28, 2015, 09:55:10 AM
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW

Cool. More new US 48 to drive when I go to Maryland in September. Will anything else be opened between now and then?

Not sure any more will be "officially" open - but - a lot of Corridor H between Bismarck and Davis is open to traffic as a two-lane highway (the eastbound lanes).  Along this stretch, much of the pavement that made up W.Va. 93 has been entirely removed -  to some extent the westbound lanes will cross old the W.Va. 93 roadbed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on May 30, 2015, 02:13:43 AM
We drove home yesterday afternoon on the newest 3.0 mile segment from the Grant/Tucker County line to the Bismarck interchange that opened last November.  Got to see the much anticipated view of Mt. Storm dam from the downstream perspective as you cross the new Stony River bridge.  But if you blink you may miss it. 

Altogether, the completed eastern portion of Corridor H now measures 51 miles of 4-lane divided highway from the new entry point to the off ramp approaching Wardensville.  It took us just 43 minutes.  Nice. 

As far as that last remaining ~10 mile stretch of Corridor H within Tucker County; depending on the day or time, you can expect to see either a fair amount of heavy earthmoving equipment at work, or else nothing at all.  They were still blasting and hauling boulders in one area just three or four weeks ago.  At the current rate of progress, I don't really see how they can expect to be open to Davis by the end of calendar year 2015, as is still projected by WVDOT at http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map4.html 

We've been driving east-west on WV55 and the new portions of US48 and observing the construction progress on this project for all 15 years of it now, and we haven't seen any previous segment get from basic earth and rock removal to ribbon cutting in anything less than 18 months.  So I'll be pleasantly surprised to be all the way thru to Davis on the completed highway too much before the first snow flurries arrive in the fall of 2016. 

And since the final piece of WV 93 thru Tucker that is still under some form of Corridor H construction was always a fairly flat, straight stretch of highland plateau to begin with, what we mostly look forward to is gaining back 20 or more mph from the dreadfully slow 45 mph pace now being endured as you alternate for practically all of that 10 miles between the old two lanes of 93 and the new and improved two lanes of Corridor H. 

Anyway, we still managed to set a new trip record from Timberline Rd in Canaan Valley to Exit 44 of I-66 at Gainesville, in only 2 hrs and 15 minutes. 

   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2015, 11:00:36 PM
TINewsDaily.com:  New Corridor H project to be put out to bid soon (http://tinewsdaily.com/stories/510547373-new-corridor-h-project-to-be-put-out-to-bid-soon)

QuoteWith the recent completion of a 4.4-mile section of the Appalachian Corridor H, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin announced last week that construction on another project --  a 7.7-mile stretch of Corridor H -- would be put out for bid soon.

QuoteThe new portion of the four-lane highway will run from Kerens, West Virginia, half way to Parsons.

Quote"Completing Corridor H has been a work in progress for a number of years, and I'm pleased we are able to announce work on an additional stretch of roadway to bring this project one-step closer to completion,"  Tomblin said. "These continued efforts are made possible through public-private partnerships that not only save taxpayers' dollars, but help to speed up construction and spur economic growth. By investing in our infrastructure, we have the potential to impact both our state and local economies. I look forward to announcing the bidding process for this new stretch of road in a few weeks."  
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on June 07, 2015, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 14, 2012, 08:22:32 AM
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say.  A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5.  But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal. 

"I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." is one of the Republic Party's main talking points, along with "if we let the biscuits get married civilization will collapse and Christianity will be made illegal", plus "we get to tell you what you can do with your own bodies and in your own bedrooms."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on June 07, 2015, 10:51:17 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 07:37:53 AM
Really, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance.  Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.

The state who allow(s?ed?) mountaintop removal has no room to talk. US 48 (I refuse to call it "Corridor H" because it sounds like a hallway in a psych ward) is barely noticeable and the environmental impacts are very low. I've never been in that part of West Virginia, but from what I've seen the terrain is similar to the Ozarks (yes, I know they were formed differently) and I-49 (nee I-540) hasn't changed the landscape or ruined the lifestyle of anybody down in the valleys except for a few high bridges that are quite scenic in my opinion. I-49 through the Ouachita Mountains will be going through folded mountains that are more rugged than the eroded plateau that formed the Ozarks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on June 07, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
A) Marijuana is wonderful.
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.
D) No, seriously, have you smoked up yet?

I wonder if CPZ and HBE have smelled the good stuff or just old Mexican dirtweed. They smell COMPLETELY different (not that I would know by experience, hehehe). Even different strains of high quality cannabis flowers can smell completely different. Some of it has a skunky odor. You might have smelled some shitty weed because good weed has a wonderful odor.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on June 07, 2015, 12:01:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 16, 2012, 12:11:11 AM
Kentucky does pretty much the same thing as West Virginia when it comes to building roads through the mountains. You ought to check out the two newest sections of US 119 for evidence.

We'll find out how Arkansas does it when I-49 between Ft Smith and about DeQueen is built. Most of their new highway construction has been on the southeastern half of the state, which is largely flat (the new interstates they have recently built, I-530/AR 530 (Future I-530), I-555, AR 440 (Future I-440) US 67 (Future I-30) and Future I-69 all go through flat areas.) My hypothesis is that AHTD builds roads where they can build them the cheapest. I-49 north of Fort Smith and south of Texarkana were the easiest parts of 49 to build, so of course we got them first. I-49 north of Alma runs along ridges and doesn't have a lot of steep mountains to climb, and many of the valleys are simply bridged. The one big "mountain" on the route is tunneled. I would be willing to bet that not one person on this forum will live to see the day that I-49 is completed from the Louisiana line to the Missouri line.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2015, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 07, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
I wonder if CPZ and HBE have smelled the good stuff or just old Mexican dirtweed. They smell COMPLETELY different (not that I would know by experience, hehehe). Even different strains of high quality cannabis flowers can smell completely different. Some of it has a skunky odor. You might have smelled some shitty weed because good weed has a wonderful odor.

I know what marihuana smells like, but no idea how to distinguish good stuff from dirtweed, as I have not smoked any of it (what I have smelled was remarkably nasty, but I did not know its origin).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2015, 01:45:35 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 07, 2015, 10:51:17 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 07:37:53 AM
Really, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance.  Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.

The state who allow(s?ed?) mountaintop removal has no room to talk. US 48 (I refuse to call it "Corridor H" because it sounds like a hallway in a psych ward) is barely noticeable and the environmental impacts are very low.

The western part of Corridor H (between Weston and Kerens) is not currently signed as U.S. 48 (in spite of what Google Maps says).  It is either U.S. 33, U.S. 119, U.S. 219, U.S. 250, W.Va. 92 or some combination thereof.

Quote from: bugo on June 07, 2015, 10:51:17 AM
I've never been in that part of West Virginia, but from what I've seen the terrain is similar to the Ozarks (yes, I know they were formed differently) and I-49 (nee I-540) hasn't changed the landscape or ruined the lifestyle of anybody down in the valleys except for a few high bridges that are quite scenic in my opinion. I-49 through the Ouachita Mountains will be going through folded mountains that are more rugged than the eroded plateau that formed the Ozarks.

I have not been in Arkansas, so I will not make any comments about the environmental or socioeconomic impacts of large highway projects there.

But I know this part of West Virginia pretty well.

The Ozarks are not as high as the Alleghenies, which the U.S. 48 part of Corridor H now reaches. 

At the Eastern Continental Divide (Tucker County/Grant County border), the road tops out at well over 3,300 feet (the nearby Maryland high point on the ridgetop of Backbone Mountain is about 3,380 feet AMSL, the West Virginia high point is some distance south, on Spruce Knob at better than 4,800 AMSL), all of which are significantly higher than the high point of Arkansas.   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on June 07, 2015, 05:49:26 PM
West Virginia has taken pains to make the easternmost portion of Corridor H as much of a scenic highway as possible, including decorative bridge railings, Core-Ten guardrail, brown signposts and a few other features.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2015, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 07, 2015, 05:49:26 PM
West Virginia has taken pains to make the easternmost portion of Corridor H as much of a scenic highway as possible, including decorative bridge railings, Core-Ten guardrail, brown signposts and a few other features.

Agreed.

A lot of money was spent designing and building stormwater management/detention basins along the road.

The scenic view areas (one on each side of Moorefield, plus one that is spectacular on the eastbound side between Bismarck/Mount Storm (W.Va. 42 and W.Va. 93) and Scherr, where the highway descends the Allegheny Front range) are a nice added touch. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on June 08, 2015, 07:21:02 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 07, 2015, 01:45:35 PM
At the Eastern Continental Divide (Tucker County/Grant County border), the road tops out at well over 3,300 feet (the nearby Maryland high point on the ridgetop of Backbone Mountain is about 3,380 feet AMSL, the West Virginia high point is some distance south, on Spruce Knob at better than 4,800 AMSL), all of which are significantly higher than the high point of Arkansas.   

The distance above sea level is irrelevant. The distance between the mountain peaks and the valleys below is what is important if you're comparing the two.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 08, 2015, 07:57:35 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 08, 2015, 07:21:02 AM
The distance above sea level is irrelevant. The distance between the mountain peaks and the valleys below is what is important if you're comparing the two.

That is pretty significant as well.

What's built now rises from an elevation of around 1,000 feet near the Cacapon River at Wardensville up to about 3,400 feet near the crest of the Eastern Continental Divide.  By East Coast standards, that is a lot of elevation gain.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bugo on June 08, 2015, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 08, 2015, 07:57:35 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 08, 2015, 07:21:02 AM
The distance above sea level is irrelevant. The distance between the mountain peaks and the valleys below is what is important if you're comparing the two.

That is pretty significant as well.

What's built now rises from an elevation of around 1,000 feet near the Cacapon River at Wardensville up to about 3,400 feet near the crest of the Eastern Continental Divide.  By East Coast standards, that is a lot of elevation gain.

That is indeed more of a vertical distance than the highest point in the Ozarks (Turner Ward Knob). The vertical distances in the Ouachitas are greater than the distances in the Ozarks, and the tallest mountains are taller than the mountains in the Ozarks.

Off topic, but the Ozark Mountains are an eroded plateau, while the Ouachita Mountains are folded mountains. The Ozarks were once flat until they were slowly eroded into what they are today, while the Ouachitas were created when the South American plate crashed into the North American plate and the area that was once a shallow sea was pushed upward. The Ouachitas were once as tall as the Rockies but they have eroded to what they are now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 07, 2015, 12:17:08 PM
The Inter-Mountain.com: Rotary hears Corridor H news (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/586900/Rotary-hears-Corridor-H-news.html)

QuoteRobbie Morris, president of the Robert C. Byrd Corridor H Authority, gave the Elkins Rotary Club an update on the status of Corridor H construction during the club's Monday meeting.

QuoteMorris began by giving a factual overview of the Corridor, saying slightly more than three quarters of the roadway within West Virginia either is completed or currently under construction.

Quote"Corridor H is 130 miles long going from Weston, I-79, eventually to Strasburg, Front Royal and the I-81/I-66 interchange in Virginia," Morris said. "With the 4.4 miles just recently opened around Mt. Storm, 76 percent of the road in West Virginia is now complete, with the recent announcement of another 7.5 mile stretch that will go under construction later on this year.

Quote"By the time the current section from Davis to right around Mt. Storm is completed later on this year, we will be up close to 87 percent complete or under construction," Morris continued.

QuoteThe segments still left to be completed are the 15.5 mile section from Kerens to Parsons, the 9.2 mile section from Parsons to Davis and the 6.8 mile section from Wardensville to the Virginia state line.

QuoteDue to the current funding structure of the Corridor H project, the estimated completion date is between 22 and 27 years away.

Quote"Currently with the funding mechanism for Corridor H, depending upon which agency you talk to, Corridor H is expected to be completed by either 2037 or 2042," Morris said. "(The state Division of Highways) says 2037, Appalachian Regional Commission says 2042."

QuoteMorris said a transportation bill passed a few years ago took away a requirement that a state must match 20 percent of federal funding to complete ADHS Corridors.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 07, 2015, 12:18:49 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 08, 2015, 09:44:15 AM
Off topic, but the Ozark Mountains are an eroded plateau, while the Ouachita Mountains are folded mountains. The Ozarks were once flat until they were slowly eroded into what they are today, while the Ouachitas were created when the South American plate crashed into the North American plate and the area that was once a shallow sea was pushed upward. The Ouachitas were once as tall as the Rockies but they have eroded to what they are now.

The Appalachians were created when the African and North American plates crashed into each other, but are much lower than they once were.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 07, 2015, 12:17:08 PM
The Inter-Mountain.com: Rotary hears Corridor H news (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/586900/Rotary-hears-Corridor-H-news.html)

QuoteRobbie Morris, president of the Robert C. Byrd Corridor H Authority, gave the Elkins Rotary Club an update on the status of Corridor H construction during the club's Monday meeting.

QuoteMorris began by giving a factual overview of the Corridor, saying slightly more than three quarters of the roadway within West Virginia either is completed or currently under construction.

Quote"Corridor H is 130 miles long going from Weston, I-79, eventually to Strasburg, Front Royal and the I-81/I-66 interchange in Virginia," Morris said. "With the 4.4 miles just recently opened around Mt. Storm, 76 percent of the road in West Virginia is now complete, with the recent announcement of another 7.5 mile stretch that will go under construction later on this year.

Quote"By the time the current section from Davis to right around Mt. Storm is completed later on this year, we will be up close to 87 percent complete or under construction," Morris continued.

QuoteThe segments still left to be completed are the 15.5 mile section from Kerens to Parsons, the 9.2 mile section from Parsons to Davis and the 6.8 mile section from Wardensville to the Virginia state line.

QuoteDue to the current funding structure of the Corridor H project, the estimated completion date is between 22 and 27 years away.

Quote"Currently with the funding mechanism for Corridor H, depending upon which agency you talk to, Corridor H is expected to be completed by either 2037 or 2042," Morris said. "(The state Division of Highways) says 2037, Appalachian Regional Commission says 2042."

QuoteMorris said a transportation bill passed a few years ago took away a requirement that a state must match 20 percent of federal funding to complete ADHS Corridors.

It is looking good for Corridor H. Virginia is still a long way off from building their part of Corridor H however they do have it in long range plans.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 07, 2015, 07:56:22 PM
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.

Ummmm, no it's not.  Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document.  VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on July 07, 2015, 08:10:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 07:56:22 PM
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.

Ummmm, no it's not.  Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document.  VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).

Nothing with Corridor H is in Vtrans 2025 or Vtrans 2035 plans either...

Mike

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 07, 2015, 09:33:33 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 07, 2015, 08:10:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 07:56:22 PM
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.

Ummmm, no it's not.  Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document.  VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).

Nothing with Corridor H is in Vtrans 2025 or Vtrans 2035 plans either...

Mike

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

Oh
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2015, 12:11:56 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2015, 07:56:22 PM
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.

Ummmm, no it's not.  Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document.  VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).

Agree with Adam that it is not in anything that VDOT is working on now or planning on working on in the reasonably near future.

Perhaps more to the point, if it were in the Virginia six year improvement program (sometimes called the "six year plan" or "VDOT six year plan"), even for planning and preliminary engineering, it would show up on the Web site that VDOT has developed for same, which is located here (http://syip.virginiadot.org/Pages/allProjects.aspx).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mattpedersen on July 10, 2015, 11:32:40 AM
I have driven Corridor H twice in the past few weeks, once from Davis to Wardensville two weeks ago, and Bismark to Wardensville yesterday. I snapped some photos two weeks ago, and will try to get them off my phone and posted sometime soon. Sections 26-28 look like they will open by the end of the summer. Sections 22-25 Eastbound lanes are completed and open to two way traffic. The Westbound lanes look like they are still in "rough grading" and appear to have a lot of work to do to get them open. Otherwise the route is an easy drive where it has been completed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 11, 2015, 09:13:14 AM
Quote from: mattpedersen on July 10, 2015, 11:32:40 AM
I have driven Corridor H twice in the past few weeks, once from Davis to Wardensville two weeks ago, and Bismark to Wardensville yesterday. I snapped some photos two weeks ago, and will try to get them off my phone and posted sometime soon. Sections 26-28 look like they will open by the end of the summer. Sections 22-25 Eastbound lanes are completed and open to two way traffic. The Westbound lanes look like they are still in "rough grading" and appear to have a lot of work to do to get them open. Otherwise the route is an easy drive where it has been completed.

It appears to me that a two-lane Corridor H between the current western terminus of the eastern four-lane section at the Tucker County/Grant County border (a few miles west of the DVP Mount Storm Generating Station) and W.Va. 32 between Thomas and Davis should be complete before the current construction season ends.  Not sure that all four lanes will be done, however.  That may have to wait for 2016.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mattpedersen on July 11, 2015, 09:51:07 PM
QuoteIt appears to me that a two-lane Corridor H between the current western terminus of the eastern four-lane section at the Tucker County/Grant County border (a few miles west of the DVP Mount Storm Generating Station) and W.Va. 32 between Thomas and Davis should be complete before the current construction season ends.  Not sure that all four lanes will be done, however.  That may have to wait for 2016.

I agree with that statement. That section was mostly built on it's own ROW too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 01:51:22 AM
Up to this year, I had seen almost no traffic law enforcement on the eastern part of Corridor H (now Wardensville to outskirts of Davis).

That seems to have changed.  This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mattpedersen on July 12, 2015, 09:44:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 01:51:22 AM
That seems to have changed.  This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).

I saw a WV Trooper heading Westbound on Thursday, the first time I have seen any law enforcement presence on the road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: mattpedersen on July 12, 2015, 09:44:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 01:51:22 AM
That seems to have changed.  This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).

I saw a WV Trooper heading Westbound on Thursday, the first time I have seen any law enforcement presence on the road.

I have seen (marked) WVSP trooper cars on the road in the past, but until this year, I had not seen anyone stopped by them or deputy sheriffs.  Most recently, I saw the Grant County SO with someone stopped on the westbound side between W.Va. 93 and the Nedpower windfarm east of the generating station.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on July 14, 2015, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 09:49:27 PM
Quote from: mattpedersen on July 12, 2015, 09:44:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 01:51:22 AM
That seems to have changed.  This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).

I saw a WV Trooper heading Westbound on Thursday, the first time I have seen any law enforcement presence on the road.

I have seen (marked) WVSP trooper cars on the road in the past, but until this year, I had not seen anyone stopped by them or deputy sheriffs.  Most recently, I saw the Grant County SO with someone stopped on the westbound side between W.Va. 93 and the Nedpower windfarm east of the generating station.

Speed enforcement in rural areas in WV is generally pretty minimal, but from what I've seen with traffic going well above 65-70 on Corridor H, I'm not surprised there is a move to tamp that down.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2015, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 14, 2015, 08:09:07 PM
Speed enforcement in rural areas in WV is generally pretty minimal, but from what I've seen with traffic going well above 65-70 on Corridor H, I'm not surprised there is a move to tamp that down.

Somewhat surprised that the D.C. crotch rocket (high-powered motorcycle) crowd has not discovered Corridor H yet.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: DeaconG on July 15, 2015, 07:54:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2015, 10:35:13 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 14, 2015, 08:09:07 PM
Speed enforcement in rural areas in WV is generally pretty minimal, but from what I've seen with traffic going well above 65-70 on Corridor H, I'm not surprised there is a move to tamp that down.

Somewhat surprised that the D.C. crotch rocket (high-powered motorcycle) crowd has not discovered Corridor H yet.

All it will take is for one of them to post a YouTube of their GoPro/camcorder footage and away we go...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 15, 2015, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 15, 2015, 07:54:23 AM
All it will take is for one of them to post a YouTube of their GoPro/camcorder footage and away we go...

Agreed. Though they might be in for an unpleasant surprise with West Virginia law enforcement and the judicial system.

I suspect that West Virginia law enforcement is not under any limitations when it comes to pursuits, and judges in places like Hardy County and Grant County are probably perfectly willing to sentence a crotch rocketer from the District of Columbia to a stay in jail (though I have not read of speeders being sentenced to jail in West Virginia, as they are with some frequency in rural Virginia counties).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on July 16, 2015, 03:50:04 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 15, 2015, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 15, 2015, 07:54:23 AM
All it will take is for one of them to post a YouTube of their GoPro/camcorder footage and away we go...

Agreed. Though they might be in for an unpleasant surprise with West Virginia law enforcement and the judicial system.

I suspect that West Virginia law enforcement is not under any limitations when it comes to pursuits, and judges in places like Hardy County and Grant County are probably perfectly willing to sentence a crotch rocketer from the District of Columbia to a stay in jail (though I have not read of speeders being sentenced to jail in West Virginia, as they are with some frequency in rural Virginia counties).
Yeah, speed enforcement in the western Virginia counties can be quite strict. A friend of a friend once spent a weekend in the slammer for doing 85 or so along US-211.

At the end of the month I'll be headed through the eastern section of Corridor H. Does anyone know how far west it has been opened to traffic?  Google says it's been opened to about CR-90/1, but other mapping sites (OSM, Bing) seem to put its ending further east.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: davewiecking on July 16, 2015, 05:31:05 PM
You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 05:35:29 PM
All I know is that Waverly, VA (not western Virginia, but still) has one of the dirtiest speed traps I've ever come across countrywide along US 460.  The only thing keeping that town alive is speeding fines (just check out their Taj Mahal of a courthouse!).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2015, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on July 16, 2015, 05:31:05 PM
You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.

Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 in a 55-mph zone on the Capital Beltway that happened to be a work zone. That's just plain dumb on his part.

But yes, anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket regardless of the posted speed limit, and in Virginia reckless driving is a misdemeanor.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on July 16, 2015, 09:40:53 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2015, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on July 16, 2015, 05:31:05 PM
You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.

Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 in a 55-mph zone on the Capital Beltway that happened to be a work zone. That's just plain dumb on his part.

But yes, anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket regardless of the posted speed limit, and in Virginia reckless driving is a misdemeanor.
I'd like to know how he managed that. I'd imagine that the beltway is busy all hours of the day.

Nexus 6

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 16, 2015, 10:03:43 PM
It was 8:00 on a Sunday morning over Independence Day weekend last year (Sunday, July 6). He entered the Inner Loop from Georgetown Pike (Exit 44) and exited onto the GW Parkway (Exit 43). He lives on Georgetown Pike.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 17, 2015, 12:44:52 AM
Quote from: Thing 342 on July 16, 2015, 03:50:04 PM
At the end of the month I'll be headed through the eastern section of Corridor H. Does anyone know how far west it has been opened to traffic?  Google says it's been opened to about CR-90/1, but other mapping sites (OSM, Bing) seem to put its ending further east.

It is completely open (all four lanes) to the Tucker County/Grant County line (also the Eastern Continental Divide), west of the DVP Mount Storm Generating Station.

At that point, you are forced off onto the old W.Va. 93 for a relatively short distance, then back onto the new pavement of Corridor H, but only in a two-land undivided configuration. That new pavement continues much of the way to W.Va. 32  between Thomas and Davis, the work zone ends a short distance east of the tee intersection at W.Va. 32.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mrsman on July 19, 2015, 09:50:16 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 16, 2015, 07:18:21 PM
Quote from: davewiecking on July 16, 2015, 05:31:05 PM
You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.

Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 in a 55-mph zone on the Capital Beltway that happened to be a work zone. That's just plain dumb on his part.

But yes, anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket regardless of the posted speed limit, and in Virginia reckless driving is a misdemeanor.

105 is crazy, but 80 is too low for many freeways to be considered a misdemeanor in my opinion, particulary for many rural Interstates that are straight and clear and in many other states would be signed for 70 or 75 easily.

I'd say, better to make the limit for recklessness 20 over or 90, whichever is higher.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on July 19, 2015, 10:51:05 AM
I agree with you completely and I think the Virginia law is a bit of a "gotcha" law, especially since 70-mph speed limits were made routine in 2010. It's rather absurd of them to claim that 11 mph over the limit is inherently reckless. Of course it CAN be, depending on the conditions, but it shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY be.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 19, 2015, 11:20:10 AM
The idea that there is some sort of thing less than a "misdemeanor", which is something the kangaroo court and traffic cop random tax scum use to deny people their Constitutional rights is, of course, fundamentally un-American and repugnant.  If a law enforcement officer (health inspector, truck weigher, enviro officer, squirrel sheriff, or whatever)  tries to take one cent from you, IMHO, that is a misdemeanor and you have a inalienable right to a full trial before a jury with every single Constitutional protection that is accorded any criminal defendant charged with anything.  If it too much burden on the random taxing jurisdiction, then there is an easy solution.  Rip the radar gun out of the car, take an exit and DO SERIOUS AND USEFUL WORK against actual criminals.

As to "reckless", there, of course, should be no numerical definition.  "Reckless" means "without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action".  Which is, of course, a question of fact for a jury, considering all of the circumstances.  Certainly, there exist plenty of roads that, after considering all of the consequences, can be safely driven by highly skilled drivers at speeds far above the posted SL, no numerical definition is possible.  At such a trial, the first question a good lawyer would ask the random taxer would be "have you ever driven X MPH?"  The second would be "and you were acting at that time 'without thinking of the consequences' ?"  Case dismissed.  Maybe Mr. Wyrth's actions were "reckless" or maybe not.  I do not know the totality of the circumstances.  I do know, of course, that there was a dark age when ignorant people said "55 saves lives", and that history has proven these morons dead wrong, so, if on Mr. Wyrth's jury, I would have to hear a lot of evidence to overcome the Constitutional presumption of innocence. 

Of course, the random tax scum often openly commit perjury in their random tax "tickets" (sworn court papers) by falsely claiming their victim was going X when he or she was actually going many multiples of that, telling their victim they are "giving them a break" because they could be charged with "reckless driving".  Which is much like a rapist asking for mercy because he wore a condom.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on July 23, 2015, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: mattpedersen on July 10, 2015, 11:32:40 AM
I have driven Corridor H twice in the past few weeks, once from Davis to Wardensville two weeks ago, and Bismark to Wardensville yesterday. I snapped some photos two weeks ago, and will try to get them off my phone and posted sometime soon. Sections 26-28 look like they will open by the end of the summer. Sections 22-25 Eastbound lanes are completed and open to two way traffic. The Westbound lanes look like they are still in "rough grading" and appear to have a lot of work to do to get them open. Otherwise the route is an easy drive where it has been completed.

I was just through there yesterday (no photos, I limped back home tired and sick from a month-long road trip). The open four-lane section, east from the Tucker/Grant county line, is signed as US 48/WV 93, with the first EB signs right at the county line. WV 93 peels away at an intersection NW of the power plant, east of there the new Corridor H segment is signed only as US 48.

The closed section just west of the county line looks close to ready, and indeed already has US 48/WV 93 signs posted. Traffic is detoured onto the old WV 93 roadway for now. The rest of the way is as Matt reports, but the newly built EB lanes (carrying two-way traffic for now) start about a mile or so east of WV 32, with traffic using the old WV 93 roadway between WV 32 and the new EB lanes. No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2015, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 23, 2015, 05:05:04 PM
No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.

IMO, it's about time for WVDOT to (at least) post U.S. 48 trailblazers from the intersection of W.Va. 32 and U.S. 219 in downtown Thomas and from the state parks and resorts along W.Va. 32 south of Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 31, 2015, 09:24:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2015, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 23, 2015, 05:05:04 PM
No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.

IMO, it's about time for WVDOT to (at least) post U.S. 48 trailblazers from the intersection of W.Va. 32 and U.S. 219 in downtown Thomas and from the state parks and resorts along W.Va. 32 south of Davis.

There is really no reason that WVDOT can't sign US 48 in its entirety from Weston to the state line. Route it concurrently with US 219 from Elkins to the Davis/Thomas area. More than likely, US 219 is going to be concurrent with US 48 from Elkins all the way to where the routes will split in that area anyway.

This would also allow WVDOT to route US 33/250 along the old route into Elkins that is now signed only as WV 92. It really never made a lot of sense to me to have only WV 92 on that road, and the route number designation change completely for through traffic at the interchange north of Elkins where US 33/250 currently leave Corridor H and US 219 enters.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2015, 01:51:40 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2015, 09:24:31 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 31, 2015, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: oscar on July 23, 2015, 05:05:04 PM
No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.

IMO, it's about time for WVDOT to (at least) post U.S. 48 trailblazers from the intersection of W.Va. 32 and U.S. 219 in downtown Thomas and from the state parks and resorts along W.Va. 32 south of Davis.

There is really no reason that WVDOT can't sign US 48 in its entirety from Weston to the state line. Route it concurrently with US 219 from Elkins to the Davis/Thomas area. More than likely, US 219 is going to be concurrent with US 48 from Elkins all the way to where the routes will split in that area anyway.

I agree.  Since it is pretty clear that there is going to be a continuous four-lane expressway-type road from Weston at least as far east as Wardensville, and perhaps the ridgetop of Great North Mountain (W.Va./Va. state line) and eventually on to I-81 outside of Strasburg, Va. 

Only issue I am aware of is a posted bridge on U.S. 48/W.Va. 55 at a tributary of the Cacapon River east of the current W.Va. 259 intersection at about where the road starts to climb up the mountain toward Virginia. The weight limits on that bridge are not terribly low, but that could be a problem for some loads.

In spite of its steep grades and sharp curves between Parsons and Thomas, current U.S. 219 (Seneca Trail) is open to all traffic - no truck restrictions, so it could be signed as U.S. 48.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2015, 09:24:31 PM
This would also allow WVDOT to route US 33/250 along the old route into Elkins that is now signed only as WV 92. It really never made a lot of sense to me to have only WV 92 on that road, and the route number designation change completely for through traffic at the interchange north of Elkins where US 33/250 currently leave Corridor H and US 219 enters.

Also agree.  U.S. 48 really ought to take precedence over all those other routes that run along parts of Corridor H, east and west.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on August 02, 2015, 08:48:14 AM
Just took a trip along the eastern portion of Corridor H today, from the state line to Davis, where I'm staying for the weekend. I didn't see any type of law enforcement, except along the 25 mph speed trap in Wardensville on the old two-lane section. It was a nice ride, however, we kept passing an aggressive Hummer who would do 80+ down the hills and 45-ish on the way up. The newest section just west of the Grant-Tucker line looks about ready to open, with the lanes painted and mileage signs up. The other side of the currently two-lane section near Davis is still mostly in the grading stage, however, a section had recently had a layer of fresh concrete poured over it. The speed limit on that section is an agonizingly slow 45mph with no passing zones, which is weird since the final speed on that section will be 65mph.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hvxLxJwwwVQC3oY7y4ArrGqt-eLGwhUZ1sE0lng2fUg=w1920-h1082-no)

I'm currently planning on taking a trip to Weston, which will get the rest of Corridor H. Will probably take a few photos of that stretch and post them in a few days.

Photos can be found here: https://goo.gl/photos/WKqnrESqUDXxTvNG6 (https://goo.gl/photos/WKqnrESqUDXxTvNG6)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on August 18, 2015, 12:37:59 AM
Less than 3 months later, WVDOH has quietly slipped the schedule for completion of the 4-lane segment to Davis to the summer of 2016... which is about what I was expecting to see sooner or later.
http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map4.html


     
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 19, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
How long before Corridor H is completed and signposted as US 48 between Interstate 79 and Interstate 81?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2015, 04:28:52 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 19, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
How long before Corridor H is completed and signposted as US 48 between Interstate 79 and Interstate 81?

It will be a while. WVDOH seems uninterested in signing the western part as U.S. 48, and only signs the eastern part as sections are completed. 

And it is signed in Virginia, but there is no mention of Corridor H in the Commonwealth's Six Year Program.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on August 19, 2015, 09:13:57 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 19, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
How long before Corridor H is completed and signposted as US 48 between Interstate 79 and Interstate 81?
Construction on the segment from Parsons to Davis is not scheduled to start until 2031 at the earliest.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 21, 2015, 08:23:20 PM
I had the opportunity to drive the newest sections of Corridor H from Davis/Thomas a few weeks back. The newest segment east of Davis/Thomas is on its way to completion and features two notable changes to its construction from earlier segments. The transversely tined concrete has been switched to longitudinally tined that's now showing up extensively elsewhere in the state and in Ohio. It should be a lot quieter - I can unfortunately hear Corridor H's traffic from certain vantage points in Canaan Valley, so anything less noisy should help out in that regard.

It also seems that West Virginia is switching to snowplowable recessed markers by installing a groove 8' in length to hold two markers. (Very similar to what Kentucky is now doing after numerous tests over the past few years: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=ktc_researchreports). The new markers were very effective at night and in the rain on my last trip.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 21, 2015, 09:56:33 PM
I drove it eastbound last week. I still don't understand why parts of it are on a completely new alignment, while others will use the existing WV 93 as the westbound Corridor H lanes.

Some have mentioned increased law enforcement along the route. I didn't see any -- only a local law enforcement officer having someone stopped on the access road from US 220 to US 48 at Moorefield, and said stop would not have been initiated on Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 23, 2015, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 21, 2015, 08:23:20 PM
It also seems that West Virginia is switching to snowplowable recessed markers by installing a groove 8' in length to hold two markers. (Very similar to what Kentucky is now doing after numerous tests over the past few years: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=ktc_researchreports). The new markers were very effective at night and in the rain on my last trip.

I also noticed plowable RPMs in recessed grooves on a newly resurfaced section of US 33 at Allegheny Mountain this past weekend. This is a brand new practice for WVDOH. Hopefully itwill help the markers last longer as WV has never been good about replacing damaged pavement markers and they tend to put the blade directly on the surface when plowing.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on November 14, 2015, 08:25:02 PM
Just got back from an afternoon tour of the newest Corridor H section.

There's still no US 48 signage at the WV 32 junction. Indeed, for the 0.8 mile east of that junction, no obvious improvements have been made nor are any under construction. For the next seven miles or so, there's two lanes of concrete pavement (both directions of traffic two-way on what will become the EB roadway). For the parallel future WB roadway under construction, about half is unfinished concrete pavement and the rest is only graded.

The old WV 93 roadway west of the Tucker/Grant county line, that had carried traffic around the new segment while it was u/c, has now been closed off at both ends. All WV 93 traffic west of the county line is now on the new roadways, signed as US 48/WV 93. WV 93 traffic was also moved off fragments of old WV 93 roadway west of the new US 48 segment, to the future US 48 EB lanes, due to curve straightening.

I'll add more later after reviewing my photos. You can also read more (mostly GPS reads and other boring stuff, to get the new segment added to the Travel Mapping highway database) at the Clinched Highway Mapping forum, http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=2332&start=15&mforum=clinched
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 15, 2015, 09:08:46 PM
There's really no reason that West Virginia can't extend the US 48 designation to at least the US 219 intersection at Thomas.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on November 15, 2015, 09:45:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 15, 2015, 09:08:46 PM
There's really no reason that West Virginia can't extend the US 48 designation to at least the US 219 intersection at Thomas.

Other than WVDOT's apparent preference for not extending the US 48 designation westward except for segments upgraded to "corridor" standards (at a minimum, four lanes divided, perhaps also with limited but not necessarily controlled access).

I think the designation is far less important than the improved road, so it's OK to tie the two. But it would be nice to at least extend the designation to WV 32, since the road has been at least partially upgraded except for that last 0.8 mile to the WV 32 junction.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 28, 2015, 07:56:46 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 14, 2015, 08:25:02 PM
Just got back from an afternoon tour of the newest Corridor H section.

There's still no US 48 signage at the WV 32 junction. Indeed, for the 0.8 mile east of that junction, no obvious improvements have been made nor are any under construction. For the next seven miles or so, there's two lanes of concrete pavement (both directions of traffic two-way on what will become the EB roadway). For the parallel future WB roadway under construction, about half is unfinished concrete pavement and the rest is only graded.

The old WV 93 roadway west of the Tucker/Grant county line, that had carried traffic around the new segment while it was u/c, has now been closed off at both ends. All WV 93 traffic west of the county line is now on the new roadways, signed as US 48/WV 93. WV 93 traffic was also moved off fragments of old WV 93 roadway west of the new US 48 segment, to the future US 48 EB lanes, due to curve straightening.

I'll add more later after reviewing my photos. You can also read more (mostly GPS reads and other boring stuff, to get the new segment added to the Travel Mapping highway database) at the Clinched Highway Mapping forum, http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=2332&start=15&mforum=clinched

I drove it this past Black Friday.  The section of old W.Va. 93 just west of the Tucker County/Grant County border has been blocked-off  with Jersey barriers and barrels, and is probably waiting to be torn-out. 

Many sections of old W.Va. 93 in Tucker County (closer to Davis) have been ripped-out down to the subgrade. Long sections of the westbound lanes have been paved, and will presumably be opened sometime in calendar year 2016 (no lines have been painted or pavement markers placed). 

Closer to the juvenile jail outside Davis, it appears that the new westbound lanes will be built next year (looks like subgrade has yet to be placed, and that may be waiting for the 2016 construction season).

For the first time ever, I saw a West Virginia trooper car out on a traffic stop between the juvenile jail and the Grant County line. 

Previously, I had seen West Virginia troopers on patrol along eastern Corridor H, but not on traffic stops (I had seen the Hardy County and Grant County deputies on traffic stops). I have seen them stopping drivers along western Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on February 05, 2016, 07:58:08 PM
Two lanes in each direction are now open from A-Frame Road eastward.  That merge point is just about 1 mile east of the entrance to the Mettiki coal mine, and ~8.7 miles east of the intersection with WV32. 

The blue ARC mile markers are not quite all in place to that point yet; (I think the first one I noticed may have been MM 76.5, and spaced every 0.5 mile), but if they were, A-Frame Rd would be at about ~72.7.  The exit at Wardensville is at about ~128.2 miles. 

So there are now ~55.5 miles of continuous four lane Corridor H highway open through Tucker, Grant, and Hardy counties, and all of it is posted at 65 MPH.

I also found a WVDOT District 8 Work Zone status page that indicates the entire WV93 segment is due for completion on 9/1/2016. 

Here's the link:  http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/districts/district-eight/Pages/work-zones.aspx




 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 05, 2016, 09:26:28 PM
WVDOT has received bids on the section of Corridor H from Kerens to a new connector road to U.S. 219 south of Parsons. 

The apparent low bidder is Kokosing Construction Company, Inc. of Westerville, Ohio

From poking around on the BidX site (here (https://www.bidx.com/wv/letting?lettingid=OCT2915)), it appears little work will start until relatively late in calendar year 2016, so there may not be that much to see during the Corridor H meet in May.

According to the WVDOT documents on that site, the contractor has to have the project complete by April 2019.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2016, 10:38:35 PM
Thanks to all that attended the Corridor H (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16445.0) meet.  Final meet notes are here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4fnj58pdqs3ztj2/2016%20Corridor%20H%20Road%20Meet%20notes.pdf?dl=0).

A few observations from the meet. 

Not much has happened since April along the new construction work that will extend western Corridor H from Kerens into Tucker County between the Tucker County/Randolph County line and the unincorporated community of Moore.

The area of land that had been cleared beyond the bridges that mark the current end of western Corridor H did not appear to have been touched. H. B. suggested (and I agree with him) that the contractor may have to wait until fall to start clearing and grubbing work along this section of Corridor H.

At the far western end of the eastern section of Corridor H (near Davis), the last several miles are something like a Super-2 highway.  All traffic is using the eastbound lanes.  Some of the new westbound lanes have been poured (all of it will apparently be concrete), but the last few miles approaching the interim western end of eastern Corridor H are not completely graded yet, with the exception of the bridge near the juvenile facility over Beaver Creek (at least that is what Google calls it), which is complete for both directions (but all traffic is using the bridge for eastbound movements).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on May 31, 2016, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2016, 10:38:35 PM
The area of land that had been cleared beyond the bridges that mark the current end of western Corridor H did not appear to have been touched. H. B. suggested (and I agree with him) that the contractor may have to wait until fall to start clearing and grubbing work along this section of Corridor H.

Kentucky is restricted to tree-cutting during winter months (I think November to March) because of requirements that bat habitat not being disturbed. We have one project on which clearing and grubbing will be delayed until this fall because of delays in awarding the contract caused the tree-cutting window to be missed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 31, 2016, 06:38:15 PM
That's great, I support corridor H and hopefully when it's finshed will help basically revive West Virginia's economy. I have no doubt that this is road will probably be completed in WV in 15 years. The problem though is the section in VA form the boarder to I-81. Were there any updates on this section? I can't see Vdot building this section using it's own money since it means everything to WV and really doesn't impact VA at all. A similar problem occurred on the WV/VA route 9 corridor in the DC region. WV put all this money in to upgrading their portion of it to VA line to help their DC commuters. The problem is VA isn't upgrading their section because VA people don't use it. So the highway turns into a little farm road. Basically somebody throw WV a bone whether it be VA or the Feds.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: codyg1985 on June 01, 2016, 07:40:12 AM
I think it would actually help Virginia in that it would take some traffic off of I-81 between US 48 and I-64.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on June 01, 2016, 08:25:42 AM
Not enough to be worthwhile.  Despite the congestion, trucks will stick to I-81 because A) lacks the traffic signals along both the western part of Corridor H and along US 19 (between Beckley and I-79), B) is less hilly and a gentler grade than dipping into West Virginia, and C) is less mileage than dipping into West Virginia.

Regarding Jmiles' comment, I believe it was discussed up-thread (probably a ways back), but VDOT considered their portion but pulled the plug.  Not just because of NIMBYs, but because the benefit of the route to Virginia was far less than the cost of constructing it.  Nevermind that, aside from the need for spot improvements here and there, the existing route is not that bad of a route.  I would certainly push for spot improvements along VA 55 (sic US 48), namely shoulder/bridge widening, a few left turn lanes, and perhaps a passing lane or two (especially on the westbound uphill towards the state line), but a full 4-lane corridor is not necessary.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on June 01, 2016, 08:47:19 AM
Corridor H will not revive the economy. The highlands was wholly dependent on timbering and coal mining, both of which are or have declined. Timbering started to drop off by the early 20th century as the original growth stands were depleted. Coal has begun its drastic decline in this century and is not expected to recover (for a variety of reasons that's not on topic here).

For that area, tourism is the best bet and a growth industry. Corridor H improves access to the Mon National Forest, numerous state parks, several wildernesses, a few ski resorts, and rail excursions (Elkins, Durbin, and Cass). It won't bring back that area's population - and nor should it. Those towns were considered "boom and bust" communities and lived and died by one (sometimes two) industry.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on June 01, 2016, 01:59:33 PM
Sheman is pretty much right.  This is really a different economy than most of WV.  After you get east of the continental divide, you are out of coal country.  There is not that displaced "excess" polulation that used to mine coal.  Grant and Hardy counties' peak population is, umm, currently.   Very different from coal counties (including those further west on H).  The blunt point is there is not developable land for manufacturing.   Nor is there an economic system nor an educational infastructure to support manufacturing.

At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 01, 2016, 01:59:33 PM
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.

Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on June 01, 2016, 02:42:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 01, 2016, 01:59:33 PM
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.

Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.

Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
I-68 exists for those looking to "shunpike" Pennsylvania. To the south, I-64 exists, and even then, AADT is now under 10,000. It looks like WVDOH may have been using a formula with prior AADT's as the new numbers are much more precise.

Corridor H west of Elkins has areas under 9,000 AADT, with some areas jumping to over 12,000 AADT (closer to Weston). North of Elkins, the route has less than 2,500 AADT (17% trucks). WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis (soon to be four-lane Corridor H) has less than 2,000, with 28% of that trucks. Not too long ago, traffic levels were under 1,000 - for what was essentially a new terrain route built in the late 1960's. The newer segments in the east carry less than 2,000 AADT. East of Moorefield, it goes to over 5,000 before declining to 4,000 at its eastern terminus.

That's hardly any justification for a four-lane route. I wonder how much money could have been saved with a two-lane variant on a four-lane ROW similar to US 19? After all, WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis was more than adequate for traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2016, 04:47:10 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
I-68 exists for those looking to "shunpike" Pennsylvania. To the south, I-64 exists, and even then, AADT is now under 10,000. It looks like WVDOH may have been using a formula with prior AADT's as the new numbers are much more precise.

I-68 was not built as a route to shunpike the Pennsylvania Turnpike (but as Pennsylvania has raised (and will keep raising) tolls to subsidize transit all around the state, it has become an increasingly attractive route for some trucks).  The Maryland part of I-68 was built as a way to increase highway connectivity between its two western counties (Garrett and Allegany) and the rest of the state, and to make those counties more attractive to tourist traffic from places to the east (Maryland and elsewhere).

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
Corridor H west of Elkins has areas under 9,000 AADT, with some areas jumping to over 12,000 AADT (closer to Weston). North of Elkins, the route has less than 2,500 AADT (17% trucks). WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis (soon to be four-lane Corridor H) has less than 2,000, with 28% of that trucks. Not too long ago, traffic levels were under 1,000 - for what was essentially a new terrain route built in the late 1960's. The newer segments in the east carry less than 2,000 AADT. East of Moorefield, it goes to over 5,000 before declining to 4,000 at its eastern terminus.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
That's hardly any justification for a four-lane route. I wonder how much money could have been saved with a two-lane variant on a four-lane ROW similar to US 19? After all, WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis was more than adequate for traffic.

Ever driven some of the grades on the roads that have been replaced by (or will be replaced by) Corridor H?

Like Va. 55; W.Va. 55; U.S. 50; W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93 (consider the winding and steep road up the Allegheny Front from Scherr to Bismarck); W.Va. 32; U.S. 33 and U.S. 219 (Kerens to Thomas/Davis)?

The AADT numbers that you cite are current, but are they accurate for the future, with a continuous Corridor H from I-79 at Weston, W.Va. to I-81 at Strasburg, Va.?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2016, 04:53:34 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 01, 2016, 02:42:09 PM
Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.

But they will take it if Corridor H is shorter than I-68 (Corridor E), and perhaps more-direct (and no tolls) than using I-64.  Even though Corridor H is not a freeway-class road, its expressway-type design is plenty good enough for truck traffic.

The present U.S. routes (33, 50, and 250) that cross the Alleghenies near Corridor H are not practical for most trucks (and for drivers without the experience on such roads), and I suspect that most trucking company managers actively discourage or forbid their drivers from using them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on June 01, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 01, 2016, 02:42:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 01, 2016, 01:59:33 PM
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.

Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.

Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.

I take Corridor H instead of the Turnpike if I'm going to Columbus or points west.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on June 01, 2016, 08:59:01 PM
  The blunt point is there is not developable land for manufacturing.   Nor is there an economic system nor an educational infastructure to support manufacturing.

Quote

There's certainly available land and there's also an underutilized workforce, and within those two, some basis for economic growth.  Get to know the good folks of the highland counties of WV (Tucker, Randolph, Pocahontas to name just three) and you hear a familiar tale running through the last three or four generations.  Their kids grow up, get their educations, (sometimes very good ones), and then they move away, far from home. 

Take a drive through the US 550 or 340 corridors from Winchester/Stephens City to Front Royal (some of you just did), and see the manufacturing and transportation complexes, the expanding communities, the opportunities for economic growth.  Contrast and compare with the highland counties of WV.  The missions of the ARC and ADHS may not be any more relevant anywhere else.

How strong were Winchester and Front Royal's infrastructures before I-81 and I-66 came through?   In 1950 or 1960, how did folks from the east describe the economic potential of Virginia's northwestern counties?  What do we think today?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on June 02, 2016, 12:24:38 AM
I-68 was built using the same funding mechanism that's building US 48 -- ADHS funding.

It was mentioned during the meet that Virginia's opposition to finishing Corridor H might be softening due to the retirement of an anti-H politician whose name I cannot recall. Also, didn't the feds up their portion of the funding to encourage Virginia to finish its part?

I had mentioned last fall that Moorefield has grown since Corridor H opened. And that was just what I observed right at the intersection of Corridor H and US 220/WV 28. On my way from Weston to Front Royal Saturday, I opted to follow my GPS' suggested routing to go from Elkins via Harman, Seneca Rocks and Petersburg to get to Moorefield. This was my first time to travel through downtown Moorefield on US 220 in several years. While Petersburg was always bigger than Moorefield in terms of the number of businesses, Petersburg appears to have stagnated. Moorefield, on the other hand, has grown on the other end of town opposite Corridor H as well as around the interchange. And I understand there are new businesses on the north side of Corridor H that I didn't see.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on June 02, 2016, 08:37:44 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2016, 04:47:10 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
I-68 exists for those looking to "shunpike" Pennsylvania. To the south, I-64 exists, and even then, AADT is now under 10,000. It looks like WVDOH may have been using a formula with prior AADT's as the new numbers are much more precise.

I-68 was not built as a route to shunpike the Pennsylvania Turnpike (but as Pennsylvania has raised (and will keep raising) tolls to subsidized transit all around the state, it has become an increasingly attractive route for some trucks).  The Maryland part of I-68 was built as a way to increase highway connectivity between its two western counties (Garrett and Allegany) and the rest of the state, and to make those counties more attractive to tourist traffic from places to the east (Maryland and elsewhere).

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
Corridor H west of Elkins has areas under 9,000 AADT, with some areas jumping to over 12,000 AADT (closer to Weston). North of Elkins, the route has less than 2,500 AADT (17% trucks). WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis (soon to be four-lane Corridor H) has less than 2,000, with 28% of that trucks. Not too long ago, traffic levels were under 1,000 - for what was essentially a new terrain route built in the late 1960's. The newer segments in the east carry less than 2,000 AADT. East of Moorefield, it goes to over 5,000 before declining to 4,000 at its eastern terminus.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
That's hardly any justification for a four-lane route. I wonder how much money could have been saved with a two-lane variant on a four-lane ROW similar to US 19? After all, WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis was more than adequate for traffic.

Ever driven some of the grades on the roads that have been replaced by (or will be replaced by) Corridor H?

Like Va. 55; W.Va. 55; U.S. 50; W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93 (consider the winding and steep road up the Allegheny Front from Scherr to Bismarck); W.Va. 32; U.S. 33 and U.S. 219 (Kerens to Thomas/Davis)?

The AADT numbers that you cite are current, but are they accurate for the future, with a continuous Corridor H from I-79 at Weston, W.Va. to I-81 at Strasburg, Va.?

I've driven all of those roads plenty of times - and plenty of unpaved roads in that area as well (if you think that I am un-credible in that sense). I've spent more time in that part of West Virginia than any other part of the state backpacking, exploring the wildernesses, skiing, fly fishing...

And while it is understood that I-68 was not built to "shunpike" the PA Turnpike, it carries a significant amount of traffic whose sole purpose is to divert around the increasingly unaffordable turnpike. I have a decent paying job, but even the tolls are starting to pinch into my wallet, considering the routes I take to get to the central part of the state. Lately, I've been "shunpiking" and finding alternate routes that only add 30 minutes to an hour, which is acceptable. I can't imagine what it's like for a trucker - many of who are now contractors that don't even make minimum wage. (The Atlantic did a fantastic article on this in May: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/truck-stop/481926/)

And while it is understood that Corridor H's traffic levels will undoubtly increase, to what levels is still unknown. Absent of the mandate that interstates be four-lanes, if we looked at figures for I-64 in southern West Virginia, most segments could be just fine with two lanes with passing corridors. Corridor H goes through just as remote of an area and would have satisfactory levels of service with two lanes and climbing lanes where needed. It has excellent sight distances that passing zones would be exceptional.

I'm not sure why states are so adverse in even looking at cheaper options - especially in a state that is facing massive deficits (for reasons that is not on topic here). Corridor D/US 19 remained two lanes north of the New River Gorge Bridge for decades and was only recently widened in the late 1990's when traffic levels rose enough to warrent an extra carriageway. Portions of the King Coal Highway/US 52 are being built with two lanes. And in other states, like Kentucky, the state has done "value engineering" to reduce the number of lanes on many of its projects - like KY 67, the Maysville/US 68 bypass, while leaving the ROW intact, to save money.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 02, 2016, 08:37:44 AM
I'm not sure why states are so adverse in even looking at cheaper options - especially in a state that is facing massive deficits (for reasons that is not on topic here). Corridor D/US 19 remained two lanes north of the New River Gorge Bridge for decades and was only recently widened in the late 1990's when traffic levels rose enough to warrent an extra carriageway. Portions of the King Coal Highway/US 52 are being built with two lanes. And in other states, like Kentucky, the state has done "value engineering" to reduce the number of lanes on many of its projects - like KY 67, the Maysville/US 68 bypass, while leaving the ROW intact, to save money.

Because, in the case of Corridor H, the federal government is paying for it. Construction money comes out of ARC funds.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2016, 10:14:13 AM
Quote from: cl94Construction money comes out of ARC funds.

Which, BTW, no longer exists.  ADHS funding was eliminated in MAP-21.  What's likely funding recent corridor projects (including Corridor H) is NHS funding, since most (if not all) ADHS corridors are also on the NHS.  MAP-21 also allowed states to use 100% federal funding on ADHS corridors...in other words, not requiring a local match.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on June 02, 2016, 10:18:54 AM
The federal government is not financing all of the project as the segments prior to 2012 used 80% federal funding and 20% state funding (traditional ADHS funding). The United States Surface Transportation bill (MAP-21) passed in 2012 increased the federal funds to 100% - which will last until 2021.

The first segment of the Karens to Parsons corridor (7.5 miles) is using the P3 Public-Private Partnership financing method to expedite construction - the only segment that's currently planned that remained unfunded. The completion of that segment will bring Corridor H to 87% of its original goal (absent the connection to Virginia).

The goal is to expedite final planning and construction on any remaining segments as funding becomes available to take advantage of the bill before it expires in 2021.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on June 02, 2016, 11:09:28 AM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 02, 2016, 08:37:44 AM


I'm not sure why states are so adverse in even looking at cheaper options - especially in a state that is facing massive deficits (for reasons that is not on topic here). Corridor D/US 19 remained two lanes north of the New River Gorge Bridge for decades and was only recently widened in the late 1990's when traffic levels rose enough to warrent an extra carriageway.

You mean Corridor L, Corridor D is US 50.  Anyway, the 2-lane section of Corridor L was a huge mistake on two levels.  As it forms a short cut of about 40 miles, it always received the majority of the traffic off 79 as it is the logical part of the Toronto-Buffalo-Pittsburgh route to Florida.  With just 2 lanes, it quickly became a deathroad, with very high accident rates.  And, since a 4 lane ROW was not acquired, the state had to go back and buy it at its market value as being beside a major highway, rather than the useless woodland it mostly was when the first 2 lanes were constructed. 

WV is now in the same perdicament with the northern edge of US 52.  That route was build in the early 70s on what was then mostly a dirt road in the middle of nowhere.  Now it needs to be 4 lane and the state has to acquire ROW for what the area is today, which is very valuable industrial land. 

While it can, sometimes, be OK to buy a 4 lane ROW and only build 2 lanes, it really does not save that much, particularly if you are in the mountains and blasting for 4 lanes anyway, it is never a good idea to just buy a 2 lane ROW.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on June 02, 2016, 11:42:08 AM
Yes, thanks for the correction.

US 52's new alignment was formerly County Route 1. There is a great Library of Congress photo set of a historic bridge that was on that route, now removed. As remote as that area was back then, it would have been great to reserved the ROW but hindsight is something we all don't have.

I actually forgot about the Turnpike being two-lanes as well. It was an incredibly dangerous route in its later years until it was widened at great expense.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on June 02, 2016, 01:13:53 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 02, 2016, 11:42:08 AM

I actually forgot about the Turnpike being two-lanes as well. It was an incredibly dangerous route in its later years until it was widened at great expense.

Much of the Turnpike's current problems, which is to say the very dangerous northern third of it, with no median and a 60 SL, with truck wrecks shutting it down for hours every couple of weeks, is traceable to the cheap-a**ed 4 lane upgrade.  It really does not traverse terrain all that much different than any other road in Appalachia.  The difference is that the other roads were built on virgin land, with the crews free to blast the s*** out of places when necessary.  The turnpike tried to squeeze in two more lanes without buying more ROW and then compounded that because the blasting had to be limited because of the existing highway.  There is no real engineering reason that the turnpike's northern third is not the same as any other rural mountain country interstate. 

I'm old enough to remember driving on the 2-lane turnpike.  It was a certified deathroad.  Once the other interstates connected to it and increased the traffic volume, it was just inadequate.  You felt lucky every time you survived it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 03:02:08 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 02, 2016, 12:24:38 AM
It was mentioned during the meet that Virginia's opposition to finishing Corridor H might be softening due to the retirement of an anti-H politician whose name I cannot recall. Also, didn't the feds up their portion of the funding to encourage Virginia to finish its part?

U.S. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Virginia 10th), retired after the 2014 elections.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 03:11:43 PM
Quote from: CVski on June 01, 2016, 08:59:01 PM
The blunt point is there is not developable land for manufacturing.   

Not so sure I agree with that assertion.

There is the Mountaintop Industrial Park (apparently no Web site, but marked by a large sign) along the north side of Corridor H (U.S. 48) just across from the Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) Mount Storm Generating Station in western Grant County.  This PowerPoint (https://issuu.com/jingchu/docs/mountain_top_industrial_park) describes it in some detail.

And of course there was room for the DVP plant there too - I believe that has been there since the 1960's or maybe early 1970's, built to be near many coal deposits nearby, though I believe most of the coal that it consumes is now transported to the plant on rail via CSX.

Speaking of industry, there's also the matter of the Virginia Inland Port (http://www.portofvirginia.com/facilities/virginia-inland-port-vip/), located a short drive from the proposed eastern end of Corridor H in Warren County, Virginia on U.S. 340/U.S. 522.  Corridor H will improve truck access to the Inland Port from its entire length, as well as from the I-79 corridor, and will permit some truck trips headed there to avoid crowded I-81 between I-64 and I-66.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 04:48:38 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 02, 2016, 01:13:53 PM
Much of the Turnpike's current problems, which is to say the very dangerous northern third of it, with no median and a 60 SL, with truck wrecks shutting it down for hours every couple of weeks, is traceable to the cheap-a**ed 4 lane upgrade.  It really does not traverse terrain all that much different than any other road in Appalachia.  The difference is that the other roads were built on virgin land, with the crews free to blast the s*** out of places when necessary.  The turnpike tried to squeeze in two more lanes without buying more ROW and then compounded that because the blasting had to be limited because of the existing highway.

You remind me of a question regarding Corridor H with your words above. 

There's a short section of Corridor H that has a narrow median with just a Jersey barrier separating the eastbound and westbound lanes - in Grant County from the cut across the New Creek Mountain ridge to Knobley Road.  The rest of the road has a wide(r) median, but not there.  Was that to reduce right-of-way take or to (slightly) reduce the amount of rock that had to be blasted away?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on June 02, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 04:48:38 PM
You remind me of a question regarding Corridor H with your words above.

Also, another question regarding the abandoned Corridor H "racetrack" on US 33 east of Elkins...

There is what appears to be a cave or tunnel on the left side of the road as you're heading west. What's that for? It doesn't appear to be an old railroad tunnel or water diversion channel.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 08:06:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 02, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 04:48:38 PM
You remind me of a question regarding Corridor H with your words above.

Also, another question regarding the abandoned Corridor H "racetrack" on US 33 east of Elkins...

There is what appears to be a cave or tunnel on the left side of the road as you're heading west. What's that for? It doesn't appear to be an old railroad tunnel or water diversion channel.

Excellent question.  I have wondered about that since I first drove the "racetrack" westbound.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2016, 08:17:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 08:06:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 02, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 04:48:38 PM
You remind me of a question regarding Corridor H with your words above.

Also, another question regarding the abandoned Corridor H "racetrack" on US 33 east of Elkins...

There is what appears to be a cave or tunnel on the left side of the road as you're heading west. What's that for? It doesn't appear to be an old railroad tunnel or water diversion channel.

Excellent question.  I have wondered about that since I first drove the "racetrack" westbound.

From what I can find online, it's a man-made entrance to Bowden Cave. The spot along US 33 was once a quarry, but almost everything past the entrance is natural. Cave system is several miles long.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 08:19:45 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 02, 2016, 08:17:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 08:06:26 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 02, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 04:48:38 PM
You remind me of a question regarding Corridor H with your words above.

Also, another question regarding the abandoned Corridor H "racetrack" on US 33 east of Elkins...

There is what appears to be a cave or tunnel on the left side of the road as you're heading west. What's that for? It doesn't appear to be an old railroad tunnel or water diversion channel.

Excellent question.  I have wondered about that since I first drove the "racetrack" westbound.

From what I can find online, it's a man-made entrance to Bowden Cave. The spot along US 33 was once a quarry, but almost everything past the entrance is natural. Cave system is several miles long.

Consistent with what I was able to find online here (http://var.caves.org/index.php/conservation/closed-caves/var-limited-access-caves#randolph_wv).

QuoteFront 200 feet is private, but should be considered closed since only the entrance area isn't owned by the USFS. Vast majority of cave is USFS-owned and is closed due to WNS. All back entrances are USFS-owned and are closed. Area along road may be posted.

EDIT:  Note: WNS is White Nose Syndrome, a disease that sickens and kills bats (details here (https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/resource/white-nose_fact_sheet_3-2014_1.pdf)).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 01, 2016, 02:42:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 01, 2016, 01:59:33 PM
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.

Starting from central DC, going to Columbus via Corridor H is 21 miles longer than I-68.

Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.

Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.

I take Corridor H instead of the Turnpike if I'm going to Columbus or points west.

Going from DC to Columbus, Corridor H is 21 miles long than I-68.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 03:18:02 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 01, 2016, 04:47:10 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
Corridor H west of Elkins has areas under 9,000 AADT, with some areas jumping to over 12,000 AADT (closer to Weston). North of Elkins, the route has less than 2,500 AADT (17% trucks). WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis (soon to be four-lane Corridor H) has less than 2,000, with 28% of that trucks. Not too long ago, traffic levels were under 1,000 - for what was essentially a new terrain route built in the late 1960's. The newer segments in the east carry less than 2,000 AADT. East of Moorefield, it goes to over 5,000 before declining to 4,000 at its eastern terminus.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on June 01, 2016, 03:07:24 PM
That's hardly any justification for a four-lane route. I wonder how much money could have been saved with a two-lane variant on a four-lane ROW similar to US 19? After all, WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis was more than adequate for traffic.

Ever driven some of the grades on the roads that have been replaced by (or will be replaced by) Corridor H?

Like Va. 55; W.Va. 55; U.S. 50; W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93 (consider the winding and steep road up the Allegheny Front from Scherr to Bismarck); W.Va. 32; U.S. 33 and U.S. 219 (Kerens to Thomas/Davis)?

The AADT numbers that you cite are current, but are they accurate for the future, with a continuous Corridor H from I-79 at Weston, W.Va. to I-81 at Strasburg, Va.?

I don't see traffic between Elkins and Moorefield ever getting to the point where 4 lanes will be needed. 2 lanes plus climbing lanes would likely be adequate for the foreseeable future.

At the very least, WVDOH should have focused on constructing the Elkins-Parsons-Davis section of Corridor H rather than Davis-Bismarck where WV 93 was already a good high speed road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on June 03, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
It seems like Corridor H would have been more useful if its western end tied into Corridor D / US-50 at Clarksburg. Does anyone know why it went to Weston?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on June 03, 2016, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 01, 2016, 08:51:43 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 01, 2016, 02:42:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 01, 2016, 01:59:33 PM
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.

Starting from central DC, going to Columbus via Corridor H is 21 miles longer than I-68.

Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.

Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.

I take Corridor H instead of the Turnpike if I'm going to Columbus or points west.

Going from DC to Columbus, Corridor H is 21 miles long than I-68.

And it was still faster, even the time we took a detour past Seneca Rocks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 03, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
It seems like Corridor H would have been more useful if its western end tied into Corridor D / US-50 at Clarksburg. Does anyone know why it went to Weston?

There's nothing of much consequence east of Clarksburg and I-68 is nearby east of I-79. Routing along US 33 provides access to larger towns (Buckhannon and Elkins) and better access to the Potomac Highlands region of West Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2016, 06:19:29 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 03, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
It seems like Corridor H would have been more useful if its western end tied into Corridor D / US-50 at Clarksburg. Does anyone know why it went to Weston?

There's nothing of much consequence east of Clarksburg and I-68 is nearby east of I-79. Routing along US 33 provides access to larger towns (Buckhannon and Elkins) and better access to the Potomac Highlands region of West Virginia.

Agreed that U.S. 33 was probably the best routing east of I-79.  U.S. 50 between I-79 and the Maryland border crosses a lot of rough terrain.  Using the routing that Corridor H was built on,  that rough terrain was mostly avoided between Weston and Kerens. 

Corridor H will also provide improved and faster access to the West Virginia and U.S. Forest Service resort and recreation areas in Tucker County (like this (http://www.blackwaterfalls.com/) and this (http://canaanresort.com/)) from both I-79 and I-81 (and I-66) corridors.  This is the kind of "induced" traffic that is good for everyone.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on June 03, 2016, 06:49:55 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 03, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
It seems like Corridor H would have been more useful if its western end tied into Corridor D / US-50 at Clarksburg. Does anyone know why it went to Weston?
.

If the original corridor route had been built following US 33 to Seneca Rocks, the optic of how H would look might reduce the likelihood of this question being raised.

Regardless, my guess would be that West Virginia was hoping to connect the northeastern part of WV more directly to Charleston which might be more beneficial to WV than having a seamless corridor across its northern tier that would be useful for longer through traffic...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on June 03, 2016, 07:51:14 PM
Keep in mind that Corridor H was originally planned to roughly follow US 33 and intersect I-81 farther south than Strasburg, probably near Harrisonburg. Hence the "racetrack" section east of Elkins that predates everything except the portion between Weston and Buckhannon.

First time I was ever on the route was back in the early 1980s (when the Vandenburg and Quiet Riot debut albums came out, because "Wait" and "Metal Health" were getting heavy play on a Harrisonburg station when we stopped for the night, and I bought those cassettes at a K-Mart in Harrisonburg so I could listen to them on my Walkman instead of having to buying vinyl and having to wait until I got home to record the albums onto cassette) on a family vacation that had the twin goals of visiting the town bearing my family name and driving the Blue Ridge Parkway. At the time, the only four-lane portions were the "racetrack" and a portion east of Weston. We had to take the old route through downtown Buckhannon and all the way to Elkins.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on June 03, 2016, 10:54:57 PM
I've been trying to find the actual 1965 bill with no luck but I did find the 1964 report it was based on.  Pdf page 5 has a map of proposed corridors.

H always went to Strasburg, though a separate corridor was envisioned to connect from near Elkins to Staunton.  Another was envisioned to go from Beckley northeast to Elkins then follow US 219 to US 22.

http://www.arc.gov/noindex/aboutarc/history/parc/PARCchp4.pdf

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 02, 2016, 03:11:43 PM
Quote from: CVski on June 01, 2016, 08:59:01 PM
The blunt point is there is not developable land for manufacturing.   

Not so sure I agree with that assertion.

There is the Mountaintop Industrial Park (apparently no Web site, but marked by a large sign) along the north side of Corridor H (U.S. 48) just across from the Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) Mount Storm Generating Station in western Grant County.  This PowerPoint (https://issuu.com/jingchu/docs/mountain_top_industrial_park) describes it in some detail.

And of course there was room for the DVP plant there too - I believe that has been there since the 1960's or maybe early 1970's, built to be near many coal deposits nearby, though I believe most of the coal that it consumes is now transported to the plant on rail via CSX.

Speaking of industry, there's also the matter of the Virginia Inland Port (http://www.portofvirginia.com/facilities/virginia-inland-port-vip/), located a short drive from the proposed eastern end of Corridor H in Warren County, Virginia on U.S. 340/U.S. 522.  Corridor H will improve truck access to the Inland Port from its entire length, as well as from the I-79 corridor, and will permit some truck trips headed there to avoid crowded I-81 between I-64 and I-66.

Large/heavy manufacturing won't really be attracted to the area (utilities excluded) because there really isn't a network of good north-south connections from corridor H - except for the terminal points.  That's why I believe the North-South (US 220) connector from Moorefield to Cumberland would actually have greater impact on the area than H.  I'd have to research the status of it.

Now as for the business industrial park - light manufacturing, distribution centers, and companies that support the power plant and other industries nearby.  H does bring a great east west route into the area and it's needed to connect to the Inland Port in Front Royal - (As an aside I would bring imported spruce boards into Norfolk and then to Front Royal for it to be broken from the container, primed, placed back onto trucks and sent to our dc in Raleigh.)  And you are right - H will certainly be great from a supply chain and logistics perspective from any operations out of Front Royal.

H is not a cureall (and I think CPZ you pointed out to a study about I-68 and it's impact to Western Maryland in the past) but it may bring some regional and local companies to build distribution centers or service storefronts in the area.  Moorefield will most likely see some positive impact because of the intersection with US 220 - this would be hotels, restaurants and the such.  It also will benefit from residents of the much smaller towns being able to get their quicker for shopping etc.

I could see a gas station or two elsewhere along the route but that's it - but that's immediately off the highway.  The towns, industries, attractions that are five to ten miles down the road from H will benefit as it is quicker access in and out of there town to the rest of the region and possibly beyond. That's why like it or not Interstate status is important to so many groups because it's not the service industries immediately off the exits, it's the businesses and towns 5, 10, 15 miles from the highway that benefit.  H will do some of that; however, the full benefit of H will be improvements to the roads connecting to it between 79 and 81.  A four lane US 220 going north to I-68 in Cumberland will open up the region to distribution and manufacturing (albeit light - think steel fabricators) by solidifying the road network and becoming more attractive logistically to various companies.  For example Food Lion has flirted with the western maryland and parts of PA and WV for sometime.  Because of H and US 220, it may be not a bad site for a distribution center and allow them to better service the area and possibly open additional stores.  Same for Dollar General, Family Dollar, Wal-MArt and other retailers found in the area.   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on June 04, 2016, 09:56:22 PM
Speaking of Dollar General, they have undertaken a massive retail expansion effort in my area. A number of new DG stores have opened up in this part of Kentucky, and I noticed several locations that appeared to be fairly new in some communities in rural areas of West Virginia.

As for a route from Cumberland to Corridor H, It seems to me that much of US 220 in Maryland could be widened without major issues. However, getting from Keyser to Moorefield is a bit trickier. WV 93 wouldn't be too hard to widen between US 50 and Corridor H, but the US 50/220 concurrency is both fairly crooked and hilly, and built up. I haven't been on 220/28 between 50 and 48 in several years to remember much about that route.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 10:12:43 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
Large/heavy manufacturing won't really be attracted to the area (utilities excluded) because there really isn't a network of good north-south connections from corridor H - except for the terminal points.  That's why I believe the North-South (US 220) connector from Moorefield to Cumberland would actually have greater impact on the area than H.  I'd have to research the status of it.

I have no problem with improving U.S. 220 (and, for that matter, U.S. 219) from Corridor H at least to I-68. Maryland was looking at plans to bypass downtown Oakland with U.S. 219, but that study was shut-down on orders of then-Gov. Parris Nelson Glendening about 2000 or 2001.

Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
Now as for the business industrial park - light manufacturing, distribution centers, and companies that support the power plant and other industries nearby.  H does bring a great east west route into the area and it's needed to connect to the Inland Port in Front Royal - (As an aside I would bring imported spruce boards into Norfolk and then to Front Royal for it to be broken from the container, primed, placed back onto trucks and sent to our dc in Raleigh.)  And you are right - H will certainly be great from a supply chain and logistics perspective from any operations out of Front Royal.

Another business that might connect well to the Inland Port is the (adaptive) re-use or recycling of shipping containers - bring them to Front Royal and them truck them to a site along Corridor H.  Or send them by rail all the way to Mountaintop since CSX has a spur to the Mount Storm generating station already, even though it's a long and twisting trip.  This could also be a good place for Baltimore to send such containers by railroad.

Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
H is not a cureall (and I think CPZ you pointed out to a study about I-68 and it's impact to Western Maryland in the past) but it may bring some regional and local companies to build distribution centers or service storefronts in the area.  Moorefield will most likely see some positive impact because of the intersection with US 220 - this would be hotels, restaurants and the such.  It also will benefit from residents of the much smaller towns being able to get their quicker for shopping etc.

Might also increase the number of chickens and turkeys grown in the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia.

Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
I could see a gas station or two elsewhere along the route but that's it - but that's immediately off the highway.  The towns, industries, attractions that are five to ten miles down the road from H will benefit as it is quicker access in and out of there town to the rest of the region and possibly beyond. That's why like it or not Interstate status is important to so many groups because it's not the service industries immediately off the exits, it's the businesses and towns 5, 10, 15 miles from the highway that benefit.  H will do some of that; however, the full benefit of H will be improvements to the roads connecting to it between 79 and 81.  A four lane US 220 going north to I-68 in Cumberland will open up the region to distribution and manufacturing (albeit light - think steel fabricators) by solidifying the road network and becoming more attractive logistically to various companies.  For example Food Lion has flirted with the western maryland and parts of PA and WV for sometime.  Because of H and US 220, it may be not a bad site for a distribution center and allow them to better service the area and possibly open additional stores.  Same for Dollar General, Family Dollar, Wal-MArt and other retailers found in the area.

The gas stations that are near Corridor H appear to be adequate for now, though that Sheetz in Moorefield is frequently extremely busy (but I do not know how much of that is due to Corridor H travel).  A manager at the Sheetz told me that Corridor H has saved her 20 to 25 minutes - each way - over the "Old Route 55" route from her home near Lost River or Baker. 

Any business that needs a lot of land - cheap land - with some workforce and lack of excessive NIMBYism that is associated with places closer to Washington, D.C. will find Corridor H to be an attractive place to locate.  There appears to be a fair amount of  vacant land in Hardy County along U.S. 220 north and south of H that could be  put to good use.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on June 05, 2016, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2016, 09:56:22 PM
Speaking of Dollar General, they have undertaken a massive retail expansion effort in my area. A number of new DG stores have opened up in this part of Kentucky, and I noticed several locations that appeared to be fairly new in some communities in rural areas of West Virginia.

As for a route from Cumberland to Corridor H, It seems to me that much of US 220 in Maryland could be widened without major issues. However, getting from Keyser to Moorefield is a bit trickier. WV 93 wouldn't be too hard to widen between US 50 and Corridor H, but the US 50/220 concurrency is both fairly crooked and hilly, and built up. I haven't been on 220/28 between 50 and 48 in several years to remember much about that route.

You could widen the WV 972 corridor plus WV 93 to reach Corr H and avoid the 50-220 overlay entirely.

A new terrrain route from the eastern 50-220 jct northwest back to US 220 south of MD 956 also looks non-imposing...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 10:56:11 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 05, 2016, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 04, 2016, 09:56:22 PM
Speaking of Dollar General, they have undertaken a massive retail expansion effort in my area. A number of new DG stores have opened up in this part of Kentucky, and I noticed several locations that appeared to be fairly new in some communities in rural areas of West Virginia.

As for a route from Cumberland to Corridor H, It seems to me that much of US 220 in Maryland could be widened without major issues. However, getting from Keyser to Moorefield is a bit trickier. WV 93 wouldn't be too hard to widen between US 50 and Corridor H, but the US 50/220 concurrency is both fairly crooked and hilly, and built up. I haven't been on 220/28 between 50 and 48 in several years to remember much about that route.

You could widen the WV 972 corridor plus WV 93 to reach Corr H and avoid the 50-220 overlay entirely.

A new terrrain route from the eastern 50-220 jct northwest back to US 220 south of MD 956 also looks non-imposing...

Much of that is indeed reasonable.  The sections to be avoided are U.S. 50 between the junctions of W.Va. 42 (north) and W.Va. 93 (south); and U.S. 50 between 972 and U.S. 220 North. 

U.S. 220 in Maryland does run through the "downtown" areas of several small communities south of I-68, but perhaps it could be re-routed there to a new alignment?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2016, 08:40:17 AM
FYI, WVDOH and MD SHA studied the US 220 corridor (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/closed/us220/Pages/default.aspx) a few years ago in a Tier 1 EIS.  The corridor recommended for further study generally runs along/close to WV 93, WV 972, and US 220, likely bypassing Keyser to the west.  There are three options for tying into I-68.  One is a full interchange west of MD 53/Exit 39, the second would be a partial interchange between Exit 41 and Exit 42 (weaving was an identified concern of this one, as was the lack of full access), and the third would be a mix of the first two.  My money is on the full interchange near MD 53.

Three other corridors were studied and rejected.  One was located a few miles west of the preferred corridor, roughly halfway between MD 36 and US 220, tying into Corridor H at WV 42 at the top of the ridge from Scherr, and tying into I-68 at Frostburg (dropped due to impacts to Dans Mountain).  Another corridor generally followed CR 3/CR 9/WV 28 before crossing the river south of the airport, running east of Cumberland, and tying into I-68 in the US 220 North/Exit 46/Exit 47 vicinity.  The third corridor followed CR 5/CR 11/WV 46 to Fort Ashby, then followed CR 28/3 before turning north and crossing the river near North Branch, MD and also meeting I-68 near Exit 46/Exit 47.

Though not approved as a corridor in this study, the study mentions a "separate future project/system upgrade" along US 220 from near Keyser to Moorefield.  The map suggests that some new alignment would be built that would drastically reduce the 50/220 concurrency, with the new alignment running south of the concurrency from near Markwood, cutting southeast and rejoining US 220 near Rada.  If you're looking at a detailed map, the new alignment would generally track along CR 50/4, CR 13, and CR 220/7.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mattpedersen on June 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2016, 06:19:29 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 03, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
It seems like Corridor H would have been more useful if its western end tied into Corridor D / US-50 at Clarksburg. Does anyone know why it went to Weston?

There's nothing of much consequence east of Clarksburg and I-68 is nearby east of I-79. Routing along US 33 provides access to larger towns (Buckhannon and Elkins) and better access to the Potomac Highlands region of West Virginia.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2016, 06:19:29 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 03, 2016, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 03, 2016, 03:42:28 PM
It seems like Corridor H would have been more useful if its western end tied into Corridor D / US-50 at Clarksburg. Does anyone know why it went to Weston?

There's nothing of much consequence east of Clarksburg and I-68 is nearby east of I-79. Routing along US 33 provides access to larger towns (Buckhannon and Elkins) and better access to the Potomac Highlands region of West Virginia.

Agreed that U.S. 33 was probably the best routing east of I-79.  U.S. 50 between I-79 and the Maryland border crosses a lot of rough terrain.  Using the routing that Corridor H was built on,  that rough terrain was mostly avoided between Weston and Kerens. 

Corridor H will also provide improved and faster access to the West Virginia and U.S. Forest Service resort and recreation areas in Tucker County (like this (http://www.blackwaterfalls.com/) and this (http://canaanresort.com/)) from both I-79 and I-81 (and I-66) corridors.  This is the kind of "induced" traffic that is good for everyone.

On a random side note, I tried driving US 50 from "Oakland" (its in the Oakland zip code so that qualifies) to I-79. I tapped out at US 119. I was driving a 2000 Toyota Camry with a V6 and an automatic which after coming from a 1996 626 V6 with a manual, I am sure you can fill in the blanks of why I tapped out.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2016, 05:17:35 PM
Quote from: mattpedersen on June 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
On a random side note, I tried driving US 50 from "Oakland" (its in the Oakland zip code so that qualifies) to I-79. I tapped out at US 119. I was driving a 2000 Toyota Camry with a V6 and an automatic which after coming from a 1996 626 V6 with a manual, I am sure you can fill in the blanks of why I tapped out.

I think the locals call that part of southern Garrett County where U.S. 50 runs either Redhouse, Gnegy Church or (near the Potomac River) Gorman.  The Postal Service does indeed consider all of southern Garrett County to be Zip Code 21550 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oakland,+MD+21550/@39.3814339,-79.5002064,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x884aacc607cd69fd:0xcc0a92b9a80b7b79!8m2!3d39.375842!4d-79.4253776), which is Oakland's zip code, even though most of it is well outside of the corporate limits of Oakland (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oakland,+MD+21550/@39.4184943,-79.4241655,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x884aac9e3b046995:0xab1d10bd249782ff!8m2!3d39.4078747!4d-79.4067116) (or alternatively, the official Oakland zoning map (https://www.garrettcounty.org/resources/planning-land-development/pdf/zoning/Oakland%20Map%20JAN%202016.pdf) (.pdf) is probably more accurate than Google).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on June 12, 2016, 03:40:10 AM
You almost had US 50 whipped at that point, but honestly, trying to drive that mountainous road with a manual would be brutal. I drove it eastbound several years ago and truthfully, that should have been plenty for me, but for some strange reason known only to God, I had the urge to drive it (and US 33 between I-79 and I-77, which I had also done eastbound a few years ago) on the way back from the meet. Hopefully my curiosity is satisfied on both roads for the rest of my life.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 13, 2016, 11:19:11 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 12, 2016, 03:40:10 AM
You almost had US 50 whipped at that point, but honestly, trying to drive that mountainous road with a manual would be brutal.

With my Diesel pickup and a stick shift, those West Virginia (and Maryland) grades are not that terrible. 

I have not driven U.S. 50 very far into West Virginia west of Redhouse - but I have driven everything east from the intersection of U.S. 50 and W.Va. 24 to Ocean City, Maryland.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on June 13, 2016, 11:22:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2016, 05:17:35 PM
Quote from: mattpedersen on June 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM
On a random side note, I tried driving US 50 from "Oakland" (its in the Oakland zip code so that qualifies) to I-79. I tapped out at US 119. I was driving a 2000 Toyota Camry with a V6 and an automatic which after coming from a 1996 626 V6 with a manual, I am sure you can fill in the blanks of why I tapped out.

I think the locals call that part of southern Garrett County where U.S. 50 runs either Redhouse, Gnegy Church or (near the Potomac River) Gorman.  The Postal Service does indeed consider all of southern Garrett County to be Zip Code 21550 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oakland,+MD+21550/@39.3814339,-79.5002064,11z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x884aacc607cd69fd:0xcc0a92b9a80b7b79!8m2!3d39.375842!4d-79.4253776), which is Oakland's zip code, even though most of it is well outside of the corporate limits of Oakland (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oakland,+MD+21550/@39.4184943,-79.4241655,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x884aac9e3b046995:0xab1d10bd249782ff!8m2!3d39.4078747!4d-79.4067116) (or alternatively, the official Oakland zoning map (https://www.garrettcounty.org/resources/planning-land-development/pdf/zoning/Oakland%20Map%20JAN%202016.pdf) (.pdf) is probably more accurate than Google).

Nobody would consider US 50 as going through Oakland. Redhouse is the primary name for the area around the US 50/US 219 intersection. Gorman/Gormania is the area over on the eastern side of the county where US 50 heads into Grant County, West Virginia.

I've never heard Gnegy Church used as a location reference for that area.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 14, 2016, 03:41:25 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 13, 2016, 11:22:43 PM
I've never heard Gnegy Church used as a location reference for that area.

I recall seeing it on signs many years ago (as in 1960's) when I was a child and we ventured north into Garrett County from where we were staying in Tucker County, W.Va. (at Blackwater Falls State Park).  Might have been signed on the northbound side of U.S. 219 in West Virginia or maybe on the southbound side in Maryland.

I was already into roads then, and was somewhat surprised to encounter U.S. 50 (well known to me from its sections in Prince George's and Anne Arundel Counties) in far away Garrett County.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: TheOneKEA on June 14, 2016, 10:54:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 04, 2016, 10:12:43 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 05:29:52 PM
Large/heavy manufacturing won't really be attracted to the area (utilities excluded) because there really isn't a network of good north-south connections from corridor H - except for the terminal points.  That's why I believe the North-South (US 220) connector from Moorefield to Cumberland would actually have greater impact on the area than H.  I'd have to research the status of it.

I have no problem with improving U.S. 220 (and, for that matter, U.S. 219) from Corridor H at least to I-68. Maryland was looking at plans to bypass downtown Oakland with U.S. 219, but that study was shut-down on orders of then-Gov. Parris Nelson Glendening about 2000 or 2001.

According to the project page (http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/ProjectInformation.aspx?projectno=GA5992111), the project is not quite dead but it isn't going anywhere fast. Planning activities are theoretically happening but the 2016-2021 CTP has no funding programmed for anything significant. The two PDFs showing the scale plans for the bypass indicate a very similar design to that used for the Hampstead Bypass, and I believe that Oakland would benefit from the removal of the through traffic from the downtown area just like Hampstead did.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 11, 2016, 03:45:48 PM
Charleston Gazette-Mail op-ed: Corridor H will connect West Virginia to the world (http://www.wvgazettemail.com/gazette-op-ed-commentaries/20160710/robbie-morris-corridor-h-will-connect-west-virginia-to-the-world)

QuoteWith $5.25 billion in upgraded locks, the Panama Canal expansion just opened this past week after a massive project that widened and deepened the transcontinental shortcut from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. For the first time, a 158-foot wide, 984-foot long Chinese owned container ship passed through the canal – headed to the East Coast of the United States.

QuoteNot all East Coast ports will be able to handle the new, deeper draught ships from Asia – but Norfolk can. And that is why West Virginia should care. Because when finished, Corridor H will connect West Virginia to the Virginia Inland Port at Front Royal – where double-stacked container rail connects directly to Norfolk and then to the global market.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 11, 2016, 08:30:40 PM
I wonder if Robbie Morris (the author of the article and the Corridor H Authority in WV) is going to start putting pressure on VA to actually start planning on their section to I-81.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 11, 2016, 08:32:11 PM
More grandiose promises that the road won't deliver
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on July 11, 2016, 08:39:51 PM
West Virginia is already connected to the Ports in Hampton Roads by good road and rail connections.

How will unloading stuff onto a train to Front Royal, then reloading/processing stuff to head over Corridor H be cost effective enough to be worth doing versus what happens already?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 11, 2016, 09:11:58 PM
Quote from: MapmikeyWest Virginia is already connected to the Ports in Hampton Roads by good road and rail connections.

Indeed.  I-64 directly connects the Hampton Roads ports to the heart of West Virginia, and both CSX (from the Peninsula) and Norfolk Southern (from the Southside) have connections into West Virginia from the Hampton Roads area.

Quote from: 74/171FANI wonder if Robbie Morris (the author of the article and the Corridor H Authority in WV) is going to start putting pressure on VA to actually start planning on their section to I-81.

I wonder if Robbie Morris, if this project will bring all this "benefit" to West Virginia, has considered having West Virginia pay for the Virginia segment.  I almost mentioned as much in my article comment.


Fixed typo.  -Mark
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on July 11, 2016, 11:54:10 PM
NS's Heartland Corridor does more to connect to Hampton Roads and delivers far more than Corridor H ever will.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2016, 12:13:46 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 11, 2016, 09:11:58 PM
Quote from: MapmikeyWest Virginia is already connected to the Ports in Hampton Roads by good road and rail connections.

Indeed.  I-64 directly connects the Hampton Roads ports to the heart of West Virginia, and both CSX (from the Peninsula) and Norfolk Southern (from the Southside) have connections into West Virginia from the Hampton Roads area.

Quote from: 74/171FANI wonder if Robbie Morris (the author of the article and the Corridor H Authority in WV) is going to start putting pressure on VA to actually start planning on their section to I-81.

I wonder if Robbie Morris, if this project will bring all this "benefit" to West Virginia, has considered having West Virginia pay for the Virginia segment.  I almost mentioned as much in my article comment.


Fixed typo.  -Mark


Agreed that likely the only way Corridor H gets built in VA is if WV or the Feds pay for it. VDOT has no interest in completing Corridor H and prefably wouldn't spend a dime on it because 1. They hardly even have that and 2. Because Corridor H doesn't benefit VA at all.

Also now that I'm thinking about it, has a similar situation ever occurred where one state ended up paying for road improvements in another?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: okc1 on July 12, 2016, 09:11:24 AM
NY did pay for the portion of NY 17 that dipped into PA near the jct with US 220.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 12, 2016, 09:14:20 AM
Shocking that a guy whose job depends on rural highway construction advocates for more rural highway construction...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 12, 2016, 02:03:07 PM
Quote from: Jmiles32 on July 12, 2016, 12:13:46 AMor the Feds pay for it.

Aren't the feds now paying for 100 percent of the ADHS corridors? Didn't they do away with the 20-percent state contribution?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: lordsutch on July 12, 2016, 02:05:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 12, 2016, 02:03:07 PM
Aren't the feds now paying for 100 percent of the ADHS corridors? Didn't they do away with the 20-percent state contribution?

True, but it comes out of the general allotment now rather than a dedicated pool like ADHS used to be; states may instead want to put up 10-20% and use their federal money for other priorities (hence why Mississippi is in no hurry to finish Corridor V, for example).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 12, 2016, 02:40:14 PM
To elaborate on lordsutch's reply, yes Congress now allows ADHS corridor projects to be 100% Federally funded...no more state match is required.  But just as he said, and taking effect at the same time (I believe it was MAP-21), there is no longer a separate ADHS funding pot.  Any Federal funding the states use for ADHS corridors now comes from their normal FHWA allotment.  So it's up to the states whether they want to prioritze finishing their ADHS corridors or use their FHWA funding on existing corridors.

And given that Congress has no interest in increasing Federal highway funding nor an interest anymore in continuing transfers to the HTF from the general Treasury, you can expect no increase in Federal funding (likely a decrease, instead).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 12, 2016, 03:04:26 PM
The idea that Corridor H is going to form some big part of a transportation system that involves the Panama Canal is grossly over-stated.  As stated, there already is a road from Norfolk into WV and into the lower midwest (I-64) and two competing railroad lines (and the Prichard Intermodal Facility, related thereto).  The editorialist overstates his case and thus harms his point.

The actual point is that a completed H does link a remote part of Appalachia to the outside world.  That is a good thing.  It does form something of a thru route for several reasonabably popular routes, such as out of the upper south into DC/Baltimore.  That is a good thing.  It will pull a small part of the truck traffic off the grossly congested and dangerous 81.  Maybe a % or 2 or 3 with have destinations where a completed H makes sense, considering the time.  That is a good thing.  And it opens up some ski and other tourist areas to the lower east coast market. Thas is a good thing. 

It was not necessary to overstate the case to make the point for H. 

As to the whole "Virginia will never build it", well, the 13 miles in Virginia are not that bad, and, if ever actually completed in WV, the locals will demand relief from what will become an overburdened and dangerous 13 miles. Not the biggest issue.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2016, 04:29:03 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 12, 2016, 03:04:26 PM
The idea that Corridor H is going to form some big part of a transportation system that involves the Panama Canal is grossly over-stated.  As stated, there already is a road from Norfolk into WV and into the lower midwest (I-64) and two competing railroad lines (and the Prichard Intermodal Facility, related thereto).  The editorialist overstates his case and thus harms his point.

The actual point is that a completed H does link a remote part of Appalachia to the outside world.  That is a good thing.  It does form something of a thru route for several reasonabably popular routes, such as out of the upper south into DC/Baltimore.  That is a good thing.  It will pull a small part of the truck traffic off the grossly congested and dangerous 81.  Maybe a % or 2 or 3 with have destinations where a completed H makes sense, considering the time.  That is a good thing.  And it opens up some ski and other tourist areas to the lower east coast market. Thas is a good thing. 

It was not necessary to overstate the case to make the point for H. 

As to the whole "Virginia will never build it", well, the 13 miles in Virginia are not that bad, and, if ever actually completed in WV, the locals will demand relief from what will become an overburdened and dangerous 13 miles. Not the biggest issue.

Well-stated. 

Regarding the 13 miles of U.S. 48/Va. 55 on the Commonwealth's side of North Mountain, it is no fun at all if behind a laden commercial vehicle.  There are no climbing lanes, and even headed east (mostly downhill) the trucks have to keep their speed down, and there is Little North Mountain to be crossed between Star Tannery and Lebanon Church.

One of the main obstructions to Corridor H in Virginia was Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va. 10) who is now retired.  Part of the lawsuit settlement said that WVDOT could not build any part of the road east of Wardensville before 2020.  We are not that far from 2020, and Wolf is gone, so hopefully it will get completed to the state line in the not so distant future.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 12, 2016, 10:34:20 PM
Quote from: SP Cookthe locals will demand relief from what will become an overburdened and dangerous 13 miles.

This won't happen until they get the relief they're already demanding for the overburdened and dangerous I-81 already in their backyard.  Don't hold your breath on an improved VA 55 (sic US 48) route until then...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Sykotyk on July 13, 2016, 12:44:03 AM
The reason why the Inland Port is so important is that though Norfolk's port can handle the size of the ship, the capacity of the port to process that many containers is questionable. It's easier to simply offload straight to rail a lot of the containers and send them to another facility with the capacity to handle those containers. Because these super ships aren't going to be the only ones docking. You're still going to have a lot of other ships that normally come in from Africa or Europe on the east coast. This just alleviates pressure from the Chinese or Japanese origin containers from having to go through the west coast and via rail to the east.

There's only so many drayage trucks to handle running contains back and fort from a port to a warehouse and then returning. And only so much land those ports can handle that many containers moving about at one time. Sending large quanities of an inbound ship's containers to an inland port is economical and logistically 'stress easing' for the port unloading them. Plus, it's going to cut off a bit of the overall cost, as locomotive transport in bulk is much cheaper than the hundreds of trucks needed to make the same similar movement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2016, 12:28:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 12, 2016, 10:34:20 PM
Quote from: SP Cookthe locals will demand relief from what will become an overburdened and dangerous 13 miles.

This won't happen until they get the relief they're already demanding for the overburdened and dangerous I-81 already in their backyard.  Don't hold your breath on an improved VA 55 (sic US 48) route until then...

The only part of I-81 that would be significantly impacted by a completed Corridor H is rather short, from the eastern terminus of U.S. 48 (I-81 Exit 296) to I-66 (I-81 Exit 300), about 3.9 miles (and yes, that part of I-81 and the current I-81/U.S. 48 interchange are inadequate now, and need to be rebuilt).

I assert that a completed Corridor H would also divert some truck trips currently using  I-64 across West Virginia to I-81 to use I-79 to Weston, then Corridor H to I-81.

Google shows miles from Charleston, W.Va. to the I-81/I-66 interchange as 291 miles (including 111 miles on I-81).  Via current (incomplete) Corridor H, it's 262 miles (and I would not want to dispatch an inexperienced truck driver to navigate U.S. 219 from Kerens to Davis or U.S. 48 from Wardensville to I-81).

The miles on a completed Corridor H would be a few less, but this is close enough  for discussion purposes. 

Fixed I-81 Exit Number typo     -Mark
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2016, 01:25:07 PM
You missed my point, CP.  My point (using SP's own terms) was that I-81 is "overburdened and dangerous" on a far grander scale than VA 55 between I-81 and the border.  Area residents likely won't support VA 55 improvements until VDOT addresses I-81.

Regarding your mileages, one has to counter the shorter length with the fact that it is A) a lower speed limit along the Corridor H part, and B) a much more hilly and mountainous route, with a lot of climbs (more than I-81/I-64/I-77) that will eat into any potential time savings a truck would have taking that route.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Jmiles32 on July 13, 2016, 02:14:59 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2016, 01:25:07 PM
You missed my point, CP.  My point (using SP's own terms) was that I-81 is "overburdened and dangerous" on a far grander scale than VA 55 between I-81 and the border.  Area residents likely won't support VA 55 improvements until VDOT addresses I-81.

I get the feeling area residents won't support VA 55 improvements regardless of what VDOT does with I-81.

As for the route in which Corridor H would take,  widening the current route could be to expensive and take too many properties. A new four lane highway a mile or two south of the existing route would be far less damaging. The only obstacles would be some farms and a mountain but hey that didn't stop WV! A new interchange would be built south of the existing one with I-81. VA55 could stay on it's current route while just US 48 would be signed on the new route  separating local and thru traffic. Also at the same time I-81 would be widened from 4 to 6 lanes from the new US 48 interchange all the way 30 miles north to the WV state line(fictional territory I know).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2016, 02:47:02 PM
I believe what had been conceptualized 10-20 years ago was a corridor north of the existing route that tied directly into the 66/81 interchange.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2016, 03:25:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2016, 02:47:02 PM
I believe what had been conceptualized 10-20 years ago was a corridor north of the existing route that tied directly into the 66/81 interchange.

At one point in the 1990's, the West Virginia official highway map implied that Corridor H would connect to I-81 at or near the existing I-66 interchange.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 13, 2016, 03:52:07 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2016, 01:25:07 PM
Regarding your mileages, one has to counter the shorter length with the fact that it is A) a lower speed limit along the Corridor H part, and B) a much more hilly and mountainous route, with a lot of climbs (more than I-81/I-64/I-77) that will eat into any potential time savings a truck would have taking that route.

All of I-79 has a 70 mph speed limit and all of four-lane corridor H in West Virginia with the exception of a very short portion on the western end at Weston will have a speed limit of 65 mph.

Compare that with the lengthy 60 mph section of the WV Turnpike and the reduced speed limit section (I think 55) on I-64 between Covington and Clifton Forge. Plus the tolls and the curves on the turnpike.

I know this is anecdotal, but I have an acquaintance originally from Owensboro who lives in the DC area. When she comes home to Kentucky, she uses I-81 to I-64, and usually ends up spending the night on the way home somewhere near Barboursville or Huntington. When I asked her why she uses that route vs. I-68, she said because she hates the traffic on I-270. I think she would definitely use Corridor H if given the opportunity.

Heck, right now, even with the unfinished portion of Corridor H between Kerens and Davis, I prefer it to either interstate route.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on July 13, 2016, 04:32:55 PM
A correction to what I posted before.  Found the 1996 FEIS for Corridor H via FTP, and it appears that if there was an option to tie Corridor H directly into the I-66/I-81 interchange, it was dropped before the Final EIS was completed.  The preferred alternative generally followed VA 55, with new alignment segments here and there, and tied into I-81 at Exit 296 instead of at a new interchange.

One option of this ("Line L") would have gone northeast of existing VA 55 from Wheatfield to I-81, with a new I-81 interchange at the curve just northeast of Exit 296.

A map of the Virginia portion.  The Preferred Alternative is shown as the black hashing.  Existing WV/VA 55 is the dark blue line:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8777/27675440303_ffc05ba563_c_d.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ajfroggie/27675440303)

Also of note:  the EIS makes note of the CTB's resolution of early 1995 to not recommend or support any specific alignments or construction in Virginia, instead opting to consider safety improvements as needed that would be implemented via VDOT's Six-Year-Plan.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on July 13, 2016, 07:53:40 PM
Drove home from this afternoon from Canaan Valley on eastern Corridor H.  A lot of activity taking place up on the high plateau east of Davis over a 6 to 8 mile stretch.  Light and heavy equipment at work bearing the logos of JF Allen (the prime), Kokosing, and BK Construction.   Saw everything from earth removal nearest to Davis, rough and finer grading, concrete forming (but not pouring), and more than the usual number of light trucks and small hardhat conferencing.   Easily more manpower and activity on a single workday than I've seen in a long time.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 14, 2016, 12:36:14 AM
Quote from: froggie on July 13, 2016, 04:32:55 PM
Also of note:  the EIS makes note of the CTB's resolution of early 1995 to not recommend or support any specific alignments or construction in Virginia, instead opting to consider safety improvements as needed that would be implemented via VDOT's Six-Year-Plan.

Since it has became easily accessible online (while Philip A. Shucet was Commissioner of Highways), I have checked when the Six Year Plan (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/syp-default.asp) is updated, and there  has never been any mention of any improvements (including planning and preliminary engineering) to Va. 55 or U.S. 48 in Frederick or Shenandoah Counties.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on July 29, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Paving of the two westbound lanes for the 7.4 mile segment under construction east of Davis was nearly completed this week.   1.4 of those miles were poured just between Monday afternoon and today, from the Beaver Creek bridge/Rubenstein entrance to the merge point one mile east of Davis.   Two heavy paving machines, each capable of pouring two lanes at a time, were in place on Monday but both were gone by today. 

For roughly the easternmost half of that 7.4 mile WB segment, both shoulders have also been poured, with the only remaining work appearing to be guardrails, pylons, signage, and lane painting.   The western half still needs both full shoulders to be poured, some minor gravel edging, and the aforementioned items.  In two or three locations, short concrete gaps still exist all the way across, but these are collectively only a couple hundred linear feet in length.   

The entrance to the Mettiki mine is roughly the halfway point of the 7.4 mile segment.

A lot of progress has been made in just a few short weeks.
 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2016, 03:16:11 PM
Washington Post: New residents bring a taste of the city to a rural West Virginia town (https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/new-residents-bring-a-taste-of-the-city-to-a-rural-west-virginia-town/2016/07/19/06b52062-116e-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html)

QuoteAccording to a highway department study, on average 4,000 cars pass through Wardensville every day. That average probably is bumped up significantly by weekenders: Many D.C. residents drive on U.S. 48, which becomes Wardensville's Main Street, on their way to ski weekends in Davis, W.Va., or hiking trips through Canaan Valley or Seneca Rocks. The weekend-trippers are an attractive buyers' market that projects such as the farmers market hope to capitalize on.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2016, 12:24:08 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2016, 03:16:11 PM
Washington Post: New residents bring a taste of the city to a rural West Virginia town (https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/new-residents-bring-a-taste-of-the-city-to-a-rural-west-virginia-town/2016/07/19/06b52062-116e-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html)

QuoteAccording to a highway department study, on average 4,000 cars pass through Wardensville every day. That average probably is bumped up significantly by weekenders: Many D.C. residents drive on U.S. 48, which becomes Wardensville's Main Street, on their way to ski weekends in Davis, W.Va., or hiking trips through Canaan Valley or Seneca Rocks. The weekend-trippers are an attractive buyers' market that projects such as the farmers market hope to capitalize on.

And the local and state constabulary, based on the speed enforcement I've seen there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on August 13, 2016, 11:41:29 AM
Quote from: CVski on July 29, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Paving of the two westbound lanes for the 7.4 mile segment under construction east of Davis was nearly completed this week.   1.4 of those miles were poured just between Monday afternoon and today, from the Beaver Creek bridge/Rubenstein entrance to the merge point one mile east of Davis.   Two heavy paving machines, each capable of pouring two lanes at a time, were in place on Monday but both were gone by today. 

For roughly the easternmost half of that 7.4 mile WB segment, both shoulders have also been poured, with the only remaining work appearing to be guardrails, pylons, signage, and lane painting.   The western half still needs both full shoulders to be poured, some minor gravel edging, and the aforementioned items.  In two or three locations, short concrete gaps still exist all the way across, but these are collectively only a couple hundred linear feet in length.   

The entrance to the Mettiki mine is roughly the halfway point of the 7.4 mile segment.

A lot of progress has been made in just a few short weeks.
 

Took a trip out to the Canaan Valley last weekend and got a few pictures of construction along Corridor H. Not much has changed from what CVski mentioned, but the westernmost section has had its shoulders poured in places (still needs gravel edging, however). It looks like the road (at least the eastern portion) will be ready to open by October. (Not sure when the scheduled completion date is)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2FIMG_20160808_101903.jpg&hash=a9ac2a0f346e1b89f0dada603ae8500d4f4514df)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2FIMG_20160808_101911.jpg&hash=9ac82c2917e931f67a1518caec9b5a3a1e38bb62)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2FIMG_20160808_102127.jpg&hash=bfd5761586f9d20ff83813fda016a191795706ca)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwesj.org%2Froads%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F08%2FIMG_20160808_102756.jpg&hash=577412428873378cd392b7ad5e061897c4d1ce03)

Still no US-48 signage west of the Tucker/Grant county line, however. I wish they'd sign WV-32 / US-219 as TEMP-48 or something for continuity.

More photos from the trip can be found here: http://wesj.org/roads/allegheny-mountains-august-2016/ (http://wesj.org/roads/allegheny-mountains-august-2016/)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 14, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 13, 2016, 11:41:29 AM
Still no US-48 signage west of the Tucker/Grant county line, however. I wish they'd sign WV-32 / US-219 as TEMP-48 or something for continuity.

Since US 48 isn't signed on the western section of Corridor H, there's no real issue with continuity right now. Some [To US 48]/[To US 219] signage at Davis and Thomas would be nice but I doubt you'll see WVDOH do anything more than that at this time.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2016, 08:08:11 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 14, 2016, 04:30:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 13, 2016, 11:41:29 AM
Still no US-48 signage west of the Tucker/Grant county line, however. I wish they'd sign WV-32 / US-219 as TEMP-48 or something for continuity.

Since US 48 isn't signed on the western section of Corridor H, there's no real issue with continuity right now. Some [To US 48]/[To US 219] signage at Davis and Thomas would be nice but I doubt you'll see WVDOH do anything more than that at this time.

I agree about not signing western Corridor H (for now, Kerens to Weston).  Annoyingly, it is faithfully signed in Google Maps.

I do think a few trailblazer assemblies on W.Va. 32 approaching Corridor H would be good.  Also a few on U.S. 219 (northbound and southbound approaching W.Va. 32 on the north side of Thomas) would be enough, at least for now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on August 14, 2016, 11:03:07 PM

Took a trip out to the Canaan Valley last weekend and got a few pictures of construction along Corridor H. Not much has changed from what CVski mentioned, but the westernmost section has had its shoulders poured in places (still needs gravel edging, however). It looks like the road (at least the eastern portion) will be ready to open by October. (Not sure when the scheduled completion date is)

WVDOH website still says 9/1/2016 for completion of this 7.4 mile segment.  They're not going to make it by the stated deadline, but perhaps they still may... before the skies of November turn gloomy.....   

http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/districts/district-eight/Pages/work-zones.aspx
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2016, 01:00:25 AM
All of Corridor H in West Virginia (including western Corridor H and the uncompleted sections between Kerens and Davis) will have U.S. 48 signs and (where appropriate) trailblazers installed. 

This according to a letter from WVDOT/DOH to West Virginia Delegate Gary G. Howell (R-District 56) that was posted by him on Facebook here (https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/14066476_10154545956376320_7486483773963598750_o.jpg).

I was able to convert the relevant parts of the DOH letter to Delegate Howell to ASCII text (see below):

QuoteThank you for your letter, dated July 13, 2016, regarding the signage of Corridor H as US 48 between its intersection with I-79 to the Virginia line, including sections not yet completed, and trailblazing on appropriate routes such as US 219, WV 93 and WV 32.

QuoteOur staff has recently been reviewing the need for trailblazing for Corridor H in the Parsons, Thomas, Davis and Canaan Valley areas and we concur that Corridor H (US 48) has reached a level of completeness where continuous designation of US 48 would be beneficial to drivers to provide consistent navigational route guidance. Coordination is beginning for this work between our Central Office and District staff. It is anticipated that actual field installations will begin in early fall.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 20, 2016, 04:18:40 PM
I saw the same thing you did yesterday. What I found interesting was that the delegate is from Keyser, which isn't along the route of Corridor H. I wonder if he represents any of the counties through which the route runs?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 20, 2016, 04:24:50 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 20, 2016, 04:18:40 PM
. I wonder if he represents any of the counties through which the route runs?

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Districts/maps.cfm#HD56

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2016, 04:35:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 20, 2016, 04:18:40 PM
I saw the same thing you did yesterday. What I found interesting was that the delegate is from Keyser, which isn't along the route of Corridor H. I wonder if he represents any of the counties through which the route runs?

Good question and good catch.

Thanks to SP Cook for posting the link to the West Virginia legislative districts. 

Apparently not.

However, Corridor H is intended to be (as a transportation planner might call it) a regionally-significant highway and addition to the highway  network, and his district in Mineral County just barely touches the inadequate U.S. 50, so presumably his constituents will benefit directly and indirectly from an improved east-west highway running across the mountains.  Perhaps more once there's a direct high-speed connection to I-79, which will make it easier for those constituents to reach Charleston and other points to the west and south.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2016, 03:11:07 PM
Wasn't there, at one time, an ancillary expressway corridor (not necessarily on the ARC network) planned from Corridor H north to the Cumberland area along either US 220 or WV 28 (or even the northern reaches of WV 93)?  Or were such plans shelved after ARC Corridor "O" was truncated from Maryland back to Bedford, PA?  If such plans still exist (even if dormant), it might provide an explanation for the interest emanating from the Keyser area, since one or more routing options passes near that town.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2016, 04:52:30 PM
You would be referring to this (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/closed/us220/Pages/default.aspx).  Not on the ARC network, but proposed as a regional connection between the Cumberland area and Corridor H.  Had a Tier 1 Final EIS approved two years ago.

The preferred corridor begins at Corridor H in Moorefield and roughly follows US 220 to about 4 miles short of US 50, where it veers northwest and meets US 50/220 near the Markwood hamlet.  It then again follows US 220 back down the ridge, bypasses Keyser and McCoole to the west, and generally parallels US 220 (mostly to the west) up to Cresaptown.  There are two options for connecting to I-68...one just west of Exit 39 (paralleling MD 53 to get there), or just west of Exit 42.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on August 21, 2016, 05:39:10 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2016, 01:00:25 AM
All of Corridor H in West Virginia (including western Corridor H and the uncompleted sections between Kerens and Davis) will have U.S. 48 signs and (where appropriate) trailblazers installed. 

This according to a letter from WVDOT/DOH to West Virginia Delegate Gary G. Howell (R-District 56) that was posted by him on Facebook here (https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/14066476_10154545956376320_7486483773963598750_o.jpg).

I was able to convert the relevant parts of the DOH letter to Delegate Howell to ASCII text (see below):

QuoteThank you for your letter, dated July 13, 2016, regarding the signage of Corridor H as US 48 between its intersection with I-79 to the Virginia line, including sections not yet completed, and trailblazing on appropriate routes such as US 219, WV 93 and WV 32.

QuoteOur staff has recently been reviewing the need for trailblazing for Corridor H in the Parsons, Thomas, Davis and Canaan Valley areas and we concur that Corridor H (US 48) has reached a level of completeness where continuous designation of US 48 would be beneficial to drivers to provide consistent navigational route guidance. Coordination is beginning for this work between our Central Office and District staff. It is anticipated that actual field installations will begin in early fall.
I wonder if this reflects a decline in WVDOH's confidence in getting the Kerens - Davis portion completed. IIRC, it's been pushed back well past 2030.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 09:03:47 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 21, 2016, 05:39:10 PM
I wonder if this reflects a decline in WVDOH's confidence in getting the Kerens - Davis portion completed. IIRC, it's been pushed back well past 2030.

The section from the current eastern terminus of western Corridor H at Kerens to a point where it will cross U.S. 219 between the Randolph County/Tucker County line and Parsons is under construction now (only work we saw in late Spring at the Corridor H meet was clearing and grubbing).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Duke87 on August 22, 2016, 12:33:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 21, 2016, 09:03:47 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 21, 2016, 05:39:10 PM
I wonder if this reflects a decline in WVDOH's confidence in getting the Kerens - Davis portion completed. IIRC, it's been pushed back well past 2030.

The section from the current eastern terminus of western Corridor H at Kerens to a point where it will cross U.S. 219 between the Randolph County/Tucker County line and Parsons is under construction now (only work we saw in late Spring at the Corridor H meet was clearing and grubbing).

Right, but according to the official WVDOH site (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map3.html) for Corridor H, beyond this segment which is already under construction, the rest of the gap (between Montrose and Davis) is not expected to enter final design until 2025 and is not expected to break ground until 2031.

Apparently they're currently reevaluating the impact it may have on endangered species although they don't explain why they think it will take until nine years from now to even start designing the road.

The bypass of Wardensville is actually scheduled ahead of this, for design in 2020 and groundbreaking in 2027.

I infer two things from all this:
- the long schedule is likely due to relative lack of funding availability, which means it could be sped up if the state finds a way to throw more money at it.
- they're looking to do the Wardensville section next probably at least in part because it is less mired by environmental concerns and therefore easier to get moving. Perhaps also in part on account of traffic counts on the existing road being higher over there (at least they seemed to be, anecdotally, from the meet tour).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2016, 12:46:38 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 22, 2016, 12:33:22 AM
- they're looking to do the Wardensville section next probably at least in part because it is less mired by environmental concerns and therefore easier to get moving. Perhaps also in part on account of traffic counts on the existing road being higher over there (at least they seemed to be, anecdotally, from the meet tour).

I believe there may be another reason why  they  may have moved the  segment from  Wardensville to state line at the crest of North Mountain up.  This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0884681,-78.5841019,3a,30.6y,82.82h,82.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYCQ17DvnAHPZM7nTwqlHGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) posted bridge over Waites Run, a tributary stream of the Cacapon River (itself a tributary of the Potomac River).  The weight limits are not all that low, but a posted bridge tends to imply a bridge that has structural problems, and I am fairly confident that if DOH can avoid having to spend resources repairing this old bridge by bypassing it with Corridor H on a new alignment, they would rather do that (there is a bypass route now via County Route 5, but I don't think it is especially appropriate for heavy commercial vehicles).

IIRC, the settlement of the Corridor H lawsuit said that WVDOT/DOH could not break ground on the segment east of Wardensville until 2020, but that is not that far off now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 22, 2016, 01:17:39 PM
If you go through WVDOH's STIP, they have two more phases (US 219 S to WV 72 N and WV 72 N to US 219 N) around Parsons programmed in the next 3 years or so. I believe design is basically done on these segments already.

The section between Parsons and Davis has always been further down on the priority list. The thing about the flying squirrel isn't new.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2016, 11:51:38 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 22, 2016, 01:17:39 PM
If you go through WVDOH's STIP, they have two more phases (US 219 S to WV 72 N and WV 72 N to US 219 N) around Parsons programmed in the next 3 years or so. I believe design is basically done on these segments already.

The section between Parsons and Davis has always been further down on the priority list. The thing about the flying squirrel isn't new.

Is the West Virginia STIP online?

Can you tell me where?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 23, 2016, 02:28:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2016, 11:51:38 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 22, 2016, 01:17:39 PM
If you go through WVDOH's STIP, they have two more phases (US 219 S to WV 72 N and WV 72 N to US 219 N) around Parsons programmed in the next 3 years or so. I believe design is basically done on these segments already.

The section between Parsons and Davis has always been further down on the priority list. The thing about the flying squirrel isn't new.

Is the West Virginia STIP online?

Can you tell me where?

As found by Google: http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/STIP/Pages/default.aspx

All of the Kerens-Parsons segments are listed under Randolph County even though some are entirely in Tucker County. Paving for the last section from WV 72 N to US 219 N has an obligation date of 10/28/2020 so I imagine it'll be done late 2021.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 23, 2016, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 22, 2016, 12:46:38 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 22, 2016, 12:33:22 AM
- they're looking to do the Wardensville section next probably at least in part because it is less mired by environmental concerns and therefore easier to get moving. Perhaps also in part on account of traffic counts on the existing road being higher over there (at least they seemed to be, anecdotally, from the meet tour).

I believe there may be another reason why  they  may have moved the  segment from  Wardensville to state line at the crest of North Mountain up.  This (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0884681,-78.5841019,3a,30.6y,82.82h,82.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYCQ17DvnAHPZM7nTwqlHGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) posted bridge over Waites Run, a tributary stream of the Cacapon River (itself a tributary of the Potomac River).  The weight limits are not all that low, but a posted bridge tends to imply a bridge that has structural problems, and I am fairly confident that if DOH can avoid having to spend resources repairing this old bridge by bypassing it with Corridor H on a new alignment, they would rather do that (there is a bypass route now via County Route 5, but I don't think it is especially appropriate for heavy commercial vehicles).

WVDOH also has a project to replace the Waites Run Bridge programmed for construction with a 10/28/2017 obligation date in the STIP. See http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/STIP/Documents/Stip_16_21/App_A.pdf
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 04, 2016, 09:24:08 PM
I drove US 219 from Parsons to south of Kerens today. I didn't see any signs of construction for Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2016, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 04, 2016, 09:24:08 PM
I drove US 219 from Parsons to south of Kerens today. I didn't see any signs of construction for Corridor H.

In Kerens, when you entered the western part of Corridor H from U.S. 219 southbound after going under the pair of completed (but never used for traffic) bridges that will carry Corridor H over Lazy Run (ultimately a tributary  of the Tygart Valley River), had you looked back to the place where the pavement ends, you would have seen that the vegetation had been cleared away  where the  rock will be removed to provide a roadbed for Corridor H.

H.B. Elkins suggested (and I agree with  him) that the contractor may not be allowed to do some work during certain times of the year due to impacts on wildlife and the environment. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 05, 2016, 02:23:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2016, 11:01:40 AM
H.B. Elkins suggested (and I agree with  him) that the contractor may not be allowed to do some work during certain times of the year due to impacts on wildlife and the environment.

Bat habitat. It's why most clearing and grubbing on projects in my area occurs during the winter months. Wouldn't be surprised if that was not the case in West Virginia as well.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on September 05, 2016, 10:14:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 05, 2016, 02:23:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2016, 11:01:40 AM
H.B. Elkins suggested (and I agree with  him) that the contractor may not be allowed to do some work during certain times of the year due to impacts on wildlife and the environment.

Bat habitat. It's why most clearing and grubbing on projects in my area occurs during the winter months. Wouldn't be surprised if that was not the case in West Virginia as well.

That has been the case in a few projects up here as well, notably I-781. Bats delayed initial preparation quite a bit for that one.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 06, 2016, 12:41:23 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2016, 11:01:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 04, 2016, 09:24:08 PM
I drove US 219 from Parsons to south of Kerens today. I didn't see any signs of construction for Corridor H.

In Kerens, when you entered the western part of Corridor H from U.S. 219 southbound after going under the pair of completed (but never used for traffic) bridges that will carry Corridor H over Lazy Run (ultimately a tributary  of the Tygart Valley River), had you looked back to the place where the pavement ends, you would have seen that the vegetation had been cleared away  where the  rock will be removed to provide a roadbed for Corridor H.

H.B. Elkins suggested (and I agree with  him) that the contractor may not be allowed to do some work during certain times of the year due to impacts on wildlife and the environment. 

I took US 219 northbound from Gilman to the end of the section at Kerens. I don't recall the end looking any different than when I've driven here previously. It didn't look markedly different than GMSV's imagery. It's possible there may have been some minor clearing of trees (I'm not really sure) but there was definitely no earthmoving or signs of ongoing activity.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: codyg1985 on September 06, 2016, 07:41:29 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 05, 2016, 02:23:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2016, 11:01:40 AM
H.B. Elkins suggested (and I agree with  him) that the contractor may not be allowed to do some work during certain times of the year due to impacts on wildlife and the environment.

Bat habitat. It's why most clearing and grubbing on projects in my area occurs during the winter months. Wouldn't be surprised if that was not the case in West Virginia as well.

That has actually impacted something I am working at my job. Can't do tree trimming without a pricey bat survey during the summer months.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2016, 10:36:47 AM
Regarding signing US 48 continuously, this news article (http://www.times-news.com/news/local_news/corridor-h-will-have-single-route-number/article_6265e8c1-d35c-5806-91e6-a3979e85cce6.html) from last week mentions it and also notes that there were 6 other state legislators (besides Del. Howell) involved in it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 08, 2016, 02:02:04 PM
Does anyone know what impacts the construction of US 48 (Corridor H) has had on reducing traffic counts on surrounding routes?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 09, 2016, 11:35:35 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 08, 2016, 02:02:04 PM
Does anyone know what impacts the construction of US 48 (Corridor H) has had on reducing traffic counts on surrounding routes?

I would guess that the truly parallel routes that have been bypassed (old US 33 between Buckhannon and Elkins, old US 219 between Elkins and Kerens, WV 42/93 between Bismarck and Scherr, and WV 55 between Moorefield and Wardensville) have seen traffic reduced to local traffic only. Keep in mind that most of the construction between the WV 93 connector west of Greenland Gap and Moorefield is totally new alignment and doesn't really supplant or replace an existing route.

I'm not sure what route US 33/119 took between I-79 at Weston and Buckhannon.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 09, 2016, 12:04:18 PM
It's a variety of county routes now, HB. US 33 was formerly routed on 33/1 and 33/3 east of I-79 at Weston, the westbound lanes of US 33 up Stonecoal Creek, CR 12 west of Buckhannon and CR 151 east of Buckhannon. I've driven all of CR 151 and it's a low traffic route but with shoulders in many areas and grassy berms in others - just like most upgraded West Virginia routes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2016, 02:27:26 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on September 09, 2016, 12:04:18 PM
It's a variety of county routes now, HB. US 33 was formerly routed on 33/1 and 33/3 east of I-79 at Weston, the westbound lanes of US 33 up Stonecoal Creek, CR 12 west of Buckhannon and CR 151 east of Buckhannon. I've driven all of CR 151 and it's a low traffic route but with shoulders in many areas and grassy berms in others - just like most upgraded West Virginia routes.

It seems that parts of Corridor H between I-79 at Weston and Buckhannon might have been constructed "VDOT-style," taking an older two-lane arterial in one direction, and building a modern one-way roadway on the opposing side. 

Is it possible that the westbound lanes of present-day Corridor H are (at least in part) the former U.S. 33?  In particular here (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.0107537,-80.3022804/39.0042959,-80.391376/@38.9950345,-80.3808666,7744m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) along Stone Coal Creek.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 09, 2016, 02:53:21 PM
It is. The original lanes (westbound) had two lanes east and one lane west at Stone Coal Creek due to the grade.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VTGoose on September 12, 2016, 11:31:57 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 09, 2016, 11:35:35 AM
I'm not sure what route US 33/119 took between I-79 at Weston and Buckhannon.

The four-lane pretty much follows the original highway, in some places the westbound lane is the original road location. In some places, both lanes are on a new location to straighten some curves. The new highway now runs north of downtown Buchannon and continues east on a totally new alignment. Just outside Buchannon, the original road is now "Old Weston Road"/"Buchannon Mountain Road"/WV 12. There is a section just east of I-79 that is named "Old US 33" and tagged CR 33/1.

East out of Buchannon, the original U.S 33 is now WV 155 and it runs southeast of the new road, finally joining it just south of where U.S. 250 splits away from 33.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 12, 2016, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on September 12, 2016, 11:31:57 AM

East out of Buchannon, the original U.S 33 is now WV 155 and it runs southeast of the new road, finally joining it just south of where U.S. 250 splits away from 33.


CR 151, actually.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 13, 2016, 08:19:36 AM
Correct - I didn't zoom in far enough to see the number.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on September 16, 2016, 06:26:44 PM
Quote from: CVski on July 29, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Paving of the two westbound lanes for the 7.4 mile segment under construction east of Davis was nearly completed this week.   1.4 of those miles were poured just between Monday afternoon and today, from the Beaver Creek bridge/Rubenstein entrance to the merge point one mile east of Davis.   Two heavy paving machines, each capable of pouring two lanes at a time, were in place on Monday but both were gone by today. 

For roughly the easternmost half of that 7.4 mile WB segment, both shoulders have also been poured, with the only remaining work appearing to be guardrails, pylons, signage, and lane painting.   The western half still needs both full shoulders to be poured, some minor gravel edging, and the aforementioned items.  In two or three locations, short concrete gaps still exist all the way across, but these are collectively only a couple hundred linear feet in length.   

The entrance to the Mettiki mine is roughly the halfway point of the 7.4 mile segment.

A lot of progress has been made in just a few short weeks.
 

9/16 Update:

Pylons and lane painting appear to be are all that's left for the eastern half of the 7.4 mile WB segment.  Just west of the Mettiki mine, a support truck and crew were unloading guardrails and associated hardware.   The grass seed and straw blowing crews were nearly finished.  The only concrete to be poured was the last 200' nearest SR 32 where the 4 lanes will merge back to 2. 

Spoke to a flaglady who thought there may still be "a couple of months" to go.

Feels like it might be a bit sooner.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 07:57:04 PM
Quote from: CVski on September 16, 2016, 06:26:44 PM

9/16 Update:

Pylons and lane painting appear to be are all that's left for the eastern half of the 7.4 mile WB segment.  Just west of the Mettiki mine, a support truck and crew were unloading guardrails and associated hardware.   The grass seed and straw blowing crews were nearly finished.  The only concrete to be poured was the last 200' nearest SR 32 where the 4 lanes will merge back to 2. 

Spoke to a flaglady who thought there may still be "a couple of months" to go.

Feels like it might be a bit sooner.

Does the construction season have a "couple of months" left in that area at those elevations?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 07:57:04 PM
Quote from: CVski on September 16, 2016, 06:26:44 PM

9/16 Update:

Pylons and lane painting appear to be are all that's left for the eastern half of the 7.4 mile WB segment.  Just west of the Mettiki mine, a support truck and crew were unloading guardrails and associated hardware.   The grass seed and straw blowing crews were nearly finished.  The only concrete to be poured was the last 200' nearest SR 32 where the 4 lanes will merge back to 2. 

Spoke to a flaglady who thought there may still be "a couple of months" to go.

Feels like it might be a bit sooner.

Does the construction season have a "couple of months" left in that area at those elevations?

That would be mid-November, which shouldn't be an issue for things that aren't warm-weather sensitive like asphalt paving.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
That would be mid-November, which shouldn't be an issue for things that aren't warm-weather sensitive like asphalt paving.

I think (for reasons not clear to me, perhaps that's what the contractors bid) all of this part of Corridor H (roughly the end of the east section near Davis to the bridge over the South Branch of the Potomac River) near Moorefield is concrete based on portland cement. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on September 17, 2016, 12:50:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
That would be mid-November, which shouldn't be an issue for things that aren't warm-weather sensitive like asphalt paving.

I think (for reasons not clear to me, perhaps that's what the contractors bid) all of this part of Corridor H (roughly the end of the east section near Davis to the bridge over the South Branch of the Potomac River) near Moorefield is concrete based on portland cement. 

You are correct, all concrete.  Interestingly, asphalt resurfacing is now being applied in the Baker area, on the bridge crossing the Lost River.  IIRC, this area was among the first completed segments of Eastern H, original pavement laid down circa 2002.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: CVski on September 17, 2016, 12:50:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
That would be mid-November, which shouldn't be an issue for things that aren't warm-weather sensitive like asphalt paving.

I think (for reasons not clear to me, perhaps that's what the contractors bid) all of this part of Corridor H (roughly the end of the east section near Davis to the bridge over the South Branch of the Potomac River) near Moorefield is concrete based on portland cement. 

You are correct, all concrete.  Interestingly, asphalt resurfacing is now being applied in the Baker area, on the bridge crossing the Lost River.  IIRC, this area was among the first completed segments of Eastern H, original pavement laid down circa 2002.

There is a brief segment of asphalt by the CR 5 overpass at Forman. Otherwise, except near bridges abutments, it's all concrete from Moorefield to the end of construction near Davis.

WVDOH generally seems to prefer concrete on new construction. While it has been overlaid in most places, DOH has in the last couple years started removing overlays and refurbishing in the underlying concrete on sections of Corridor G and Corridor H.

Regarding the bridges near Baker, my recollection from July is that was high friction surface treatment not asphalt on the bridge decks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2016, 12:32:27 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: CVski on September 17, 2016, 12:50:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
That would be mid-November, which shouldn't be an issue for things that aren't warm-weather sensitive like asphalt paving.

I think (for reasons not clear to me, perhaps that's what the contractors bid) all of this part of Corridor H (roughly the end of the east section near Davis to the bridge over the South Branch of the Potomac River) near Moorefield is concrete based on portland cement. 

You are correct, all concrete.  Interestingly, asphalt resurfacing is now being applied in the Baker area, on the bridge crossing the Lost River.  IIRC, this area was among the first completed segments of Eastern H, original pavement laid down circa 2002.

There is a brief segment of asphalt by the CR 5 overpass at Forman. Otherwise, except near bridges abutments, it's all concrete from Moorefield to the end of construction near Davis.

WVDOH generally seems to prefer concrete on new construction. While it has been overlaid in most places, DOH has in the last couple years started removing overlays and refurbishing in the underlying concrete on sections of Corridor G and Corridor H.

Regarding the bridges near Baker, my recollection from July is that was high friction surface treatment not asphalt on the bridge decks.

U.S. state departments of transportation once seemed to like asphalt-surfaced bridge decks for reasons not clear to me. 

Now the preference is for "bare" portland cement-based concrete bridge decks, even when the adjoining road surface is asphalt. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 19, 2016, 08:17:49 AM
Those bridges were all concrete when constructed, but a few may have had high friction asphalt overlays installed atop due to accidents in inclement weather. Those overlays are about .25" or .5". The best example I can think of is the Fort Hill I-64 bridge at US 119 in the curve, installed after a rash of accidents occurred during some rain storms. The Turnpike also uses them on many of their bridges for the same reason, and to extend the lifespan of the deck.

As far as concrete pavements go, I was told years back that it's always down to the lowest bidder per specifications. For whatever reason, it's been concrete over asphalt with a few exceptions, like Corridor H near Moorefield and around Prichard and Crum for the Tulsia/King Coal Highways.

The state has also bought itself a diamond grinder and has taken to using it over asphalt overlays, such as reworking I-64 east of Beckley to Sam Black Church that was built in 1988 (and whose specifications called for an asphalt overlay originally). They also took out an asphalt overlay on Corridor H west of Elkins and diamond grinded the concrete.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on September 19, 2016, 12:26:22 PM
A lot of northern areas use asphalt overlays to increase friction in snow/ice conditions and make it easier to repair potholes. Asphalt decks are really common in New York, New England and Canada. With mill and fill, they can just throw on a new surface every time an area is resurfaced.

From what I can tell in satellite photos, NYSDOT and NYSTA used asphalt-surfaced decks almost exclusively before the late 60s. Nowadays, most new decks are concrete surface, but asphalt overlays are very common after 20-30 years and some new decks (notably the Twin Bridges north of Albany) are asphalt-surfaced. As of late, several of the New England states have been switching back to concrete for some projects.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: epzik8 on September 19, 2016, 07:47:12 PM
I don't feel ready to try out U.S. 48 yet. I plan to clinch I-68 within the next month and going back to my home base near Baltimore, I'll take U.S. 50 to U.S. 220 back to I-68 at Cumberland, Maryland.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on September 19, 2016, 08:03:02 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2016, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: CVski on September 17, 2016, 12:50:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2016, 09:31:07 PM
That would be mid-November, which shouldn't be an issue for things that aren't warm-weather sensitive like asphalt paving.

I think (for reasons not clear to me, perhaps that's what the contractors bid) all of this part of Corridor H (roughly the end of the east section near Davis to the bridge over the South Branch of the Potomac River) near Moorefield is concrete based on portland cement. 

You are correct, all concrete.  Interestingly, asphalt resurfacing is now being applied in the Baker area, on the bridge crossing the Lost River.  IIRC, this area was among the first completed segments of Eastern H, original pavement laid down circa 2002.

There is a brief segment of asphalt by the CR 5 overpass at Forman. Otherwise, except near bridges abutments, it's all concrete from Moorefield to the end of construction near Davis.

WVDOH generally seems to prefer concrete on new construction. While it has been overlaid in most places, DOH has in the last couple years started removing overlays and refurbishing in the underlying concrete on sections of Corridor G and Corridor H.

Regarding the bridges near Baker, my recollection from July is that was high friction surface treatment not asphalt on the bridge decks.

Drove the entire EB portion from Davis to Wardensville again this afternoon with closer attention to the road surface.  From a mile east of Davis, it's basically all concrete to the US220 bridge at Moorefield.  From that point east, it's basically all asphalt.  The *exceptions* are that at nearly every bridge crossing, the decks themselves were originally installed as concrete, but the approaches, about 100 linear feet on both sides, were and remain asphalt.

Forman appears to have an unique feature as Bitmapped noted.  For perhaps 1000' on either side of the Rt 5 *underpass*, Corridor H is all asphalt, and the topography for that stretch is clearly cut not filled.  Never really noticed that aspect in 2010 when the section from US220 to Knobley Rd came on line.   Could the potential flooding of Patterson Creek be the reason?

There is an active repaving operation from the crest of South Branch Mountain just east of Moorefield to about a mile west of Wardensville, and that is entirely asphalt resurfacing.  I believe but am not 100% positive that asphalt overlay is also going down right on top of those concrete bridge decks.

And as a general update, near the western terminus outside of Davis, the contractor was busy adding about 4' of additional asphalt on each side of the old SR 93 roadbed.  It appears to be destined for traffic lanes, not shoulder.  This covers the one mile stretch from the 4-lane to 2-lane merge point to SR 32 between Davis and Thomas, a piece that will apparently remain two lane traffic for many years to come.  (A local Parsons attorney had explained to me a couple of years ago that the exact crossing point of Corridor H over SR32 was going to remain fluid until all of the Blackwater Canyon issues were finally sorted out.)  That last point is of interest to local and outside land speculators; a few hundred yards may make all the difference for the land values at what also may predictably become the busiest and most developable Corridor H interchange between Moorefield and Elkins...   

Does anyone know if that additional 4' of lane width has anything to do with US Highway standards...?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on September 19, 2016, 08:47:15 PM
For those following the latest WV wind farm project atop New Creek Mountain, you can really see it taking shape as you travel EB on Corridor H from the Bismarck interchange.   Just as you cross under the turbine farm located on the Allegheny Front, (a total of 99 wind turbine assemblies there, I believe) you can now look northeastward across the valley, and see, looking north to south:

* 12 completed assemblies, tower plus 3 rotor blades
* 25 towers only
* 6-10 additional base platforms, ready for erection
* two heavy crane systems, that must themselves be over 300' tall at their boom or top sheave. 

So it appears that there will be at least 40-something of the new turbines altogether.

Could not immediately tell if any of the generator assemblies have been installed.

I'm not at all familiar with the location of the northern endpoint, but the southernmost turbine will be very close to the Greenland Gap, perhaps only a couple of hundred yards or so to the north(?)

An access road had been constructed up New Creek Mountain a couple of years ago, it connects to H about a half mile north of GG.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: September 20, 2016, 09:17:19 PM

More wind farm information here:

http://www.enbridge.com/projects-and-infrastructure/projects/new-creek-wind-project

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 19, 2016, 11:44:17 PM
Quote from: CVski on September 19, 2016, 08:03:02 PM
And as a general update, near the western terminus outside of Davis, the contractor was busy adding about 4' of additional asphalt on each side of the old SR 93 roadbed.  It appears to be destined for traffic lanes, not shoulder.  This covers the one mile stretch from the 4-lane to 2-lane merge point to SR 32 between Davis and Thomas, a piece that will apparently remain two lane traffic for many years to come.  (A local Parsons attorney had explained to me a couple of years ago that the exact crossing point of Corridor H over SR32 was going to remain fluid until all of the Blackwater Canyon issues were finally sorted out.)  That last point is of interest to local and outside land speculators; a few hundred yards may make all the difference for the land values at what also may predictably become the busiest and most developable Corridor H interchange between Moorefield and Elkins...   

Does anyone know if that additional 4' of lane width has anything to do with US Highway standards...?

A couple thoughts:

- WVDOH design directive DD-601 calls for a 12' lane width for new rural arterials, but allows for 11' lanes to be retained if they were already there. I'm pretty sure WV 93 had at least 11' lanes already. There might have been a slight widening of the lane, but it would have been minor.
- The bigger thing is WVDOH practice for about the last 10 years has been to provide at least a 2' paved shoulder, sometimes more where practical. Existing WV 93 has gravel shoulders. My guess is that the paving is just going to be on the shoulders when this is all done.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 20, 2016, 08:20:27 AM
Quote from: epzik8 on September 19, 2016, 07:47:12 PM
I don't feel ready to try out U.S. 48 yet. I plan to clinch I-68 within the next month and going back to my home base near Baltimore, I'll take U.S. 50 to U.S. 220 back to I-68 at Cumberland, Maryland.

U.S. 48, even though it is incomplete, is much more fun than U.S. 50.

Beware of lots and lots of deer along all of these roads at night in the fall season.

You could take I-68 to U.S. 219 south near Accident, then south on 219 past Oakland, into West Virginia, then W.Va. 32 through Thomas, and a left onto U.S. 48/W.Va. 93. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2016, 03:54:40 PM

Forman appears to have an unique feature as Bitmapped noted.  For perhaps 1000' on either side of the Rt 5 *underpass*, Corridor H is all asphalt, and the topography for that stretch is clearly cut not filled.  Never really noticed that aspect in 2010 when the section from US220 to Knobley Rd came on line.   Could the potential flooding of Patterson Creek be the reason?
[/quote]

Probably to preserve the existing bridge height. I've noticed similar on interstates in other states. Instead of an overlay when the time comes for resurfacing, repaving there will be done by "mill and fill."

Whenever that stretch needs resurfacing, the first time it will probably be done via what is called "breaking and seating." The concrete pavement will be broken up and turned into rubble, and the asphalt will go down over top of it. Then the next time, more asphalt will go down over the old asphalt. If this is done often enough beneath the overpasses, it will reduce the clearance. Having pavement underneath the overpass allows the old asphalt to be milled and new put down without changing the clearance.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 22, 2016, 10:13:25 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2016, 03:54:40 PM

Forman appears to have an unique feature as Bitmapped noted.  For perhaps 1000' on either side of the Rt 5 *underpass*, Corridor H is all asphalt, and the topography for that stretch is clearly cut not filled.  Never really noticed that aspect in 2010 when the section from US220 to Knobley Rd came on line.   Could the potential flooding of Patterson Creek be the reason?

Probably to preserve the existing bridge height. I've noticed similar on interstates in other states. Instead of an overlay when the time comes for resurfacing, repaving there will be done by "mill and fill."

Whenever that stretch needs resurfacing, the first time it will probably be done via what is called "breaking and seating." The concrete pavement will be broken up and turned into rubble, and the asphalt will go down over top of it. Then the next time, more asphalt will go down over the old asphalt. If this is done often enough beneath the overpasses, it will reduce the clearance. Having pavement underneath the overpass allows the old asphalt to be milled and new put down without changing the clearance.
[/quote]

I don't think I've ever seen DOH do a break and seat. It's just a straight overlay over the existing concrete. DOH has lately been removing some of these asphalt overlays (parts of Corridor G and Corridor H) and repairing the concrete underneath, which you couldn't really do with a break and seat. The other concrete section of Corridor H with an overpass is all concrete underneath.

The asphalt section by CR 5 extends well beyond the overpass as shown on GMaps at https://goo.gl/maps/pT28hE21S8t. I'm wondering if the interchange was broken out as a separate contract and asphalt won as best value on that section.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2016, 08:48:17 PM
[Paywalled - I have a scan of the full article that I can share if you send me your real e-mail address.  The author of this article is Lon Anderson, who participated in the 2016 Corridor H meet, and e-mailed me the scanned copy.]

Moorefield Examiner: West Virginia Officials Assured Corridor H Will Be Completed (http://moorefieldexaminer.com/west-virginia-officials-assured-corridor-h-will-completed/)

QuoteConstruction of Corridor H — its entire length from I-79 in Weston all the way to I-81 in Virginia — is still very much on track. That's the message from West Virginia Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox, after a recent conversation with his Virginia counterpart, Transportation Secretary Aubrey Lane.

QuoteMattox said Lane assured him that "it's on their radar screen,"  and that "long term, Corridor H is still important to them."

QuoteThe construction of the Corridor H segment in Virginia that will link the predominately West Virginia Highway with I-81 was cast into doubt this summer by a new system for prioritizing transportation projects enacted in Virginia in 2014.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 07, 2016, 10:19:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2016, 08:48:17 PM
[Paywalled - I have a scan of the full article that I can share if you send me your real e-mail address.  The author of this article is Lon Anderson, who participated in the 2016 Corridor H meet, and e-mailed me the scanned copy.]

Did he ever do a story on the meet? If so, I never saw it or a link to it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2016, 10:48:07 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 07, 2016, 10:19:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 07, 2016, 08:48:17 PM
[Paywalled - I have a scan of the full article that I can share if you send me your real e-mail address.  The author of this article is Lon Anderson, who participated in the 2016 Corridor H meet, and e-mailed me the scanned copy.]

Did he ever do a story on the meet? If so, I never saw it or a link to it.

He did.  I will see if I have what's needed to share it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 08, 2016, 08:28:28 AM
Not convinced.  There's no hard evidence....just a lot of talk from politicos as viewed from the mouthpiece of AAA Mid-Atlantic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2016, 02:21:20 AM
Quote from: froggie on October 08, 2016, 08:28:28 AM
Not convinced.  There's no hard evidence....just a lot of talk from politicos as viewed from the mouthpiece of AAA Mid-Atlantic.

Lon has retired from AAA.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 09, 2016, 08:17:03 AM
Doesn't matter.  That's the position he's best known for in the region.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on October 19, 2016, 06:52:20 PM
Quote from: CVski on September 16, 2016, 06:26:44 PM
Quote from: CVski on July 29, 2016, 12:19:39 AM
Paving of the two westbound lanes for the 7.4 mile segment under construction east of Davis was nearly completed this week.   1.4 of those miles were poured just between Monday afternoon and today, from the Beaver Creek bridge/Rubenstein entrance to the merge point one mile east of Davis.   Two heavy paving machines, each capable of pouring two lanes at a time, were in place on Monday but both were gone by today. 

For roughly the easternmost half of that 7.4 mile WB segment, both shoulders have also been poured, with the only remaining work appearing to be guardrails, pylons, signage, and lane painting.   The western half still needs both full shoulders to be poured, some minor gravel edging, and the aforementioned items.  In two or three locations, short concrete gaps still exist all the way across, but these are collectively only a couple hundred linear feet in length.   

The entrance to the Mettiki mine is roughly the halfway point of the 7.4 mile segment.

A lot of progress has been made in just a few short weeks.
 

9/16 Update:

Pylons and lane painting appear to be are all that's left for the eastern half of the 7.4 mile WB segment.  Just west of the Mettiki mine, a support truck and crew were unloading guardrails and associated hardware.   The grass seed and straw blowing crews were nearly finished.  The only concrete to be poured was the last 200' nearest SR 32 where the 4 lanes will merge back to 2. 

Spoke to a flaglady who thought there may still be "a couple of months" to go.

Feels like it might be a bit sooner.


(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: October 19, 2016, 08:01:32 PM

Reports coming out of Canaan Valley that the 7.4 mile segment was opened to 4-lane traffic today...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2016, 12:28:59 AM
Quote from: dave19 on October 22, 2016, 07:42:24 PM
I drove up there this morning. It has opened. There's just a little bit of minor work left like finishing up signing. No US 48 signs west of the juvenile center intersection yet.

I think I saw WVDOT say the signs would be up by the end of the Fall. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 24, 2016, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: dave19 on October 24, 2016, 04:32:05 PM
I forgot to mention that Kokosing is placing trailers, etc. at the Bridges at Kerens.

During the meet last spring, there were a few trailers parked on those bridges, and there had been some clearing across the hill just beyond the bridges.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 26, 2016, 08:58:40 AM
Quote from: dave19 on October 25, 2016, 08:39:34 PM
I've been through Kerens a few times since that particular meet; these trailers are different and were not there before. There were two large orange and black trailers there when I went by and they were pulling a third in there when I was on the way home Saturday. I passed another one being towed eastbound by a Kokosing truck between Weston and Buckhannon on the way home from work yesterday afternoon. In short, there's more stuff there now than there was last spring.

That's good news. 

I wonder if one or more of those trailers might have been showing placarding for HAZMAT (explosives) by chance?  I suspect there's going to be a lot of blasting going  on this winter.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CVski on November 09, 2016, 03:22:47 PM
Now open: 63 nonstop miles from Davis to Wardensville, 58 minutes!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mvak36 on November 09, 2016, 03:29:47 PM
I've been wondering for a while, is this whole corridor supposed to be a freeway or 4 lane expressway or something like that?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 09, 2016, 04:01:09 PM
4-lane expressway, not freeway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on November 09, 2016, 08:29:04 PM
I enjoy driving on 4-lane expressways that are built to near "Interstate standards."  Examples are US 35 in OH and WV, US 30 in northern OH, and Corridor D (OH 32/US 50) from Cincinnati to Clarksburg, WV.  I haven't had an opportunity to drive on the "Fort-to-Port" section of US 24 yet nor have I had an opportunity to drive Corridor H.  From looking at photos and messing with Google Maps, this looks to also be an enjoyable road to drive.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 10, 2016, 08:43:53 AM
It's extremely scenic, namely because it rides the ridges and dives into the valleys. It also does not have vegetation build up on the right-of-way yet, so enjoy the views while you can!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 10, 2016, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on November 09, 2016, 08:29:04 PM
I enjoy driving on 4-lane expressways that are built to near "Interstate standards."  Examples are US 35 in OH and WV, US 30 in northern OH, and Corridor D (OH 32/US 50) from Cincinnati to Clarksburg, WV.  I haven't had an opportunity to drive on the "Fort-to-Port" section of US 24 yet nor have I had an opportunity to drive Corridor H.  From looking at photos and messing with Google Maps, this looks to also be an enjoyable road to drive.

Concur with Sherman.  This is a pleasant and scenic ride.  IMO it manages to beat-out Skyline Drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway in that those stay for the most part on or near the ridgecrest, but Corridor H goes through them, and also climbs the Allegheny Front in a very elegant way (especially when compared to the twists and turns of W.Va. 93/W.Va. 42 (Union Highway)).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on November 10, 2016, 05:29:07 PM
I will have to drive this whenever I can find the time.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 10, 2017, 09:02:29 PM
I've moved the old gn.com Corridor H in Virginia (or the lack there of it) site page to the blog and updated a small amount of information.

I will be bringing over the old WV Corridor H site to the blog and include more up to date information in the coming weeks.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/01/us-48-corridor-h-in-virginia.html
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 13, 2017, 11:55:24 AM
Quote from: dave19 on January 12, 2017, 09:20:28 PM
Well, early fall - indeed, all of fall - has come and gone. Still no US 48 signs posted beyond Davis. Maybe early spring?.....

Maybe you should direct that question to Delegate Howell (http://www.legis.state.wv.us/house/lawmaker.cfm?member=delegate%20howell)?

Or ask someone at WVDOT?  Contacts here (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/Pages/contact.aspx).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 23, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
I finally drove the new section (along with some roads in the eastern panhandle where I had not been in a few years) to regain my being able to say I have driven every 4 lane in the state, as a part of attending the Inaugriation of our President and mini-vacation and road trip. 

The signage is a big fail.  (Since I was going west last I will cover it that way, but it is the same issue either way).  Virginia signs it exit as "US 48" but also simply as "Strasburg", for which there are several exits since you are then in Strasburg.  A control city, either Wardensville or Moorefiled would be helpful.   Then as the newly completed section ends, it is just signed as "END 48" and then after a mile or so, you just come ot a junction with a north-south choice for which the correct choice is not obvious.  Then after a couple of miles, you again have a north-south choice with the correct choice not obvious (and the two are opposite of one another, the first is north, the second south), with the sign reading "Oakland, MD" which is not helpful. 

That whole part could easily be fixed with a couple of 48 signs and a couple of "Elkins" signs.  The best thing to do would be to sign the completed western part of H as US 48 (the exit sign from 79 has 48, but there is no signage other than that, and then sign the middle as "TEMP 48".
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2017, 02:47:36 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 23, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
The signage is a big fail.  (Since I was going west last I will cover it that way, but it is the same issue either way).  Virginia signs it exit as "US 48" but also simply as "Strasburg", for which there are several exits since you are then in Strasburg.  A control city, either Wardensville or Moorefiled would be helpful.   Then as the newly completed section ends, it is just signed as "END 48" and then after a mile or so, you just come ot a junction with a north-south choice for which the correct choice is not obvious.  Then after a couple of miles, you again have a north-south choice with the correct choice not obvious (and the two are opposite of one another, the first is north, the second south), with the sign reading "Oakland, MD" which is not helpful.

Supposedly, WVDOT/DOH was going to have U.S. 48 signs up all the way from the current end of the eastern section of Corridor H (at WVA-32 between Thomas and Davis) all the way to Weston by now (presumably following WVA-32 northbound to U.S. 219 in Thomas, then following U.S. 219 southbound through Parsons to Kerens where the western part of Corridor H currently picks-up). At least that was the message from them and a member of the W.Va. legislature (see messages upthread for details).

Quote from: SP Cook on January 23, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
That whole part could easily be fixed with a couple of 48 signs and a couple of "Elkins" signs.  The best thing to do would be to sign the completed western part of H as US 48 (the exit sign from 79 has 48, but there is no signage other than that, and then sign the middle as "TEMP 48".

Agreed.

Supposedly the plan by DOH was to sign all of it as U.S. 48, and have it done by the end of calendar year 2016.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 23, 2017, 04:55:58 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 23, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
That whole part could easily be fixed with a couple of 48 signs and a couple of "Elkins" signs.  The best thing to do would be to sign the completed western part of H as US 48 (the exit sign from 79 has 48, but there is no signage other than that, and then sign the middle as "TEMP 48".

That's definitely new from the last time I was there (last May).

If you drove a direct route back, since you indicated you traveled west and you made reference to the Strasburg exit, how would you rate Corridor H as a route from the mid-Ohio Valley (Louisville-Lexington-Huntington-Charleston) to DC, when compared to I-68? It already seems I-68 is the preferred route over I-64 to I-81 to I-66, but would I-68 or US 48 be preferable?

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 23, 2017, 02:47:36 PM
Supposedly, WVDOT/DOH was going to have U.S. 48 signs up all the way from the current end of the eastern section of Corridor H (at WVA-32 between Thomas and Davis) all the way to Weston by now (presumably following WVA-32 northbound to U.S. 219 in Thomas, then following U.S. 219 southbound through Parsons to Kerens where the western part of Corridor H currently picks-up). At least that was the message from them and a member of the W.Va. legislature (see messages upthread for details).

Quote from: SP Cook on January 23, 2017, 02:24:20 PM
That whole part could easily be fixed with a couple of 48 signs and a couple of "Elkins" signs.  The best thing to do would be to sign the completed western part of H as US 48 (the exit sign from 79 has 48, but there is no signage other than that, and then sign the middle as "TEMP 48".

Agreed.

Supposedly the plan by DOH was to sign all of it as U.S. 48, and have it done by the end of calendar year 2016.

That's what I thought as well.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 24, 2017, 10:56:39 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 23, 2017, 04:55:58 PM

If you drove a direct route back, since you indicated you traveled west and you made reference to the Strasburg exit, how would you rate Corridor H as a route from the mid-Ohio Valley (Louisville-Lexington-Huntington-Charleston) to DC, when compared to I-68? It already seems I-68 is the preferred route over I-64 to I-81 to I-66, but would I-68 or US 48 be preferable?


IMHO, I am a very good mountain driver.  Not everybody is.  So, yeah, H would be my prefered way to go to DC with Charleston (or any of the cities you list or even some others, such as even some places in Tennessee via Corridor G, because 81 is just so F***ing over capacity with trucks unable to maintain 70 on the terrain and unwilling to keep right).  79-48-66.  Right now.  When finished, assuming the state does make the same mistake it made with L (underposted SLs, stop lights, speed trap hick towns) it would certainly be. 

IMFHO, I prefer 64-81-66 to Washington over 79-68-70-270.  The mileage is about the same, but the first way (albeit it 81's issues) is just more enjoyable.  Further, if you are going to drive right into the tourist/government part of DC, 66 heads right there, while 270 just ends at the beltway and makes you either take surface streets or drive on the beltway for some time without getting any closer to where you want to be.    Or if you do what I often do, which is park at the end of the Metro and ride that, then I find the Orange Line preferable to the Red Line.  There also is the opertunity to stop at Arlington Cemetary, which generally has parking and use the Blue Line from there, especially is that is one of the tourist stops you want to see anyway.  JMO.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 24, 2017, 01:46:35 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 24, 2017, 10:56:39 AM

IMHO, I am a very good mountain driver.  Not everybody is.  So, yeah, H would be my prefered way to go to DC with Charleston (or any of the cities you list or even some others, such as even some places in Tennessee via Corridor G, because 81 is just so F***ing over capacity with trucks unable to maintain 70 on the terrain and unwilling to keep right).  79-48-66.  Right now.  When finished, assuming the state does make the same mistake it made with L (underposted SLs, stop lights, speed trap hick towns) it would certainly be. 

IMFHO, I prefer 64-81-66 to Washington over 79-68-70-270.  The mileage is about the same, but the first way (albeit it 81's issues) is just more enjoyable.  Further, if you are going to drive right into the tourist/government part of DC, 66 heads right there, while 270 just ends at the beltway and makes you either take surface streets or drive on the beltway for some time without getting any closer to where you want to be.    Or if you do what I often do, which is park at the end of the Metro and ride that, then I find the Orange Line preferable to the Red Line.  There also is the opertunity to stop at Arlington Cemetary, which generally has parking and use the Blue Line from there, especially is that is one of the tourist stops you want to see anyway.  JMO.

First time I drove directly to DC, I took 79-68-70-270. (This was before I started doing a whole lot of traveling) It was in January so I ran into weather issues in western Maryland. My destination was the Renaissance Hotel so I used a short segment of the Beltway and the GW Parkway to the Key Bridge, then the Whitehurst to K Street, which took me straight to where I needed to be. I've told the story before, but since it was pretty much new territory for me at the time, I had planned to take 66-81-64 home but snow chased me off the interstate. I trusted my own mountain driving across what existed of Corridor H at the time, filling in the gaps with WV 55-US 220-WV 42-WV 93-US 219, instead of trucks driving too fast for weather conditions on I-81.

As it is, right now, I have no issues with using H as a through route across the heart of the Appalachians. US 219 between Elkins and Davis is a better route than a lot of the mountain roads around here.

I also think 64-79-H would be a better route from St. Louis than I-70. 64 only goes through the middle of two cities (Louisville and Charleston) while 70 has to deal with two bigger cities (Indy and Columbus) and Breezewood.

Unless the east side of Weston or Buckhannon grow by leaps and bounds, I don't foresee a traffic light-clogged route ever developing.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 12:24:00 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2017, 01:46:35 PM
First time I drove directly to DC, I took 79-68-70-270. (This was before I started doing a whole lot of traveling) It was in January so I ran into weather issues in western Maryland. My destination was the Renaissance Hotel so I used a short segment of the Beltway and the GW Parkway to the Key Bridge, then the Whitehurst to K Street, which took me straight to where I needed to be. I've told the story before, but since it was pretty much new territory for me at the time, I had planned to take 66-81-64 home but snow chased me off the interstate. I trusted my own mountain driving across what existed of Corridor H at the time, filling in the gaps with WV 55-US 220-WV 42-WV 93-US 219, instead of trucks driving too fast for weather conditions on I-81.
First time I drove Corridor H, there was no eastern part of the road.  So I took VA-55 (and WV-55, now largely signed as "Old WV-55," as DOH likes to do, between Wardensville and Moorefield - a twisting and narrow road) from I-81 at Strasburg, Va. to Moorefield; then U.S. 220/WV-55 to Petersburg, then WV-42 (and WV-42/WV-93 up the mountain); then WV-93 to WV-32 between Thomas and  Davis; then north on 32 to U.S. 219; then U.S. 219 south past Parsons and to Elkins; then WV-92 (and U.S. 33 and U.S. 250) to the west edge of Elkins, where western Corridor H terminated for many years.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2017, 01:46:35 PM
As it is, right now, I have no issues with using H as a through route across the heart of the Appalachians. US 219 between Elkins and Davis is a better route than a lot of the mountain roads around here.

U.S. 219 will get even better when Corridor H is done between Kerens and a point between Pheasant Mountain and the charcoal plant is open, though I am not especially a fan of 219 between Parsons and Thomas.

Quote from: hbelkins on January 24, 2017, 01:46:35 PM
I also think 64-79-H would be a better route from St. Louis than I-70. 64 only goes through the middle of two cities (Louisville and Charleston) while 70 has to deal with two bigger cities (Indy and Columbus) and Breezewood.

Unless the east side of Weston or Buckhannon grow by leaps and bounds, I don't foresee a traffic light-clogged route ever developing.

The route you mention above also has a nice added feature - no tolls, unlike the Pennsylvania and West Virginia Turnpikes.

Though  I would like to see those signals between I-79 and Elkins go away.  Especially where there have been more than a few bad crashes - at the point where U.S. 250 and WV-92 turn north between Elkins and Buckhannon. 

And Virginia and West Virginia need to complete Corridor H  between Strasburg and Wardensville.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
There are two signals at Weston. One for the shopping center/hotel access, and one for Berlin Road (entrance to Sheetz/Walmart/Quality Inn). I don't think those two are problematic, since they are near the end of the corridor. There's one on the west side of Buckhannon that puzzles me, as it doesn't seem to be a particularly busy intersection. Then there is the one CPZ mentions above, at the US 250/WV 92 intersection at Norton. It sorta comes upon you out of nowhere. I'm a bit surprised there isn't one where WV 92 (old US 33) departs the corridor. From that point on, I'd expect no new lights to pop up on the existing or  yet-to-be-built sections of H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 25, 2017, 11:56:35 AM
I hope you are right, but I remember when Corridor L and Corridor G opened with similar situations.  One inattentative driver and the "something must be done" crowd slaps up yet another stop light, ignoring the fundamental goal of the ARC Corridor system.    Yeah, if you want to pull onto a high speed expressway from some minor side road, you might need to wait a bit or you might need to go in the wrong direction for a bit and make a legal U-Turn.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 25, 2017, 12:15:54 PM
Sounds like a real boondoogle ("freeways" with stoplights).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 25, 2017, 12:46:19 PM
It's just poor planning, partly by WVDOH and by the counties - which often have no planning departments in general.

Look at Corridor G at Logan. There is an interchange with WV 73 just south of one traffic light on a long and steep grade - which is absolutely the worst location to ever install a traffic signal, let alone on a freeway. Why didn't WVDOH nix the entry onto Corridor G and simply provide access on WV 73 via the interchange?

Much like Corridor H at Buckhannon, the traffic signal serves some commercial development that could have been situated closer to town off of an interchange.

I was worried, too, about Corridor H at Moorefield. The exit for WV 55 includes a stub for a roadway north towards Harness Road. The route was graded but never paved because of an impact to the historic farm on the north side of Harness. The road will now be paved to serve an industrial site on the south side of Harness. But look just east of Moorefield - two intersections that are now being developed with commercial ventures that will surely be fitted with traffic signals in the future. Why could this not have been built at the WV 55 interchange?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 02:35:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
There are two signals at Weston. One for the shopping center/hotel access, and one for Berlin Road (entrance to Sheetz/Walmart/Quality Inn). I don't think those two are problematic, since they are near the end of the corridor. There's one on the west side of Buckhannon that puzzles me, as it doesn't seem to be a particularly busy intersection. Then there is the one CPZ mentions above, at the US 250/WV 92 intersection at Norton. It sorta comes upon you out of nowhere. I'm a bit surprised there isn't one where WV 92 (old US 33) departs the corridor. From that point on, I'd expect no new lights to pop up on the existing or  yet-to-be-built sections of H.

Two two that you describe at the far west end of Corridor H approaching I-79 are not so terrible, including the one at Sheetz (though access to the Sheetz at Weston on Corridor H might be as clumsy as any Sheetz I have ever patronized).   But I think drivers are "expecting" to slow because of the businesses on both sides of the road.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 25, 2017, 11:56:35 AM
I hope you are right, but I remember when Corridor L and Corridor G opened with similar situations.  One inattentative driver and the "something must be done" crowd slaps up yet another stop light, ignoring the fundamental goal of the ARC Corridor system.    Yeah, if you want to pull onto a high speed expressway from some minor side road, you might need to wait a bit or you might need to go in the wrong direction for a bit and make a legal U-Turn.

In the context of ADHS Corridor H, "something must be done" should be grade-separated interchanges at a place like the Corridor H junction with U.S. 250/WV-92 at Norton west of Elkins.  H.B. is correct that this one (IMO because it is "in the middle of nowhere") does indeed "pop-up" at drivers.  Now in defense of WVDOT, this is an older part of Corridor H, and there are no signalized intersections on the more-modern eastern Corridor H, and I agree with H.B. - I do not believe there are plans for any signalized intersections at-grade for the un-built parts of Corridor H.

If there are no dollars for an interchange, then I agree with S.P. that people should make a right and then a "U" Turn. Expanding on that, DOH should consider what Maryland SHA has done on U.S. 301 on the Upper Eastern Shore - block the median crossings and require all turns to be right turns, leading to a "U" turn which substitutes for the left turns. The nearly pancake-flat flat terrain on 301 on the Upper Shore is nothing like the ADHS corridors, but the amount of traffic (and speeds) on a four lane divided highway are similar to West Virginia's corridors.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 02:44:42 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 25, 2017, 12:46:19 PM
It's just poor planning, partly by WVDOH and by the counties - which often have no planning departments in general.

Do those counties need planning?  I get the feeling that some people move to West Virginia to avoid planning.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 25, 2017, 12:46:19 PM
Look at Corridor G at Logan. There is an interchange with WV 73 just south of one traffic light on a long and steep grade - which is absolutely the worst location to ever install a traffic signal, let alone on a freeway. Why didn't WVDOH nix the entry onto Corridor G and simply provide access on WV 73 via the interchange?

I have been there, and yes, that's on a grade, but the traffic on Corridor G does not seem to be that heavy, though I suppose that Wal-Mart could have been required to fund an interchange there (not sure if that sort of thing is done in West Virginia - it is somewhat common in Maryland and Virginia).

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 25, 2017, 12:46:19 PM
Much like Corridor H at Buckhannon, the traffic signal serves some commercial development that could have been situated closer to town off of an interchange.

Look, business owners want to be at places where the costs for land are low and access to the highway network is good.  Would Upshur County planners (if there are any) try to disrupt that or force changes?  I cannot say.

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 25, 2017, 12:46:19 PM
I was worried, too, about Corridor H at Moorefield. The exit for WV 55 includes a stub for a roadway north towards Harness Road. The route was graded but never paved because of an impact to the historic farm on the north side of Harness. The road will now be paved to serve an industrial site on the south side of Harness. But look just east of Moorefield - two intersections that are now being developed with commercial ventures that will surely be fitted with traffic signals in the future. Why could this not have been built at the WV 55 interchange?

I suspect that the FHWA division might step in and veto access to Corridor H unless interchanges are built there. That's on a pretty  steep grade (descending from east to west), and signals there would not be good.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 02:49:56 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on January 25, 2017, 12:15:54 PM
Sounds like a real boondoogle ("freeways" with stoplights).

Corridor H (in spite of the signs that WVDOT/DOH likes to put up) is not a freeway- or motorway-class road.  It is what planners and engineers would call an expressway, as are most ADHS Corridors in West Virginia.

VDOT used to mark roads like Corridor H on its official state highway maps as roads with "partial access control" (not sure if they still do that or not).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 25, 2017, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 25, 2017, 12:46:19 PM
Look at Corridor G at Logan. There is an interchange with WV 73 just south of one traffic light on a long and steep grade - which is absolutely the worst location to ever install a traffic signal, let alone on a freeway. Why didn't WVDOH nix the entry onto Corridor G and simply provide access on WV 73 via the interchange?

Much like Corridor H at Buckhannon, the traffic signal serves some commercial development that could have been situated closer to town off of an interchange.


Politics.   When G was finished in that area, there was nothing there, it was the middle of nowhere.  The area you are talking about was a mountain.  Director of the local hospital stole millions from the feds and used it to remove the mountain and then had the DOH make him a median cut and a stop light for a left turn across traffic, despite being just a few feet from an actual exit ramp and on a downhill grade.  He went to the slam, got out and was appointed to the just ex gov's (from Logan) cabinet.   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 03:58:09 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 25, 2017, 03:14:00 PM
Politics.   When G was finished in that area, there was nothing there, it was the middle of nowhere.  The area you are talking about was a mountain.  Director of the local hospital stole millions from the feds and used it to remove the mountain and then had the DOH make him a median cut and a stop light for a left turn across traffic, despite being just a few feet from an actual exit ramp and on a downhill grade.  He went to the slam, got out and was appointed to the just ex gov's (from Logan) cabinet.

I do not dispute the politics part at all (not being from  West Virginia, I am not in tune with such things anyway, save (in rare cases) for Berkeley and Jefferson Counties). 

But even so, where in Sam Hill was the FHWA division office?  They could easily have said not just no, but Hades No to an access point on U.S. 119/Corridor G without a grade-separated interchange.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on January 26, 2017, 11:07:28 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8583372,-82.0451223,1249m/data=!3m1!1e3

Yeah, that's pretty egregious. Particularly that the surrounding area is totally desolate. Not like there's a compelling commerce reason...what are people going to do...go to the next shopping center over?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on January 27, 2017, 12:23:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
There are two signals at Weston. One for the shopping center/hotel access, and one for Berlin Road (entrance to Sheetz/Walmart/Quality Inn). I don't think those two are problematic, since they are near the end of the corridor. There's one on the west side of Buckhannon that puzzles me, as it doesn't seem to be a particularly busy intersection. Then there is the one CPZ mentions above, at the US 250/WV 92 intersection at Norton. It sorta comes upon you out of nowhere. I'm a bit surprised there isn't one where WV 92 (old US 33) departs the corridor. From that point on, I'd expect no new lights to pop up on the existing or  yet-to-be-built sections of H.

There is a signal at the WV 92/Harrison Avenue intersection near Aggregates. It was installed about a year and a half ago. Frankly, I preferred things without the signal as it seemed there was generally less delay that way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 27, 2017, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on January 27, 2017, 12:23:03 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 25, 2017, 11:44:44 AM
There are two signals at Weston. One for the shopping center/hotel access, and one for Berlin Road (entrance to Sheetz/Walmart/Quality Inn). I don't think those two are problematic, since they are near the end of the corridor. There's one on the west side of Buckhannon that puzzles me, as it doesn't seem to be a particularly busy intersection. Then there is the one CPZ mentions above, at the US 250/WV 92 intersection at Norton. It sorta comes upon you out of nowhere. I'm a bit surprised there isn't one where WV 92 (old US 33) departs the corridor. From that point on, I'd expect no new lights to pop up on the existing or  yet-to-be-built sections of H.

There is a signal at the WV 92/Harrison Avenue intersection near Aggregates. It was installed about a year and a half ago. Frankly, I preferred things without the signal as it seemed there was generally less delay that way.

Hmm. I don't remember it when I was there for CPZ's meet last May.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on February 05, 2017, 10:18:29 PM
I drove the full eastern section of Corridor H this evening. A couple notes:

The weight limit on the Waites Run bridge on the 2-lane section of US 48/WV 55 just east of Wardensville has been lowered significantly. It was unposted in 2008, and had a silhouette posting in 2012 that allowed for 40-ton semis. It now maxes out at 23 tons for semis so most trucks heading to I-81 will have to take a different route. Construction of a replacement bridge is listed in WVDOH STIP for this fall.

It looks like the asphalt has been removed from most of the old WV 93 roadbed in Grant and Tucker Counties. It looks like a gravel surface was in place in most parts.

I didn't have time to investigate, but I noticed some signs for a bike trail paralleling Corridor H near the Rubenstein Juvenile Center near Davis.

The last two sets of reassurance markers before the end of the 4-lane section are marked "End 48/West 93." Presumably, they'll take off the "End" plate and replace it with a "West" one when US 48 is extended. There's still no signage for US 48 along WV 32.

It'd been about a day and a half since the last snowfall, but DOH had Corridor H including the full shoulders plowed clear and salted. DOH has historically not done a good job with snow removal in this area, so I was pleased to see this. It remains to be seen how well things will be maintained during a snow event. I'd still lean towards using a different route during a snowstorm.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 05, 2017, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on February 05, 2017, 10:18:29 PM
I drove the full eastern section of Corridor H this evening. A couple notes:

The weight limit on the Waites Run bridge on the 2-lane section of US 48/WV 55 just east of Wardensville has been lowered significantly. It was unposted in 2008, and had a silhouette posting in 2012 that allowed for 40-ton semis. It now maxes out at 23 tons for semis so most trucks heading to I-81 will have to take a different route. Construction of a replacement bridge is listed in WVDOH STIP for this fall.

In a perfect world, Corridor H would get built from its current eastern terminus at least to the crest of North Mountain, and the old bridge left like it is.

Quote from: Bitmapped on February 05, 2017, 10:18:29 PM
It looks like the asphalt has been removed from most of the old WV 93 roadbed in Grant and Tucker Counties. It looks like a gravel surface was in place in most parts.

As Corridor H sections opened between the Mount Storm Generating Station and WV-32, the pavement from old WV-93 has been removed. For the most part with the apparent intent of allowing it to return to a natural state.

Quote from: Bitmapped on February 05, 2017, 10:18:29 PM
I didn't have time to investigate, but I noticed some signs for a bike trail paralleling Corridor H near the Rubenstein Juvenile Center near Davis.

The last two sets of reassurance markers before the end of the 4-lane section are marked "End 48/West 93." Presumably, they'll take off the "End" plate and replace it with a "West" one when US 48 is extended. There's still no signage for US 48 along WV 32.

I have not given up on temporary U.S. 48 signs along the "gap" part of Corridor H between Kerens and Davis.

Quote from: Bitmapped on February 05, 2017, 10:18:29 PM
It'd been about a day and a half since the last snowfall, but DOH had Corridor H including the full shoulders plowed clear and salted. DOH has historically not done a good job with snow removal in this area, so I was pleased to see this. It remains to be seen how well things will be maintained during a snow event. I'd still lean towards using a different route during a snowstorm.

There have been somewhat temporary-looking DOH Maintenance bases built at two places along Corridor H, presumably mostly for winter maintenance.  One west of Forman near Knobley Road (CR 3) here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009'09.8%22N+79%C2%B008'01.9%22W/@39.152716,-79.1360527,505m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d39.152716!4d-79.133864) and one between Elkins and Kerens here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B058'24.6%22N+79%C2%B051'01.2%22W/@38.973492,-79.8525327,506m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d38.973492!4d-79.850344).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2017, 09:11:42 PM
I completed a rewrite and update of the Corridor H in WV page - moving it from the old site and over to the blog. The new information includes Corridor H's progress to date and some information on the towns and features along the route.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/02/conflict-in-mountains-story-of-corridor.html
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 14, 2017, 12:35:43 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 12, 2017, 09:11:42 PM
I completed a rewrite and update of the Corridor H in WV page - moving it from the old site and over to the blog. The new information includes Corridor H's progress to date and some information on the towns and features along the route.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/02/conflict-in-mountains-story-of-corridor.html

Nicely done! 

Interesting that the Corridor H Alternatives site (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHhome.html) is still operable after all these years though it appears to have been left untouched since 2001.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: noelbotevera on February 18, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
I'll be clinching Corridor H on the way to the NRG meet. I can update on what's new once I get home, and will be able to take pictures. Sorry, but I only have a phone camera.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 01:07:53 AM
Drove Corridor H eastbound from Buckhannon all the way to Wardensville, including sections of U.S. 219 and WV-32 between the western and eastern sections.

A few observations:

(1) I saw no U.S. 48 shields between Buckhannon and Davis.  Not one, not on western Corridor H, not on U.S. 219, not on WV-32.  The first one eastbound is a short distance after the western end of eastern Corridor H near WV-32, after a new BYS that warns of possible foggy conditions for the next 15 miles east of WV-32.

(2) Not much action where western Corridor H ends at Kerens.  A large number of orange construction trailers have been placed on the unopened section near the bridges over Lazy Run, but no heavy construction equipment was visible (though it is possible that the contractor has parked any such machines elsewhere).  Some of the hill at the dead-end at Kerens has been removed, but otherwise not much  appeared to be happening there.  No evidence of construction work at the other end of the segment in Tucker County between the crest of Pheasant Mountain and the Kingsford charcoal plant.

(3) Several new windmills have gone up on the ridgetop to the east of the Allegheny Front (where Nedpower has had a chain of them for several years now).  According to the topo map I consulted, this is New Creek Mountain, which runs roughly N-S and parallel to the Laurel Dale Road part of WV-93 north of Scherr.  It appears that a haul road from the westbound side of Corridor H was used to transport the windmill components to the top of the mountain (this is a logical place for windmills because of the relatively high elevations, and because there is easy access to transmission lines (built for Dominion Virginia Power's  coal-fired Mount Storm Generating Station, actually located in Bismarck) to send the generated power to market on the PJM Interconnection grid).

On my way west, I stopped at the Sheetz in Haymarket, Virginia at the intersection of U.S. 15 and VA-55 and ordered an MTO.  I got to talking with another customer, and it turned out that he had an interest in Corridor H for reasons not clear to me, and was especially interested in the missing sections between Kerens and Davis, and  between Wardensville and I-81.  He felt that Corridor H should be re-routed to have a straight connection to I-81 at the I-66 interchange - I told him I was not aware of any discussion in Virginia to change the routing, though it might be possible, since there has been no preliminary engineering done for Corridor H in Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 23, 2017, 02:45:38 PM
If Virginia ever does decide to build its portion of Corridor H and ties it in to I-81 at the end of I-66, that might provide the opportunity to do away with the left lane merge for southbound I-81 traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on February 23, 2017, 03:08:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 01:07:53 AM
(1) I saw no U.S. 48 shields between Buckhannon and Davis.  Not one, not on western Corridor H, not on U.S. 219, not on WV-32.  The first one eastbound is a short distance after the western end of eastern Corridor H near WV-32, after a new BYS that warns of possible foggy conditions for the next 15 miles east of WV-32.

How close was that first US 48 sign to the WV 32 junction? Also, is there still WV 93 (co-)signage all the way to WV 32?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on February 23, 2017, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: oscar on February 23, 2017, 03:08:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 01:07:53 AM
(1) I saw no U.S. 48 shields between Buckhannon and Davis.  Not one, not on western Corridor H, not on U.S. 219, not on WV-32.  The first one eastbound is a short distance after the western end of eastern Corridor H near WV-32, after a new BYS that warns of possible foggy conditions for the next 15 miles east of WV-32.

How close was that first US 48 sign to the WV 32 junction? Also, is there still WV 93 (co-)signage all the way to WV 32?

The signage is by where the 4-lane part starts. WV 93 is still co-signed the entire way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2017, 06:39:20 AM
Quote from: oscar on February 23, 2017, 03:08:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2017, 01:07:53 AM
(1) I saw no U.S. 48 shields between Buckhannon and Davis.  Not one, not on western Corridor H, not on U.S. 219, not on WV-32.  The first one eastbound is a short distance after the western end of eastern Corridor H near WV-32, after a new BYS that warns of possible foggy conditions for the next 15 miles east of WV-32.

How close was that first US 48 sign to the WV 32 junction? Also, is there still WV 93 (co-)signage all the way to WV 32?

Bitmapped has it right.

I will add that there are no signs at all for U.S. 48 on WV-32 approaching the intersection at WV-93 (and presumably U.S. 48).  At least not yet.  WV-93 used to have a street name of Synergy Highway, and before that (at least in Grant County), Power Station Highway or Power Plant Highway
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on February 24, 2017, 10:38:52 AM
The installed signage on the 4-lane part was done as part of the construction contract for the 4-lane section. The signage on I-79 was done by the I-79 maintenance crew. The regular DOH county maintenance crews haven't installed anything on their own.

The installed signage on Corridor H westbound as of the earlier this month was that US 48 westbound ended at the end of the 4-lane section.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 24, 2017, 10:54:52 AM
Perhaps someone should contact WVDOH, cite the correspondence from the legislator that was posted somewhere in this thread, and ask about the status of the signing of US 48 between Weston and Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: noelbotevera on February 24, 2017, 04:30:27 PM
Some questions before I start traversing Corridor H next month:

1. So Corridor H has a gap between Kerens and Davis, am I correct? (used GMaps to plot my course, and it doesn't clearly show Corridor H ending there)
   1a. If so, do I use WV 32 and US 219 to bridge the gap?

2. Am I forced onto WV 93 at the end of the four lane section of US 48?

3. Where's the end of Corridor H? Is it at I-79, or is it at US 19 at Weston? (Wikipedia lists it at I-79, but I'm skeptical)

4. At this point (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1954708,-79.2954186,18z) in GMaps, directions tell me to fork right onto WV 93? Is it outdated and I can continue on the four lane section (where what's actually mapped) or is the written directions right?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 24, 2017, 07:31:21 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on February 24, 2017, 04:30:27 PM
Some questions before I start traversing Corridor H next month:

1. So Corridor H has a gap between Kerens and Davis, am I correct? (used GMaps to plot my course, and it doesn't clearly show Corridor H ending there)
   1a. If so, do I use WV 32 and US 219 to bridge the gap?

Yes. Turn right at the end of WV 93, go through the town of Thomas (WV 32 has an interesting one-way split there) and then left onto US 219 south. In the alternative, you can turn left onto WV 32 and follow it until it ends at US 33, then turn right and take that route to Elkins. However, by doing this, you will miss the US 219 portion of Corridor H between Kerens and Elkins. Time- and distance-wise, the US 219 and US 33 routings are roughly equal.

Quote2. Am I forced onto WV 93 at the end of the four lane section of US 48?

Yes.

Quote3. Where's the end of Corridor H? Is it at I-79, or is it at US 19 at Weston? (Wikipedia lists it at I-79, but I'm skeptical)

It's at I-79. There is a 0 mile marker on the west side of I-79

Quote4. At this point (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1954708,-79.2954186,18z) in GMaps, directions tell me to fork right onto WV 93? Is it outdated and I can continue on the four lane section (where what's actually mapped) or is the written directions right?

Stay on the four-lane for as far as it is open.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 08:13:53 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 23, 2017, 02:45:38 PM
If Virginia ever does decide to build its portion of Corridor H and ties it in to I-81 at the end of I-66, that might provide the opportunity to do away with the left lane merge for southbound I-81 traffic.

That interchange is the way that VDH used to design them back in the 1960's and before (no inhibition about using left-side exits and entrances on freeways) - except that this was built and opened to traffic in the early 1980's. Getting rid of that left-side merge for the movement from I-66 westbound to I-81 southbound would seem like a great idea.

But looking at Google aerials, it appears that a road west of the I-66/I-81 interchange would have to pass through or around a large rock mining operation, which might not be feasible.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on February 26, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Given a lengthy mining operation (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0211233,-78.3184111,4374m/data=!3m1!1e3), plus the location of Ceder Creek, north of Strasburg (running from Exit 298 to northwest of Middletown), a direct Corridor H connection to the I-66/I-81 interchange is no longer feasible.  What would be feasible is a straighter connection between US 48/VA 55 and I-81, meeting at the curve on I-81 just northeast of their existing interchange.  Widening I-81 between Corridor H and I-66 could be tied into such a project, and would reduce the need to rebuilt the 66/81 interchange to address the merging.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on February 26, 2017, 09:55:09 AM
I drove Corridor H westbound between Elkins and Weston last night. US 48 is now consistently signed between Buckhannon and Weston. They just mounted US 48 shields below the existing US 33 shields on reassurance assemblies, so they're a bit low. There is a "End US 48" mini-BGS just before the I-79 interchange.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on February 26, 2017, 09:55:09 AM
I drove Corridor H westbound between Elkins and Weston last night. US 48 is now consistently signed between Buckhannon and Weston. They just mounted US 48 shields below the existing US 33 shields on reassurance assemblies, so they're a bit low. There is a "End US 48" mini-BGS just before the I-79 interchange.

Thanks for the report.  Of course, this is the only part of Corridor H that I did not drive (eastbound) last week.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 06:18:55 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Given a lengthy mining operation (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0211233,-78.3184111,4374m/data=!3m1!1e3), plus the location of Ceder Creek, north of Strasburg (running from Exit 298 to northwest of Middletown), a direct Corridor H connection to the I-66/I-81 interchange is no longer feasible.

Unfortunately, I agree.  Of course, it could be done, but I suspect it would be extremely expensive.

Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
What would be feasible is a straighter connection between US 48/VA 55 and I-81, meeting at the curve on I-81 just northeast of their existing interchange.  Widening I-81 between Corridor H and I-66 could be tied into such a project, and would reduce the need to rebuilt the 66/81 interchange to address the merging.

The current I-81 Exit 296 (VA-55/U.S. 48 at Strasburg) diamond interchange  has outlived its usefulness, and something needs to be done there (even without increased Corridor H traffic volumes).  Your idea certainly has merit, though most of the 325 miles of I-81 in the Commonwealth (not just around I-66) needs to be widened.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 16, 2017, 07:46:01 AM
Figured this is one of the more relevant places to put this article. Budget proposals always undergo significant changes, but interesting to see the proposed elimination of funding to the ARC.


"Trump's federal budget would eliminate dozens of agencies and programs"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/16/what-does-trump-budget-eliminate/99223182/

QuoteWASHINGTON – President Trump's proposed budget takes a cleaver to domestic programs, with many agencies taking percentage spending cuts in the double digits.

But for dozens of smaller agencies and programs, the cut is 100%.

QuoteAppalachian Regional Commission ($119 million): A 52-year-old agency focused on economic growth in 420 counties.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 16, 2017, 10:45:38 AM
The same folks who voted him in (much of Appalachia went to Trump) are now seeing the effects of the elimination of the very programs and funding mechanisms that have made modern life somewhat possible.

I suspect it is because so many have long been disconnected with how their daily life has been impacted by government programs like the ARC. I know that, after reading some of those newspaper commentary at a newspaper in Kentucky, that many do not even realize that those four-lane (and improved two-lane) routes they take for granted were built with ARC funding as part of the ARC corridor program. And in many rural towns, they wouldn't have modern sewage treatment plants (versus straight pipes into creeks) without the ARC. Or hospitals, many of which are funded by the ARC.

What's that term I'm looking for here... shooting yourself in the foot?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 16, 2017, 11:48:08 AM
There's probably been quite a bit of bureaucracy bloat in the ARC, as well as an illogical expansion of the territory covered.

Edmonson, Hart and Green counties in Kentucky are NOT part of Appalachia.

https://www.arc.gov/images/appregion/AppalachianRegionCountiesMap.pdf
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 16, 2017, 12:20:25 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 16, 2017, 11:48:08 AM
There's probably been quite a bit of bureaucracy bloat in the ARC, as well as an illogical expansion of the territory covered.

The "bloat" and "expansion" were almost certaintly intentional at their times in order to spread more money around for spending in the area (e.g. a commissioner getting jobs for his family members, etc).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 16, 2017, 12:20:54 PM
I would agree on that. I recall coming upon an article about the ARC expansion into fringe Appalachian counties. But, in this instance, $400,000 was recently spent to expand water lines in Edmonson, along with expanding broadband internet. Money from the ARC is being spent there, just out of a different pot.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on March 16, 2017, 12:22:23 PM
Essential Air Service (subisidized flights) and Amtrak long-distance routes (subsidized rail) are also on the chopping block, would also affect Appalachia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on March 16, 2017, 02:12:59 PM
Eliminating (or defunding) ARC wouldn't have an impact on the highway corridors, as dedicated funding for Corridor H and the other remaining corridors was already dropped (in MAP-21 IIRC).  While the states involved can fully fund ARC highway corridor projects with Federal funding (i.e. no longer need a state/local match), those Federal funds come from their normal FHWA allotments now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 16, 2017, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on March 16, 2017, 12:20:54 PM
I would agree on that. I recall coming upon an article about the ARC expansion into fringe Appalachian counties. But, in this instance, $400,000 was recently spent to expand water lines in Edmonson, along with expanding broadband internet. Money from the ARC is being spent there, just out of a different pot.

The original boundaries of the ARC included all the Appalachian counties, plus the bordering counties. That's how counties like Clark and Madison, which do have some hilly to mountainous terrain but aren't really thought of as Appalachia, got included in the original territory.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on March 16, 2017, 04:51:09 PM
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on March 16, 2017, 10:45:38 AM
The same folks who voted him in (much of Appalachia went to Trump) are now seeing the effects of the elimination of the very programs and funding mechanisms that have made modern life somewhat possible.

I suspect it is because so many have long been disconnected with how their daily life has been impacted by government programs like the ARC. I know that, after reading some of those newspaper commentary at a newspaper in Kentucky, that many do not even realize that those four-lane (and improved two-lane) routes they take for granted were built with ARC funding as part of the ARC corridor program. And in many rural towns, they wouldn't have modern sewage treatment plants (versus straight pipes into creeks) without the ARC. Or hospitals, many of which are funded by the ARC.

What's that term I'm looking for here... shooting yourself in the foot?

It's likely many -- if not most -- of those cuts will be DOA in Congress; the realities regarding just what the Trump folks can actually affect versus the realities endemic to district and state representation (and what is expected/anticipated at ground level) are becoming apparent as the WH-based plans unfold.  Buckle up: expect a bloodbath punctuated by an ongoing war of words!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on March 21, 2017, 10:18:16 AM
Confusing the ARC with the roads is a mistake.  Obviously these roads will be funded in general transportation bills as time passes.  As for the rest of the ARC it does nothing of value.  The program has been a failure by its own defination, as Appalachia was FAR more prosperous before it began. 

Amtrak, as it relates to Appalachia, means the two DC-Chicago routes.  The "Capitol Limited" which merely skirts the edge of what can best be called "legal Appalachia" (the overbroad region defined by the ARC) stopping only in WV's prosperous eastern panhandle, Cumberland, MD and the hardly Appalachian city of Pittsburgh.  No loss.  And Amtrak's most money losing route, the "Cardinal".  Because the "Cardinal" plys a longer DC to Chicago route than the "Capitol Limited" it gest no actual through traffic, it must depend on people it picks up along the way, passing through Charleston, Cincinnati and Indy.  A study by the CBO pointed out that the government could lose less money by buying everyone on the train a first class airline ticket.  While that is hyperbole, the fact is that bus services along the same routes have it covered, profitabaly.  The total number of "alightings" in the last Amtrak FY report in ALL Appalachian stations is less than 70K, out a "legal Appalachia" population of over 25M.

Which brings us to the "EAS" program.  Perhaps the most mis-named program in the federal government, as nothing it does is "essential" at all.  It play-pretends that it is will 1979 and pays the airlines to fly to places that make no economic sense.  It is not 1979, populations have changed, the airline business has changes, and, most importantly for this group, new roads have been built that make profitable airports available.  WV has 5 EAS airports, Virginia one, and southwestern PA 2 (Kentucky has none, because in the play-pretend its is 1979 system no place had air service then, even though there are as many people there as elsewhere in the EAS region today.

Understand that Charleston, Roanoke, Lexington, and Tri-Cites, non-EAS airports, have plenty of service, with people able to go one-stop to any of the major carriers hubs and then anywhere they want, plus discounters like Allegiant, Spirit and so on.  And Pittsburgh and Columbus are major airports with service way beyond that.  So we have:

- Morgantown - 79 miles from PIT, all interstate.
- Clarksburg - 107 miles from PIT, all interstate.  119 miles from CRW, all interstate.
- Lewisburg - 88 miles from ROA, 115 from CRW, 190 miles from GSO, all interstate.
- Beckley - 52 miles from CRW, all interstate, 213 miles from CLT, all interstate.
- Parkersburg - 129 miles from CMH, all 4 lane, 88 miles from CRW, all interstate, 145 miles from PIT, all 4-lane.
- Staunton - 147 miles from IAD, all interstate, 85 miles from ROA, all interstate. 
- Johnstown - 91 miles from PIT.

Johnstown, Beckley and Morgantown have each had years as the largest money losers in the EAS system.  It is not 1979 anymore.  New roads have been built, people have moved, and an hour or 2 drive for people who CHOOSE to live in a small town to get on an airplane is reasonable.  Further the  end of subsidy would add passengers to CRW and ROA.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2017, 08:10:12 PM
As I drove to the originally scheduled NRG/Beckley Meet today, US 48 was fully posted (minus some overheads) on all 4-lane sections of Corridor H.  It is posted in the gap between Kerens and Davis but it is much more sporadic and mainly where US 48 turns.  Also there was no US 48 WB shield where it turns onto US 219 SB from WV 32. (though there was an EB one)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 02, 2017, 06:20:47 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2017, 08:10:12 PM
As I drove to the originally scheduled NRG/Beckley Meet today, US 48 was fully posted (minus some overheads) on all 4-lane sections of Corridor H.  It is posted in the gap between Kerens and Davis but it is much more sporadic and mainly where US 48 turns.  Also there was no US 48 WB shield where it turns onto US 219 SB from WV 32. (though there was an EB one)

So, what I written here (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1969.0) for the 'gap' in the route is correct? If so, I'll finally get the file updated for TM.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 02, 2017, 06:33:04 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 02, 2017, 06:20:47 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2017, 08:10:12 PM
As I drove to the originally scheduled NRG/Beckley Meet today, US 48 was fully posted (minus some overheads) on all 4-lane sections of Corridor H.  It is posted in the gap between Kerens and Davis but it is much more sporadic and mainly where US 48 turns.  Also there was no US 48 WB shield where it turns onto US 219 SB from WV 32. (though there was an EB one)

So, what I written here (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1969.0) for the 'gap' in the route is correct? If so, I'll finally get the file updated for TM.

Yes, I had used this post from HB (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg2208279#msg2208279) in response to noelbotevera to verify my route before I went in case it was not fully posted.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
My Corridor H experiences:

-I can see why Virginia isn't working on Corridor H. For them, VA 55 is just a rural country road.

-The bridge over the Lost River was pretty high. I'm not sure why the sudden elevation change west of Wardensville is necessary (unless it involved cutting more rock).

-I'm not sure why there can't be a direct interchange with US 220 at Moorefield. Also, there's a strange sharp curve after WV 55 exits US 48. My best guess is that WV 55 once went into town, connecting with Old WV 55.

-Holy grades Batman! Some were pretty steep.

-I'm not sure why there's an interchange with WV 93 near the Mt. Storm Power Plant. You could've turned at WV 42/WV 93.

-The turn onto WV 32 North is still not signed, nor is the turn onto US 219 SB. US 48 only gets signed once US 219 begins the concurrency with WV 72.

-Nothing hasn't happened at Kerens. The hill seems a bit shorter, I guess.

-Corridor H was very light on traffic. I can see it as a replacement to US 50.

I only clinched Corridor H westbound (though, we turned EB briefly to see a dead deer that we snapped pictures of).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: oscar on April 18, 2017, 05:09:58 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-I'm not sure why there's an interchange with WV 93 near the Mt. Storm Power Plant. You could've turned at WV 42/WV 93.

If you're talking about the first interchange east of the power plant, that's where US 48 used to end, until a later construction phase extended the highway west past the power plant to an at-grade connection with WV 93.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 18, 2017, 08:04:19 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-The turn onto WV 32 North is still not signed, nor is the turn onto US 219 SB. US 48 only gets signed once US 219 begins the concurrency with WV 72.

I remember seeing a shield at the turn onto WV 32 NB a week earlier.  Also I did see a US 48 EB shield on US 219 NB at the turn onto WV 32 SB peeking through my mirror.

Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2017, 08:10:12 PM
As I drove to the originally scheduled NRG/Beckley Meet today, US 48 was fully posted (minus some overheads) on all 4-lane sections of Corridor H.  It is posted in the gap between Kerens and Davis but it is much more sporadic and mainly where US 48 turns.  Also there was no US 48 WB shield where it turns onto US 219 SB from WV 32. (though there was an EB one)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on April 19, 2017, 11:12:27 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-The bridge over the Lost River was pretty high. I'm not sure why the sudden elevation change west of Wardensville is necessary (unless it involved cutting more rock).

Look at a topographic map. The ridgeline is much higher than the valley bottom in this area.

Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-I'm not sure why there can't be a direct interchange with US 220 at Moorefield. Also, there's a strange sharp curve after WV 55 exits US 48. My best guess is that WV 55 once went into town, connecting with Old WV 55.
The interchange is located outside of the floodplain. Before it was placed on its current alignment, WV 55 followed the road known as Old WV 55.

Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-I'm not sure why there's an interchange with WV 93 near the Mt. Storm Power Plant. You could've turned at WV 42/WV 93.
WVDOH generally builds grade-separated interchanges when crossing state routes on newer Corridor construction. In this case, they probably could have omitted the interchange given WV 93 has no through traffic here anymore.

Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-The turn onto WV 32 North is still not signed, nor is the turn onto US 219 SB. US 48 only gets signed once US 219 begins the concurrency with WV 72.
Signage has been gradually extending further east this year.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 13, 2017, 09:33:35 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2017, 08:10:12 PM
As I drove to the originally scheduled NRG/Beckley Meet today, US 48 was fully posted (minus some overheads) on all 4-lane sections of Corridor H.  It is posted in the gap between Kerens and Davis but it is much more sporadic and mainly where US 48 turns.  Also there was no US 48 WB shield where it turns onto US 219 SB from WV 32. (though there was an EB one)

It's now fully posted, including on overheads on the mainline (but not on side roads such as where US 33 and US 250 leave the corridor at Elkins, and in Buckhannon).

I drove Corridor H today from Strasburg to Buckhannon. Some observations:

*As noted, it's fully posted. Several weeks ago I was on Corridor H between Buckhannon and Weston, and there's an "End US 48" sign there. Today I saw that the route is fully posted along WV 32 and US 219 between Davis and Elkins. On the portion west of Elkins, the US 48 signs have mostly been tacked on underneath the US 33 signs, but there are independent posts with US 48 signage next to the US 219 signs.

*There's been some discussion about cellphone service along the route. I have AT&T, and I had service all the way from Strasburg to the Grant/Hardy county line. From there to a point between Mount Storm Lake and Davis, service was intermittent and spotty. From Davis on to Buckhannon, service was uninterrupted.

*You can see the Mount Storm power plant from miles away.

*Traffic seems to be picking up along the route, but this time I didn't see any police officers patrolling today.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2017, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2017, 09:33:35 PM
*Traffic seems to be picking up along the route, but this time I didn't see any police officers patrolling today.

Any evidence that Kokosing has really started work between Kerens and Moore (south of Parsons)?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2017, 10:41:14 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
My Corridor H experiences:

-I can see why Virginia isn't working on Corridor H. For them, VA 55 is just a rural country road.

I disagree.  It's an interstate highway in a place where there are not that many roads crossing North Mountain (the crest of which is the boundary between Virginia and West Virginia).  Driving U.S. 48/VA-55 between Wardensville and I-81 is not an especially pleasant experience if one has the bad luck to be behind a laden  truck.

As has been pointed out, getting Corridor H completed (in Virginia) also improves highway access to the Virginia  Inland Port for trucks coming from  as far away as the I-79 corridor at Weston (current all-freeway routes are circuitous, and while Corridor H will not be a full freeway road, it will effectively function as one because there are not very many signalized intersections, and none east of Elkins).

Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-Holy grades Batman! Some were pretty steep.

I don't think any of the four-lane parts of Corridor H are steeper than 6%.  Given the terrain, that's pretty good (and lots better than the roads that were there before, such as WV-55 and WV-42/WV-93 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.2191999,-79.2114654/39.192488,-79.1715986/@39.2016008,-79.2273886,13z) (that one is especially bad climbing or descending the Allegheny Front between Scheer and the intersection at the Liberty gas station).

Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-I'm not sure why there's an interchange with WV 93 near the Mt. Storm Power Plant. You could've turned at WV 42/WV 93.

(1) Highway access to and  from the Mount Storm Generating  Station, especially for trucks; and
(2) Highway access to the Mountaintop Industrial Park site that Grant County wants to develop.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 13, 2017, 11:02:14 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2017, 10:41:14 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
My Corridor H experiences:
-I can see why Virginia isn't working on Corridor H. For them, VA 55 is just a rural country road.
I disagree.  It's an interstate highway in a place where there are not that many roads crossing North Mountain (the crest of which is the boundary between Virginia and West Virginia).  Driving U.S. 48/VA-55 between Wardensville and I-81 is not an especially pleasant experience if one has the bad luck to be behind a laden  truck.

As has been pointed out, getting Corridor H completed (in Virginia) also improves highway access to the Virginia  Inland Port for trucks coming from  as far away as the I-79 corridor at Weston (current all-freeway routes are circuitous, and while Corridor H will not be a full freeway road, it will effectively function as one because there are not very many signalized intersections, and none east of Elkins).

A completed Corridor H will be an extension of I-66 at Strasburg to I-79 in central West Virginia, albeit built to expressway standards, meaning a limited access right-of-way but with some of the public road junctions being at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 14, 2017, 06:39:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 13, 2017, 11:02:14 PM
A completed Corridor H will be an extension of I-66 at Strasburg to I-79 in central West Virginia, albeit built to expressway standards, meaning a limited access right-of-way but with some of the public road junctions being at-grade intersections.

What are the chances Corridor H will be fully built out -- including the VA 55 segment and the WV remainder east of Wardensville -- within the next 20 years or so?  AFAIK, there's been little interest within the VA transportation hierarchy (including the DOT) in expediting such a project; if anyone has info to the contrary, please let the rest of us in on it!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on August 14, 2017, 09:03:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2017, 10:41:14 PM


I don't think any of the four-lane parts of Corridor H are steeper than 6%.  Given the terrain, that's pretty good (and lots better than the roads that were there before, such as WV-55 and WV-42/WV-93 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.2191999,-79.2114654/39.192488,-79.1715986/@39.2016008,-79.2273886,13z) (that one is especially bad climbing or descending the Allegheny Front between Scheer and the intersection at the Liberty gas station).



At least one 8% grade...the US 48 EB descent into Wardensville:  https://goo.gl/maps/8hpKfQUdhiE2

The US 48 WB descent to Patterson Creek Rd is also pretty stout (no GMSV yet to check actual grade) and it is very difficult to not be going 80 mph at the bottom of that one.  ISTR another grade like that EB leaving the Bismarck area.

At any rate, I may be driving it both directions on Saturday so I will try to pay attention to this...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 14, 2017, 09:23:02 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2017, 10:31:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 13, 2017, 09:33:35 PM
*Traffic seems to be picking up along the route, but this time I didn't see any police officers patrolling today.

Any evidence that Kokosing has really started work between Kerens and Moore (south of Parsons)?

That's what I forgot to note. There's a "Your Tax Dollars At Work" sign posted southbound on US 48/219, but the only evidence that anything is going to happen along the route is the placement of a construction trailer office and a few other structures at the stub ending at Kerens. I know the contractor has been trying to get access to the south end of the site via the rail trail there, and last I heard they were successful. Maybe that's what they're waiting for, or perhaps (as I speculated previously) they have to wait until winter to start clearing and grubbing due to bat habitat regulations.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2017, 11:44:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 14, 2017, 06:39:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 13, 2017, 11:02:14 PM
A completed Corridor H will be an extension of I-66 at Strasburg to I-79 in central West Virginia, albeit built to expressway standards, meaning a limited access right-of-way but with some of the public road junctions being at-grade intersections.

What are the chances Corridor H will be fully built out -- including the VA 55 segment and the WV remainder east of Wardensville -- within the next 20 years or so?  AFAIK, there's been little interest within the VA transportation hierarchy (including the DOT) in expediting such a project; if anyone has info to the contrary, please let the rest of us in on it!

Last time I checked, it was not in the Virginia Six Year Program, not even for preliminary engineering, and since this is truly a federal program (and the two  counties that it crosses in the  Commonwealth are not in the Appalachian Regional Commission footprint), I think that the federal government should fund  100% of the costs to engineer and built it to VDOT expressway standards.  I say that even though the project has clear benefits for Virginia -  especially in the form of significantly improved access to the Inland Port. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
QuoteI say that even though the project has clear benefits for Virginia -  especially in the form of significantly improved access to the Inland Port. 

Both of which are debatable.  This would benefit West Virginia far more than it would Virginia.  There isn't that much coming from West Virginia or points west to the Inland Port that would make this worthwhile.  And points west could easily hop other highways or the rail network to get to the James River, Norfolk, or other East Coast destinations.

And Virginia would get more bang for the buck spending that money on track improvements (particularly along the I-81 corridor) or on I-81 itself.

Now, if West Virginia wants to pay for the completion of Corridor H, that would be one option.  But you'd still have to get through the locals (particularly Shenandoah County).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 14, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2017, 11:44:40 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 14, 2017, 06:39:54 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 13, 2017, 11:02:14 PM
A completed Corridor H will be an extension of I-66 at Strasburg to I-79 in central West Virginia, albeit built to expressway standards, meaning a limited access right-of-way but with some of the public road junctions being at-grade intersections.
What are the chances Corridor H will be fully built out -- including the VA 55 segment and the WV remainder east of Wardensville -- within the next 20 years or so?  AFAIK, there's been little interest within the VA transportation hierarchy (including the DOT) in expediting such a project; if anyone has info to the contrary, please let the rest of us in on it!
Last time I checked, it was not in the Virginia Six Year Program, not even for preliminary engineering, and since this is truly a federal program (and the two  counties that it crosses in the  Commonwealth are not in the Appalachian Regional Commission footprint), I think that the federal government should fund  100% of the costs to engineer and built it to VDOT expressway standards.  I say that even though the project has clear benefits for Virginia -  especially in the form of significantly improved access to the Inland Port. 

That is odd that it is designated as part of the ADHS, but those VA counties are not in the ARC --
https://www.arc.gov/program_areas/MapoftheADHS.asp
One of only 3 places in the ADHS that extend outside of the ARC.

Nevertheless they should get the same federal funding as the rest of the ADHS.  The VA section is needed to connect the WVA section to I-66 and I-81, and that also connects the eastern WVA panhandle (which is in the ARC) to WVA Corridor H.

Some current ADHS projects such as the US-219 freeway in Somerset County, PA are getting 100% federal funding for PE, RW and Const., and that is a $300 million project.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2017, 12:32:47 PM
Scott, you're aware that MAP-21 eliminated dedicated ADHS funding, correct?  True, ADHS projects can now use 100% federal funding, but it comes from each state's allotted FHWA funding...which means other Interstate, NHS, and STP-eligible projects are not being funded.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 14, 2017, 12:42:32 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2017, 12:32:47 PM
Scott, you're aware that MAP-21 eliminated dedicated ADHS funding, correct?  True, ADHS projects can now use 100% federal funding, but it comes from each state's allotted FHWA funding...which means other Interstate, NHS, and STP-eligible projects are not being funded.

Yes, that was my understanding.  But I am puzzled as to where PennDOT got those funds, as the traffic warrants are very low, as one section existing US-219 has only about 5,000 AADT.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 02:32:18 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2017, 12:32:47 PM
Scott, you're aware that MAP-21 eliminated dedicated ADHS funding, correct?  True, ADHS projects can now use 100% federal funding, but it comes from each state's allotted FHWA funding...which means other Interstate, NHS, and STP-eligible projects are not being funded.

Stupid move by stupid people.  ADHS was never intended to "compete" against other transportation projects - especially in states where most of the state is not in the ARC footprint, like Virginia and Maryland (IIRC, West Virginia is the only state where every  county is within the ARC boundaries).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
QuoteI say that even though the project has clear benefits for Virginia -  especially in the form of significantly improved access to the Inland Port. 

Both of which are debatable.  This would benefit West Virginia far more than it would Virginia.  There isn't that much coming from West Virginia or points west to the Inland Port that would make this worthwhile.  And points west could easily hop other highways or the rail network to get to the James River, Norfolk, or other East Coast destinations.

That's an argument that should be rejected (also used by Montgomery County, Maryland NIMBYs to object to highway projects for many years, going back at least to the construction of I-495 through Chevy Chase), as we are a United States, not a "confederation."

Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
And Virginia would get more bang for the buck spending that money on track improvements (particularly along the I-81 corridor) or on I-81 itself.

Virginia's failure to upgrade I-81 is Virginia's fault (and the fault of the PEC, which has set up at least one front group to object to I-81 improvements).  And I-81 does not just belong to Virginia, as it is an Interstate highway, the construction of which was 90% funded by federal dollars.

Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
Now, if West Virginia wants to pay for the completion of Corridor H, that would be one option.  But you'd still have to get through the locals (particularly Shenandoah County).

ADHS is a federal program to meet federal requirements. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2017, 12:19:03 PM

That is odd that it is designated as part of the ADHS, but those VA counties are not in the ARC --
https://www.arc.gov/program_areas/MapoftheADHS.asp

This is ridiculous -- by any geographical definition, those counties ARE in Appalachia. As I always understood it, the definition of the region for purposes of the ARC was all counties within the Appalachian Mountains, plus counties that border them. That's how Clark and Madison counties in Kentucky got to be eligible for ARC project funding -- they border true Appalachian counties.

Yet the ARC territory has been expanded to include a few counties in Kentucky, such as Green and Edmonson, that by no logical means could be considered to be in Appalachia.




Re: the funding discussion -- the "your tax dollars at work" sign south of Parsons listed only federal funds ($230-plus million, IIRC) and no state funds being used for the project.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 04:44:04 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2017, 12:19:03 PM

That is odd that it is designated as part of the ADHS, but those VA counties are not in the ARC --
https://www.arc.gov/program_areas/MapoftheADHS.asp

This is ridiculous -- by any geographical definition, those counties ARE in Appalachia. As I always understood it, the definition of the region for purposes of the ARC was all counties within the Appalachian Mountains, plus counties that border them. That's how Clark and Madison counties in Kentucky got to be eligible for ARC project funding -- they border true Appalachian counties.

They clearly have a fair amount  of mountainous terrain, so I agree with you.

Washington County, Maryland has similar landscape, and has only a narrow connection (west of Sidling Hill) to "true Appalachia" of Maryland).

Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM
Yet the ARC territory has been expanded to include a few counties in Kentucky, such as Green and Edmonson, that by no logical means could be considered to be in Appalachia.

Yes, I think the case can  be made that Shenandoah and Frederick Counties in Virginia should be in the ARC region.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM



Re: the funding discussion -- the "your tax dollars at work" sign south of Parsons listed only federal funds ($230-plus million, IIRC) and no state funds being used for the project.

That's the one on U.S. 219 southbound at Moore, right?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2017, 03:14:21 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 14, 2017, 12:19:03 PM
That is odd that it is designated as part of the ADHS, but those VA counties are not in the ARC --
https://www.arc.gov/program_areas/MapoftheADHS.asp
This is ridiculous -- by any geographical definition, those counties ARE in Appalachia. As I always understood it, the definition of the region for purposes of the ARC was all counties within the Appalachian Mountains, plus counties that border them. That's how Clark and Madison counties in Kentucky got to be eligible for ARC project funding -- they border true Appalachian counties.
Yet the ARC territory has been expanded to include a few counties in Kentucky, such as Green and Edmonson, that by no logical means could be considered to be in Appalachia.

I count 17 Virginia counties north of Lexington that are either on the Blue Ridge Mountains or on the foothills on either side -- that are NOT in the ARC.

Like you say from a geographical standpoint they within the Appalachian Mountains or the foothills.

Could imagine the reaction if Albemarle County demanded to be in the ARC so that they could build a US-29 freeway replacement?  That is laughter inducing and gag reflex inducing at the same time.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 02:36:58 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
And Virginia would get more bang for the buck spending that money on track improvements (particularly along the I-81 corridor) or on I-81 itself.
Virginia's failure to upgrade I-81 is Virginia's fault (and the fault of the PEC, which has set up at least one front group to object to I-81 improvements).  And I-81 does not just belong to Virginia, as it is an Interstate highway, the construction of which was 90% funded by federal dollars.

It is mainly the 'fault' of what it would cost.  At today's rates $25 to $30 million or more per mile for Interstate major widening projects, so that would be $8.1 to $9.8 billion for the 325-mile-long route in Virginia.

Not much has been said about this yet, but I regret to say that any number of needed and desired highway projects, I predict will never be built due to the fantastic increase of highway construction costs over the last 10 years, and still climbing. 

Unless very large tolls are imposed, and I don't see the public agreeing to that, I don't see these ever getting built, using a few Virginia examples --
-- No more than a small fraction of widening I-81.  Christiansburg to Troutville may be the only section that gets widened.
-- I-73
-- No increase in capacity across Hampton Roads.  The $3.4 billion to widen the HRBT to six lanes??  Unfundable and not worth the cost.

In Maryland --
-- No new Chesapeake Bay Bridge
-- US-301 Potomac River bridge replacement -- iffy.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
It is mainly the 'fault' of what it would cost.  At today's rates $25 to $30 million or more per mile for Interstate major widening projects, so that would be $8.1 to $9.8 billion for the 325-mile-long route in Virginia.

And the fault of Virginia's General Assembly, being terrified of raising taxes on motor fuel - or setting up some other funding mechanism to maintain and expand the highway network of the Commonwealth.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Not much has been said about this yet, but I regret to say that any number of needed and desired highway projects, I predict will never be built due to the fantastic increase of highway construction costs over the last 10 years, and still climbing.

Virginia tried a PPTA-type project in the I-81 corridor, and it failed miserably.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Unless very large tolls are imposed, and I don't see the public agreeing to that, I don't see these ever getting built, using a few Virginia examples --
-- No more than a small fraction of widening I-81.  Christiansburg to Troutville may be the only section that gets widened.
-- I-73
-- No increase in capacity across Hampton Roads.  The $3.4 billion to widen the HRBT to six lanes??  Unfundable and not worth the cost.

If the  forecasts are correct, then there's another (steep) toll coming - congestion - especially on I-81 (a corridor that should never be congested in Virginia unless there's a crash).

How much would motor fuel taxes have to be increased per-gallon to fund these?

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
In Maryland --
-- No new Chesapeake Bay Bridge
-- US-301 Potomac River bridge replacement -- iffy.

The Bay Bridge is still being "studied" (whatever that means).

The replacement of the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial (Potomac River) Bridge on U.S. 301 is funded for construction - to be paid for with  MDTA toll revenue bonds, which will then be paid by the tolls collected on MDTA highways and crossings.  I understand that MDTA is either in the last stages of preliminary engineering, or may have started on final engineering and design, for the Harry Nice replacement.

As you probably know, the other big project that the MDTA has going right now (currently advertised for bids) is the replacement of the Canton  Viaduct on I-895.  Also toll-funded.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
It is mainly the 'fault' of what it would cost.  At today's rates $25 to $30 million or more per mile for Interstate major widening projects, so that would be $8.1 to $9.8 billion for the 325-mile-long route in Virginia.
And the fault of Virginia's General Assembly, being terrified of raising taxes on motor fuel - or setting up some other funding mechanism to maintain and expand the highway network of the Commonwealth.

Oh please.  Virginia's transportation funding tax stream is now above average in the states.  VDOT now has a $5 billion annual budget.

That was just an example, of the type of project that few if any states will be able to fund.

"Setting up some other funding mechanism" means TOLLS.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Not much has been said about this yet, but I regret to say that any number of needed and desired highway projects, I predict will never be built due to the fantastic increase of highway construction costs over the last 10 years, and still climbing.
Virginia tried a PPTA-type project in the I-81 corridor, and it failed miserably.

For one main reason -- the public and local officials would not agree to tolling the corridor, again something that has not been approved anywhere (tolling a toll-free mainline Interstate corridor).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Unless very large tolls are imposed, and I don't see the public agreeing to that, I don't see these ever getting built, using a few Virginia examples --
-- No more than a small fraction of widening I-81.  Christiansburg to Troutville may be the only section that gets widened.
-- I-73
-- No increase in capacity across Hampton Roads.  The $3.4 billion to widen the HRBT to six lanes??  Unfundable and not worth the cost.
If the  forecasts are correct, then there's another (steep) toll coming - congestion - especially on I-81 (a corridor that should never be congested in Virginia unless there's a crash).
How much would motor fuel taxes have to be increased per-gallon to fund these?

No idea, it would be astronomical.  You tell me.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
In Maryland --
-- No new Chesapeake Bay Bridge
-- US-301 Potomac River bridge replacement -- iffy.
The Bay Bridge is still being "studied" (whatever that means).

The replacement of the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial (Potomac River) Bridge on U.S. 301 is funded for construction - to be paid for with  MDTA toll revenue bonds, which will then be paid by the tolls collected on MDTA highways and crossings.  I understand that MDTA is either in the last stages of preliminary engineering, or may have started on final engineering and design, for the Harry Nice replacement.

"Iffy", as I said, it is a $1.2 billion project, and MDTA has a lot of recently issued toll revenue bonds for the ICC and I-95 ETL, that need to be serviced.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
As you probably know, the other big project that the MDTA has going right now (currently advertised for bids) is the replacement of the Canton  Viaduct on I-895.  Also toll-funded.

A $280 million project that if not built soon will lead to that I-895 segment being permanently closed to traffic.  It is a replacement project, not an expansion project.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 15, 2017, 08:19:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2017, 10:41:14 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on April 18, 2017, 04:58:30 PM
-Holy grades Batman! Some were pretty steep.

I don't think any of the four-lane parts of Corridor H are steeper than 6%.  Given the terrain, that's pretty good (and lots better than the roads that were there before, such as WV-55 and WV-42/WV-93 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.2191999,-79.2114654/39.192488,-79.1715986/@39.2016008,-79.2273886,13z) (that one is especially bad climbing or descending the Allegheny Front between Scheer and the intersection at the Liberty gas station).

There's a 7% downgrade westbound approaching the Middle Fork River on the Upshur/Barbour county line.


Quote from: Mapmikey on August 14, 2017, 09:03:06 AM
At least one 8% grade...the US 48 EB descent into Wardensville:  https://goo.gl/maps/8hpKfQUdhiE2

The US 48 WB descent to Patterson Creek Rd is also pretty stout (no GMSV yet to check actual grade) and it is very difficult to not be going 80 mph at the bottom of that one.  ISTR another grade like that EB leaving the Bismarck area.

At any rate, I may be driving it both directions on Saturday so I will try to pay attention to this...

Mainline Corridor H at Wardensville won't be 8% when it is built. The grade is on what will be a ramp when this is all done. The other grades are in the 5%-6% range.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
It is mainly the 'fault' of what it would cost.  At today's rates $25 to $30 million or more per mile for Interstate major widening projects, so that would be $8.1 to $9.8 billion for the 325-mile-long route in Virginia.
And the fault of Virginia's General Assembly, being terrified of raising taxes on motor fuel - or setting up some other funding mechanism to maintain and expand the highway network of the Commonwealth.

Oh please.  Virginia's transportation funding tax stream is now above average in the states.  VDOT now has a $5 billion annual budget.

That was just an example, of the type of project that few if any states will be able to fund.

"Setting up some other funding mechanism" means TOLLS.

Stating that VDOT has a $5 billion budget is not relevant, and  I understand that the Central Office is still cutting back on some things even with the tax increase that was pushed through under McDonnell.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Not much has been said about this yet, but I regret to say that any number of needed and desired highway projects, I predict will never be built due to the fantastic increase of highway construction costs over the last 10 years, and still climbing.
Virginia tried a PPTA-type project in the I-81 corridor, and it failed miserably.

For one main reason -- the public and local officials would not agree to tolling the corridor, again something that has not been approved anywhere (tolling a toll-free mainline Interstate corridor).

They seem to think that low motor fuel taxes and toll-free roads means that the highways will improve themselves - for free.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Unless very large tolls are imposed, and I don't see the public agreeing to that, I don't see these ever getting built, using a few Virginia examples --
-- No more than a small fraction of widening I-81.  Christiansburg to Troutville may be the only section that gets widened.
-- I-73
-- No increase in capacity across Hampton Roads.  The $3.4 billion to widen the HRBT to six lanes??  Unfundable and not worth the cost.
If the  forecasts are correct, then there's another (steep) toll coming - congestion - especially on I-81 (a corridor that should never be congested in Virginia unless there's a crash).
How much would motor fuel taxes have to be increased per-gallon to fund these?

No idea, it would be astronomical.  You tell me.

FHWA has a pretty good formula for such things, but I am not going to use it in this discussion for a variety of reasons.

But you assert that VDOT's budget is $5 billion.  How much would the Virginia motor fuel tax rates have to go up to increase its annual budget to, say, $10 billion?

Per-gallon Virginia gasoline tax is currently $0.162 (not including local or regional taxes like the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission's WMATA subsidy tax).  So how about $0.32 or $0.33?

Diesel is $0.202.  $0.40 or $0.41?

Compare and contrast with Pennsylvania, where the tax on gasoline is currently $0.582 and Diesel fuel, currently $0.747 (!).  These are supposed to be the highest fuel taxes  in the  United States in 2017.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
In Maryland --
-- No new Chesapeake Bay Bridge
-- US-301 Potomac River bridge replacement -- iffy.
The Bay Bridge is still being "studied" (whatever that means).

The replacement of the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial (Potomac River) Bridge on U.S. 301 is funded for construction - to be paid for with  MDTA toll revenue bonds, which will then be paid by the tolls collected on MDTA highways and crossings.  I understand that MDTA is either in the last stages of preliminary engineering, or may have started on final engineering and design, for the Harry Nice replacement.

"Iffy", as I said, it is a $1.2 billion project, and MDTA has a lot of recently issued toll revenue bonds for the ICC and I-95 ETL, that need to be serviced.

The bonds sold for the ICC are being paid-off on schedule, and the revenue traffic on the road is enough to fund maintenance, operations and bonded indebtedness (not sure how much revenue traffic is using the I-95 ETLs). Though all MDTA bonds are secured by the "basket" of toll revenues from all of its toll projects around the state, with the possible exception of the U.S. 40 Hatem Bridge.

The HWN replacement project would not have advanced to construction if the money  was not there to pay for it.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
As you probably know, the other big project that the MDTA has going right now (currently advertised for bids) is the replacement of the Canton  Viaduct on I-895.  Also toll-funded.

A $280 million project that if not built soon will lead to that I-895 segment being permanently closed to traffic.  It is a replacement project, not an expansion project.

The viaduct is original to the 1957 BHT, and the only structurally deficient bridge on MDTA's highway network.

HWN is also effectively a replacement project, even though the bridge is in reasonably good condition (and even now, MDTA is funding a significant repair and maintenance project on the old structure), it  is functionally obsolete (narrow lanes), and does not match  up with the four-lane U.S. 301 on both sides of the crossing.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Stating that VDOT has a $5 billion budget is not relevant, and  I understand that the Central Office is still cutting back on some things even with the tax increase that was pushed through under McDonnell.

It is relevant when compared to the $3.4 billion annual budget before the road tax increases.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
For one main reason -- the public and local officials would not agree to tolling the corridor, again something that has not been approved anywhere (tolling a toll-free mainline Interstate corridor).
They seem to think that low motor fuel taxes and toll-free roads means that the highways will improve themselves - for free.

Well, that is what the public and local officials think in every state, there are limits on how much taxes and tolls they are willing to approve.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
But you assert that VDOT's budget is $5 billion.  How much would the Virginia motor fuel tax rates have to go up to increase its annual budget to, say, $10 billion?
Per-gallon Virginia gasoline tax is currently $0.162 (not including local or regional taxes like the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission's WMATA subsidy tax).  So how about $0.32 or $0.33?
Diesel is $0.202.  $0.40 or $0.41?

Need to add the state and local sales tax increments that are dedicated to VDOT.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Compare and contrast with Pennsylvania, where the tax on gasoline is currently $0.582 and Diesel fuel, currently $0.747 (!).  These are supposed to be the highest fuel taxes  in the  United States in 2017.

They need it, based on where they were 40 years ago. 

Remember how in misc.transport.road how I was one of the biggest critics of Pennsylvania roads?  That was partly because I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s and was dismayed about the lack of awareness of people there as well as in the newspapers and among elected officials, as to the nature of the problem and what to do about it.

Notice how generally positive I am about Pennsylvania roads today?  They have gradually worked themselves out of the hole that they were in 40 years ago, paid down the massive debt they had back then, have recently completed several major corridors, have gotten their road maintenance generally good overall.  Sure there are some major deficient roads, but I give them credit for the progress they have made.  Even the Turnpike may reach 150 miles 6-laned by 2024 or so, and 80 miles of extensions.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
The replacement of the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial (Potomac River) Bridge on U.S. 301 is funded for construction - to be paid for with  MDTA toll revenue bonds, which will then be paid by the tolls collected on MDTA highways and crossings.  I understand that MDTA is either in the last stages of preliminary engineering, or may have started on final engineering and design, for the Harry Nice replacement.

As I said, it is a $1.2 billion project, but given that the current bridge is 78 years old and functionally obsolete, they are going to be forced to replace it or close it.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
The bonds sold for the ICC are being paid-off on schedule, and the revenue traffic on the road is enough to fund maintenance, operations and bonded indebtedness (not sure how much revenue traffic is using the I-95 ETLs). Though all MDTA bonds are secured by the "basket" of toll revenues from all of its toll projects around the state, with the possible exception of the U.S. 40 Hatem Bridge.

Probably about $3 billion in bonds issued for the ICC and I-95 ETL.

Problem is after the new US-301 bridge where does the money come from to widen the rest of I-95 in NE Maryland and to build a third Bay Bridge?  Don't think they will be able to do it without a massive toll increase, and the tolls are already high.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
A $280 million project that if not built soon will lead to that I-895 segment being permanently closed to traffic.  It is a replacement project, not an expansion project.
The viaduct is original to the 1957 BHT, and the only structurally deficient bridge on MDTA's highway network.

Problem is on old freeways we are getting more and more of these very expensive maintenance replacement projects needed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 18, 2017, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Stating that VDOT has a $5 billion budget is not relevant, and  I understand that the Central Office is still cutting back on some things even with the tax increase that was pushed through under McDonnell.

It is relevant when compared to the $3.4 billion annual budget before the road tax increases.

Better, but not good enough, given that the rate had been the same since the 1980's.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
For one main reason -- the public and local officials would not agree to tolling the corridor, again something that has not been approved anywhere (tolling a toll-free mainline Interstate corridor).
They seem to think that low motor fuel taxes and toll-free roads means that the highways will improve themselves - for free.

Well, that is what the public and local officials think in every state, there are limits on how much taxes and tolls they are willing to approve.

Sounds like a failure of leadership to me.  And eventually the bill comes due, as it has in Pennsylvania (and even non-Pennsylvania residents get to fund the transit systems of the state with excessive tolls on the Pennsylvania Turnpike).

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
But you assert that VDOT's budget is $5 billion.  How much would the Virginia motor fuel tax rates have to go up to increase its annual budget to, say, $10 billion?
Per-gallon Virginia gasoline tax is currently $0.162 (not including local or regional taxes like the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission's WMATA subsidy tax).  So how about $0.32 or $0.33?
Diesel is $0.202.  $0.40 or $0.41?

Need to add the state and local sales tax increments that are dedicated to VDOT.

I made reference to the NVTC tax, but am not going to look  up the others.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Compare and contrast with Pennsylvania, where the tax on gasoline is currently $0.582 and Diesel fuel, currently $0.747 (!).  These are supposed to be the highest fuel taxes  in the  United States in 2017.

They need it, based on where they were 40 years ago. 

Remember how in misc.transport.road how I was one of the biggest critics of Pennsylvania roads?

Not especially.  Most people with some understanding of the subject have been critical of Pennsylvania in general.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
That was partly because I worked for PennDOT in the 1970s and was dismayed about the lack of awareness of people there as well as in the newspapers and among elected officials, as to the nature of the problem and what to do about it.

Notice how generally positive I am about Pennsylvania roads today?  They have gradually worked themselves out of the hole that they were in 40 years ago, paid down the massive debt they had back then, have recently completed several major corridors, have gotten their road maintenance generally good overall.  Sure there are some major deficient roads, but I give them credit for the progress they have made.  Even the Turnpike may reach 150 miles 6-laned by 2024 or so, and 80 miles of extensions.

I will give PennDOT credit for getting a big bridge repair and reconstruction effort under way with  those dollars.

The Pennsylvania legislature?  Not so much, since the awful Act 44/Act 69 is still bleeding the Turnpike Commission dry.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
The replacement of the Gov. Harry W. Nice Memorial (Potomac River) Bridge on U.S. 301 is funded for construction - to be paid for with  MDTA toll revenue bonds, which will then be paid by the tolls collected on MDTA highways and crossings.  I understand that MDTA is either in the last stages of preliminary engineering, or may have started on final engineering and design, for the Harry Nice replacement.

As I said, it is a $1.2 billion project, but given that the current bridge is 78 years old and functionally obsolete, they are going to be forced to replace it or close it.

At one point, Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. was going to do nothing, because the bridge is structurally sound.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
The bonds sold for the ICC are being paid-off on schedule, and the revenue traffic on the road is enough to fund maintenance, operations and bonded indebtedness (not sure how much revenue traffic is using the I-95 ETLs). Though all MDTA bonds are secured by the "basket" of toll revenues from all of its toll projects around the state, with the possible exception of the U.S. 40 Hatem Bridge.

Probably about $3 billion in bonds issued for the ICC and I-95 ETL.

Problem is after the new US-301 bridge where does the money come from to widen the rest of I-95 in NE Maryland and to build a third Bay Bridge?  Don't think they will be able to do it without a massive toll increase, and the tolls are already high.

They could defy  the Harford County delegation to the General Assembly  and re-toll all of the toll-funded JFK Highway  part of I-95 with an ICC-style virtual ticket system.

Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 06:00:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 05:03:28 PM
A $280 million project that if not built soon will lead to that I-895 segment being permanently closed to traffic.  It is a replacement project, not an expansion project.
The viaduct is original to the 1957 BHT, and the only structurally deficient bridge on MDTA's highway network.

Problem is on old freeways we are getting more and more of these very expensive maintenance replacement projects needed.

I think that is the last big project of that kind on I-895 for a while.  Patapsco Flats is well under way, the "K" truss bridge south of the toll plaza over the CSX yard has had a lot of work  recently and the  Canton Viaduct is advertised for bids.  There is some bridge repair work to come north of the Canton Viaduct, but  that's relatively small by comparison.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 18, 2017, 10:39:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
For one main reason -- the public and local officials would not agree to tolling the corridor, again something that has not been approved anywhere (tolling a toll-free mainline Interstate corridor).
They seem to think that low motor fuel taxes and toll-free roads means that the highways will improve themselves - for free.
Well, that is what the public and local officials think in every state, there are limits on how much taxes and tolls they are willing to approve.
Sounds like a failure of leadership to me.  And eventually the bill comes due, as it has in Pennsylvania (and even non-Pennsylvania residents get to fund the transit systems of the state with excessive tolls on the Pennsylvania Turnpike).

I don't disagree that more highway funding is needed, you may recall on m.t.r that I supported the TEA-21 pilot program for tolling 3 mainline Interstate corridors, specifically the VA I-81 project that VDOT obtained preliminary upon.  A mix of road tax funding, toll revenue bond funding and private capital funding, with tolls to assist servicing the bonds and capital.  VDOT found in the Tier I EIS that the truck-only roadway concept would not result in effective balancing of traffic between the car-bus roadways and the truck roadways.  They could have pursued it as a conventional 3-3 and 4-4 widening, with tolls.  There was way too much opposition to tolling from many entities, so the TEA-21 pilot project was dropped, and moved to VA I-95 and that too met a similar fate a few years later.

I would support higher road use taxes and more tolling in the U.S., including tolling a few selected very high priority Interstate corridors.

My main point thru this thread is that I just don't that happening in the U.S., it seems like people, the public and the elected officials have nearly reached the limit on taxes and tolling.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2017, 11:27:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 18, 2017, 10:39:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 11:20:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2017, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 15, 2017, 07:54:37 PM
For one main reason -- the public and local officials would not agree to tolling the corridor, again something that has not been approved anywhere (tolling a toll-free mainline Interstate corridor).
They seem to think that low motor fuel taxes and toll-free roads means that the highways will improve themselves - for free.
Well, that is what the public and local officials think in every state, there are limits on how much taxes and tolls they are willing to approve.
Sounds like a failure of leadership to me.  And eventually the bill comes due, as it has in Pennsylvania (and even non-Pennsylvania residents get to fund the transit systems of the state with excessive tolls on the Pennsylvania Turnpike).

I don't disagree that more highway funding is needed, you may recall on m.t.r that I supported the TEA-21 pilot program for tolling 3 mainline Interstate corridors, specifically the VA I-81 project that VDOT obtained preliminary upon.  A mix of road tax funding, toll revenue bond funding and private capital funding, with tolls to assist servicing the bonds and capital.  VDOT found in the Tier I EIS that the truck-only roadway concept would not result in effective balancing of traffic between the car-bus roadways and the truck roadways.  They could have pursued it as a conventional 3-3 and 4-4 widening, with tolls.  There was way too much opposition to tolling from many entities, so the TEA-21 pilot project was dropped, and moved to VA I-95 and that too met a similar fate a few years later.

I would support higher road use taxes and more tolling in the U.S., including tolling a few selected very high priority Interstate corridors.

My main point thru this thread is that I just don't that happening in the U.S., it seems like people, the public and the elected officials have nearly reached the limit on taxes and tolling.

There are a lot of people that  I have spoken to in Virginia that are not especially happy with the PPTA or otherwise private-sector toll concession projects, of which several have had to have their debt restructured (Pocahontas Parkway and Dulles Greenway being two), and appear to charge high (by  the  standards of what people are willing to pay) toll rates (perhaps the most complaining being directed at  Elizabeth River Crossings consortium, though the Greenway has been the target of (failed) litigation related to its tolls). 

Transurban in Northern Virginia, maybe not so much, since all of their projects involve express lanes with "free" (but often  severely congested) alternative routes, though it annoys me professionally that they disclose the absolute minimum to the public about how well their lanes are performing.

From my perspective, the Virginia General Assembly should have established a separate state agency responsible to the Secretary of Transportation (similar to MDTA) to run new and existing toll road projects, though there are more than a few members of that body that are obsessed with privatizing as much of Virginia's highway infrastructure as possible. 

The CBBTD has always been a subdivision of the Commonwealth, and as best as I can tell, they done a good job building and maintaining and improving their crossing with no help from state taxpayers (not so happy about the closure of the restaurant and gift shop on the southernmost island, but I understand why they have to do it).

MWAA has done a decent enough job with their part of VA-267, though the tolls have been increased enormously to provide the "surplus tolls" needed to pay for most of the Dulles Metrorail extension to VA-772 in Loudoun County.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2017, 10:41:39 AM
Regarding the I-81 PPTA proposals cpzilliacus mentioned, I seem to recall (I may be misremembering) that a major sticking point as to one of them was the contractor's insistence on a pretty strict non-competition clause that could have been construed as prohibiting improvements to roads such as US-29.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2017, 03:53:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2017, 10:41:39 AM
Regarding the I-81 PPTA proposals cpzilliacus mentioned, I seem to recall (I may be misremembering) that a major sticking point as to one of them was the contractor's insistence on a pretty strict non-competition clause that could have been construed as prohibiting improvements to roads such as US-29.

I do not remember that in the context of I-81, though those clauses have been included in more than one private toll concession contract since such provisions became famous on the CA-91 Express project (HOV/toll lanes on CA-91 in Orange County, California), and were one reason why the project was eventually bought-out from its private owners by OCTA (http://www.octa.net/) (Orange County Transportation Authority).

I recall reading that the 95Express contract in Virginia has a non-compete clause too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 20, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2017, 03:53:56 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 20, 2017, 10:41:39 AM
Regarding the I-81 PPTA proposals cpzilliacus mentioned, I seem to recall (I may be misremembering) that a major sticking point as to one of them was the contractor's insistence on a pretty strict non-competition clause that could have been construed as prohibiting improvements to roads such as US-29.

I do not remember that in the context of I-81, though those clauses have been included in more than one private toll concession contract since such provisions became famous on the CA-91 Express project (HOV/toll lanes on CA-91 in Orange County, California), and were one reason why the project was eventually bought-out from its private owners by OCTA (http://www.octa.net/) (Orange County Transportation Authority).

I recall reading that the 95Express contract in Virginia has a non-compete clause too.

I'm not finding a primary source at the moment, but I did find the following on AARoads (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-081.html):

QuoteThe major concern with the first option was that creator of the plan to expand the freeway to eight lanes, Star Solutions, included a request for a "noncompete" clause in its contract. That meant that VDOT was disallowed from undertaking any new projects that would increase the capacity or overall improve any highways within the I-81 corridor for the 40-year life of the Interstate 81 bonds. This red tape would have impacted U.S. 11, U.S. 29 and Interstate 95 among other north-south routes in the state.

I'm sure Scott Kozel will recall far more detail about it than I ever knew!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2017, 01:53:07 PM
[Content may be paywalled]

Moorefield Examiner: Is Finishing Corridor H Still A State Priority? (http://moorefieldexaminer.com/finishing-corridor-h-still-state-priority/)

QuoteWorking to complete Corridor H was a top priority for Former Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, just as it had been for his predecessor, now U.S. Senator Joe Manchin.

QuoteAnd in the current administration, Governor Jim Justice's Secretary of Transportation, Tom Smith is emphatic about the status of completing Corridor H: "It's absolutely one of our top priorities"  he told the Examiner in a recent interview.

QuoteYet, when Governor Justice recently signed two bills that could ultimately deliver a windfall $2.8 billion of new money for road building in the state, finding Corridor H anywhere on the list of projects to be funded was tough, and it was not mentioned in the news coverage.

QuoteCorridor H, of course, is the four-lane, divided interstate highway that, when finished, will span north-central West Virginia, running from Interstate 79 at Weston in the west to I-81 near Strasburg, Virginia, some 143 miles, all totaled.  It also bisects Hardy County, running through Moorefield with the four-lane portion currently ending at Wardensville.

QuoteBuried in the long list of projects, and scheduled for construction in the first phase, according to State Delegate Isaac Sponaugle, is the route 219 Connector to WV 72 (near Parsons), which will create a four lane stretch for Corridor H, costing approximately $90 million.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bubbamcgee on August 28, 2017, 02:48:34 PM
You can read the full article here:  Is Finishing Corridor H Still A State Priority? (http://wvpress.org/breaking-news/corridor-h-finishing-still-west-virginia-priority/)

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 28, 2017, 01:53:07 PM
[Content may be paywalled]

Moorefield Examiner: Is Finishing Corridor H Still A State Priority? (http://moorefieldexaminer.com/finishing-corridor-h-still-state-priority/)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 28, 2017, 02:52:00 PM
Two comments.

- Like many states, WV has a requirement that many types of public notices be published (at rediculious prices) in in-county newspapers.  This has led to a plethora of weekly county newspapers that are often non much more than a couple of people writing up a few stories to wrap around the ads.  The papers are also, often highly partsian.    You should view anything said in such a publication with a grain of salt. 

- Among the reasons Corridor H was not finished long ago is that prior to the great shift in WV politics in the last 10 years, the most Republcan part of the state was the area Corridor H will serve.  With the GOP now in charge, if anything, the project would, if anything, be a greater priority.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bubbamcgee on August 28, 2017, 03:05:08 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 28, 2017, 02:52:00 PM
With the GOP now in charge, if anything, the project would, if anything, be a greater priority.

I'm not sure that I would agree that the GOP will make Corridor H any type of a priority.  Especially, after reading many of the recent articles about the GOP being dead set against the bond proposal on the ballot this fall.  Yes, I realize much of that is because they are against Justice.  But, many leaders see money being needed in other parts of the state as being a priority. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 28, 2017, 02:52:00 PM
- Among the reasons Corridor H was not finished long ago is that prior to the great shift in WV politics in the last 10 years, the most Republcan part of the state was the area Corridor H will serve.  With the GOP now in charge, if anything, the project would, if anything, be a greater priority.

I do not really care who is in charge of the West Virginia state government, as I do not live in the Mountaineer State.  But if any  of that speeds-up the completion of Corridor H (and recall that Republicans in Washington proposed getting rid of funding for the ARC (and presumably funding for ADHS) in their preliminary budgets), I am all for it.

As a Marylander, I also believe Corridor H benefits my  state by improving access to the  "back door" of Garrett County  via U.S. 219 from both I-79 and I-81. 

As for assigning blame for delays in completing  Corridor H, there is plenty  to go around.  Ex-Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia 10) was instrumental in objecting to Corridor H in Virginia, and forced a delay of years in getting the road engineered and designed between I-81 and Wardensville. Then there's Corridor H Alternatives (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHcosts.html), which sounds like a pretty standard anti-highway NIMBY group to me (at least some of its participants have addresses far from the route of Corridor H - the  Web site appears to not have been  updated since 2001). And finally, some credit has to go to ex-EPA Region 3 Administrator Peter H. Kostmayer (nominated to the post  by President Bill Clinton), who told his staff that their highest priority was to use the power of the EPA to get proposed highway projects in the Region 3 states (which includes West Virginia) cancelled.  Eventually, word got to the late  Senator Robert C. Byrd that Kostmayer was actively involved in "citizen" efforts to get Corridor H cancelled, and Clinton fired (http://www.bayjournal.com/blog/post/top_regional_epa_official_dismissed_) Kostmayer.

Then there's a great summary of the history of Corridor H online on Gribblenaton Conflict in the Mountains:
The Story of Corridor H in West Virginia (https://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 29, 2017, 10:12:10 AM
Corridor H Alternatives was just a typical BANANA treehugger group.  It is hard to say NIMBY, because almost none of them actually lived anywhere nearby (I get the feeling most lived in their mom's basement).  Oddly they had no actual "alternative" other than just put up with living in isolation and poverty, for THEY had a tree to look at once every year or so. 

Of course, with a good chunk of H now finished, and the 100s of 1000s of acres of other woodland nearby unaffected, it is important to look at their doom and gloom predictions of enviromental disaster, and to thus dismiss them, and similar groups, when they spew forth on other projects. 

What I was talking about was just assigning priorities among projects in the state, which over the whole history of modern road building, the state pretty much got completely backwards, often due to either partisan politics or the complex interplay between WVU and Marshall U.  And more particularly, from long ago, what the GOP termed "giving back" the money to build the less controvercial western part of H (west of Elkins) by WV's worst governor, Jay Rockefeller.  (What actually happened was Rockefeller has so bankrupted the state that it could not afford to put up the matching funds and let a federal appropriation for that part of H, and several other roads, expire, delaying these projects by almost a decade).

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on August 29, 2017, 12:40:23 PM
^ It's easy for you to deride that group as a BANANA group and mix a few of the typical stereotypes in there, but from what I recall of their website, there were a couple good ideas that the state could have considered for Corridor H:

- Given low traffic volumes (even with the supposed "development" that the corridor would induce), they could have saved some money by going with an improved 2 lane route instead of a full 4 lane corridor.  This also would've gotten it built somewhat quicker.

- Routing the eastern part via US 50 instead of WV 55 would have A) connected it to routes with more traffic to justify a 4-lane route (even now, 2-lane US 50 has noticeably higher volumes east of US 220 than 4-lane US 48) and B) tied it into already-existing 4-lane on the Virginia side.

Obviously, water under the bridge at this point.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 29, 2017, 01:24:19 PM
This crew of extremists did use the "fix local roads" as a slogan.  What these people meant by "fixing local roads" (which, they of course, never drove on, not living here) was about what was done to US 52 in the 1970s, which was take out a few curves.  The idea that they actually would not have objected to any project, even a 2 lane, is simply wrong.  They wanted to kill H, and every other road project in Appalachia and elsewhere.   They cared more about a "nature" (a nature we now know was unharmed by H) than people.  Sad. 

It is also important to remember the MASSIVE cost of fixing the mistake of building Corridor L's northern half as a 2 lane.  What a mistake.   Glad we did not make that one twice.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on August 29, 2017, 01:26:31 PM
The NIMBYs and the environmentalist groups (sometimes the same people, other times not), raised the cost of the project due to increasing the mileage involved and orphaning 8 miles of already completed road east of Elkins.  I remember around the time my wife and I married, some of her family lived in Grant County.  There was hootin' and hollerin' by some about the road going through there, in which it was to go near Harman and around Petersburg.  Nevermind that it was a much straighter route, some of the road was done, and would have been a big plus for their tourism business (Caverns and Seneca Rocks) plus some other small industry... they pushed it away, and it took over a decade for the updated plans to go through to reroute the road north of Elkins to its current plan.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2017, 12:40:23 PM
^ It's easy for you to deride that group as a BANANA group and mix a few of the typical stereotypes in there, but from what I recall of their website, there were a couple good ideas that the state could have considered for Corridor H:

- Given low traffic volumes (even with the supposed "development" that the corridor would induce), they could have saved some money by going with an improved 2 lane route instead of a full 4 lane corridor.  This also would've gotten it built somewhat quicker.

Network redundancy.  There's no good (high-speed east-west highway across the mountains between the I-79  and I-81 corridors except I-68 to the north and  I-64 to the south.

Even had the road been built as an  upgraded 2-lane road, it would have had to be  three or four lanes in many places because of the steep uphill (and maybe downhill) grades.

Remember that one of the goals of ADHS is to induce demand.  For that reason, four divided lanes is better than two, even as a Super-2 type of road.

Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2017, 12:40:23 PM
- Routing the eastern part via US 50 instead of WV 55 would have A) connected it to routes with more traffic to justify a 4-lane route (even now, 2-lane US 50 has noticeably higher volumes east of US 220 than 4-lane US 48) and B) tied it into already-existing 4-lane on the Virginia side.

A lot of U.S. 50 would have had to be  re-routed onto  entirely new alignment in several places.  And the nature of U.S. 50 between Grafton and Aurora (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.318779,-79.5653226/Grafton,+WV+26354/@39.285953,-80.0194795,10z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x884a89228f0f070b:0x178335413d3f270d!2m2!1d-80.0189659!2d39.3409249!3e0) is arguably a rougher trip than WV-42/WV-93 climbing the Allegheny Front from Scheer to Mount Storm (and significantly longer too).

Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2017, 12:40:23 PM
Obviously, water under the bridge at this point.

Virginia  has done  nothing with their section of Corridor H (at least not according to the Six Year Plan dashboard).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 02:37:00 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 29, 2017, 01:24:19 PM
This crew of extremists did use the "fix local roads" as a slogan.  What these people meant by "fixing local roads" (which, they of course, never drove on, not living here) was about what was done to US 52 in the 1970s, which was take out a few curves.  The idea that they actually would not have objected to any project, even a 2 lane, is simply wrong.  They wanted to kill H, and every other road project in Appalachia and elsewhere.   They cared more about a "nature" (a nature we now know was unharmed by H) than people.  Sad.

The "upgrade existing roads" was used by  opponents of the MD-200 project as well.  I suspect that they opponents had zero interest in that alternative, as when the 1997 Draft Environmental Impact Statement crashed and burned, they  mysteriously said nothing about upgrading those existing roads, but tried to revive that alternative after Parris Glendening left office and the new Governor Bob Ehrlich restarted the project.

Both MD-200 and Corridor H were targeted for cancellation by EPA Region 3's administrator in the  mid-1990's, Peter Kostmayer. 

Quote from: SP Cook on August 29, 2017, 01:24:19 PM
It is also important to remember the MASSIVE cost of fixing the mistake of building Corridor L's northern half as a 2 lane.  What a mistake.   Glad we did not make that one twice.

I did not know that Corridor L had been built as a two lane road originally.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 29, 2017, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 02:37:00 PM

I did not know that Corridor L had been built as a two lane road originally.

Yep.  Corridor L was 4-lane only from the Turnpike to its JCT with US 60 and then only 2-lanes north of there to I-79, excpet for about 3 miles at Summersville.  All based on sharp-pencil estimates that failed to take into account the use of the road as a logical route from Toronto-Buffalo-Pittsburgh to central Florida.  The road became very dangerous and then the state had to go back and do it correctly. 

This increased costs because, one, the original 2 lane ROW had been accquired when much of this area was "excess rural land" of low value, but the extra 2 lanes had to be bought based on their value as being right beside a fairly major route; and two, the construction had to work to far higher safety standards, as there was a 55 MPH 2 lane road just beside what they were building. 

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:22:38 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 29, 2017, 03:06:23 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 02:37:00 PM

I did not know that Corridor L had been built as a two lane road originally.
All based on sharp-pencil estimates that failed to take into account the use of the road as a logical route from Toronto-Buffalo-Pittsburgh to central Florida.  The road became very dangerous and then the state had to go back and do it correctly.

Sadly, this corridor is in need of some major upgrades (elimination of traffic lights in Summersville, Fayetteville/Oak Hill and close to Beckley) for safety reasons alone.  But, there appears to be nothing in the "Roads to Prosperity" bond proposal for these upgrades.  Personally, I would love to see US19 upgraded to interstate standards from 79 down to the turnpike.  Don't think I will ever see that happen in my lifetime.

Back on topic (Corridor H), the DOH has released a spreadsheet identifying all of the projects in the bond proposal.  The only item for Corridor H is the connector to the new interchange with 72 in Parsons.  Too bad they are not allocating additional funds to get this finished across the Blackwater to Thomas.  Instead, it looks like several smaller pork projects tacked in to appease local politicians (i.e. New River Parkway, Rt 2 in Wetzel County, etc.).  Here is the link to the latest article in the Charleston Gazette.  http://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20170828/GZ0101/170829613 (http://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20170828/GZ0101/170829613) and here is the Roads to Prosperity Highway Project List (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 03:33:15 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on August 29, 2017, 01:26:31 PM
The NIMBYs and the environmentalist groups (sometimes the same people, other times not), raised the cost of the project due to increasing the mileage involved and orphaning 8 miles of already completed road east of Elkins.  I remember around the time my wife and I married, some of her family lived in Grant County.  There was hootin' and hollerin' by some about the road going through there, in which it was to go near Harman and around Petersburg.

Yes, re-routing Corridor H may have left Petersburg (and possibly Franklin as well) to "die on the vine" with much less through traffic than they would otherwise have had. U.S. 33 east of Elkins is a pretty deserted road (though the steep grades do not encourage through trips). 

Quote from: Life in Paradise on August 29, 2017, 01:26:31 PM
Nevermind that it was a much straighter route, some of the road was done, and would have been a big plus for their tourism business (Caverns and Seneca Rocks) plus some other small industry... they pushed it away, and it took over a decade for the updated plans to go through to reroute the road north of Elkins to its current plan.

It has never been clear how much planning and preliminary engineering work had been done on the "old" Corridor H  alignment that was ultimately a waste of resources.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 03:47:42 PM
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:22:38 PM
Back on topic (Corridor H), the DOH has released a spreadsheet identifying all of the projects in the bond proposal.  The only item for Corridor H is the connector to the new interchange with 72 in Parsons.

If it extends Corridor H beyond Moore (where there will be a connection to present-day U.S. 219, presumably as part of the contract with Kokosing to build the section from Kerens to Moore) to Parsons, all the better. 

Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:22:38 PM
Too bad they are not allocating additional funds to get this finished across the Blackwater to Thomas.  Instead, it looks like several smaller pork projects tacked in to appease local politicians (i.e. New River Parkway, Rt 2 in Wetzel County, etc.).  Here is the link to the latest article in the Charleston Gazette.  http://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20170828/GZ0101/170829613 (http://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20170828/GZ0101/170829613) and here is the Roads to Prosperity Highway Project List (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf).

I do not know enough about those other  projects to speak to their usefulness.  I do know that Corridor H will make highway access easier to the various resorts and parks near Thomas  and Davis, presumably having a favorable economic benefit to that area (it's a long way from the Corridor H/I-79 interchange at Weston to Thomas as it is (especially in winter conditions), and the part of the trip beyond Kerens is on "old" U.S. 219, not the greatest of roads).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 03:47:42 PM
I do not know enough about those other  projects to speak to their usefulness.  I do know that Corridor H will make highway access easier to the various resorts and parks near Thomas  and Davis, presumably having a favorable economic benefit to that area (it's a long way from the Corridor H/I-79 interchange at Weston to Thomas as it is (especially in winter conditions), and the part of the trip beyond Kerens is on "old" U.S. 219, not the greatest of roads).
Yes, getting Corridor H to Parsons will be great, no doubt about that!  The drive from Kerens to Parsons can be a drag, especially if stuck behind some trucks.   I'm just disappointed to see several non-essential projects on the list that could have been allocated to push Corridor H further towards it's goal of Thomas/Davis; which has always been one of the toughest stretches to cover.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2017, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 29, 2017, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2017, 12:40:23 PM
^ It's easy for you to deride that group as a BANANA group and mix a few of the typical stereotypes in there, but from what I recall of their website, there were a couple good ideas that the state could have considered for Corridor H:
- Given low traffic volumes (even with the supposed "development" that the corridor would induce), they could have saved some money by going with an improved 2 lane route instead of a full 4 lane corridor.  This also would've gotten it built somewhat quicker.
Network redundancy.  There's no good (high-speed east-west highway across the mountains between the I-79  and I-81 corridors except I-68 to the north and  I-64 to the south.
Even had the road been built as an  upgraded 2-lane road, it would have had to be  three or four lanes in many places because of the steep uphill (and maybe downhill) grades.
Remember that one of the goals of ADHS is to induce demand.  For that reason, four divided lanes is better than two, even as a Super-2 type of road.

I originally was a big proponent of building 2 lanes on a 4-lane R/W in many places even on the rural Interstate system where it could have easily handled the traffic for 10 to 20 years, thus saving money that could be spent accelerating other new Interstate projects.  Build the parallel roadway in the future.

I abandoned that idea around 1985 or so when it became apparent that most 2-lane freeways have very high head-on collision fatality rates.  Why?  Because even with the safety factor of being a freeway, such a high speed regime is not conducive to safe passing.

A 2-lane expressway like Corridor L north of US-60, would have the same safety issues.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Roadsguy on August 29, 2017, 10:10:57 PM
I don't know about other states, but at least in Pennsylvania, two-lane expressways are only ever given a 55 mph speed limit. What makes that any more dangerous than an equivalent surface road? Now, if said two-lane expressway were posted at 65-70, then that's just silly.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 29, 2017, 10:58:44 PM
Some observations on the most recent discussions here:

Kentucky has built at least one two-lane route while grading four lanes in the last few years, that being KY 67 (Industrial Parkway) between I-64 and US 23. This seems to have worked well. There are passing lanes on the hills, which helps. I think it will be many years before the route will be four-laned with paving done and bridges built along the unbuilt side. I don't remember if the two-lane portion of US 19 north of Summersville had passing lanes on the hills or not. I'm not sure that I ever drove the route before it was four-laned.

The entire WV 2 corridor needs to be four-laned. Right now, the best route along the river involves crossing back and forth between WV and OH at several times.

West Virginia seems to be committed to building all of its ARC corridors as four-lanes, as opposed to Kentucky and Tennessee, which have a lot of two-lane mileage.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 29, 2017, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on August 29, 2017, 10:10:57 PM
I don't know about other states, but at least in Pennsylvania, two-lane expressways are only ever given a 55 mph speed limit. What makes that any more dangerous than an equivalent surface road? Now, if said two-lane expressway were posted at 65-70, then that's just silly.

If the plan and profile is built to Interstate standards, then many go a lot faster than 55, especially when passing.  Not sure of all the reasons, but this why they never gained much popularity.

Statistically they may not be unsafe, but a few spectacular head-on collisions get widespread publicity.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 30, 2017, 01:33:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 29, 2017, 10:58:44 PM
I don't remember if the two-lane portion of US 19 north of Summersville had passing lanes on the hills or not. I'm not sure that I ever drove the route before it was four-laned.

It did at least going SB up the major hill coming out of Birch River.  Still have memories of going along there while they were upgrading it and being super close to those monster dump trucks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 30, 2017, 09:10:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2017, 11:31:58 PM
Statistically they may not be unsafe, but a few spectacular head-on collisions get widespread publicity.

I-95 from Bangor, Maine to Houlton was originally a Super-2.  Very lonely road then, and even now, the AADTs there are less than  10,000.  It was made a conventional 4-lane divided freeway in large part because of the head-on crashes (even though there were many signs warning and reminding drivers that they were on a 2 lane undivided highway).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 12:43:22 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 30, 2017, 09:10:15 PM
Quote from: Beltway on August 29, 2017, 11:31:58 PM
Statistically they may not be unsafe, but a few spectacular head-on collisions get widespread publicity.
I-95 from Bangor, Maine to Houlton was originally a Super-2.  Very lonely road then, and even now, the AADTs there are less than  10,000.  It was made a conventional 4-lane divided freeway in large part because of the head-on crashes (even though there were many signs warning and reminding drivers that they were on a 2 lane undivided highway).

1991

After a brief roadside ceremony, a new four-lane divided highway with a grassy median opens on U.S. Route 58 replacing the dangerous "Suicide Strip" , a 22-mile undivided highway from Courtland to Emporia. The undivided highway averaged one accident every six days between 1970 and 1990 with 107 deaths and more than 1,000 injuries. The $42.9 million road widening project follows years of pressure from local residents. The stretch of roadway is a vital east-west trade route that carries an estimated 7,355 vehicles a day, many of them heavy trucks. Before the median was built, trucks and cars routinely collided head on.

https://pilotonline.com/news/local/history/back-in-the-day/back-in-the-day-april/article_7d943007-f522-5c1f-b9c9-b533ccb20a04.html

Not a freeway but a high-quality high-speed 2-lane highway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 17, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
wvmetronews.com: Corridor H, long a work in progress, is showing its promise (http://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/)

QuoteELKINS, W.Va. – Corridor H, with an original estimated completion date of 2036, may be farther along than many West Virginians realize.

QuoteAnd the possibility of more immediate funding if state residents pass a road bond on Oct. 7 could bring completion of the Appalachian highway even closer to striking distance.

Quote"It's important to remember Corridor H has been waiting 50 years or a little over,"  said Robbie Morris, president of the Corridor H Authority. "It's the last of the Appalachian Highway system in West Virginia. For West Virginia – the region of the state and really the whole state – it's important to get it finished now."

QuoteThe highway, which runs between central West Virginia and northern Virginia, was one of the main topics of discussion this past week during Gov. Jim Justice's "Roads to Prosperity"  tour of West Virginia communities in support of the road bond vote.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 28, 2017, 12:24:06 PM
theet.com: DOH to break ground on Corridor H's Kerens to Parsons Section Thursday (https://www.theet.com/news/free/doh-to-break-ground-on-corridor-h-s-kerens-to/article_34fce73d-eddf-5abb-9aef-4be167a2c52d.html)

QuoteWest Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, along with Transportation Secretary Tom Smith, and other state and local leaders will be on hand to break ground on the first section of the Kerens to Parson section of Corridor H in Randolph County. The event will take place at 2 p.m. Thursday. The public is invited to attend.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Kokosing has mobilized its workforce and equipment, and dirt (and rock) are being moved on the roughly 7 or 8 mile section between Kerens in Randolph County and Moore in Tucker County.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 05, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
Times.News.com: Officials see importance of U.S. 220, Corridor H project (http://www.times-news.com/news/local_news/officials-see-importance-of-u-s-corridor-h-project/article_a5f141a0-565e-584b-8676-7fbdd0bbe32c.html#tncms-source=article-nav-next)

QuoteOfficials said Thursday they recognize the importance of connecting U.S. Route 220 to Corridor H.

Quote"Everybody recognizes that it needs to be built all the way to Corridor H right now,"  Joseph Romano, senior project manager at Skelly and Loy, said during The Greater Cumberland Committee meeting at Garrett College on Thursday.

QuoteSkelly and Loy, an engineering and environmental consultant, completed the Tier I Environmental Impact Study for the U.S. Route 220 project.

QuoteConnecting U.S. 220 to Corridor H is part of a larger effort to establish a major north/south highway that includes Interstate 68 and U.S. Route 219.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2017, 11:58:56 PM
What's the point? Cumberland-Strasburg traffic has 68-522-81 and Cumberland-Weston traffic has 68-79.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on November 07, 2017, 10:04:00 AM
What exactly is their thinking of connecting US 220 to Corridor H?  Would they veer off of the current US 220 onto WV 93 to connect with Corridor H north of Scherr, or would they just follow along the current US 220 routing to meet up at Moorefield?  I would think the WV 93 route would cost less to upgrade, since it's shorter. 

I would agree that if you were just looking at getting access to Strasburg and then I-66, then the current roadway system from Cumberland would appear to do just fine.  If the purpose is to have an eastern N/S route in West Virginia, then US 220 is probably a better route (due to the valley) than US 219, although with 220 you don't serve much of WV after Moorefield and Petersburg, each being a growing megalopolis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 07, 2017, 08:48:11 PM
This is really more about corridor improvement along US 220 rather than improve Cumberland's connectivity. US 220 has quite a bit of traffic (7500+ VPD) between US 50 and I-68 now. It's pushing 17,000 VPD north of MD 956. There's more than enough traffic to support a relocation or widening.

I believe the idea is to follow WV 93 from US 50 to Corridor H. Personally, I'd route it onto Corridor H and then Patterson Creek Road and WV 42 into Petersburg, where it joins up with US 220. The rest of the alignment through Moorefield can just be WV 28.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: epzik8 on December 11, 2017, 12:24:32 AM
I found myself looking at Corridor H on Google Maps today going around parts of West Virginia. Did I say I didn't like U.S. Route 48? What I meant to say is I'm eager to get the chance to drive it sometime.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 08, 2018, 07:27:47 PM
Photos from Greenland Gap and New Creek Mountain heading west to Bismark along the Allegheny Front - east of Davis. These were taken back in 2013 and rediscovered these while cleaning my Imgur account.

(https://i.imgur.com/mgWmudO.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Ue0sMHH.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/15Axtju.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Ksmbqsk.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/JdfCwaH.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/AQaO186.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/6pKfR5F.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/GLrjnv2.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/SGTqWWl.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0Lky8Cj.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/1lcLOff.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/p1Pkbfn.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/NFHxAFi.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/xHUKJPS.jpg)

--

I can vouch that biking Corridor H is fun as hell. Might be a bit boring at times, but the downhills and views from the bridges makes it worthwhile.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VTGoose on February 09, 2018, 09:18:34 AM
Quote from: seicer on February 08, 2018, 07:27:47 PM
Photos from Greenland Gap and New Creek Mountain heading west to Bismark along the Allegheny Front - east of Davis. These were taken back in 2013 and rediscovered these while cleaning my Imgur account.

(https://i.imgur.com/15Axtju.jpg)


Nice bridge -- but I wouldn't want to hit that when it is snow covered before the salt truck gets there. Between the curves and banks, someone is going to find one of those walls pretty quickly. We have a curved banked bridge like that on U.S. 460 just south (east) of the N. Franklin St. exit and there is at least one wreck there whenever it snows.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2018, 12:02:03 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 09, 2018, 09:18:34 AM
Nice bridge -- but I wouldn't want to hit that when it is snow covered before the salt truck gets there. Between the curves and banks, someone is going to find one of those walls pretty quickly. We have a curved banked bridge like that on U.S. 460 just south (east) of the N. Franklin St. exit and there is at least one wreck there whenever it snows.

There are many such bridges on eastern Corridor H (currently Davis, W.Va. to Wardensville, W.Va.).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on February 09, 2018, 05:08:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2018, 12:02:03 PM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 09, 2018, 09:18:34 AM
Nice bridge -- but I wouldn't want to hit that when it is snow covered before the salt truck gets there. Between the curves and banks, someone is going to find one of those walls pretty quickly. We have a curved banked bridge like that on U.S. 460 just south (east) of the N. Franklin St. exit and there is at least one wreck there whenever it snows.

There are many such bridges on eastern Corridor H (currently Davis, W.Va. to Wardensville, W.Va.).

Given the terrain, it's not surprising to find a substantial amount of bridge curvature; however, it looks like the bridges have ample room for shoulders/breakdown lanes, which should, if striped properly, allow some room for error.  At least they had the good sense to specify pre-oxidized Cor-ten steel for the superstructure; it should withstand the onslaught of rainy and foggy weather intrinsic to that region.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Anyone who drives too fast for pavement conditions deserves to meet a bridge wall up close in personal, IMHO. If I'm driving that road and it's snowy, I'm not doing over 35.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2018, 06:54:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Anyone who drives too fast for pavement conditions deserves to meet a bridge wall up close in personal, IMHO. If I'm driving that road and it's snowy, I'm not doing over 35.

Yes, that's probably good advice.  65 MPH is fine when things are warm and especially dry. 

WVDOT/DOH seems to have maintenance bases of a temporary-looking nature along Corridor H (perhaps for staging winter maintenance equipment and materials).

There are two that I am aware of, one north and east of Elkins here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B058'24.7%22N+79%C2%B051'00.7%22W/@38.9735382,-79.8589597,1940m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x884ae3b56cffb24b:0xce8579539c7bb6d2!2sElkins,+WV+26241!3b1!8m2!3d38.9259397!4d-79.8467349!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d38.9735335!4d-79.850205) and one near Forman at the CR3 (Knobley Road) underpass here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B009'09.6%22N+79%C2%B008'01.6%22W/@39.1526631,-79.1425297,1935m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89b542c00ce199f5:0x9a21dae35ed72efa!2sKnobley+Rd,+West+Virginia!3b1!8m2!3d39.3407301!4d-79.0006468!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.152659!4d-79.133775).

There may be others that are not as obvious beyond those two.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VTGoose on February 12, 2018, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Anyone who drives too fast for pavement conditions deserves to meet a bridge wall up close in personal, IMHO. If I'm driving that road and it's snowy, I'm not doing over 35.

That goes without saying -- but given that "driving" isn't actually a learned skill these days, there are a lot of people who may be scuffing up those walls. The "daily wreck" on I-81 around here is a good example of that, when cars and trucks collide on a regular basis (or go into the ditch or guardrail) because people can't be bothered to pay attention to their main purpose of sitting behind the wheel.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 10:11:28 AM
Quote from: VTGoose on February 12, 2018, 09:43:15 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2018, 05:23:14 PM
Anyone who drives too fast for pavement conditions deserves to meet a bridge wall up close in personal, IMHO. If I'm driving that road and it's snowy, I'm not doing over 35.
That goes without saying -- but given that "driving" isn't actually a learned skill these days, there are a lot of people who may be scuffing up those walls. The "daily wreck" on I-81 around here is a good example of that, when cars and trucks collide on a regular basis (or go into the ditch or guardrail) because people can't be bothered to pay attention to their main purpose of sitting behind the wheel.

That photo looks like it was taken with a strong telephoto lens of at least 5x.  That greatly exaggerates the amount of curvature.  I would have to see it myself, but those curves may be easily negotiable at 60+ mph.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 12, 2018, 10:38:13 AM
It's with a 200mm telephoto. You can drive it fine at 75 MPH - considering it's on a steep downgrade from the Allegheny Front.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Roadsguy on February 12, 2018, 11:13:00 AM
Considering that the narrow and twisty 70 mph PA Turnpike can be safely driven at 80 when doing 10 over the limit, I'd say Corridor H would probably be good for at least a 70 mph speed limit if not for the intersections. In fact very few of the northeast/east coast's suburban and rural freeways should be any less than 70.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 01:16:13 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 12, 2018, 10:38:13 AM
It's with a 200mm telephoto. You can drive it fine at 75 MPH - considering it's on a steep downgrade from the Allegheny Front.

IOW that would be 4x if 50mm was 1.0 as it is on my camera.  About what I estimated from looking at the photo.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 12, 2018, 02:26:12 PM
^ An equivalent focal length of 50mm isn't 1x.  It depends on the camera lens, but most zoom cameras start at about an equivalent focal length of about 24mm to 28mm.  A 200mm equivalent would therefore be about 8x.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on February 12, 2018, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 12, 2018, 02:26:12 PM
^ An equivalent focal length of 50mm isn't 1x.  It depends on the camera lens, but most zoom cameras start at about an equivalent focal length of about 24mm to 28mm.  A 200mm equivalent would therefore be about 8x.

My comments represent the one SLR that I have.

And the point was that the photo was taken with a strong telephoto lens.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 12, 2018, 03:16:14 PM
^ that's fine, but 50mm on a SLR is not 1x.

50mm (particularly on a crop-sensor SLR, which actually equates to an equivalent of 75mm) is actually a short telephoto lens, and is not as you described 1x.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 12, 2018, 03:49:20 PM
If you want to get technical, unless you have a full-frame 35 =mm sensor size in your SLR or camera, then you have to work with a conversion size.

For instance, a Nikon 200mm FX tele on a Nikon D810 is a 200mm FX tele. On a Nikon D5500, with a smaller sensor, it is a 320mm FX tele (1.6x conversion).

Then, there are those smaller sensors with specially made lenses for them. A 200mm DX tele on a Nikon D5500 is a 200mm DX tele. On a Nikon D810, it's a 200mm DX tele. The camera then essentially blacks out 38% of the sensor.

Without knowing the sensor size, it's hard to say that it is an 8x conversion or a 4x conversion.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 12, 2018, 03:52:29 PM
^ Not really.

Without knowing the sensor size it is hard to tell if it's an 8x zoom vs a 12x zoom, but not if it's a 4x zoom.  The baseline for what a point an shoot camera considers 1x is pretty much always in the 24-28mm range.

And Nikon (and Sony) use a 1.5 crop factor, not a 1.6.

*edit* reading the above post again, I see you're point, you could use a crop-sensor lens on a full-frame sensor camera.  But... that's not something I would assume many people would do, (why spend extra money on a full-frame camera only to use it with a crop sensor lens, and forgoing the benefit of the full-frame sesnsor?).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 12, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
Sorry, had Canon on my mind. As far as baselines go, it can vary with manufacturer and camera model, which is why it's nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

"Look at this camera from SoNiCanon! It has 20x zoom!" (When in reality, only a quarter of that is optical and the rest is compromised digital zoom.)

I think that at this point we are going well off topic, but let's just agree that it's a tele photo and pretty safe to drive at all high speeds. My highest speed on that segment - down a steep grade and over the bridge, is over 100 MPH. That was just before the segment opened to traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2018, 09:50:35 AM
Quote from: seicer on February 12, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
I think that at this point we are going well off topic, but let's just agree that it's a tele photo and pretty safe to drive at all high speeds. My highest speed on that segment - down a steep grade and over the bridge, is over 100 MPH. That was just before the segment opened to traffic.

I have seen the WVSP out there enforcing the posted 65 MPH limit, and also Grant County deputies presumably doing the same thing, in particular on the Allegheny Front grade.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: lepidopteran on October 11, 2018, 07:38:16 PM
Relocation of power lines to make way for the Kerens to Parsons section of Corridor H.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskKo8iAo (https://flic.kr/s/aHskKo8iAo)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2018, 10:06:52 PM
Quote from: lepidopteran on October 11, 2018, 07:38:16 PM
Relocation of power lines to make way for the Kerens to Parsons section of Corridor H.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskKo8iAo (https://flic.kr/s/aHskKo8iAo)

I was out that way last summer, and the relocation of that transmission line (looks like it might be one 230kVA circuit) was well under way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 12, 2018, 09:00:09 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2018, 09:50:35 AM
Quote from: seicer on February 12, 2018, 03:59:57 PM
I think that at this point we are going well off topic, but let's just agree that it's a tele photo and pretty safe to drive at all high speeds. My highest speed on that segment - down a steep grade and over the bridge, is over 100 MPH. That was just before the segment opened to traffic.

I have seen the WVSP out there enforcing the posted 65 MPH limit, and also Grant County deputies presumably doing the same thing, in particular on the Allegheny Front grade.

There are certainly a few parts of Corridor H where one can go really fast, but for the most part I've found much over 70 mph simply felt too fast in several places (surely this might vary in different vehicles, of course). I haven't seen much enforcement at all, though if they were out there it'd be easy to get nabbed due to the lack of traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 16, 2018, 12:28:36 PM
WVDEP has stopped construction on Corridor H in Randolph and Tucker Counties due to repeated violations of water quality permits by Kokosing Construction: https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/wv-dep-orders-stop-to-construction-on-corridor-h/article_06838d14-61c7-5ae5-93e1-9bdf3187cd04.html
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2018, 02:08:01 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 16, 2018, 12:28:36 PM
WVDEP has stopped construction on Corridor H in Randolph and Tucker Counties due to repeated violations of water quality permits by Kokosing Construction: https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/wv-dep-orders-stop-to-construction-on-corridor-h/article_06838d14-61c7-5ae5-93e1-9bdf3187cd04.html

I certainly believe that the rain events  that have  hit the  area in September and thus far in October have been pretty big and intense.  But still, contractors have  a legal requirement to comply with Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) permits having to do with water quality and that includes  stormwater runoff too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 16, 2018, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 16, 2018, 02:08:01 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 16, 2018, 12:28:36 PM
WVDEP has stopped construction on Corridor H in Randolph and Tucker Counties due to repeated violations of water quality permits by Kokosing Construction: https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/wv-dep-orders-stop-to-construction-on-corridor-h/article_06838d14-61c7-5ae5-93e1-9bdf3187cd04.html

I certainly believe that the rain events  that have  hit the  area in September and thus far in October have been pretty big and intense.  But still, contractors have  a legal requirement to comply with Section 404 (of the Clean Water Act) permits having to do with water quality and that includes  stormwater runoff too.

It has been unusually wet, but the violations stretch back until December 2017 according to the article. WVDEP isn't known for strict enforcement (it's frequently called the Department of Employer Protection) so if they took action, I have to think the issues were pretty egregious.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 11, 2018, 02:06:41 PM
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/327856/build-2018-fact-sheets.pdf

Karens-Parsons Segment 5
Build Grant: $20 million
Total Cost: $42 million

"This project will construct approximately 10 miles of a 4-lane expressway as part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The project includes paving, constructing traffic control devices and markings, and new guardrails."

"The project will improve the safety of existing travel options by offering an expressway with improved visibility, wide shoulders, and reduced conflict points. The new expressway will also facilitate movement of people and goods in an economically distressed area. The project will improve access to an area that is currently isolated due to an inadequate road network in the mountainous region and will provide a new network that will allow for significantly more efficient travel by offering a more direct route through the mountains."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 11, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
It's so economically distressed that the Sheetz in Parsons closed a few months ago.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 11, 2018, 05:10:29 PM
$42 million for 10 miles seems awfully low given prevailing costs thus far for Corridor H, unless it's referring to a ~3.5mi extension of the existing under construction leg (shown as "open to traffic" on the BUILD project fact sheet...HA!) that the June 2018 update on the Corridor H project page (http://wvcorridorh.com/route/map2.html) mentions.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on December 11, 2018, 05:50:52 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
It's so economically distressed that the Sheetz in Parsons closed a few months ago.

To be fair, that was a mini-Sheetz. Not many of those retro Sheetzes left. I've actually stopped at two of them in the past year or so (Corriganville and Hancock, MD). Quite subpar compared to the Sheetz experience we all know and love.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 11, 2018, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 11, 2018, 05:10:29 PM
$42 million for 10 miles seems awfully low given prevailing costs thus far for Corridor H, unless it's referring to a ~3.5mi extension of the existing under construction leg (shown as "open to traffic" on the BUILD project fact sheet...HA!) that the June 2018 update on the Corridor H project page (http://wvcorridorh.com/route/map2.html) mentions.

I had the same reaction about the price, but if we take the second sentence literally, then it sounds like a paving contract, IOW the grading and drainage project was awarded previously.

"This project will construct approximately 10 miles of a 4-lane expressway as part of the Appalachian Development Highway System.  The project includes paving, constructing traffic control devices and markings, and new guardrails."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 11, 2018, 09:16:38 PM
Utility relocation and grading are done on precursor contracts and it can be years before anything further is done with paving. (See: US 121)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2018, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
It's so economically distressed that the Sheetz in Parsons closed a few months ago.

Wow.  Was not aware of that.  Always seemed busy  when I drove by  there.  Wonder if they are going to tear the current one down and build a new store there?

Seems not, according to the Intermountain: Sheetz in Parsons set to close (http://www.theintermountain.com/news/local-news/2018/09/sheetz-in-parsons-set-to-close/)

I suppose the closest Sheetz stores now are in Elkins (about 35 miles south), or in Oakland, Maryland (about 35 miles north).

If Corridor H is completed (including from Moore to Davis, and the eastern part too), I suppose Parsons becomes more attractive to business (perhaps including Sheetz).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on December 12, 2018, 08:54:16 AM
More completion would help.  I drove Corridor H back in July 2017, and the road is a great drive until you get to the stretch of Kerens to Thomas, and then it's like molasses.  I still would have liked the original thought of going around Harman and Petersburg, would have seemed straighter to me.  I know there was the NIMBY crowd in the 80s.  Personal bias-my wife had family back in Petersburg through those years into the 2000s, and that would have helped my travel time from Indiana even more so.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 12, 2018, 08:58:29 AM
There is significant natural and scenic areas that considerably shaped how Corridor H is routed, too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 12, 2018, 09:17:24 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on December 12, 2018, 08:54:16 AMI know there was the NIMBY crowd in the 80s. 

Actually there was virtually 100% local support for Corridor H from its proposal to date.  The opposition did not live there, but rather were the typical BANANA enviro-extremists pulling the ladder of economic progress up from behind them, from their flatland neighborhoods.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 12, 2018, 10:54:54 AM
The NIMBY crowd was moreso in the '90s and, despite what SP Cook just said, some of them did live in the local area, particularly on the Virginia side west of Strasburg and in the Potomac Highlands (Davis vicinity and south).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 12, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
The lady at McDonald's said she knew of no plans to build a new Sheetz there when the new road opens, although it's a possibility since a new Sheetz was built at Moorefield after Corridor H opened there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 12, 2018, 11:57:57 AM
I beg to differ.  The election results over nearly 50 years bear me out.  The people of WV want good roads, including Corridor H.   While I am certain that you can find a few self-satisfied types that can be caused NIMBY, the myth that the "Corrior H Alternatives" (the name itself being that group's first lie, since they never proposed a viable alternative, other than "live in poverty" ) was a local group is just not so.  It was, like most enviro-extremists, people from outside the areas who already have all the things they try to deny their fellow man.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 12, 2018, 12:33:05 PM
Wasn't referring to Corridor H Alternatives, SP.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 12, 2018, 08:22:19 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2018, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
It's so economically distressed that the Sheetz in Parsons closed a few months ago.

Wow.  Was not aware of that.  Always seemed busy  when I drove by  there.  Wonder if they are going to tear the current one down and build a new store there?

Seems not, according to the Intermountain: Sheetz in Parsons set to close (http://www.theintermountain.com/news/local-news/2018/09/sheetz-in-parsons-set-to-close/)

I suppose the closest Sheetz stores now are in Elkins (about 35 miles south), or in Oakland, Maryland (about 35 miles north).

If Corridor H is completed (including from Moore to Davis, and the eastern part too), I suppose Parsons becomes more attractive to business (perhaps including Sheetz).

I heard a while ago that Sheetz was planning a store near Davis along Corridor H. Downtown Parsons would not be a good place to serve through traffic for Corridor H once it is built.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 12, 2018, 10:18:17 PM
Wouldn't surprise me, but Sheetz has done pretty well in small towns and Parsons is far enough from Davis/Thomas that I wouldn't see competition from the locals. Every time I went to the Parsons Sheetz, it was very crowded - probably because it was such a tiny store with the MTO section that looked bolted on. The new Sheetz are very nice but I would find that hard to put in downtown for a lack of land.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on December 13, 2018, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 11, 2018, 09:34:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 11, 2018, 02:21:03 PM
It's so economically distressed that the Sheetz in Parsons closed a few months ago.

Wow.  Was not aware of that.  Always seemed busy  when I drove by  there.  Wonder if they are going to tear the current one down and build a new store there?

Seems not, according to the Intermountain: Sheetz in Parsons set to close (http://www.theintermountain.com/news/local-news/2018/09/sheetz-in-parsons-set-to-close/)

I suppose the closest Sheetz stores now are in Elkins (about 35 miles south), or in Oakland, Maryland (about 35 miles north).

If Corridor H is completed (including from Moore to Davis, and the eastern part too), I suppose Parsons becomes more attractive to business (perhaps including Sheetz).

Years ago I heard rumors that Sheetz had already bought up the land on which to build a new location at the ultimate intersection of Route 32 and Corridor H in Davis, once that part of the highway is complete. It wouldn't surprise me if this happens, but construction of that part of the highway is still many years away.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 13, 2018, 08:04:39 PM
There's still one of the older-type Sheetz stores at Belington (intersection of US 250 and WV 92 northwest of Elkins.) I'm surprised that it wasn't closed instead of the one at Parsons. I've been there a couple of times; it appears to be a lot smaller and with a lot less parking than the Parsons locations.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 14, 2018, 12:30:34 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 12, 2018, 09:17:24 AM
Actually there was virtually 100% local support for Corridor H from its proposal to date.  The opposition did not live there, but rather were the typical BANANA enviro-extremists pulling the ladder of economic progress up from behind them, from their flatland neighborhoods.

I agree with the above.

One of the parties in the 1990's federal lawsuit was some sort of homeowners association (not clear where it was located along Corridor H), but it had a mailing address on a subdivision street in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Then there was ex-Rep. Peter Kostmayer (D), someone who represented a district in a suburb of Philadelphia, and after having been defeated in 1994, was named by President Bill Clinton to be USEPA Region 3 Administrator, based in Philly. 

A friend (who once worked at an FHWA division office in one of the Region 3 states (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia)) told me that Kostmayer, after taking office, told his staff that his highest priority for them was that they were to use the powers of the USEPA to delay and ideally cancel any and all proposed highway improvements in Region 3. 

After he had been in that office for a while, the late Senator Byrd figured out that Kostmayer was using federal  tax dollars to generate astro-turf opposition to Corridor H, and was rapidly fired by President Clinton.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 14, 2018, 12:32:37 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 12, 2018, 11:57:57 AM
I beg to differ.  The election results over nearly 50 years bear me out.  The people of WV want good roads, including Corridor H.   While I am certain that you can find a few self-satisfied types that can be caused NIMBY, the myth that the "Corrior H Alternatives" (the name itself being that group's first lie, since they never proposed a viable alternative, other than "live in poverty" ) was a local group is just not so.  It was, like most enviro-extremists, people from outside the areas who already have all the things they try to deny their fellow man.

I must respectfully disagree (though I share your dislike of Corridor H Alternatives) in that CHA did offer some "alternatives" that did not meet the Purpose and Need for the project.  Interestingly, no mention of how the "alternatives" would climb the Allegheny Mountain Front between Scheer and Mount Storm.

If my  memory is correct, they were pitching an "upgrade existing roads" alternative, which is a pretty classic anti-highway tactic by anti-highway groups. If those anti-highway groups were to win, then the "upgrade existing roads" are quickly forgotten.

EDIT: 

The Corridor H Alternatives site is still online here (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHhome.html).  The CHA alternatives are here (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHalts.html).  Does not appear to have been updated since 2001.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 03:45:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 14, 2018, 12:32:37 AM
The Corridor H Alternatives site is still online here (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHhome.html).  The CHA alternatives are here (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHalts.html).  Does not appear to have been updated since 2001.

Corridor H had opposition from longtime local environmental groups like the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. It wasn't just astroturf or people from outside the area.

As someone who frequently travels in the Potomac Highlands and is very familiar with Corridor H and the existing road network, I'll say the listed alternatives weren't all that unreasonable for the existing traffic in the area. WV has a tendency to want to build new 4-lane highways all over the place, including along many corridors with little through traffic (see King Coal Highway and Coalfields Expressway for other examples). Since this is tremendously expensive, these projects rarely come to fruition and when they do, they take decades.

For the cost of Corridor H or these other projects, WVDOH could build many, many smaller projects like turn lanes, passing lanes, and curve realignments. These projects would do a lot more to improve safety and travel time for average residents in these counties than Corridor H. WVDOH has finally started to recognize the benefit of this type of improvement with its current work on WV 10 between Man and Princeton, which is focused on widening lanes and shoulders and fixing bad curves.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 15, 2018, 10:21:07 PM
Similarly, WVDOH once proposed widening WV 10 south of Huntington/I-64 towards Logan to four-lanes, and went as far in the 2000s to buy up the property, but has redesigned the project to be an improved two- and three-lane road with better access control.

And when you look at older state projects, the tendency was to improve upon existing routes. WV 90 between US 219 and US 50, WV 32 between US 33 and US 219, and portions of WV 2 between Huntington and Pt. Pleasant (over several decades) are examples of improved two-lane highways with/without large shoulders (depending upon the decade), passing lanes, and curve realignments. But that doesn't sell it to politicians or residents who clamor for everything to be four-lane when there just isn't the traffic nor population density to justify it. And when large swaths of the state are declining in population, why invest in major four-lane expressways on the premise of dubious industrial development?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 03:45:52 PM
As someone who frequently travels in the Potomac Highlands and is very familiar with Corridor H and the existing road network, I'll say the listed alternatives weren't all that unreasonable for the existing traffic in the area. WV has a tendency to want to build new 4-lane highways all over the place, including along many corridors with little through traffic (see King Coal Highway and Coalfields Expressway for other examples). Since this is tremendously expensive, these projects rarely come to fruition and when they do, they take decades.

All the lettered corridors are ADHS highways, authorized by Congress under the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) in 1965.  Thru most of the time since then they have received high percentages of federal funding, 80% or better, and from a large pot of money.  So it made sense to build them as 4-lane highways, and they do fit the system role of intra-state highways that in general should be 4-lane high-speed highways that connect to the Interstate routes.

King Coal Highway and Coalfields Expressway are not ADHS highways.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 15, 2018, 10:39:59 PM
At the least, some of those could be built as two-lane facilities with four-lane rights-of-way, such as what was done to other portions of Corridor H/US 33, Corridor L/US 19 and others. Some of the biggest costs come from building those bridges over the valleys.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 10:46:22 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 15, 2018, 10:21:07 PM
And when you look at older state projects, the tendency was to improve upon existing routes. WV 90 between US 219 and US 50, WV 32 between US 33 and US 219, and portions of WV 2 between Huntington and Pt. Pleasant (over several decades) are examples of improved two-lane highways with/without large shoulders (depending upon the decade), passing lanes, and curve realignments. But that doesn't sell it to politicians or residents who clamor for everything to be four-lane when there just isn't the traffic nor population density to justify it. And when large swaths of the state are declining in population, why invest in major four-lane expressways on the premise of dubious industrial development?

There are a number of corridors in West Virginia that were rebuilt in the 1930s-1950s. While they may be built to earlier standards and have narrow shoulders, they're generally delivering good connectivity for drivers. It's pretty common to see traffic flowing above 60mph on these older rebuilds.

On routes that haven't been fully rebuilt, they've generally had some improvements over time and have stretches that are OK. They don't need a complete replacement, just a curve realignment here and an intersection reconstruction there. Focusing on these relatively cheap, easy to deliver improvements could make big improvements on some corridors like US 219, US 220, and WV 20.

Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 03:45:52 PM
As someone who frequently travels in the Potomac Highlands and is very familiar with Corridor H and the existing road network, I'll say the listed alternatives weren't all that unreasonable for the existing traffic in the area. WV has a tendency to want to build new 4-lane highways all over the place, including along many corridors with little through traffic (see King Coal Highway and Coalfields Expressway for other examples). Since this is tremendously expensive, these projects rarely come to fruition and when they do, they take decades.

All the lettered corridors are ADHS highways, authorized by Congress under the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) in 1965.  Thru most of the time since then they have received high percentages of federal funding, 80% or better, and from a large pot of money.  So it made sense to build them as 4-lane highways, and they do fit the system role of intra-state highways that in general should be 4-lane high-speed highways that connect to the Interstate routes.

King Coal Highway and Coalfields Expressway are not ADHS highways.

It's all coming from the same pot of money now, and WV is throwing a lot of state dollars at Corridor H from last year's bond issue. When you're looking at 2000 VPD (completed eastern sections of Corridor H), 4 lanes makes little sense. Even once the corridor is completed, I don't see it going above 5000 VPD. At the very least, WVDOH should have left the WV 93 section between Davis and Bismarck, which was 1960s construction on a good high speed alignment, alone rather than dropping hundreds of millions on 4-laning.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 11:42:40 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 10:46:22 PM
It's all coming from the same pot of money now, and WV is throwing a lot of state dollars at Corridor H from last year's bond issue. When you're looking at 2000 VPD (completed eastern sections of Corridor H), 4 lanes makes little sense. Even once the corridor is completed, I don't see it going above 5000 VPD. At the very least, WVDOH should have left the WV 93 section between Davis and Bismarck, which was 1960s construction on a good high speed alignment, alone rather than dropping hundreds of millions on 4-laning.

Corridor H from Elkins westward to I-79 is in the 9,000 to 12,000 AADT range, and that seems a better measure of what to expect on a corridor between a major town and an Interstate highway.

Corridor H east of Elkins has a lot complete but is still disjointed.

Building with 2 lanes has its own problems, as was seen on a major section of Corridor L (US-19).   Tends to be problems with shovel jobs.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 15, 2018, 11:48:37 PM
What was the issue with Corridor L? Were standards from its initial completion that much different than the 1990's when it was dualized?

It seems that the state is on-board to building two-lane facilities elsewhere, such as what it is doing with the recent King Coal Highway portions near Williamson.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 11:56:03 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 15, 2018, 11:48:37 PM
What was the issue with Corridor L? Were standards from its initial completion that much different than the 1990's when it was dualized?
It seems that the state is on-board to building two-lane facilities elsewhere, such as what it is doing with the recent King Coal Highway portions near Williamson.

Traffic, and head-on collision problems on high-speed 2-lane highways.

The Appalachian Regional Commission has an article [link no longer active] about Corridor "L", "West Virginia's Corridor L Opens the Door to Tourists", by James E. Casto, 1996. Excerpts below:

U.S. 19 - Appalachian Corridor L - is a 70-mile north/south shortcut from Interstate 79 near Sutton to the West Virginia Turnpike just north of Beckley.  Along the way it cuts across the spectacular New River Gorge and the historic Midland Trail (U.S. 60), the winding east/west route first authorized in 1790 as a state road by the Virginia Assembly.

Construction of Corridor L was started in 1969 and completed in 1978 at a cost of $174 million in state and federal funds.  More than $45 million of that went to build the spectacular New River Gorge Bridge, the highest east of the Mississippi.

Based on traffic estimates at the time, only about half of Corridor L was built as a four-lane divided highway.  The rest was two lanes, with a third lane provided for big trucks and other slow-moving vehicles on the steepest grades.  What happened once the new road was opened surprised even those who had long campaigned for its construction.  Traffic on it soared, quickly outpacing all official predictions.

Long-distance travelers also flocked to the road, finding it a handy shortcut.  By turning off I-79 and driving south on Corridor L to the West Virginia Turnpike, southbound drivers found they could save about 45 minutes over continuing on to Charleston on I-79, then heading down the Turnpike.  The shortcut quickly became popular with truckers and Canadian vacationers making their way from Toronto to the beaches of South Carolina and Florida.

From 1979 to 1994, the traffic count on Corridor L jumped nearly fourfold - from a daily average of 2,800 cars and trucks to more than 10,000.  At some points, the count is even higher.  And the Department of Transportation now expects it to double to 20,000 vehicles per day over the next 20 years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 16, 2018, 10:56:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 11:42:40 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 10:46:22 PM
It's all coming from the same pot of money now, and WV is throwing a lot of state dollars at Corridor H from last year's bond issue. When you're looking at 2000 VPD (completed eastern sections of Corridor H), 4 lanes makes little sense. Even once the corridor is completed, I don't see it going above 5000 VPD. At the very least, WVDOH should have left the WV 93 section between Davis and Bismarck, which was 1960s construction on a good high speed alignment, alone rather than dropping hundreds of millions on 4-laning.

Corridor H from Elkins westward to I-79 is in the 9,000 to 12,000 AADT range, and that seems a better measure of what to expect on a corridor between a major town and an Interstate highway.

What major towns are there east of Elkins? The biggest, Moorefield, has 2500 people and no cultural/healthcare/shopping connection to anything along the I-79 corridor.

Because Corridor H shifts so far north, it serves as a poor route from Morgantown and points north to anything east of Elkins. The best route from Morgantown to Parsons, via WV 92 and WV 38, is 56 miles shorter than via Corridor H. Same goes for Morgantown to Thomas and to Bismarck-and-east, where the best routes are via Oakland, MD. For access to Clarksburg from Parsons and east, the route of Corridor H is basically a draw with existing highways.

Corridor H's utility is mostly as a through route. It's not a shortcut for people on the north. How much traffic is going from I-64 to the DC area? Corridor L (US 19) filled in an obvious gap in the network in a way that Corridor H does not.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on December 16, 2018, 11:35:30 AM
The earlier route, the one that went due east of Elkins, made a lot more sense to me.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 16, 2018, 12:06:30 PM
Am I the only one who sees the relationship between the inadequate and deadly wrong decision to build Corridor L as a 2 lane, only to have to go back and do it over, at vastly higher land acquisition costs, and the idea that minor changes (similar to the 1972 road bond promise relative to the still totally inadequate US 52 "upgrade", a total failure)  and the idea that a few curves being taken out here and there is an "alternative" to proper construction of a proper 4-lane highway.  The ONLY way to open up these forgotten communities of people to the wider world.


I also object to the idea that the "WV Highlands Conservancy" is "local" to the Corridor H area, or to WV at all.
  Just another group of people who have what they want, and could care less about others.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: NE2 on December 16, 2018, 01:04:13 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 16, 2018, 12:06:30 PM
Am I the only one
Yes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 16, 2018, 03:12:13 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 16, 2018, 10:56:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 11:42:40 PM
Corridor H from Elkins westward to I-79 is in the 9,000 to 12,000 AADT range, and that seems a better measure of what to expect on a corridor between a major town and an Interstate highway.
What major towns are there east of Elkins? The biggest, Moorefield, has 2500 people and no cultural/healthcare/shopping connection to anything along the I-79 corridor.
Because Corridor H shifts so far north, it serves as a poor route from Morgantown and points north to anything east of Elkins. The best route from Morgantown to Parsons, via WV 92 and WV 38, is 56 miles shorter than via Corridor H. Same goes for Morgantown to Thomas and to Bismarck-and-east, where the best routes are via Oakland, MD. For access to Clarksburg from Parsons and east, the route of Corridor H is basically a draw with existing highways.
Corridor H's utility is mostly as a through route. It's not a shortcut for people on the north. How much traffic is going from I-64 to the DC area? Corridor L (US 19) filled in an obvious gap in the network in a way that Corridor H does not.

Martinsburg, Charles Town, Winchester, Front Royal, the I-66 corridor ... Corridor H connects all them to central West Virginia via I-79 and I-64 and I-81.  Hopefully Virginia will build their segment to 4-lane standards when the corridor is nearing completion in West Virginia.

Corridor H as conceived is an extension of I-66 albeit to expressway standards.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 16, 2018, 06:44:55 PM
Even without the completion of the route from Kerens to Davis, or the Virginia section, US 48 is my preferred way to get to the northeast. I'd much rather exit I-79 at Weston and take US 48 over to I-81, than continue on to Morgantown and use I-68 and then either US 220/PA Turnpike or I-70 to reach I-81.

The route's whole purpose -- the system's whole purpose -- is to enhance economic development. This particular route will improve access from the Ohio Valley to Washington DC, the inland port at Front Royal, and many other locations.

I wish Kentucky had built its ADHS routes all as four-lane routes. After the fact, we're going to four-lane US 119 between Whitesburg and Jenkins. Meanwhile they're still building two-lane sections of 119 in Letcher and Harlan counties.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2018, 07:46:54 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 16, 2018, 03:12:13 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 16, 2018, 10:56:43 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 15, 2018, 11:42:40 PM
Corridor H from Elkins westward to I-79 is in the 9,000 to 12,000 AADT range, and that seems a better measure of what to expect on a corridor between a major town and an Interstate highway.
What major towns are there east of Elkins? The biggest, Moorefield, has 2500 people and no cultural/healthcare/shopping connection to anything along the I-79 corridor.
Because Corridor H shifts so far north, it serves as a poor route from Morgantown and points north to anything east of Elkins. The best route from Morgantown to Parsons, via WV 92 and WV 38, is 56 miles shorter than via Corridor H. Same goes for Morgantown to Thomas and to Bismarck-and-east, where the best routes are via Oakland, MD. For access to Clarksburg from Parsons and east, the route of Corridor H is basically a draw with existing highways.
Corridor H's utility is mostly as a through route. It's not a shortcut for people on the north. How much traffic is going from I-64 to the DC area? Corridor L (US 19) filled in an obvious gap in the network in a way that Corridor H does not.

Martinsburg, Charles Town, Winchester, Front Royal, the I-66 corridor ... Corridor H connects all them to central West Virginia via I-79 and I-64 and I-81.  Hopefully Virginia will build their segment to 4-lane standards when the corridor is nearing completion in West Virginia.

Corridor H as conceived is an extension of I-66 albeit to expressway standards.

Agree that Corridor H will mostly be a "thru" route, though  it will also serve smaller towns like Buckhannon, Elkins, Parsons, Thomas and Davis, Oakland (Maryland), Mount Storm, Moorefield and Wardensville.

It was moved north from the original U.S. 33 "racetrack" route  because of various objections to that route (I do not feel like re-hashing that very old argument now) - and improving access to recreational and park assets in Tucker County was not a terrible decision.  IIRC, it is 70+ miles now from I-79 at Weston to Thomas and Davis.  It also makes Thomas and Davis a much easier trip from Northern Virginia and other points east, and provides an alternate to I-68 for travelers desiring to reach  Garrett County, Maryland.

Regarding filling gaps, there's one gap that Corridor H  does help with - a lot - improving highway access to the Virginia Inland Port north of I-66 near Front Royal, and will make the Inland Port an easier and shorter drive from the I-79 corridor (current choices now are I-64 to I-81 or I-68 to U.S. 522).  I do not consider U.S. 250, U.S. 33 or U.S. 50 to be viable alternatives for most truck traffic.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2018, 07:50:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2018, 06:44:55 PM
The route's whole purpose -- the system's whole purpose -- is to enhance economic development. This particular route will improve access from the Ohio Valley to Washington DC, the inland port at Front Royal, and many other locations.

I strongly agree with the above.  Especially economic development.

I do hope we get a federal administration and both houses of Congress - at some point - that understands that completing the proposed ADHS network, which should be  a national priority - sooner rather than later - is a good thing.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2018, 08:12:46 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 03:45:52 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 14, 2018, 12:32:37 AM
The Corridor H Alternatives site is still online here (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHhome.html).  The CHA alternatives are here (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~kenner/cha/CHalts.html).  Does not appear to have been updated since 2001.

Corridor H had opposition from longtime local environmental groups like the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. It wasn't just astroturf or people from outside the area.

I understand that there were local groups, but I also wonder how many of those local groups were made up of people that had moved out "to the country" from metropolitan areas like Washington, and wanted to keep all economic development out?  I also strongly suspect that Virginia's Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC, main office in Warrenton, Virginia) may have had a hand in funding opposition to Corridor H.  Some of the wording on those CHA pages sound suspiciously like other things that came out of PEC in the 1990's.

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 03:45:52 PM
As someone who frequently travels in the Potomac Highlands and is very familiar with Corridor H and the existing road network, I'll say the listed alternatives weren't all that unreasonable for the existing traffic in the area. WV has a tendency to want to build new 4-lane highways all over the place, including along many corridors with little through traffic (see King Coal Highway and Coalfields Expressway for other examples). Since this is tremendously expensive, these projects rarely come to fruition and when they do, they take decades.

I know the highway network of northern West Virginia and far eastern West Virginia (roughly Morgantown to Harpers Ferry) pretty well, though probably not as well as you.

Having driven east-west arterials like U.S. 250, U.S. 33, and U.S. 50, upgrading those to something approaching Super-2 would not have come cheaply, and given relocation costs (U.S. 50 especially has a fair amount of development close by, perhaps because parts of it date to being the 19th century Northwestern Turnpike originally), a greenfield Corridor H was probably a good idea.  I think it was reasonable to engineer Corridor H as a four-lane highway, given the climbing lanes that would be needed along much of it and the reality that many U.S. drivers do not know how to drive safely on high-speed two-lane arterials.

Quote from: Bitmapped on December 15, 2018, 03:45:52 PM
For the cost of Corridor H or these other projects, WVDOH could build many, many smaller projects like turn lanes, passing lanes, and curve realignments. These projects would do a lot more to improve safety and travel time for average residents in these counties than Corridor H. WVDOH has finally started to recognize the benefit of this type of improvement with its current work on WV 10 between Man and Princeton, which is focused on widening lanes and shoulders and fixing bad curves.

I take no issue with upgrading existing roads, though I still suspect that Corridor H opponents were offering the alternative to upgrade older roads in bad faith. 

But as H.B. pointed out (as have senior state DOT officials in Virginia and Maryland), the idea behind ADHS was (and remains) economic development, and to induce demand for people to visit the places along the way.  Upgrades to those U.S. routes probably do not result in much economic development. Providing a new route for trucks across West Virginia will happen  with a completed Corridor H as well.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 16, 2018, 10:29:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 16, 2018, 08:12:46 PM
But as H.B. pointed out (as have senior state DOT officials in Virginia and Maryland), the idea behind ADHS was (and remains) economic development, and to induce demand for people to visit the places along the way.  Upgrades to those U.S. routes probably do not result in much economic development. Providing a new route for trucks across West Virginia will happen  with a completed Corridor H as well.

I've mentioned this before, but Moorefield has already seen some growth since the road was built. Sheetz, McDonald's, and some retail stores have been built near the interchange since the route was extended west of US 220. Moorefield's never going to be Morgantown or Martinsburg or Clarksburg, or even Elkins, but it's bigger than what it was pre-Corridor H.

I'd also posit that Buckhannon's growth is due in large part to Corridor H.

I'm a bit surprised, though, that the development in Elkins continues to concentrate south of town, instead of out by the expressway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 16, 2018, 10:55:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 16, 2018, 10:29:37 PM
I've mentioned this before, but Moorefield has already seen some growth since the road was built. Sheetz, McDonald's, and some retail stores have been built near the interchange since the route was extended west of US 220. Moorefield's never going to be Morgantown or Martinsburg or Clarksburg, or even Elkins, but it's bigger than what it was pre-Corridor H.

I'd also posit that Buckhannon's growth is due in large part to Corridor H.

I'm a bit surprised, though, that the development in Elkins continues to concentrate south of town, instead of out by the expressway.

The Sheetz in Moorefield replaced an old store a mile down the road at the intersection of US 220 and Old WV 55. There was already a retail strip on the north side of town before Corridor H.

The strip on the north side of Buckhannon is largely a migration from what was previously on the south side of town by Tennerton.

The bulk of the population in Randolph County outside of Elkins is south of town, as is Pocahontas County, for which Elkins is the shopping center. The south side of Elkins makes more sense than along Corridor H for stores.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2018, 11:10:11 AM
So spending millions of dollars so that they can keep some Sheetz gas stations open, in light of falling population. Clearly money well spent.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Starfighterace on December 17, 2018, 11:49:11 AM
As someone who travels a lot to the Midwest as part of my employment, the sections now open of Corridor H has cut a full hour off of my trip. I also now buy gas and food along this route. I'm not the only one. Making it easier to get to the Davis and Senaca Rocks tourist areas is drawing my friends to go here instead of many Maryland or PA tourist areas. I think it was money well spent. Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 17, 2018, 11:52:23 AM
Corridor H still has a 2.7 benefit-cost ratio (https://www.edrgroup.com/pdf//Weisbrod_Hodge_Rural_Transport_ADHS_ITED.pdf), which is higher than other corridors. They were looking at more than just economic development in presenting the bigger picture of what Corridor H could deliver.

But a bigger question is that some of these projects are nothing more than pork-barrel spending (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26222282?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). How can $1 billion be justified to build a four-lane King Coal Highway (not an ADHS corridor) when the entire southwest part of the state is in steep economic and population decline? Would a highway deliver benefits that the existing two- and four-lane highways and railroads could not?

And in general, new highways shouldn't be built just to provide economic development and should be built on a more holistic standpoint. That's one of the biggest aggravating issues with I-69: it's very high cost to develop a mostly new-terrain route to somehow promote a Mexico-Canada economic pipeline that isn't any different than highways on other corridors. What makes I-69 special in comparison to a more settled I-30? Or relating to this topic, why would a company locate along Corridor H in Thomas at that one small industrial park, far from any major population and logistic centers, than I-79 and/or I-68 near Morgantown?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2018, 12:06:48 PM
Spending on gas stations and food are fine for the owners and employees of those particular establishments, but you were going to buy food and gas on your drive anyway. So one grouping of service businesses won, at the expense of another. Money is just being reallocated...no real economic development going on.

The savings of an hour is real, I don't dispute that. But again, how many people-hours is that saving over the course of a year, and at what cost.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 12:18:58 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2018, 12:06:48 PM
Spending on gas stations and food are fine for the owners and employees of those particular establishments, but you were going to buy food and gas on your drive anyway. So one grouping of service businesses won, at the expense of another. Money is just being reallocated...no real economic development going on.

The savings of an hour is real, I don't dispute that. But again, how many people-hours is that saving over the course of a year, and at what cost.



Quote from: AlexandriaVA on December 17, 2018, 11:10:11 AM
So spending millions of dollars so that they can keep some Sheetz gas stations open, in light of falling population. Clearly money well spent.

Says the guy who already lives in a place with good roads.

Here, I've got a little game for you. Drive west from your metro DC paradise and get off the interstate at Strasburg. Then, head west on US 48. Pretend those places in Moorefield don't exist. Then hope you don't get hungry, or need gas, anywhere between Strasburg and Parsons.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on December 17, 2018, 12:24:48 PM
^ I played that "game" a bit when I was stationed in D.C.  Would range as far as Davis and typically wouldn't need gas or food until I was back east of 81.  And this was before the corridor was opened west of Moorefield.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 17, 2018, 01:05:21 PM
These comparisons are useless and divisive. To bring the topic back to Corridor H, many of the replacements were not all that bad. WV 93 east of Davis was built in 1964 and had a very low traffic count with very long passing areas, gravel shoulders, and little to no development along its route. The grade down The Allegheny Front was two-lane but with numerous turnouts and passing lanes, more than adequate for the traffic counts and the minimal amount of truck traffic it received. And the other routes I mentioned earlier were built in the 1950's and early 1960's and feature very low traffic counts, very long passing areas, and soft shoulders. To upgrade these to a very good two-lane facility with hard shoulders and more climbing lanes would have been far cheaper than the all new terrain Corridor H and would have made them into a "good road."

And why shouldn't US 119/Corridor F in southeast Kentucky not be two-lane? It is well justified for its traffic projections. And is a tunnel even needed under Pine Mountain? Is the accident rate on the vastly improved mountain crossing that much higher than average? Would tolls even remotely cover the cost of the new tunnel? (Probably not.)

Not everything needs to be four-lane for the sake of being four-lane. That shouldn't be the definition of a "good road." And Kentucky (among other states) has many dubious examples of highways being built to areas for "economic development" with zero or little return on investment.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 17, 2018, 01:16:56 PM
With all respect, the idea that some on-the-cheap passing lanes or whatever is an alternative to construction of a proper safe high speed highway is just wrong. 

I have lived in Appalachia all my life, and understand what motor travel was before the interstates and corridors.  You simply could not get anywhere.  Two lane roads just do not work for inter-regional travel in mountainous areas.  They just do not.  It was pretty much impossible to maintain an average of even 40 MPH over a sustained trip.  Just the facts. 

As with all "alternatives" to building a proper road, they just do not work in the real world. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on December 17, 2018, 01:25:03 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 17, 2018, 01:16:56 PM
With all respect, the idea that some on-the-cheap passing lanes or whatever is an alternative to construction of a proper safe high speed highway is just wrong. 

I have lived in Appalachia all my life, and understand what motor travel was before the interstates and corridors.  You simply could not get anywhere.  Two lane roads just do not work for inter-regional travel in mountainous areas.  They just do not.  It was pretty much impossible to maintain an average of even 40 MPH over a sustained trip.  Just the facts. 

As with all "alternatives" to building a proper road, they just do not work in the real world.
I totally agree.  I don't live in Appalachia, but I have made trips often enough through different regions of Appalachia.  Passing lanes can be good at times, but on heavier traveled routes, they would not normally be enough.  The major projects that lessen the slopes and bring in a four lane does help the overall commerce of an area.  Even a low number of truck traffic on a mountain road can cause havoc since it might be 10-15 miles before you can appropriately get around it.

Its also interesting to see the discussion move from "not everything has to be an interstate; four lanes with grade crossings can be appropriate" to not everything has to be four lanes; two lanes with some passing lanes are OK.  We are talking about what our country has made as a priority as a major artery, so the hopes are funneling more traffic to that artery, so the four lanes should be a requirement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 17, 2018, 03:04:55 PM
I thankfully had access to decent four-lane roads as a lifelong resident in Appalachia, but do know the pain of having to travel on antiquated roads. But when major highway projects can cost up to $1 billion to serve a rapidly depopulating area (using the King Coal example), what would be the return on the investment? Would it ever be worth $1 billion to construct a four-lane highway to serve few, if any industries? To serve shrinking towns of 2,000 that are declining absent of an over-reliance on one industry? In that case, the state has realized that it can build a viable two-lane road, on a four-lane ROW, at a far cheaper cost in order to get the route developed quicker.

It's more of a theoretical question more or less centered on economics (as that is one of the major factors for the development of the ADHS corridors). There are other factors that can go into developing a corridor, such as time considerations, logistics, tourism, etc.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 17, 2018, 04:15:17 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 17, 2018, 01:16:56 PM
I have lived in Appalachia all my life, and understand what motor travel was before the interstates and corridors.  You simply could not get anywhere.  Two lane roads just do not work for inter-regional travel in mountainous areas.  They just do not.  It was pretty much impossible to maintain an average of even 40 MPH over a sustained trip.  Just the facts. 

2-lane highways have inherent limitations for inter-regional highways, even in level and gently rolling terrain.  It doesn't take much more than about 5,000 AADT and a 10% large truck percentage to seriously bog down such a highway in the higher daily traffic times.  On a trip of 50 to 100 miles or more this leads to very inefficient travel and poor service for the towns and cities along the way.   With 4 lanes divided you have a continuous passing lane each way and a divider separating oncoming traffic.  There is simply no comparison.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 04:23:20 PM
Other than the dam at Mt. Storm Lake, I don't understand why a mostly new-terrain route was built for Corridor H. I don't understand why they didn't build two parallel lanes, like Virginia does, and then rebuild the base and that one substandard bridge on WV 93.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on December 17, 2018, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 04:23:20 PM
Other than the dam at Mt. Storm Lake, I don't understand why a mostly new-terrain route was built for Corridor H. I don't understand why they didn't build two parallel lanes, like Virginia does, and then rebuild the base and that one substandard bridge on WV 93.

Looks like they would have to follow at least 3 different existing highways, including relocations in some places and some town bypasses.

Based on similar terrain and construction post-1990, a more comparable project would be US-58 between I-77 and Stuart, with major relocations in some places and a total rebuild where it follows the existing highway.  And like Corridor H, this highway still has some links not yet built.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 18, 2018, 12:54:00 PM
Sidebar, Streetview is on the newest segment of Corridor H near Thomas/Davis: https://goo.gl/maps/EZavALDkNnM2

I also didn't realize US 48 was co-signed down to Karens from Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 18, 2018, 03:03:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 17, 2018, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 17, 2018, 04:23:20 PM
Other than the dam at Mt. Storm Lake, I don't understand why a mostly new-terrain route was built for Corridor H. I don't understand why they didn't build two parallel lanes, like Virginia does, and then rebuild the base and that one substandard bridge on WV 93.

Looks like they would have to follow at least 3 different existing highways, including relocations in some places and some town bypasses.

I just meant the section between Davis and Scherr that utilizes WV 93. That road was already flat and relatively straight.

Quote from: seicer on December 18, 2018, 12:54:00 PM
Sidebar, Streetview is on the newest segment of Corridor H near Thomas/Davis: https://goo.gl/maps/EZavALDkNnM2

I also didn't realize US 48 was co-signed down to Karens from Davis.

It's been signed all the way to I-79 for a couple of years now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
I'm more interested in those neat Corridor H mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/eBiQjbN7SXU2). Has that H shield ever been seen on a standalone sign?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 18, 2018, 07:15:40 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
I'm more interested in those neat Corridor H mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/eBiQjbN7SXU2). Has that H shield ever been seen on a standalone sign?

No. The shield is only used on the ARC corridor mile markers.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2018, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 18, 2018, 07:15:40 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
I'm more interested in those neat Corridor H mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/eBiQjbN7SXU2). Has that H shield ever been seen on a standalone sign?

No. The shield is only used on the ARC corridor mile markers.

The pre-I-22 US 78 blue-on-white shields featuring "Corridor X" in the surrounding field were actually quite striking; has any other ARC's corridor's route shielding contained corridor ID along with the route number like that example?   One would think that a high-visibility corridor project with significant new-terrain mileage like H would have done something similar with their US 48 signage. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 18, 2018, 09:57:58 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 09:17:03 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 18, 2018, 07:15:40 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
I'm more interested in those neat Corridor H mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/eBiQjbN7SXU2). Has that H shield ever been seen on a standalone sign?

No. The shield is only used on the ARC corridor mile markers.

The pre-I-22 US 78 blue-on-white shields featuring "Corridor X" in the surrounding field were actually quite striking; has any other ARC's corridor's route shielding contained corridor ID along with the route number like that example?   One would think that a high-visibility corridor project with significant new-terrain mileage like H would have done something similar with their US 48 signage. 

This style of signage is used on all ARC corridors in West Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 18, 2018, 10:19:33 PM
It's more reflective in how West Virginia classifies this highway: not as US 48, or a regular expressway, but as Corridor H, a road type by itself. The mileage is indicative of Corridor H's, not US 48. I'm not aware of other states doing this.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 18, 2018, 10:19:33 PM
The mileage is indicative of Corridor H's, not US 48.

Won't US 48 and Corridor H be completely the same when it's finished?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 19, 2018, 09:57:15 AM
Quote from: seicer on December 18, 2018, 10:19:33 PM
It's more reflective in how West Virginia classifies this highway: not as US 48, or a regular expressway, but as Corridor H, a road type by itself. The mileage is indicative of Corridor H's, not US 48. I'm not aware of other states doing this.

Correct.  WV DOH (remember in WV "county route" is just a name for a road, still under state control, there are no county road departments, meaning a WV DOH county superintendent has a lot of responsibility.

So the DOH chain of command is, sort of, State, District, County.  But the county only has responsibility for all the other roads.  Parallel to the County is an "Expressway Orginization" with its own garage and equipment which operates as a sort of quasi-county.

The Expressway Orginizations will be named "Interstate (number) , Section (number)" or "Corridor (letter), Section (number)".  With the borders ending at a specific mile post, not at a county line.  This is the reason for the blue mile posts.  In house, and to a great degree in the general public, Corridor roads are always "Corridor *" never their US route number. 

As the state moves past the ARC allocation, US 35 now has a "US 35 Expressway Orginization" and, IIRC, WV 9 and US 340 (which have similar mile posts, but using the state or US shield in place of the state outline) share a "Eastern Panhandle Expressway Orginization".

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2018, 10:22:02 AM
I've always advocated that the ADHS corridors should have their own separate logo signage to indicate where the corridor moves from one numbered route to another (as does Corridor J on its run from Chattanooga to London). It could be based on the ARC logo. If I had Photoshop skills, I'd design the sign myself.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 19, 2018, 10:48:02 AM
I agree.  Although the ARC map is just a hard to decipher blob to most people.  I would not mind just a plain white square as:

APPALACHIAN

        H


CORRIDOR

perhaps with a blue outline and letters.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 19, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
Isn't it technically (in West Virginia) the Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System? (I think there was a sign out there with that.) So wouldn't a shield have Robert C. Byrd's face in the background, with H in the center? :D
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on December 19, 2018, 12:35:12 PM
Among the sweet ironies of fate is the fact that of the 1000 things the old fake and narcissist named for himself, the general public in common use uses exactly none of them in common ordinary language.  No on would say "RC Byrd Appalachian Highway System" or "RC Byrd Locks and Dam" or RC Byrd anything.  People just say the generic name for it, just like most people call it the "Peach Bowl" and not the "Chik-fil-a Peach Bowl".  Even the locals around the Robert C. Byrd High School just say "RCB High" and Marshall University students call the "RC Byrd Biotechnology Science Center" the "biotech building".

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 19, 2018, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 19, 2018, 11:38:34 AM
Isn't it technically (in West Virginia) the Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System? (I think there was a sign out there with that.) So wouldn't a shield have Robert C. Byrd's face in the background, with H in the center? :D

The US 33 portion of Corridor H is the Robert C. Byrd Expressway on the Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System.

Also, US 22 is the Robert C. Byrd Freeway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on December 19, 2018, 05:59:28 PM
Just a white picture of a generic bird ("byrd") with the corridor designation inside on a blue background, with "Appalachian" above and "Corridor" below.  Somehow I don't think the phonetic spelling would make much of a difference to anyone but direct descendants! ;-)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: plain on January 08, 2019, 10:57:25 AM
Maybe they can bring back the old WV Tpk shape and use that for the corridors. At least the signs would be distinctive. Or maybe just white on blue like US 78 in Alabama was before I-22 became signed, even though I know none of the corridors are freeways.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2018, 05:59:28 PM
Just a white picture of a generic bird ("byrd") with the corridor designation inside on a blue background, with "Appalachian" above and "Corridor" below.  Somehow I don't think the phonetic spelling would make much of a difference to anyone but direct descendants! ;-)

What kind of byrd would we recommend ... a buzzard?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on January 08, 2019, 11:43:00 AM
Quote from: plain on January 08, 2019, 10:57:25 AM
Maybe they can bring back the old WV Tpk shape and use that for the corridors. At least the signs would be distinctive. Or maybe just white on blue like US 78 in Alabama was before I-22 became signed, even though I know none of the corridors are freeways.

I've always thought the white/blue signage seen on Corridor X/US 78/AL 4 (pre-I-22) was one of the most striking and attractive schemes I'd seen for specifying a specific road classification.  I'd heartily recommend it for general use on all non-Interstate ARC corridors -- including WV.  Such US 48 signage would really "pop" along Corridor "H".  But obviously the cost of deploying all that signage over 20+ corridors may be prohibitive, so despite its appropriateness, it's unlikely to happen without a concerted (and likely subsidized) effort to do so.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: LeftyJR on May 07, 2019, 06:29:44 AM
Anything new happening on Corridor H this spring?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 03:02:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2018, 05:59:28 PM
Just a white picture of a generic bird ("byrd") with the corridor designation inside on a blue background, with "Appalachian" above and "Corridor" below.  Somehow I don't think the phonetic spelling would make much of a difference to anyone but direct descendants! ;-)

What kind of byrd would we recommend ... a buzzard?

A byrd sign should be used for TOTSOs because the sign can emphasize the need to turn! Turn! Turn!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on May 07, 2019, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 03:02:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2018, 05:59:28 PM
Just a white picture of a generic bird ("byrd") with the corridor designation inside on a blue background, with "Appalachian" above and "Corridor" below.  Somehow I don't think the phonetic spelling would make much of a difference to anyone but direct descendants! ;-)

What kind of byrd would we recommend ... a buzzard?

A byrd sign should be used for TOTSOs because the sign can emphasize the need to turn! Turn! Turn!

And one of the APL BGS' should use "Roger" and the other "Jim" so McGuinn can choose which namesake freeway on which to travel at any particular time! 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 07:21:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2019, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2019, 03:02:16 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 08, 2019, 11:16:06 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2018, 05:59:28 PM
Just a white picture of a generic bird ("byrd") with the corridor designation inside on a blue background, with "Appalachian" above and "Corridor" below.  Somehow I don't think the phonetic spelling would make much of a difference to anyone but direct descendants! ;-)

What kind of byrd would we recommend ... a buzzard?

A byrd sign should be used for TOTSOs because the sign can emphasize the need to turn! Turn! Turn!

And one of the APL BGS' should use "Roger" and the other "Jim" so McGuinn can choose which namesake freeway on which to travel at any particular time! 

Once he gets back from Rio, anyway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 07, 2019, 10:36:19 PM
Some of the grade accents do leave you thinking you are 8 miles high.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Starfighterace on May 08, 2019, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: LeftyJR on May 07, 2019, 06:29:44 AM
Anything new happening on Corridor H this spring?

I drove thru in early April. Bridge Piers were up where it crosses 219 south of Parsons. Nothing changed where 219 at Kerns ends. One would think they would be cutting trees and moving dirt at this section. You can see from 219 between Montrose and Kerns where dirt is being moved and trees cut. Just not much to see as the route is a bit far from the current 219 alignment. Not sure how the Interchange with WV72 is progressing west of Parsons. Didn't go out that way.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on May 08, 2019, 10:41:31 PM
Quote from: Starfighterace on May 08, 2019, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: LeftyJR on May 07, 2019, 06:29:44 AM
Anything new happening on Corridor H this spring?

I drove thru in early April. Bridge Piers were up where it crosses 219 south of Parsons. Nothing changed where 219 at Kerns ends. One would think they would be cutting trees and moving dirt at this section. You can see from 219 between Montrose and Kerns where dirt is being moved and trees cut. Just not much to see as the route is a bit far from the current 219 alignment. Not sure how the Interchange with WV72 is progressing west of Parsons. Didn't go out that way.

The part up to the WV 72 interchange doesn't go out to bid until later this month.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on June 04, 2019, 02:02:11 PM
Two big funding announcements for the Kerens to Parsons segment: http://wvmetronews.com/2019/06/03/corridor-h-authority-president-welcomes-state-and-federal-funding-announcements/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2019, 10:12:42 PM
Quote from: Starfighterace on May 08, 2019, 09:31:26 AM
Quote from: LeftyJR on May 07, 2019, 06:29:44 AM
Anything new happening on Corridor H this spring?

I drove thru in early April. Bridge Piers were up where it crosses 219 south of Parsons. Nothing changed where 219 at Kerns ends. One would think they would be cutting trees and moving dirt at this section. You can see from 219 between Montrose and Kerns where dirt is being moved and trees cut. Just not much to see as the route is a bit far from the current 219 alignment. Not sure how the Interchange with WV72 is progressing west of Parsons. Didn't go out that way.

Saw that bridge in April, and the piers imply that this bridge that will carry Corridor H over the "old" 219 and Haddix Run may be the highest bridge yet on West Virginia's part of the project, it looks to be even higher than the structure that carries Corridor H over the Lost River in Hardy County.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on July 14, 2019, 08:57:42 PM
I drove US 219 and WV 72 through the construction area today. There is no visible construction at the current end of Corridor H at Kerens, although the stub end is full of construction equipment, offices, and staging.

I got caught in a torrential downpour near the Randolph/Tucker county line. The area where Corridor H will cross US 219 was a mess due to the storm - lots of sediment-filled water running across the old road. There's no sign of any construction from WV 72 north of Parsons.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on July 16, 2019, 09:07:20 AM
I see construction being delayed because of the constant rainfall. 2019 will most likely break the 2018 record for many areas.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2019, 08:01:39 AM
An informal workshop is being held about updates to Corridor H, which now includes a truck bypass of Thomas: Handout (http://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/handout.pdf)

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 20, 2019, 08:01:39 AM
An informational workshop is being held about updates to Corridor H, which now includes a truck bypass of Thomas: Handout (http://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/handout.pdf)
FTFY
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on September 20, 2019, 05:49:19 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 20, 2019, 08:01:39 AM
An informational workshop is being held about updates to Corridor H, which now includes a truck bypass of Thomas: Handout (http://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/handout.pdf)
FTFY

Looks like they're opting for a mostly new-terrain route.  It would also be likely that US 219 would be moved to the new Thomas bypass and intersect Corridor H/US 48 near Davis and subsequently follow it all the way to north of Elkins, where it presently departs the corridor.  But this alignment will entail a rather impressive bridge over Blackwater Gorge -- I'd certainly like to see any forthcoming plans for this structure.  But the start date of 2031 is a bit discouraging if not unexpected, considering this corridor's history. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2019, 08:47:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 20, 2019, 05:49:19 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 20, 2019, 08:01:39 AM
An informational workshop is being held about updates to Corridor H, which now includes a truck bypass of Thomas: Handout (http://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/handout.pdf)
FTFY

Looks like they're opting for a mostly new-terrain route.  It would also be likely that US 219 would be moved to the new Thomas bypass and intersect Corridor H/US 48 near Davis and subsequently follow it all the way to north of Elkins, where it presently departs the corridor.  But this alignment will entail a rather impressive bridge over Blackwater Gorge -- I'd certainly like to see any forthcoming plans for this structure.  But the start date of 2031 is a bit discouraging if not unexpected, considering this corridor's history.

There's a decent amount of truck traffic on 219 between Parsons and Thomas now, and I'm sure truckers would appreciate a through route that takes them off that mountain. Looks like the new route will obliterate that route, but trucks still won't want to get off Corridor H there and go down to the stop sign at Thomas where they have to turn left at a T-intersection. And I'm sure the residents and businesses (many tourist-themed) in Thomas wouldn't want more heavy trucks rumbling down those one-way streets that turn much of the business district into an island in the asphalt. So the truck bypass is definitely warranted. I'm guessing a grade-separated interchange at what will be WV 32/US 48/US 219 (where WV 93 currently ends) and can't really tell, but an at-grade where WV 72 joins/departs at the foot of aforesaid mountain north of downtown Parsons.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 21, 2019, 04:10:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2019, 08:47:33 PM
Looks like they're opting for a mostly new-terrain route.  It would also be likely that US 219 would be moved to the new Thomas bypass and intersect Corridor H/US 48 near Davis and subsequently follow it all the way to north of Elkins, where it presently departs the corridor.  But this alignment will entail a rather impressive bridge over Blackwater Gorge -- I'd certainly like to see any forthcoming plans for this structure.  But the start date of 2031 is a bit discouraging if not unexpected, considering this corridor's history.

Agree that U.S. 219 should be on Corridor H as much as it possibly can be. 

Given the massive structure that is under construction that will carry Corridor H over Haddix Run south of Parsons near the community of Moore, I do not think WVDOT is deterred  by large bridges on this project (there are also several on the eastern segment).

I think a change in the balance of power in Washington might speed that 2031 date up by quite a bit.  That is where the constraint is.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2019, 08:47:33 PM
There's a decent amount of truck traffic on 219 between Parsons and Thomas now, and I'm sure truckers would appreciate a through route that takes them off that mountain. Looks like the new route will obliterate that route, but trucks still won't want to get off Corridor H there and go down to the stop sign at Thomas where they have to turn left at a T-intersection. And I'm sure the residents and businesses (many tourist-themed) in Thomas wouldn't want more heavy trucks rumbling down those one-way streets that turn much of the business district into an island in the asphalt. So the truck bypass is definitely warranted. I'm guessing a grade-separated interchange at what will be WV 32/US 48/US 219 (where WV 93 currently ends) and can't really tell, but an at-grade where WV 72 joins/departs at the foot of aforesaid mountain north of downtown Parsons.

I have read about a U.S. 219 "bypass" of Thomas before, but never seen it on a map until now. This is a good idea, as it keeps the heavy truck traffic out of the historic district of Thomas.

While I think a lot of the truck drivers that venture out onto U.S. 219 today between Parsons and Thomas are familiar with the route and its dangers, I am confident that most of them would be happy to be on a new ADHS corridor highway instead.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 21, 2019, 10:38:44 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 20, 2019, 05:49:19 PM
Quote from: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 20, 2019, 08:01:39 AM
An informational workshop is being held about updates to Corridor H, which now includes a truck bypass of Thomas: Handout (http://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/handout.pdf)
FTFY

Looks like they're opting for a mostly new-terrain route.  It would also be likely that US 219 would be moved to the new Thomas bypass and intersect Corridor H/US 48 near Davis and subsequently follow it all the way to north of Elkins, where it presently departs the corridor.  But this alignment will entail a rather impressive bridge over Blackwater Gorge -- I'd certainly like to see any forthcoming plans for this structure.  But the start date of 2031 is a bit discouraging if not unexpected, considering this corridor's history.

The route goes over the North Fork Blackwater River, not Blackwater Canyon. From where the crossing is planned, I expect it to be a run-of-the-mill girder structure, albeit a taller one.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: TheOneKEA on December 06, 2019, 05:32:37 PM
The link to the handout on the WVDOT web site is broken...

What cross-section will Corridor H have across the North Fork and along the right-of-way to Hendricks? The map on the Corridor H website (http://wvcorridorh.com/davisthomas/route/index.html) is too small to see any detail about the cross-section and right-of-way width.

The map also shows that Corridor H's currently proposed alignment comes very close to the existing route of US 219. If this alignment is retained, is this likely to be a stopping point where the construction of this segment is staged?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 06, 2019, 08:27:55 PM
A friend of mine was returning home to Kentucky from DC, and her GPS routed her along US 48. I need to ask her what kind of device she was using. Apparently, enough of the route is done to convince the algorithms in those devices that Corridor H is an appropriate through route, instead of using I-68 or I-64 to get across the ECD.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 06, 2019, 10:34:24 PM
Speaking of: Apple Maps has the latest aerials of Corridor H starting at Thomas/Davis (https://maps.apple.com/?address=Thomas,%20WV,%20United%20States&auid=16196440902729066833&ll=39.151008,-79.496931&lsp=6489&q=Thomas&_ext=Ch8KBQgEEOIBCgQIBRADCgQIBhADCgQIChAMCgQIVRAIEiYpUgslk1OPQ0AxyyxCsRXhU8A5220XmuuWQ0BBKLou/ODdU8BQDA%3D%3D)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: X99 on December 07, 2019, 05:31:13 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 06, 2019, 10:34:24 PM
Speaking of: Apple Maps has the latest aerials of Corridor H starting at Thomas/Davis (https://maps.apple.com/?address=Thomas,%20WV,%20United%20States&auid=16196440902729066833&ll=39.151008,-79.496931&lsp=6489&q=Thomas&_ext=Ch8KBQgEEOIBCgQIBRADCgQIBhADCgQIChAMCgQIVRAIEiYpUgslk1OPQ0AxyyxCsRXhU8A5220XmuuWQ0BBKLou/ODdU8BQDA%3D%3D)
Screenshots please? Chrome and Edge both redirect to Google Maps.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on December 07, 2019, 06:12:08 PM
Quote from: X99 on December 07, 2019, 05:31:13 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 06, 2019, 10:34:24 PM
Speaking of: Apple Maps has the latest aerials of Corridor H starting at Thomas/Davis (https://maps.apple.com/?address=Thomas,%20WV,%20United%20States&auid=16196440902729066833&ll=39.151008,-79.496931&lsp=6489&q=Thomas&_ext=Ch8KBQgEEOIBCgQIBRADCgQIBhADCgQIChAMCgQIVRAIEiYpUgslk1OPQ0AxyyxCsRXhU8A5220XmuuWQ0BBKLou/ODdU8BQDA%3D%3D)
Screenshots please? Chrome and Edge both redirect to Google Maps.

Must be an iDevice thing, because I didn't know Apple had maps online that could be viewed in a browser. I use a Mac (but an old OS) and it redirected to Google Maps in Chrome. I guess I could try Safari and see what happens, but it's an old version.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 07, 2019, 07:10:05 PM
I'm using Chrome but it prompts to use the Apple Maps app in macOS. I can't screenshot the entire route - but if you use the Apple Maps app and scroll to Davis/Thomas, you can trace out the route.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 07, 2019, 09:58:46 PM
The Tucker County Assessor has 2019 imagery showing both the current end at Davis/Thomas and some of the construction underway for the Kerens-Parsons segment. It's available at https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=044c027bd8d04ac5857b3f53b776ccf8
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 13, 2020, 01:21:04 PM
http://wvmetronews.com/2020/01/13/resolution-passed-to-add-frederick-county-va-to-west-virginia/

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on January 13, 2020, 02:04:12 PM
That's one way to get Corridor H finished to Strasburg.   I thought at first this was a story from "The Onion", but I guess it's legit.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 13, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
^ Not necessarily.  Strasburg is in Shenandoah County.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 13, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 13, 2020, 02:04:12 PM
That's one way to get Corridor H finished to Strasburg.   I thought at first this was a story from "The Onion", but I guess it's legit.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
^ Not necessarily.  Strasburg is in Shenandoah County.


Well, it would get the mountainous part at the state line crossing done, anyway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: vdeane on January 13, 2020, 08:48:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 13, 2020, 02:04:12 PM
That's one way to get Corridor H finished to Strasburg.   I thought at first this was a story from "The Onion", but I guess it's legit.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
^ Not necessarily.  Strasburg is in Shenandoah County.


Well, it would get the mountainous part at the state line crossing done, anyway.
Could US 48/Corridor H be re-aligned onto a new alignment bypassing the part in Shenandoah County?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on January 14, 2020, 07:01:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 13, 2020, 08:48:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 13, 2020, 02:04:12 PM
That's one way to get Corridor H finished to Strasburg.   I thought at first this was a story from "The Onion", but I guess it's legit.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
^ Not necessarily.  Strasburg is in Shenandoah County.


Well, it would get the mountainous part at the state line crossing done, anyway.
Could US 48/Corridor H be re-aligned onto a new alignment bypassing the part in Shenandoah County?

Topographically speaking this could be done to arc it around to meet I-66/81 interchange...

Fixed quote.  -Mark
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on January 14, 2020, 02:58:07 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 14, 2020, 07:01:49 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 13, 2020, 08:48:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 13, 2020, 02:04:12 PM
That's one way to get Corridor H finished to Strasburg.   I thought at first this was a story from "The Onion", but I guess it's legit.

Quote from: froggie on January 13, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
^ Not necessarily.  Strasburg is in Shenandoah County.


Well, it would get the mountainous part at the state line crossing done, anyway.
Could US 48/Corridor H be re-aligned onto a new alignment bypassing the part in Shenandoah County?

Topographically speaking this could be done to arc it around to meet I-66/81 interchange...

Fixed quote.  -Mark


I think froggie's comment earlier in this thread is probably accurate as to why it's unlikely ever to connect directly to Exit 300. The reference to "address[ing]the merging" refers to a prior comment from hbelkins about how tying Corridor H into Exit 300 would allow for rebuilding that interchange to eliminate the left-side merge from I-66 to southbound I-81.

Quote from: froggie on February 26, 2017, 08:25:17 AM
Given a lengthy mining operation (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0211233,-78.3184111,4374m/data=!3m1!1e3), plus the location of Ceder Creek, north of Strasburg (running from Exit 298 to northwest of Middletown), a direct Corridor H connection to the I-66/I-81 interchange is no longer feasible.  What would be feasible is a straighter connection between US 48/VA 55 and I-81, meeting at the curve on I-81 just northeast of their existing interchange.  Widening I-81 between Corridor H and I-66 could be tied into such a project, and would reduce the need to rebuilt the 66/81 interchange to address the merging.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2020, 04:25:22 PM
Does the eastern portion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Interstate 81 in Strasburg have a construction date yet? I know construction on this segment was deferred in 2003, but has the process been restarted to design and construct this segment of Corridor H?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2020, 04:25:22 PM
Does the eastern portion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Interstate 81 in Strasburg have a construction date yet? I know construction on this segment was deferred in 2003, but has the process been restarted to design and construct this segment of Corridor H?
As far as I'm aware, there's no current plans at least on the Virginia side.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: X99 on January 16, 2020, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2020, 04:25:22 PM
Does the eastern portion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Interstate 81 in Strasburg have a construction date yet? I know construction on this segment was deferred in 2003, but has the process been restarted to design and construct this segment of Corridor H?
As far as I'm aware, there's no current plans at least on the Virginia side.
Are there proposals, such as how big the road will be? I'm essentially asking if it's supposed to be a two lane road (it already is), a four lane expressway, or a four lane freeway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on January 17, 2020, 07:46:41 AM
    US 48 WEST            US 48 EAST
        DAVIS                MOOREFIELD
        <----                       ---->

       Back to the highway again!

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on January 17, 2020, 09:16:48 AM
Quote from: X99 on January 16, 2020, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2020, 04:25:22 PM
Does the eastern portion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Interstate 81 in Strasburg have a construction date yet? I know construction on this segment was deferred in 2003, but has the process been restarted to design and construct this segment of Corridor H?
As far as I'm aware, there's no current plans at least on the Virginia side.
Are there proposals, such as how big the road will be? I'm essentially asking if it's supposed to be a two lane road (it already is), a four lane expressway, or a four lane freeway.

West Virginia's assumption is certainly that Virginia will build a 4-lane at-grade expressway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on January 17, 2020, 10:35:38 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on January 17, 2020, 09:16:48 AM
Quote from: X99 on January 16, 2020, 10:33:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 16, 2020, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2020, 04:25:22 PM
Does the eastern portion of Corridor H from Wardensville to Interstate 81 in Strasburg have a construction date yet? I know construction on this segment was deferred in 2003, but has the process been restarted to design and construct this segment of Corridor H?
As far as I'm aware, there's no current plans at least on the Virginia side.
Are there proposals, such as how big the road will be? I'm essentially asking if it's supposed to be a two lane road (it already is), a four lane expressway, or a four lane freeway.

West Virginia's assumption is certainly that Virginia will build a 4-lane at-grade expressway.

Nothing regarding VA 55 west of Strasburg is present as best I can tell in VTRANS 2040 except more park and ride at I-66 and safety improvements at 2 intersections west of I-66.

VA 55 was not in VTRANS 2030 or 2035 either...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 17, 2020, 11:16:36 AM
What's the status of WV's construction from the current end of the four-lane eastward toward the state line? Be nice to eliminate that 25 mph speed trap in downtown Wardensville.

I saw something in some news coverage about the Corridor Q (US 460) construction that indicated portions of that route between the state line and Grundy would be built as an improved two-lane with truck lanes on the grades (a surface super-2). Wonder if that couldn't become an option for the Virginia portion of Corridor H?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 03:01:50 PM
Guys let's just be honest. There's no way in h*** any county/city in VA would want to move to WV. You can throw corridor H on the same pile as I-73, I-74, and I-87 none of these will be built within the next 20-30 years. Each route will start as soon as you cross the state line. Each State should have had a cooperative agreement with Virginia before their respective sections were started.

The only new interstate (or Appalachian Development Highway) you'll see in VA within the next 10 years is I-785.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 03:58:51 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 03:01:50 PM
Each route will start as soon as you cross the state line. Each State should have a cooperative agreement with Virginia before their respective sections were started
North Carolina has already said they will not be upgrading US-220 to interstate standards north of NC-68 until Virginia begins their portion near Martinsville, such as the Martinsville Southern Connector project extending the US-220 freeway to the state line.

NC-68 will likely be the northern terminus of I-73 for quite awhile.

Likewise, they will not construct I-73 south of the Rockingham Bypass until South Carolina begins their portion. The under construction Rockingham Bypass is likely the last I-73 segment to be completed for quite awhile as it will finish the interstate throughout the state with the exception of those connecting pieces mentioned above.

As for I-87, the state does plan to complete the interstate to the state line, potentially beginning around 2027. What Virginia does with their segment... who knows. The 12 mile US-17 segment in Virginia is currently under study and is one of the candidate projects for the 2045 LRTP in Hampton Roads... but that's about it. Until the segment between the Elizabeth City Bypass and the state line is built, there will probably be nothing done in Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 05:40:06 PM
Yeah that's the point of my post @sprjus4.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 05:44:34 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 05:40:06 PM
Yeah that's the point of my post @sprjus4.
My post was more geared at the fact I-73 won't be extended all the way to the Virginia state line until we build our part.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 06:01:17 PM
I get your point. To me that remaining 20 miles already has interchanges at every major intersection and zero stop lights at the remaining at-grade intersections. Many sections only require widened shoulders to meet interstate standards. It's smooth sailing from the NC State Line all the way to Rockingham. That limited access section will be more than adequate for the next 30+ years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 06:01:17 PM
I get your point. To me that remaining 20 miles already has interchanges at every major intersection and zero stop lights at the remaining at-grade intersections. Many sections only require widened shoulders to meet interstate standards. It's smooth sailing from the NC State Line all the way to Rockingham. That limited access section will be more than adequate for the next 30+ years.
Once I-73 is constructed in Virginia (if ever) and North Carolina upgrades that segment, work will likely involve replacing most if not all of the bridges, as they're all 60s design, old, substandard, structurally deficient and have inadequate vertical clearances, along with expanding the interchanges to meet modern design standards. The few at-grade access points will be closed and frontage roads constructed to provide access, the shoulders widened to 10 feet, and the speed limit increased to 70 mph.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Strider on January 19, 2020, 11:28:12 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 17, 2020, 06:07:16 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 17, 2020, 06:01:17 PM
I get your point. To me that remaining 20 miles already has interchanges at every major intersection and zero stop lights at the remaining at-grade intersections. Many sections only require widened shoulders to meet interstate standards. It's smooth sailing from the NC State Line all the way to Rockingham. That limited access section will be more than adequate for the next 30+ years.
Once I-73 is constructed in Virginia (if ever) and North Carolina upgrades that segment, work will likely involve replacing most if not all of the bridges, as they're all 60s design, old, substandard, structurally deficient and have inadequate vertical clearances, along with expanding the interchanges to meet modern design standards. The few at-grade access points will be closed and frontage roads constructed to provide access, the shoulders widened to 10 feet, and the speed limit increased to 70 mph.


To add to that, North Carolina is preparing for the upgrade of US 220 to interstate standards. They are currently widening the northbound US 220 lanes across the train tracks to include shoulders near the northern end of Business 220 interchange (the southbound one was already finished). They also have two bridges to be replaced within the next 5 years: the NC 135/US 311 interchange and NC 770 interchange.

Since VA's CTB approved the route for MSC, it is going to get built within next 10-20 years. I-73 will be extended to the state line area eventually.

Back to Corridor H, what is the update on it?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 20, 2020, 06:36:46 AM
What update would there be? It's not like West Virginia is going to annex in some counties in West Virginia, or that Virginia is going to build their section in the near future.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 20, 2020, 09:04:54 AM
I can't wait for Corridor H news to populate this thread again.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on January 20, 2020, 09:49:01 AM
Latest info I can find...

Public comment was held in summer 2018.  The materials with this had a timeline that included expecting a court ruling in 2020, ROW in 2025 and construction start in 2027
https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/closed/CorridorH-WardensvilletoVaLine/Pages/default.aspx

A document (https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=007317577438028001491:qegzy4_qlvm&q=https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/closed/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/LocationAndStatus.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjsybK8s5LnAhUp11kKHZbTCIA4ChAWMAZ6BAgDEAI&usg=AOvVaw27WTsjZenKsYgjMqOyjHHx) dated August 20, 2019 shows the section as undergoing additional environmental review

Sen Capito and another Congressman were working to put forth legislation that would result in WV getting more Appalachian Corridor Funding - Oct 30, 2019 article (https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/wv-s-sen-capito-rep-mooney-work-to-secure-funding/article_7290751f-6411-519c-bd32-247d85ff8f96.html).  I have no idea if this got anywhere.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on January 20, 2020, 04:33:51 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 20, 2020, 09:49:01 AM

Sen Capito and another Congressman were working to put forth legislation that would result in WV getting more Appalachian Corridor Funding - Oct 30, 2019 article (https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/wv-s-sen-capito-rep-mooney-work-to-secure-funding/article_7290751f-6411-519c-bd32-247d85ff8f96.html).  I have no idea if this got anywhere.

I thought that the concept of dedicated APD money is gone, and it all goes into a general pot of federal highway money. If there was dedicated APD money, Virginia would have no excuse to not build its portion.

Interesting observation from that story.

"A segment of approximately 66 miles from Davis to Wardensville in Hardy County is also open to traffic."

That certainly does not feel like a 66-mile-long highway.  The distance seems much shorter.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 20, 2020, 05:28:56 PM
Yep, measures out to around 66 miles. It sure feels shorter but I think that's because you can now go 65 MPH (or let's face it, 75 MPH) instead of 20-55 MPH.

In comparison, the Weston to Kerens segment is 40 miles but it feels much longer!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on January 21, 2020, 08:25:00 AM
 Topic locked until people can read the title properly.

Topic unlocked. CORRIDOR H DISCUSSION ONLY.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mvak36 on January 22, 2020, 09:31:24 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 20, 2020, 09:49:01 AM

Sen Capito and another Congressman were working to put forth legislation that would result in WV getting more Appalachian Corridor Funding - Oct 30, 2019 article (https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/wv-s-sen-capito-rep-mooney-work-to-secure-funding/article_7290751f-6411-519c-bd32-247d85ff8f96.html).  I have no idea if this got anywhere.

I found the bills that this article is talking about: Senate (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2271/) and House (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4896)

It doesn't look like much progress on them since they've been filed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on July 20, 2020, 11:47:45 AM
WVDOH posted some drone footage of construction on Corridor H. It appears to be in the vicinity of the Randolph/Tucker county line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ZBNMStKuk
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on July 20, 2020, 04:58:54 PM
I always wonder how these bridges will ultimately get replaced 50 to 100 years from now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2020, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: seicer on July 20, 2020, 04:58:54 PM
I always wonder how these bridges will ultimately get replaced 50 to 100 years from now.

There will presumably be at least one replacement of the bridge deck during the life of the bridge.  Maybe more than once.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 17, 2020, 10:58:28 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/117947689_10108082761832420_1327460854333908705_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_ohc=Y__jJLOAqKgAX-1rO06&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=ffb952963ae5efd7204cca03178ddafc&oe=5F60D7B8)

First time seeing Corridor H shields in the wild!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 20, 2020, 11:47:45 AM
WVDOH posted some drone footage of construction on Corridor H. It appears to be in the vicinity of the Randolph/Tucker county line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ZBNMStKuk

I believe this is in Tucker County south of the small community of Moore. 

The road under the bridge is (for now) U.S. 219 (Seneca Trail).  Once this part of Corridor H is open, I believe U.S. 219 will move to the new highway and Seneca Trail will be signed "Old Route 219" or something similar.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2020, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: seicer on August 17, 2020, 10:58:28 AM
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/117947689_10108082761832420_1327460854333908705_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=ca434c&_nc_ohc=Y__jJLOAqKgAX-1rO06&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=ffb952963ae5efd7204cca03178ddafc&oe=5F60D7B8)

First time seeing Corridor H shields in the wild!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 20, 2020, 11:47:45 AM
WVDOH posted some drone footage of construction on Corridor H. It appears to be in the vicinity of the Randolph/Tucker county line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ZBNMStKuk

I believe this is in Tucker County south of the small community of Moore. 

The road under the bridge is (for now) U.S. 219 (Seneca Trail).  Once this part of Corridor H is open, I believe U.S. 219 will move to the new highway and Seneca Trail will be signed "Old Route 219" or something similar.

Wow -- those are dinky Corridor H signs; certainly less conspicuous than the pre-I-22 signage down on Corridor X!   Since WV doesn't seem to have any issue with multiplexed routes -- or in any hurry to decommission usurped routes -- we should all expect rather elaborate "sign salads" all along the corridor's length regardless of location, particularly if existing routes such as US 219 are indeed moved to the new facility.  Hope someone gets some pix when that happens (especially on the Elkins-Weston section once US 48 signage is applied).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 17, 2020, 02:12:29 PM
The Elkins - Weston segment has been signed for about a year I think.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2020, 02:29:13 PM
Quote from: seicer on August 17, 2020, 02:12:29 PM
The Elkins - Weston segment has been signed for about a year I think.

If it's complete with US 48 and Corridor H indicators I for one would certainly like to see a picture of that signage. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: jmacswimmer on August 17, 2020, 02:32:54 PM
GSV shows US 48 shields in a few recently-updated spots on the Elkins-Weston stretch - for instance, check out this massive assembly at the WV 92 intersection outside Elkins (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9370224,-79.9139584,3a,75y,323.04h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFeCg_Lbe9JmEfLoZa4cA_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2020, 02:41:35 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on August 17, 2020, 02:32:54 PM
GSV shows US 48 shields in a few recently-updated spots on the Elkins-Weston stretch - for instance, check out this massive assembly at the WV 92 intersection outside Elkins (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9370224,-79.9139584,3a,75y,323.04h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFeCg_Lbe9JmEfLoZa4cA_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en).

Now that's a sign salad!  Anyone got some croutons and Roquefort?  :cool:
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: plain on August 17, 2020, 02:49:52 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on August 17, 2020, 02:32:54 PM
GSV shows US 48 shields in a few recently-updated spots on the Elkins-Weston stretch - for instance, check out this massive assembly at the WV 92 intersection outside Elkins (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9370224,-79.9139584,3a,75y,323.04h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFeCg_Lbe9JmEfLoZa4cA_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en).

Nice! This can also fit nicely in the Sine Salad thread.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on August 17, 2020, 02:51:28 PM
Here is the furthest west US 48 shield...just ahead is a CORR H 0.0 mile marker

https://goo.gl/maps/8Va6w9cgq5jEnyxc8
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: plain on August 17, 2020, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 17, 2020, 02:41:35 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on August 17, 2020, 02:32:54 PM
GSV shows US 48 shields in a few recently-updated spots on the Elkins-Weston stretch - for instance, check out this massive assembly at the WV 92 intersection outside Elkins (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9370224,-79.9139584,3a,75y,323.04h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFeCg_Lbe9JmEfLoZa4cA_w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?hl=en).

Now that's a sign salad!  Anyone got some croutons and Roquefort?  :cool:

I was in the process of saying how this could easily go in the Sine Salad thread but you beat me to it lmao. I like this assembly. It's clean!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 17, 2020, 03:44:36 PM
Also of note is a 40 mile construction zone between Kerens and Buchannon. The project seems to involve concrete diamond grinding and patching - I think. Parts of the concrete were patched, others were not, but I'm not sure what work needs to be done between Kerens and Elkins - that was built in 2001-02 and is still in excellent condition. (I also cannot believe it's been 20 years!) There are portions west of Elkins that are in absolute awful condition with each joint deteriorating similar to I-88 near Cobleskill.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 17, 2020, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: seicer on August 17, 2020, 03:44:36 PM
Also of note is a 40 mile construction zone between Kerens and Buchannon. The project seems to involve concrete diamond grinding and patching - I think. Parts of the concrete were patched, others were not, but I'm not sure what work needs to be done between Kerens and Elkins - that was built in 2001-02 and is still in excellent condition. (I also cannot believe it's been 20 years!) There are portions west of Elkins that are in absolute awful condition with each joint deteriorating similar to I-88 near Cobleskill.

The project is for a much-needed signage replacement. Some of the signage is pushing 30 years old and long ago lost its retroreflectivity.

The diamond grinding was done a couple years ago. The parts around the US 250/WV 92 north intersection actually had an asphalt overlay that was stripped off at the time of the diamond grinding. Full slab replacement is needed around here.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 17, 2020, 07:40:53 PM
Yeah, I remembered when that had asphalt that was heaving at the intersection. It's much smoother with the concrete, although now that the pavement is ... 26 years old, is nearing the end of its life. It's only gotten noticeably bad in the past two or so years. I think that a more thorough asphalt patching and sealing is needed at the least.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 18, 2020, 10:19:55 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 17, 2020, 01:08:07 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 20, 2020, 11:47:45 AM
WVDOH posted some drone footage of construction on Corridor H. It appears to be in the vicinity of the Randolph/Tucker county line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ZBNMStKuk

I believe this is in Tucker County south of the small community of Moore. 

The road under the bridge is (for now) U.S. 219 (Seneca Trail).  Once this part of Corridor H is open, I believe U.S. 219 will move to the new highway and Seneca Trail will be signed "Old Route 219" or something similar.

That has certainly come along quickly. I traveled US 219 from WV 90 to Elkins on my way back from the Abandoned PA Turnpike meet Thanksgiving weekend before last, and saw no evidence of bridge construction along US 219.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 18, 2020, 10:38:29 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 18, 2020, 10:19:55 AM
That has certainly come along quickly. I traveled US 219 from WV 90 to Elkins on my way back from the Abandoned PA Turnpike meet Thanksgiving weekend before last, and saw no evidence of bridge construction along US 219.

Note that my stating that this is the bridge over current 219 is speculative.  It looks right, however.  I hope to be out that way soon and take some fresh pictures of what is going there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Buck87 on September 18, 2020, 08:24:41 AM
I drove Corridor H from Weston as far as Moorfield this week, which was the first time I'd seen the Weston to Scherr section.

It was foggy the morning I went from Elkins to Moorfield, so I didn't attempt any pics. When it comes to current US 219 going under any of the bridges now under construction, the only one I remember having bridge deck in place was the one immediately after you leave Corridor H at Kerens. Now there was a bridge under construction over 219 somewhere near Moore, but it was just a bridge abutment with no deck yet....and it as a towering SOB too, must have been over 100 foot tall and I could barely make out the top in the fog.

When I got to the Fred Long Centennial park scenic overlook on 219 between Parsons and Thomas it made me glad that I passed though this area before that section of Corridor H was completed, since otherwise I would have missed this spectacular view (to which this compressed pic won't do any justice):

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200918/11b4e3767577e095fbadd9431d432eea.jpg)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 18, 2020, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas

Mill Race Park in Parsons also has picnic pavilions and restrooms. It's a block off US 48/US 219.

You might also consider Blackwater Falls State Park, which is close to Corridor H near Davis and is one of West Virginia's most prominent scenic attractions.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2020, 01:42:15 PM
The Corridor H page says the portion of US 48 from Parsons to Davis won't be constructed until 2031, though Kerens to Parsons will likely be completed before then. That means US 48 won't be a completed roadway until well into the 2030s. Is funding the reason why it will take so long to finish the entire corridor?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2020, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas

Mill Race Park in Parsons also has picnic pavilions and restrooms. It's a block off US 48/US 219.

You might also consider Blackwater Falls State Park, which is close to Corridor H near Davis and is one of West Virginia's most prominent scenic attractions.

Thanks to both you and Mapmikey. I visited Blackwater Falls in 1992, but I don't really remember it. I suppose we could go there and then go south and take Route 72 up to the Parsons area, seeing as how the last time we passed through the area (going the other direction) we already drove the Parsons-to-Thomas segment after coming down from Philippi. Route 72 between Route 32 and US-48/219 looks like it could be a fun drive, but it also looks like it has the potential to be a very slow drive. Not sure how much drive time I want to add to the day overall because I want to allow sufficient time for a relaxed dinner when we reach our destination in Ohio.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on September 18, 2020, 03:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2020, 01:42:15 PM
That means US 48 won't be a completed roadway until well into the 2030s. Is funding the reason why it will take so long to finish the entire corridor?

Money and politics.  And environmental extremism. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2020, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on September 18, 2020, 03:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 18, 2020, 01:42:15 PM
That means US 48 won't be a completed roadway until well into the 2030s. Is funding the reason why it will take so long to finish the entire corridor?

Money and politics.  And environmental extremism. 

I wonder how much time was wasted on Corridor H in the 1990's thanks to
then-EPA Region 3 (Philadelphia) Administrator Peter Kostmayer and his
anti-highway activities? 

I understood that an (unpublished) reason for Kostmayer being fired by the Clinton
Administration was that Kostmayer was using federal tax money set-aside for
environmental education to fund "grass roots" opposition to Corridor H, and when
the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) found out about that, he was not happy, and
called Clinton and asked that Kostmayer be fired, which happened within a day or
two of the call from Byrd.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2020, 06:29:18 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas

Has a nice  view looking west into lands drained by the Ohio River and is located on U.S. 219 here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B008'48.6%22N+79%C2%B034'28.7%22W/@39.1468381,-79.5768227,562m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x884ac90a3cdd7d01:0xcd7190a80caccb1b!2sThomas,+WV+26292!3b1!8m2!3d39.1489967!4d-79.498109!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.1468342!4d-79.574634).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 18, 2020, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2020, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas

Mill Race Park in Parsons also has picnic pavilions and restrooms. It's a block off US 48/US 219.

You might also consider Blackwater Falls State Park, which is close to Corridor H near Davis and is one of West Virginia's most prominent scenic attractions.

Thanks to both you and Mapmikey. I visited Blackwater Falls in 1992, but I don't really remember it. I suppose we could go there and then go south and take Route 72 up to the Parsons area, seeing as how the last time we passed through the area (going the other direction) we already drove the Parsons-to-Thomas segment after coming down from Philippi. Route 72 between Route 32 and US-48/219 looks like it could be a fun drive, but it also looks like it has the potential to be a very slow drive. Not sure how much drive time I want to add to the day overall because I want to allow sufficient time for a relaxed dinner when we reach our destination in Ohio.

Very slow. The route's barely wider than one lane in most spots.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4398/36929022981_fbcee72314_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YghTWM)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 064 (https://flic.kr/p/YghTWM) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4390/36929022311_58f6aae0a1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YghTKe)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 067 (https://flic.kr/p/YghTKe) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4370/37070562515_29882fa7e2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjHz)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 069 (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjHz) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4410/36929022071_2d7027b8be_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YghTF6)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 070 (https://flic.kr/p/YghTF6) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4371/37070561975_c9a9b509e6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjyg)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 071 (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjyg) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr


Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 18, 2020, 06:41:29 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2020, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas

Mill Race Park in Parsons also has picnic pavilions and restrooms. It's a block off US 48/US 219.

You might also consider Blackwater Falls State Park, which is close to Corridor H near Davis and is one of West Virginia's most prominent scenic attractions.

Thanks to both you and Mapmikey. I visited Blackwater Falls in 1992, but I don't really remember it. I suppose we could go there and then go south and take Route 72 up to the Parsons area, seeing as how the last time we passed through the area (going the other direction) we already drove the Parsons-to-Thomas segment after coming down from Philippi. Route 72 between Route 32 and US-48/219 looks like it could be a fun drive, but it also looks like it has the potential to be a very slow drive. Not sure how much drive time I want to add to the day overall because I want to allow sufficient time for a relaxed dinner when we reach our destination in Ohio.

WV-72 between WV-32 and U.S. 219 is a slow and rather winding trip.  EDIT: Concur with what H.B. just posted about WV-72. 

U.S. 219 from Thomas to the eastern end of western ADHS Corridor H at Kerens is a road where you can drive 55 most of the way. 

There are a few sharp curves on U.S. 219 for which you must slow-down, but not that many, and in general, traffic is light on the entire segment. 

Supposedly there is sometimes speed limit enforcement within the corporate limits of Parsons, but I have never seen it myself. 

So just observe the posted speed limit through there (it's a small town with one signalized intersection), and you will be back up to 55 pretty quickly.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 20, 2020, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 02:19:15 PM
Thanks to both you and Mapmikey. I visited Blackwater Falls in 1992, but I don't really remember it. I suppose we could go there and then go south and take Route 72 up to the Parsons area, seeing as how the last time we passed through the area (going the other direction) we already drove the Parsons-to-Thomas segment after coming down from Philippi. Route 72 between Route 32 and US-48/219 looks like it could be a fun drive, but it also looks like it has the potential to be a very slow drive. Not sure how much drive time I want to add to the day overall because I want to allow sufficient time for a relaxed dinner when we reach our destination in Ohio.

Honestly, that part of WV 72 isn't any more scenic than US 219 or other drives in the area. It's just a slow, lowly traveled route that really doesn't merit a WV primary route designation other than to connect Hambleton and Hendricks to the route network. Unless you really want to clinch WV 72, just stick to US 219 or take WV 32 to US 33 into Elkins.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 20, 2020, 06:23:18 PM
Thanks. Not going to do the 32-to-33 route because I've been that way in the past and I haven't used the segment of US-219/US-48 between Parsons and Elkins. Been on everything from the western WV-72 intersection in Parsons east to the state line, and been on all of it from Elkins west to I-79, but I'm missing that piece in between. Guess we'll just stick to the route via Thomas. Thanks for the warnings. We're heading to Dayton and my plan is to take I-66, Corridor H west to I-79, I-79/77/64 to US-35 all the way to Dayton, and then I'm not sure about I-675 around the city to I-70 versus I-75 (our hotel is northwest of the city closer to where the cemetery is).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on September 22, 2020, 02:40:05 AM
^ If you arrive in the Dayton area near evening rush hour, then taking I-675 North to I-70 West would be your better move.  However, if the cemetery is near Trotwood or Englewood, staying on US 35 West to OH 49 North on the west side of Dayton would be the best move.  US 35, after the James H. McGee Blvd interchange, and OH 49 are four-lane divided expressways with a few traffic lights.  If your hotel is at the Englewood interchange (29/OH 48), taking OH 49 to I-70 East and driving 3 miles to Englewood doesn't seem to be too much out of the way.  Off-peak, just use US 35 West-I-75 North-I-70 West.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 07:43:16 AM
Thanks. The hotel is indeed at the Englewood exit. That's not the closest location to the cemetery, which is on Dixie Drive, but (a) we've stayed there before and know it's reliable and clean, (b) there are some nearby restaurants that we like, (c) some family friends live closer to there, and (d) it's convenient to the airport, although that no longer matters because the relative who was going to fly in is not coming due to the pandemic (I'll call him via FaceTime from the cemetery).

(Edited to add: In case I was unclear, I've been to Dayton before and my wife grew up there, so in my case the question of how to get from US-35 to Englewood will be motivated by (1) taking a new route to the extent possible and (2) whether my wife is sick of being in the car by then and being vocal about her desire to get out of the car. Hence why I speculated on I-675, as I haven't used that before.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on September 23, 2020, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 18, 2020, 06:40:34 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 02:19:15 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 18, 2020, 10:43:36 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 18, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 18, 2020, 08:54:14 AM
Does anyone happen to recall whether any of the scenic overlooks on Corridor H (or the existing road between Thomas and Kerens) have any picnic tables? We'll be passing that way soon and we've considered the idea of just packing our lunch and stopping somewhere to eat instead of going to a fast-food place like we normally would.

Fred Long Centennial Park, a few miles west of Thomas

Mill Race Park in Parsons also has picnic pavilions and restrooms. It's a block off US 48/US 219.

You might also consider Blackwater Falls State Park, which is close to Corridor H near Davis and is one of West Virginia's most prominent scenic attractions.

Thanks to both you and Mapmikey. I visited Blackwater Falls in 1992, but I don't really remember it. I suppose we could go there and then go south and take Route 72 up to the Parsons area, seeing as how the last time we passed through the area (going the other direction) we already drove the Parsons-to-Thomas segment after coming down from Philippi. Route 72 between Route 32 and US-48/219 looks like it could be a fun drive, but it also looks like it has the potential to be a very slow drive. Not sure how much drive time I want to add to the day overall because I want to allow sufficient time for a relaxed dinner when we reach our destination in Ohio.

Very slow. The route's barely wider than one lane in most spots.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4398/36929022981_fbcee72314_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YghTWM)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 064 (https://flic.kr/p/YghTWM) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4390/36929022311_58f6aae0a1_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YghTKe)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 067 (https://flic.kr/p/YghTKe) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4370/37070562515_29882fa7e2_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjHz)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 069 (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjHz) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4410/36929022071_2d7027b8be_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YghTF6)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 070 (https://flic.kr/p/YghTF6) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4371/37070561975_c9a9b509e6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjyg)2017 WV route-clinching trip Day 3 - 071 (https://flic.kr/p/YtNjyg) by H.B. Elkins (https://www.flickr.com/photos/hbelkins/), on Flickr

It looks like they widened Route 72 at some point by paving over the gravel berms. The last time I drove through there in the 90s it was quite treacherous in certain spots where you couldn't see the enormous pickup truck hurling toward you at 50 MPH from around the bend.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: amroad17 on September 28, 2020, 02:13:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 07:43:16 AM
Thanks. The hotel is indeed at the Englewood exit. That's not the closest location to the cemetery, which is on Dixie Drive, but (a) we've stayed there before and know it's reliable and clean, (b) there are some nearby restaurants that we like, (c) some family friends live closer to there, and (d) it's convenient to the airport, although that no longer matters because the relative who was going to fly in is not coming due to the pandemic (I'll call him via FaceTime from the cemetery).

(Edited to add: In case I was unclear, I've been to Dayton before and my wife grew up there, so in my case the question of how to get from US-35 to Englewood will be motivated by (1) taking a new route to the extent possible and (2) whether my wife is sick of being in the car by then and being vocal about her desire to get out of the car. Hence why I speculated on I-675, as I haven't used that before.)
I did not know that you and your wife were familiar with Dayton.  I was under the assumption that the area was a place that you and her had visited very rarely.  Sorry about that. 

Anyway, if your wife isn't too sick about being in the car for that long, you should try to "clinch" I-675.  You will go back a bit northeast for 13 miles to I-70, then 15 miles to the Englewood interchange.  An extra 25-30 minutes.  Bring a snack to tie you both over!  :D
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 30, 2020, 09:57:46 AM
Quote from: amroad17 on September 28, 2020, 02:13:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2020, 07:43:16 AM
Thanks. The hotel is indeed at the Englewood exit. That's not the closest location to the cemetery, which is on Dixie Drive, but (a) we've stayed there before and know it's reliable and clean, (b) there are some nearby restaurants that we like, (c) some family friends live closer to there, and (d) it's convenient to the airport, although that no longer matters because the relative who was going to fly in is not coming due to the pandemic (I'll call him via FaceTime from the cemetery).

(Edited to add: In case I was unclear, I've been to Dayton before and my wife grew up there, so in my case the question of how to get from US-35 to Englewood will be motivated by (1) taking a new route to the extent possible and (2) whether my wife is sick of being in the car by then and being vocal about her desire to get out of the car. Hence why I speculated on I-675, as I haven't used that before.)
I did not know that you and your wife were familiar with Dayton.  I was under the assumption that the area was a place that you and her had visited very rarely.  Sorry about that. 

Anyway, if your wife isn't too sick about being in the car for that long, you should try to "clinch" I-675.  You will go back a bit northeast for 13 miles to I-70, then 15 miles to the Englewood interchange.  An extra 25-30 minutes.  Bring a snack to tie you both over!  :D

Thanks. It won't be a clinch of I-675 either way because I'm not going to drive south to the "bottom" of I-675 only to turn around and drive back the same way. That would provoke her bigtime and I can understand why. (Nipping off the southern part on the way home isn't an option because we'll be going a completely different way.) I might just use the northern part of I-675 because it looks like that only adds about eight miles versus the direct route into the city and up I-75. The route around the west side on OH-49 looks like it adds three miles versus the I-75 route but takes more time than I-675, presumably due to traffic lights. Guess we'll see how things look when we get there.
Title: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 01, 2020, 09:35:56 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on September 18, 2020, 08:24:41 AM
I drove Corridor H from Weston as far as Moorfield this week, which was the first time I'd seen the Weston to Scherr section.

It was foggy the morning I went from Elkins to Moorfield, so I didn't attempt any pics. When it comes to current US 219 going under any of the bridges now under construction, the only one I remember having bridge deck in place was the one immediately after you leave Corridor H at Kerens. Now there was a bridge under construction over 219 somewhere near Moore, but it was just a bridge abutment with no deck yet....and it as a towering SOB too, must have been over 100 foot tall and I could barely make out the top in the fog.

When I got to the Fred Long Centennial park scenic overlook on 219 between Parsons and Thomas it made me glad that I passed though this area before that section of Corridor H was completed, since otherwise I would have missed this spectacular view (to which this compressed pic won't do any justice):

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200918/11b4e3767577e095fbadd9431d432eea.jpg)

I drove all of Corridor H westbound earlier today and I did not see any notable not-yet-opened overpasses in any stage of substantial completion except, as you note, where the divided highway resumes at Kerens. The construction near Moore was three extremely tall abutments, only one of them looking near completion. No bridge deck will be in place there any time soon.

We stopped at Fred Long Centennial Park and sat on a bench to eat lunch. Good stop, if a bit chilly (52° but with some pretty good wind that made it feel colder). Nice view there. I'll edit this to add a picture. Thanks for the recommendation.

Not much fall foliage to see yet, unfortunately. Some color near Thomas, but I'd estimate another week elsewhere.

Driving on Corridor H is always a treat. Nice road, nice scenery, no traffic. I think at one point we went 25 miles and only saw one other vehicle.

We took I-675 around the east side of Dayton due to traffic.


Edited to add photo:

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201002/2d91027ab1eb5ed25fef5cf6e2bfbc2a.jpg)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Buck87 on October 02, 2020, 03:40:44 PM
Thanks for the pic. Nice to see what that view looks like without the fog.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2020, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Buck87 on October 02, 2020, 03:40:44 PM
Thanks for the pic. Nice to see what that view looks like without the fog.

There are many fine views from ADHS Corridor H.  This may well be  a place where the view from the old road will be better than from Corridor H, when the segment between Parsons and Thomas/Davis finally gets built.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:33:13 PM
When did corridor H open from Davis to the east?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 14, 2020, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:33:13 PM
When did corridor H open from Davis to the east?

Various times over the years as segments were completed. I believe the most recent portion, from near Davis east to the WV-93 access road down the mountain from the scenic overlook, opened in 2016. Everything east of there was open prior to then; my first trip on that road was in October 2012 on the way home from Dayton and we picked it up at Moorefield after cutting east from Elkins to Seneca Rocks and then north. It was open from there to Wardensville (same eastern endpoint as now), but I don't know how far west it went at the time. The following July we used Corridor H on the way home from Fallingwater and at that time it ended at the WV-93 access road mentioned above.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 15, 2020, 12:43:09 AM
^ It was open at least as far west as CR 3 when you made your first trip...I took it that far several times while I was still in DC.  It was opened past Greenland Gap to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr in October 2012.  Up the hill from there to Bismark opened in late 2013.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 20, 2020, 04:29:25 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2020, 12:43:09 AM
It was opened past Greenland Gap to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr in October 2012.  Up the hill from there to Bismark opened in late 2013.

The above is probably the most-spectacular part of Corridor H that is open to traffic now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on October 22, 2020, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2020, 12:43:09 AM
^ It was open at least as far west as CR 3 when you made your first trip...I took it that far several times while I was still in DC.  It was opened past Greenland Gap to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr in October 2012.  Up the hill from there to Bismark opened in late 2013.
Until now it was always closed past Mt Storm, when did that change?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 22, 2020, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 22, 2020, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2020, 12:43:09 AM
^ It was open at least as far west as CR 3 when you made your first trip...I took it that far several times while I was still in DC.  It was opened past Greenland Gap to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr in October 2012.  Up the hill from there to Bismark opened in late 2013.

Until now it was always closed past Mt Storm, when did that change?
It has been open past Mount Storm since late 2016. https://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/ (https://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on October 23, 2020, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 22, 2020, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 22, 2020, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2020, 12:43:09 AM
^ It was open at least as far west as CR 3 when you made your first trip...I took it that far several times while I was still in DC.  It was opened past Greenland Gap to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr in October 2012.  Up the hill from there to Bismark opened in late 2013.

Until now it was always closed past Mt Storm, when did that change?
It has been open past Mount Storm since late 2016. https://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/ (https://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/)
Gotcha, so when's the next segment opening?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 23, 2020, 12:41:08 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 23, 2020, 10:40:37 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 22, 2020, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on October 22, 2020, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 15, 2020, 12:43:09 AM
^ It was open at least as far west as CR 3 when you made your first trip...I took it that far several times while I was still in DC.  It was opened past Greenland Gap to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr in October 2012.  Up the hill from there to Bismark opened in late 2013.

Until now it was always closed past Mt Storm, when did that change?
It has been open past Mount Storm since late 2016. https://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/ (https://wvmetronews.com/2017/09/17/240752/)
Gotcha, so when's the next segment opening?

No need to ask those questions - if you can use Google, you can find the answers yourself.

But I will spare you the trouble - the WVDOT has a comprehensive site for ADHS Corridor H that you can find here (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/).  That has the answers to such questions.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on October 23, 2020, 12:46:30 PM
The page is from 2003...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 12:54:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 23, 2020, 12:46:30 PM
The page is from 2003...

The copyright date is from 2003, but the construction updates link underneath the thumbnail map says "April 2019."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Thing 342 on October 23, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
It's 18 months out-of-date and doesn't give a concrete answer to the question. This forum's tendency to give non-answers like "look it up" is a major annoyance.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on October 23, 2020, 02:28:07 PM
^

Agreed, if you aren't actually giving to the conversation, then just don't post.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 02:55:33 PM
Based on what I saw when I drove the existing road between Thomas and Kerens earlier this month, I highly doubt there is any concrete (pun intended) opening date for the next segment. The insanely high overpass being constructed near Moore is nowhere remotely close to completion–the supporting piers aren't done, much less any bridge deck.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: DeaconG on October 24, 2020, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 23, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
It's 18 months out-of-date and doesn't give a concrete answer to the question. This forum's tendency to give non-answers like "look it up" is a major annoyance.

http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map3.html
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on October 24, 2020, 10:25:55 PM
We're probably talking 2022 at the earliest for the next section. I was through the construction zone 2 weeks ago and there is quite a bit to build, including that massive bridge which is nowhere near complete.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 25, 2020, 08:54:41 AM
Quote from: DeaconG on October 24, 2020, 09:41:30 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 23, 2020, 02:25:07 PM
It's 18 months out-of-date and doesn't give a concrete answer to the question. This forum's tendency to give non-answers like "look it up" is a major annoyance.

http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/map3.html

That's the website those two just complained is too "out-of-date and doesn't give a concrete answer."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 25, 2020, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 02:55:33 PM
Based on what I saw when I drove the existing road between Thomas and Kerens earlier this month, I highly doubt there is any concrete (pun intended) opening date for the next segment. The insanely high overpass being constructed near Moore is nowhere remotely close to completion–the supporting piers aren't done, much less any bridge deck.

I recall reading someplace that the contract that WVDOT has with Kokosing, the contractor on the project between Kerens and Moore, does not include paving the new Corridor H highway.  It does include the grading and drainage work, and construction of the bridges (including that very high one over current U.S. 219 and Haddix Run near Moore), but I think a different contractor will install the subgrade and pavement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 25, 2020, 04:29:45 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 25, 2020, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 23, 2020, 02:55:33 PM
Based on what I saw when I drove the existing road between Thomas and Kerens earlier this month, I highly doubt there is any concrete (pun intended) opening date for the next segment. The insanely high overpass being constructed near Moore is nowhere remotely close to completion–the supporting piers aren't done, much less any bridge deck.

I recall reading someplace that the contract that WVDOT has with Kokosing, the contractor on the project between Kerens and Moore, does not include paving the new Corridor H highway.  It does include the grading and drainage work, and construction of the bridges (including that very high one over current U.S. 219 and Haddix Run near Moore), but I think a different contractor will install the subgrade and pavement.

Correct. Paving is being handled in a separate contract from grade/drain/bridges, as is common practice for WVDOH.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on January 26, 2021, 03:05:21 AM
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (1/30) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile Corridor H of the Appalachian Development Highway System (US Route 48) and discuss the history, current events, and features of this highway all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of the highway between Weston, WV and Strasburg, VA.

A link to the event location can be found below and we look forward to seeing you in attendance:

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 26, 2021, 02:55:20 PM
Not that this was ever proposed, but I think all of VA 55 should have been part of US 48, even though most of VA 55 east of Interstate 81 is paralleled by Interstate 66, and never would have been four-laned anyway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on February 25, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
https://www.wsaz.com/2021/02/24/bid-award-for-paving-work-on-the-section-of-corridor-h-approved/

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on February 25, 2021, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
https://www.wsaz.com/2021/02/24/bid-award-for-paving-work-on-the-section-of-corridor-h-approved/

Asphalt paving though, unlike the other construction east of Elkins which has been full-width concrete. (East Moorefield to Baker is asphalt, as is a short part at the Patterson Creek Road intersection.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 25, 2021, 10:35:53 PM
^ I wonder if it's directly attributable to cost?

Also interesting to note - why is $1 billion in construction left remaining? After the Karens-Parsons section opens, the only portions left in West Virginia is the Parsons-Davis segment and the Wardenville-Virginia state line segment.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on February 25, 2021, 11:18:23 PM
The $1.1 billion includes all remaining work. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Montrose-Davis runs over $700 million given the amount of earthwork that will be required. It's the last section to be built entirely within WV for a reason.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on February 26, 2021, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 25, 2021, 02:57:35 PM
https://www.wsaz.com/2021/02/24/bid-award-for-paving-work-on-the-section-of-corridor-h-approved/



Of course it's an expensive stretch of road -- just look at the decidedly heroic construction effort in the accompanying picture.  Kinda reminds me of the last section of I-5 in the Sacramento River Canyon that opened back in '92 -- lots of cuts and canyon bridging. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 25, 2021, 11:18:23 PM
The $1.1 billion includes all remaining work. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Montrose-Davis runs over $700 million given the amount of earthwork that will be required. It's the last section to be built entirely within WV for a reason.

It also had the most environmental issues, at least in West Virginia (not sure if there are any significant environmental concerns in Virginia, since I am not aware of a DEIS has been prepared for that part of the route). 

I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 01, 2021, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis.

These are the only species of flying squirrels in North America.  On my first project in the Youghiogheny Gorge in Southwestern Pennsylvania, the railroad signal maintainer had me look at the top of an ancient cedar telephone pole (installed by Western Union telegraph in the late 1800s or early 1900s).  He gave the pole a swift thump, and a flying squirrel popped out and flew down to a tree along the river.  I ended up inheriting that territory when I got promoted.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on March 02, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 01, 2021, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis.

These are the only species of flying squirrels in North America.  On my first project in the Youghiogheny Gorge in Southwestern Pennsylvania, the railroad signal maintainer had me look at the top of an ancient cedar telephone pole (installed by Western Union telegraph in the late 1800s or early 1900s).  He gave the pole a swift thump, and a flying squirrel popped out and flew down to a tree along the river.  I ended up inheriting that territory when I got promoted.

Any moose been spotted in the area? :-P
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VTGoose on March 02, 2021, 08:56:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 02, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 01, 2021, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis.

These are the only species of flying squirrels in North America.  On my first project in the Youghiogheny Gorge in Southwestern Pennsylvania, the railroad signal maintainer had me look at the top of an ancient cedar telephone pole (installed by Western Union telegraph in the late 1800s or early 1900s).  He gave the pole a swift thump, and a flying squirrel popped out and flew down to a tree along the river.  I ended up inheriting that territory when I got promoted.

Any moose been spotted in the area? :-P

Or a shady Russian couple?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 02, 2021, 10:30:37 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 01, 2021, 05:12:47 PM
These are the only species of flying squirrels in North America.  On my first project in the Youghiogheny Gorge in Southwestern Pennsylvania, the railroad signal maintainer had me look at the top of an ancient cedar telephone pole (installed by Western Union telegraph in the late 1800s or early 1900s).  He gave the pole a swift thump, and a flying squirrel popped out and flew down to a tree along the river.  I ended up inheriting that territory when I got promoted.

Quote from: sparker on March 02, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
Any moose been spotted in the area? :-P

Quote from: VTGoose on March 02, 2021, 08:56:11 AM
Or a shady Russian couple?

Ve have vays ov making yoo talk.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2021, 05:32:12 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 02, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 01, 2021, 05:12:47 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis.

These are the only species of flying squirrels in North America.  On my first project in the Youghiogheny Gorge in Southwestern Pennsylvania, the railroad signal maintainer had me look at the top of an ancient cedar telephone pole (installed by Western Union telegraph in the late 1800s or early 1900s).  He gave the pole a swift thump, and a flying squirrel popped out and flew down to a tree along the river.  I ended up inheriting that territory when I got promoted.

Any moose been spotted in the area? :-P

Not aware of any in West Virginia. And these flying squirrels, if they talk, probably do so with a West Virginia accent, not the perky Mid-America English spoken by the resident flying squirrel of Frostbite Falls.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on March 03, 2021, 06:33:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
Quote from: cl94 on February 25, 2021, 11:18:23 PM
The $1.1 billion includes all remaining work. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Montrose-Davis runs over $700 million given the amount of earthwork that will be required. It's the last section to be built entirely within WV for a reason.

It also had the most environmental issues, at least in West Virginia (not sure if there are any significant environmental concerns in Virginia, since I am not aware of a DEIS has been prepared for that part of the route). 

I believe the biggest issue for federal environmental regulators was the impact on the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/WVNorthernFlyingSquirrel/) (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) [was listed as an endangered species but has now recovered enough to be proposed for de-listing] between Parsons and Davis.

That sounds awfully familiar. I-781 north of Watertown, NY was held up for quite some time over Indiana bats, which had summer nests in the area. NYSDOT and the Army were able to get a waiver to allow for a narrower ROW, clear zone, and shoulders.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 03, 2021, 08:01:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 02, 2021, 12:58:17 AM
Any moose been spotted in the area? :-P

Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2021, 05:32:12 PM
Not aware of any in West Virginia. And these flying squirrels, if they talk, probably do so with a West Virginia accent, not the perky Mid-America English spoken by the resident flying squirrel of Frostbite Falls.

You mean flying squirrels with West Virginia dialect.  We've got a bunch of different accents in West Virginia, but only the one dialect.  Yet almost everybody in North America still knows what I mean when I say something about "scootching over thar on your haunches".
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 12, 2021, 07:06:43 PM
WTOP Radio: Montgomery County graduates killed in W.Va. crash identified (https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2021/06/montgomery-county-students-killed-in-west-virginia-crash/?fbclid=IwAR1GOrj2IIKTZq6j8QpHCxH2d4tmXlButGUiE_F0o8GQy2mDL6Hol0Wtp4g)

QuoteTwo recent Montgomery County, Maryland, graduates were killed and two others were seriously injured in a crash in West Virginia on Wednesday night.

QuoteCamelle Gagne, 18, of Kensington, and Jaidon Smith, 18, of Silver Spring, died when the car Gagne was driving went off the road and over an embankment on Route 48 between Baker and Moorefield, in Hardy County, at about 7 p.m. Wednesday, the Hardy County Sheriff's Office said.

QuoteWalter Johnson High School Principal Jennifer Baker posted a message to the school community saying, "Our hearts are broken, and our thoughts go out to the parents, siblings, friends and other family members who have suffered this great loss."  She did not identify the students.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 03:21:55 PM
Took a trip out U.S. 48 from I-81 this weekend, and can share some observations:

1. The old and deficient bridge over Waites Run east of  Wardensville on U.S. 48/WV-55 has been replaced or had a deck replacement.  Image of the old bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0888619,-78.5829148,3a,15y,252.03h,88.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN17LsNdtSlD2oTJV1P_Jyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

2. There's a sign at the South Branch of the Potomac River (west of U.S. 220) that informs drivers of that - previously there was just the name of the person for whom the bridge is named.

3.  At the Grant County/Tucker County border west of DVP's Mount Storm Generating Station, there is a new Eastern Continental Divide sign.

4.  Along the Corridor H "gap" between Davis and Kerens, there are new, small blue Corridor H trailblazer signs next to or under the U.S. 48 shields.

5.  Progress has been made on the section of Corridor H between Kerens and Parsons.  The piers for the new bridge over old U.S. 219 and Haddix Run are nearly complete but the stringers have not been placed yet.  This might be the tallest bridge on Corridor H so far (maybe even higher than the one over the Lost River in Hardy County).

6.  Many of the buttoncopy signs on Corridor H near Buckhannon seem to be gone. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: jmacswimmer on July 26, 2021, 03:57:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 03:21:55 PM
1. The old and deficient bridge over Waites Run east of  Wardensville on U.S. 48/WV-55 has been replaced or had a deck replacement.  Image of the old bridge here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0888619,-78.5829148,3a,15y,252.03h,88.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN17LsNdtSlD2oTJV1P_Jyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

I believe it was a full replacement - I drove Corridor H in June 2020 and at the time there was a one-lane cattle chute (controlled by temporary signals) over a bailey bridge to the immediate north.  (And IIRC, on that date the old bridge was completely gone & new bridge not yet started, leaving nothing but a ravine next to the bailey bridge.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on July 26, 2021, 04:03:40 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 03:21:55 PM
Took a trip out U.S. 48 from I-81 this weekend, and can share some observations:
4.  Along the Corridor H "gap" between Davis and Kerens, there are new, small blue Corridor H trailblazer signs next to or under the U.S. 48 shields.
There are actually some signs of this style on WV 32 south of Davis as well. I'm not sure why they didn't use standard To US 48 signage.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 03:21:55 PM
6.  Many of the buttoncopy signs on Corridor H near Buckhannon seem to be gone. 
There has been a big signage replacement project from Elkins to Weston. (Maybe all the way to Kerens, but haven't been up there recently to see.) A lot of the signage east of Buckhannon dated from when that section opened in the 1990s and the ground-mounted signage lost its reflectivity years ago. This project has been long needed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 26, 2021, 09:17:03 PM
I remember that bridge east of Wardensville being under construction during the virtual Corridor H road meet/tour.

Were the new signs near Buckhannon in Clearview?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 10:24:57 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2021, 09:17:03 PM
I remember that bridge east of Wardensville being under construction during the virtual Corridor H road meet/tour.

Were the new signs near Buckhannon in Clearview?

I did not notice and I apologize for that - beyond the signs, it seems like there were many more signs on Corridor H approaching the interchange at U.S. 119 N and WV-20 in the past than there are now.  Not sure why they went away.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 02:42:47 PM
Hopefully a fully-completed Corridor H will be a major boon for the state of West Virginia. After all, the Corridor H proposal does date back to 1965.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 02:42:47 PM
Hopefully a fully-completed Corridor H will be a major boon for the state of West Virginia. After all, the Corridor H proposal does date back to 1965.

The corridors are not the same, but I think it is worthwhile to look at U.S. 19 (Corridor L).

Much of the area around there (consider U.S. 60 as an example) is very obviously economically depressed, with many abandoned storefronts in the small towns.  Another example about 16 or 17 miles to the east is Camden-on-Gauley along WV-20, where almost everything seems to be abandoned.

Then look at Corridor L - there appears to be plenty of economic activity there, much probably oriented toward the traffic that uses U.S. 19 to travel between Beckley and I-79. 

Will Corridor H look like Corridor L when it is complete from I-79 to I-81?  No idea.  When will that be complete?  No idea.

And I am not sure when Virginia will do preliminary engineering and planning for the part of Corridor H that is in the Commonwealth. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on July 29, 2021, 05:30:44 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 02:42:47 PM
Hopefully a fully-completed Corridor H will be a major boon for the state of West Virginia. After all, the Corridor H proposal does date back to 1965.

The corridors are not the same, but I think it is worthwhile to look at U.S. 19 (Corridor L).

Much of the area around there (consider U.S. 60 as an example) is very obviously economically depressed, with many abandoned storefronts in the small towns.  Another example about 16 or 17 miles to the east is Camden-on-Gauley along WV-20, where almost everything seems to be abandoned.

Then look at Corridor L - there appears to be plenty of economic activity there, much probably oriented toward the traffic that uses U.S. 19 to travel between Beckley and I-79. 

Will Corridor H look like Corridor L when it is complete from I-79 to I-81?  No idea.  When will that be complete?  No idea.

And I am not sure when Virginia will do preliminary engineering and planning for the part of Corridor H that is in the Commonwealth. 

Aside from lip service, has VDOT, or any state functionaries for that matter, even expressed a genuine interest in completing their share of Corridor H to at least ARC expressway standards (as per WV sections)?  Of course it would be nice to see the interchange with I-81 upgraded as well, but I suppose one will take what one can get! 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2021, 09:26:04 PM
Are there any other states beside VA and WVA even involved at this point.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on July 29, 2021, 09:34:09 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 29, 2021, 09:26:04 PM
Are there any other states beside VA and WVA even involved at this point.
Given Corridor H is to only be built in Virginia and West Virginia, I'd say no.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 29, 2021, 11:03:28 PM
The older section of Corridor H only passes near two towns, Weston and Buckhannon. At Weston, the I-79 exit is a couple of miles out of downtown, but plenty of businesses have sprung up near the exit (there are at least three hotels, a Walmart, a strip mall, a Sheetz and at least one other convenience store, which I think is a BFS, and there are various fast-food places near the interchange and along the route into downtown. There's been some growth near the corridor at Buckhannon (a Walmart and some outlying stores, a newer Sheetz, a couple of hotels, a Dollar Tree, and a Lowe's) as the four-lane passes very near the downtown area. The corridor really doesn't come that close to Elkins, and all of the major development is on the south side of town.

Beyond that, along the newer sections, the route really doesn't pass near any towns to provide them a boost. There's been some growth at the exit at Moorefield (a Sheetz, a McDonald's, and a few other places) but the road won't really come all that close to Parsons or Wardensville. Thomas and Davis seem to be propped up by ski areas and Blackwater Falls visitors, so it's doubtful those two small towns will get a boom.

Along Corridor L, it's fairly built up between Beckley and Fayetteville, but Summersville is the only other place along the route that has significant commerce, and a lot of that is probably tourism-based as well.

Corridor D is desolate (although there's been a few surprising businesses pop up at the Harrisville/Ellenboro exit) and Corridor Q serves two towns (Princeton and Bluefield) that were already well-established.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 09:05:18 AM
There is WAY more to the Corridor system than fast food and gas stations.  The idea of the system was two-fold.  To allow those in these remote areas access to things like proper education, health care, services, a basic life really, which the remoteness had denied them; and then to open these regions up to development.  Gas stations and the like are just side effects. 

Like all government programs, some have worked, some have not.  D, in WV, has failed totally, because no body lived in those places in the first place and there is no economic potential in that topography (other than oil and gas, which were going to be developed regardless of the roads situation).  Others, like B or D in Ohio, or G, or the parts of Q that are finished, and certainly L, have worked spectacularly. 

As to H, the economic potential that that region is just HUGE.  When finished (and remember WV gave the money to build almost 50% of the road back under Rockefailure in the 1970s) the region will boom.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 30, 2021, 09:42:23 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 09:05:18 AM
D, in WV, has failed totally, because no body lived in those places in the first place and there is no economic potential in that topography (other than oil and gas, which were going to be developed regardless of the roads situation).  Others, like B or D in Ohio, or G, or the parts of Q that are finished, and certainly L, have worked spectacularly. 

Disagree.  Folks in Ritchie County and Doddridge County have access to jobs in Parkersburg and Clarksburg.  It's only 40 minutes from Pennsboro to Clarksburg or 50 minutes from West Union to Parkersburg (for the non-locals, these overlap).  Even back in my day, I had a friend whose father was a professor at WVU and he was able to move back to Ritchie County and commute to work after I-79 was completed from Clarksburg.  On the flipside, I had another friend who lived in Bridgeport and worked in Pennsboro.

To your point, however, the economic development that was promised didn't materialize.  I think the relatively short distance between I-77 and I-79 on Corridor D has transferred the economics from "bringing prosperity to the county" to the opposite "bringing the county closer to prosperous jobs".  That is not a bad problem to have.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 30, 2021, 09:42:23 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 09:05:18 AM
D, in WV, has failed totally, because no body lived in those places in the first place and there is no economic potential in that topography (other than oil and gas, which were going to be developed regardless of the roads situation).  Others, like B or D in Ohio, or G, or the parts of Q that are finished, and certainly L, have worked spectacularly. 

Disagree.  Folks in Ritchie County and Doddridge County have access to jobs in Parkersburg and Clarksburg.  It's only 40 minutes from Pennsboro to Clarksburg or 50 minutes from West Union to Parkersburg (for the non-locals, these overlap).  Even back in my day, I had a friend whose father was a professor at WVU and he was able to move back to Ritchie County and commute to work after I-79 was completed from Clarksburg.  On the flipside, I had another friend who lived in Bridgeport and worked in Pennsboro.

To your point, however, the economic development that was promised didn't materialize.  I think the relatively short distance between I-77 and I-79 on Corridor D has transferred the economics from "bringing prosperity to the county" to the opposite "bringing the county closer to prosperous jobs".  That is not a bad problem to have.

That's what road construction in rural areas in Kentucky will ideally do. It may not bring jobs to some of the rural counties, but will make it easier for residents of those rural counties to commute to jobs in larger places that are more easily accessible. And it might encourage people to move to those areas to escape high taxes in the bigger towns.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 11:11:43 AM
Ritchie County has 9500 people living there.  The other in-between county on D, Doddridge, has 8,400.  There is no shortage of good housing in either Clarksburg or Parkersburg.   Spending millions, and, BTW, finishing the road decades before vastly more important projects, (which is WV tradition, the state having built its interstates and corridors in roughly reverse order of importance) so a few hundred people can play weekend farmer is really a waste, when you contrast it is Corridors that have really worked, because they are built where there are people, and where there is topography that is there for development.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 30, 2021, 11:19:03 AM
A lot of money on the line for hypothetical payoffs...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sbeaver44 on July 30, 2021, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 03:21:55 PM
Took a trip out U.S. 48 from I-81 this weekend, and can share some observations:

4.  Along the Corridor H "gap" between Davis and Kerens, there are new, small blue Corridor H trailblazer signs next to or under the U.S. 48 shields.

Are these the same trailblazers on the Corridor H blue mile markers?  Or something different?  Any chance you have a picture?  Or am I going back to Davis soon haha.

This came up in another thread with hbelkins, but I'd love to see a unified sign across the ADHS corridors, I like hb's idea of the ARC logo.    While it wouldn't work for a system wide logo, I do love the WV shapes with the letter in them.

I'm going to drop a hot take – I PREFER the ADHS corridors to Interstate highways.   I find them much more interesting.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 11:57:41 AM
Quote from: sbeaver44 on July 30, 2021, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2021, 03:21:55 PM
Took a trip out U.S. 48 from I-81 this weekend, and can share some observations:

4.  Along the Corridor H "gap" between Davis and Kerens, there are new, small blue Corridor H trailblazer signs next to or under the U.S. 48 shields.

Are these the same trailblazers on the Corridor H blue mile markers?  Or something different?  Any chance you have a picture?  Or am I going back to Davis soon haha.

This came up in another thread with hbelkins, but I'd love to see a unified sign across the ADHS corridors, I like hb's idea of the ARC logo.    While it wouldn't work for a system wide logo, I do love the WV shapes with the letter in them.

I'm going to drop a hot take – I PREFER the ADHS corridors to Interstate highways.   I find them much more interesting.

I was not able to get a good image of the Corridor H trailblazers this time out - in part because I was not anticipating them being there.

They have the blue H imposed on a white outline of West Virginia - the design as taken from the blue ADHS mileposts that West Virginia uses - but these are MUCH smaller than an ADHS milepost.

I have been on ADHS corridors in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky.  In general they are modern and well-designed roads, usually of an expressway or principal arterial highway design - some, like Corridor E, are all Interstate highway design.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 12:01:05 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 30, 2021, 11:19:03 AM
A lot of money on the line for hypothetical payoffs...

Sounds like some rail transit projects that have cost billions and billions of dollars to built, and then more billions to keep them in a state of good repair.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 11:11:43 AM
Ritchie County has 9500 people living there.  The other in-between county on D, Doddridge, has 8,400.  There is no shortage of good housing in either Clarksburg or Parkersburg.   Spending millions, and, BTW, finishing the road decades before vastly more important projects, (which is WV tradition, the state having built its interstates and corridors in roughly reverse order of importance) so a few hundred people can play weekend farmer is really a waste, when you contrast it is Corridors that have really worked, because they are built where there are people, and where there is topography that is there for development.

I know the history of Corridors H and E reasonably well, and know enough to be dangerous about some of the others.

Regarding the purpose and need of the ADHS, consider the following:

1. The "D" stands for development.  I am O.K. with that.

2. A senior manager and career MDOT/SHA staff person (now retired from state service) said that from his point of view (keeping in mind that Maryland has only three counties in the ARC footprint - Garrett, Allegany (that's the correct spelling) and Washington), the main idea behind the ADHS was to induce traffic (this was a session at an annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board - a notorious anti-highway activist who was in the audience had a fit and looked like he was ready to have a stroke after hearing that). 

It appears to me that U.S. 19 (Corridor L) has induced traffic and economic activity.

As an aside about Corridor L, I have heard that the Summersville police engage in predatory speed limit enforcement, but I saw nothing happening when I was through there recently.  On the other hand, it appeared that the police from Oak Hill were engaged in revenue raising on their part of U.S. 19 near Beckley.  I have also seen local law enforcement doing revenue collection on Corridor D.

3.  Again in Maryland, ADHS was used to get I-68 (Corridor E) built, and provide a good road connection between the two westernmost of those counties and the rest of the state.  The old route - U.S. 40 - was in places a wretchedly bad and dangerous highway - I-68 was (and is) a big improvement and has reduced the isolation of Garrett and Allegany. Combined with I-79 and more recently WV-43/PA-43, it has also improved road access from the Pittsburgh area. 

4.  It is not just in West Virginia where the difficult parts are left for last.  On Corridor E, the most difficult parts in Maryland were Sideling Hill and the section between Cumberland and Flintstone.  They were the last parts to get built and opened to traffic.  In West Virginia, it seems that Corridor H between Parsons and Davis is going to be the most-challenging to design, engineer and build.  Is the other remaining West Virginia part, between Wardensville and the W.Va./Va. border as difficult?
I am not sure about the difficulty of building Corridor H in Virginia, since VDOT has done almost nothing about the 14 miles between the state line and I-81 near Strasburg.

5.  I agree with Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson about the need to make improvements in the Appalachian part of the United States - using federal dollars because of the multi-state nature of Appalachia and the problems there. If anything, that need is more-pressing now, given the long-term decline of coal mining and related jobs in many Appalachian counties.  Some of the ADHS corridors improve access to state and federal parks and recreation.  One other benefit that is IMO more important - they provide network redundancy in a part of the nation where there is not enough of it.  Corridor H, when completed, as well as Corridor E are good examples of this, as they provide east-west links across the mountains between the I-64 and I-70 corridors.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 12:52:55 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 12:23:27 PM

4.  It is not just in West Virginia where the difficult parts are left for last.

Yeah, I get that.  But West Virginia's history of building its Interstates and Corridors is not really a function of that.  It is really a function of basic incompetence. 

Essentially, WV had the following tasks to complete:
I-64 west of Charleston
I-64 east of Beckley
I-70/470 (the world's least necessary bypass)
I-77 north of Charleston
I-77 south of Charleston (also the central section of I-64) AKA WV Turnpike
I-79
I-81
Corridor D
Corridor E (I-68)
Corridor G
Corridor H
Corridor L
Corridor Q

Now after the most obvious ones which were done in correct order (77N, 64W, 81, 70) considering the populations at the time, the economic potential of the areas served, and  the traffic volumes then and projected, you really could not come up with a more illogical order to build these roads than what happened.  Relatively minor projects that served really small needs were finished two decades before roads of vastly greater importance and need.

This is really different from most any other state.  Look at old maps from the 60s and 70s for about anywhere and you see a logic progression of the most important to the least important.  Except in WV.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on July 30, 2021, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2021, 11:03:28 PM
The older section of Corridor H only passes near two towns, Weston and Buckhannon. At Weston, the I-79 exit is a couple of miles out of downtown, but plenty of businesses have sprung up near the exit (there are at least three hotels, a Walmart, a strip mall, a Sheetz and at least one other convenience store, which I think is a BFS, and there are various fast-food places near the interchange and along the route into downtown. There's been some growth near the corridor at Buckhannon (a Walmart and some outlying stores, a newer Sheetz, a couple of hotels, a Dollar Tree, and a Lowe's) as the four-lane passes very near the downtown area. The corridor really doesn't come that close to Elkins, and all of the major development is on the south side of town.

Beyond that, along the newer sections, the route really doesn't pass near any towns to provide them a boost. There's been some growth at the exit at Moorefield (a Sheetz, a McDonald's, and a few other places) but the road won't really come all that close to Parsons or Wardensville. Thomas and Davis seem to be propped up by ski areas and Blackwater Falls visitors, so it's doubtful those two small towns will get a boom.

Along Corridor L, it's fairly built up between Beckley and Fayetteville, but Summersville is the only other place along the route that has significant commerce, and a lot of that is probably tourism-based as well.

Corridor D is desolate (although there's been a few surprising businesses pop up at the Harrisville/Ellenboro exit) and Corridor Q serves two towns (Princeton and Bluefield) that were already well-established.

Wouldn't surprise me that the southside development around Elkins occurred around the time that they improved US 33 east of Elkins as part of the initial Corridor H work and then a group around Petersburg and Seneca Rocks fought that route so now it kind of goes out of the way to get to its destination. (I hate what could be considered wasted money) Elkins will still benefit since it is a ski/adventure location, but you will see less development through the Petersburg and Canaan Valley WV 28 corridor due to its route near Parsons and Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 01:17:08 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 12:52:55 PM
This is really different from most any other state.  Look at old maps from the 60s and 70s for about anywhere and you see a logic progression of the most important to the least important.  Except in WV.

My own state of Maryland did some of the Interstates "out of order," especially I-95.

The last parts of I-95 to be built were the "between the Beltways" segment between I-495 and I-695 and then the section through Baltimore City (including the complex and expensive Fort McHenry Tunnel and its approaches).   

Some persons might argue that the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway (I-895 now) provided a high-speed route before I-95 was completed, and they would be correct.  But nearly all of that is four lane divided, the federal part prohibits truck traffic, and most of it was not built to Interstate standards.

And what some might argue is the most-important part of I-95, between the D.C./Maryland boundary and I-95 will never be built.

To the north, it took many more decades for I-95 to be completed between Philadelphia and New York City.  Yes, the NIMBYs in New Jersey helped to kill the Somerset Freeway, but some scorn must be kept for Pennsylvania being allowed to build the Delaware Expressway (I-95) without any connection to the East-West Mainline of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-276) and without any connection to the Schuylkill Expressway (I-76).  Those interchanges on I-95 were probably difficult, but it seems that the PennDOT and PTC traditions are to avoid constructing difficult interchanges when they can get away with it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on July 30, 2021, 12:59:44 PM
Wouldn't surprise me that the southside development around Elkins occurred around the time that they improved US 33 east of Elkins as part of the initial Corridor H work and then a group around Petersburg and Seneca Rocks fought that route so now it kind of goes out of the way to get to its destination. (I hate what could be considered wasted money) Elkins will still benefit since it is a ski/adventure location, but you will see less development through the Petersburg and Canaan Valley WV 28 corridor due to its route near Parsons and Davis.

That would be what some folks call the "racetrack" part of U.S. 33 east of Elkins, and yes, it does not serve much purpose as an isolated expressway-type of road.

Original maps planning maps for Corridor H had it roughly following U.S. 33 east from Elkins all the way to I-81 at Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Not sure why people at Petersburg and Seneca Rocks were so opposed to Corridor H going that way. There was plenty of NIMBY opposition to the revised Corridor H route (including a head of the EPA Region III office who was fired by President Clinton at the request of the late Senator Robert C. Byrd in part for anti-Corridor H activities - and a group that called itself Corridor H Alternatives) along its revised route past Parsons, Davis, Bismarck, Moorfield, Baker, Wardensville, Lebanon Church (Va.) and to I-81 near Strasburg (Va.).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: AlexandriaVA on July 30, 2021, 01:30:53 PM
Quotethe long-term decline of coal mining and related jobs in many Appalachian counties

Which leads Virginia taxpayers (e.g. myself) as to why should VDOT spend a lot of money to turn its portion US-48 into an expressway for the benefit of the WV tourism industry, when there's countless projects in the NOVA/Richmond/Newport News corridor that would have much more bang for the buck.

This was the exact purpose behind SmartScale, by the way.

And to be even more blunt about it, it wasn't western and SW Virginia that put the current governor into office, nor the current makeup of the General Assembly.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 01:36:42 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on July 30, 2021, 01:30:53 PM
Quotethe long-term decline of coal mining and related jobs in many Appalachian counties

Which leads Virginia taxpayers (e.g. myself) as to why should VDOT spend a lot of money to turn its portion US-48 into an expressway for the benefit of the WV tourism industry, when there's countless projects in the NOVA/Richmond/Newport News corridor that would have much more bang for the buck.

This was the exact purpose behind SmartScale, by the way.

And to be even more blunt about it, it wasn't western and SW Virginia that put the current governor into office, nor the current makeup of the General Assembly.

1. Ever heard of the Inland Port in Front Royal?  Corridor H brings truck traffic from I-79 and I-64 (west of I-79) significantly closer to Front Royal.  Increased use of this facility means less truck traffic on many roads of the Commonwealth of Virginia that lead to and from Hampton Roads.

2. Your reasoning sounds a lot like that exhibited by some elected officials in Montgomery County, Maryland regarding improvements to crossings of the Potomac River.  As regards Virginia taxpayers, most of the cost of ADHS corridors is funded by federal, not state dollars.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
Corridor H Alternatives.  IMHO, this crew was 99% out-of-region BANANA extremists, not NIMBY locals.  I never have never met anyone from actually in the Corridor H service region who opposes the construction.

Virginia.  Once all of Corridor H is finished in WV, which is currently projected to be 2034, I think Virginia will come around.  I can read red and blue maps as good as anybody and get the current political situation in Virginia, but we are talking about less than 12 miles of road, from which the ARC special $$ are available.  Same comment goes for Corridor Q. 

And, Tip O'Neil said "in politics, a week is a long time."   So if we take WV up on its word of completion in 2034, or 13 years from now, then 13 years ago was 2008.  If you had talked about a blood red West Virginia and a Virginia where 10% of the land mass was so deep blue that it could disregard the rest of the state in 2008, people would have said you were crazy. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
Corridor H Alternatives.  IMHO, this crew was 99% out-of-region BANANA extremists, not NIMBY locals.  I never have never met anyone from actually in the Corridor H service region who opposes the construction.

Oh, I agree with that.  The "Build Corridor H" sign is still up on the fence of the paving company in the tiny community of Moore on U.S. 219 south of Parsons and north of the new Corridor H bridge. 

At least some of the members of Corridor H Alternatives lived in places like Jefferson County (West Virginia) and Fairfax County, Virginia.  Not exactly close to Corridor H.  And there were anti-highway nutjobs in Maryland who made claims that there was some sort of a conspiracy between MDOT and WVDOT to get MD-200 built in Maryland and Corridor H built in West Virginia and Virginia.  Not all crazy conspiracy theories come from conservatives.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
Virginia.  Once all of Corridor H is finished in WV, which is currently projected to be 2034, I think Virginia will come around.  I can read red and blue maps as good as anybody and get the current political situation in Virginia, but we are talking about less than 12 miles of road, from which the ARC special $$ are available.  Same comment goes for Corridor Q.

Given the impact on the Inland Port (and getting more truck traffic routed there), it is in the interest of Virginia to get their part of Corridor H done.  I do not think there are nearly as many engineering challenges on the Virginia side of the route as there were and will be in West Virginia. 

Quote from: SP Cook on July 30, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
And, Tip O'Neil said "in politics, a week is a long time."   So if we take WV up on its word of completion in 2034, or 13 years from now, then 13 years ago was 2008.  If you had talked about a blood red West Virginia and a Virginia where 10% of the land mass was so deep blue that it could disregard the rest of the state in 2008, people would have said you were crazy.

I saw someplace that the Biden Administration would like to get the entire ADHS on its way to completion well before 2034. 

As for Virginia being blue, yes it is and yes it likely will be. The only way the Republican Party gets a governor elected in the years to come is if they find a candidate like the one that put a dagger in the heart of the [Sen. Harry Flood Byrd Sr.] Byrd Machine, A. Linwood Holton, Jr. of Big Stone Gap, Va. who was elected in 1969 and served 1970 to 1974.  On the other hand, West Virginia was once reliably blue, and is no longer - in part because of mindless attacks on the coal industry by politicians like Hillary Clinton and groups that claim loyalty to Democrats like the Sierra Club.  I am not fond of the coal industry for an assortment of reasons but making comments to the news media about coal did nothing to hinder or to speed-up the decline of coal - fracked gas (and maybe oil too) did a good job of that. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 03:45:09 PM
Kentucky is leaving its most difficult and environmentally sensitive portion of its ADHS system -- the US 119 crossing of (or tunneling under) Pine Mountain until last. It's really the last unplanned portion in the state, what with the final segment of US 460 currently under construction. It would be heresy for Kentucky to call its portion of the system "done" by including the improvements made to existing US 119 nearly 20 years ago as the final alignment.

The solution to finishing the ADHS system, and making improvements to the interstate system (such as the parallel I-75 bridge over the Ohio River and fixing Breezewood), is to federalize those projects. The federal government gives the money to those states and tells them to do the work. It would be hard for Virginia to refuse to finish Corridor H if the federal government was footing 100 percent of the bill.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 06:54:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 03:45:09 PM
Kentucky is leaving its most difficult and environmentally sensitive portion of its ADHS system -- the US 119 crossing of (or tunneling under) Pine Mountain until last. It's really the last unplanned portion in the state, what with the final segment of US 460 currently under construction. It would be heresy for Kentucky to call its portion of the system "done" by including the improvements made to existing US 119 nearly 20 years ago as the final alignment.

I was not aware that the uncompleted part of ADHS on U.S. 119 went one miliemeter south of Pikeville.  Thanks for sharing that.

Maryland considered a tunnel for Corridor E at Sideling Hill but opened for the massive cut that's there today in part because of the higher operational costs of a tunnel.

Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 03:45:09 PM
The solution to finishing the ADHS system, and making improvements to the interstate system (such as the parallel I-75 bridge over the Ohio River and fixing Breezewood), is to federalize those projects. The federal government gives the money to those states and tells them to do the work. It would be hard for Virginia to refuse to finish Corridor H if the federal government was footing 100 percent of the bill.

I agree with making what is left of ADHS 100% federal to get it completed and as you know would love to see Breezewood and the rest of its evil family bypassed.  I think that making it 100% federal would certainly motivate VDOT to get going at least on preliminary engineering for its part of Corridor H.

Unfortunately, I think Breezewood will still be there in its current form after the entire ADHS network is completed.

The U.S. Congress could put an end to Breezewood and the rest of them by making the federal tax code and its continued tax-favored treatment of bonds issued by agencies like the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission contingent on a binding plan to bypass all of its breezewoods (outside Pennsylvania most of them have been bypassed - there's one in Florida at Fort Pierce where Florida's Turnpike turns northwest toward Orlando while I-95 continues straight north in the direction of Daytona Beach and Jacksonville - the two roads are connected by a breezewood-like section of FL-70 (turnpike exit 152).  There is one where I-475 crosses the Ohio Turnpike in Maumee southwest of Toledo, but there are nearby alternate routes using turnpike exit 64 to and from I-75 that really make an interchange at I-475 less-critical than it would be.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 08:19:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 06:54:01 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2021, 03:45:09 PM
Kentucky is leaving its most difficult and environmentally sensitive portion of its ADHS system -- the US 119 crossing of (or tunneling under) Pine Mountain until last. It's really the last unplanned portion in the state, what with the final segment of US 460 currently under construction. It would be heresy for Kentucky to call its portion of the system "done" by including the improvements made to existing US 119 nearly 20 years ago as the final alignment.

I was not aware that the uncompleted part of ADHS on U.S. 119 went one miliemeter south of Pikeville.  Thanks for sharing that.

I always have to look up most of the corridor letter designations, but the corridor southwest of Pikeville runs along US 119 to Pineville, then US 25E south through the Cumberland Gap Tunnel into Tennessee, then TN 62 southwest to I-75.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on July 30, 2021, 10:15:55 PM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on July 30, 2021, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2021, 11:03:28 PM
The older section of Corridor H only passes near two towns, Weston and Buckhannon. At Weston, the I-79 exit is a couple of miles out of downtown, but plenty of businesses have sprung up near the exit (there are at least three hotels, a Walmart, a strip mall, a Sheetz and at least one other convenience store, which I think is a BFS, and there are various fast-food places near the interchange and along the route into downtown. There's been some growth near the corridor at Buckhannon (a Walmart and some outlying stores, a newer Sheetz, a couple of hotels, a Dollar Tree, and a Lowe's) as the four-lane passes very near the downtown area. The corridor really doesn't come that close to Elkins, and all of the major development is on the south side of town.

Beyond that, along the newer sections, the route really doesn't pass near any towns to provide them a boost. There's been some growth at the exit at Moorefield (a Sheetz, a McDonald's, and a few other places) but the road won't really come all that close to Parsons or Wardensville. Thomas and Davis seem to be propped up by ski areas and Blackwater Falls visitors, so it's doubtful those two small towns will get a boom.

Along Corridor L, it's fairly built up between Beckley and Fayetteville, but Summersville is the only other place along the route that has significant commerce, and a lot of that is probably tourism-based as well.

Corridor D is desolate (although there's been a few surprising businesses pop up at the Harrisville/Ellenboro exit) and Corridor Q serves two towns (Princeton and Bluefield) that were already well-established.

Wouldn't surprise me that the southside development around Elkins occurred around the time that they improved US 33 east of Elkins as part of the initial Corridor H work and then a group around Petersburg and Seneca Rocks fought that route so now it kind of goes out of the way to get to its destination. (I hate what could be considered wasted money) Elkins will still benefit since it is a ski/adventure location, but you will see less development through the Petersburg and Canaan Valley WV 28 corridor due to its route near Parsons and Davis.

Elkins was and is the primary town in the Potomac Highlands area. The development along US 219/US 250 has nothing to do with Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on July 30, 2021, 10:40:45 PM
Improvements to VA 55 west of I-81 have never been on any VDOT document I can find, long-term or short.  Not sure when the VTrans2040 document is supposed to be out.

IMO, the Inland Port traffic would be an induced demand after the road is completed in at least West Virginia (as getting anywhere past Davis involves some mountainous driving somewhere).  If truck traffic were already using VA 55 to get over there then I believe VDOT might be more likely to get going on this.

Traffic count on VA 55 at the state line in 2001 was 1800 (9% trucks of any kind)
In 2019 it was 2900 with 6% trucks of any kind, so the overall number of trucks using VA 55 has not changed any in 20 years.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2021, 11:00:19 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 30, 2021, 10:40:45 PM
Improvements to VA 55 west of I-81 have never been on any VDOT document I can find, long-term or short.  Not sure when the VTrans2040 document is supposed to be out.

I have not looked beyond the VDOT Six Year Plan site, which is a good source for such things - and you are correct.  I did see a mention of some interchange improvements at I-81 Exit 296 in Shenandoah County but I think that was mostly about lengthening the deceleration and acceleration lanes there.

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 30, 2021, 10:40:45 PM
IMO, the Inland Port traffic would be an induced demand after the road is completed in at least West Virginia (as getting anywhere past Davis involves some mountainous driving somewhere).  If truck traffic were already using VA 55 to get over there then I believe VDOT might be more likely to get going on this.

I must express strong disagreement regarding the phrase "induced demand."  While there have been instances of "induced demand' with new and untolled freeways and other roads for automobile traffic, I do not think it can be applied to freight moves.  But having said that, I do think a completed Corridor H would attract at least some truck traffic (especially carrying containerized freight for shipment into or out of one of the ocean ports in Hampton Roads) from the I-79 and the I-64 corridors (I mean I-64 west of Charleston).  As an example, consider that a truck trip from Huntington, W.Va. to Front Royal (via Corridor H) is about 325 miles (about 525 km).  The trip between Huntington and the port on Terminal Boulevard in Norfolk is a lot more miles at about 455 miles (or 730 km).  Given that the container is a lot cheaper on a train than it is behind a truck tractor, that may attract some freight moves into Front Royal, and I think it will.

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 30, 2021, 10:40:45 PM
Traffic count on VA 55 at the state line in 2001 was 1800 (9% trucks of any kind)
In 2019 it was 2900 with 6% trucks of any kind, so the overall number of trucks using VA 55 has not changed any in 20 years.

Until all of Corridor H is complete (including the Virginia portion), I doubt there will be much increase or decrease in terms of truck traffic.  U.S. 48/WV-55/VA-55 is not a very truck-friendly route between Wardensville and I-81 at Strasburg.   The same can be said about U.S. 219 between Kerens and Davis. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2021, 05:16:11 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It seems unlikely that Corridor H, once fully completed to expressway standards between I-81 and I-79, would draw much traffic away from I-64 (too far north) unless a problem occurred on that highway.  It seems better suited as a relief route for I-68 to the north for traffic from the Baltimore/Washington area, particularly the ports there.  Of course that's providing that the portion of I-79 to be used is south of the Clarksburg area, otherwise there would be excess "backtracking" involved that would reduce the utility of Corridor H/US 48.  But since it doesn't seem that VA is any hurry to develop their portion, it'll be a while before the corridor's full commercial value can be determined. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on July 31, 2021, 10:50:29 AM
My overall point was that VDOT is in no rush because even with WV's portion 3/4 finished, there is no current problem to address with increased trucks on current VA 55.

Incidentally, it is already 30 miles shorter and only 4 minutes slower (per the Goog) to use US 48/I-79 from Front Royal to Charleston WV as compared to I-81 and I-64.  Corridor H's completion in West Virginia to at least Wardensville will make it a usable route for any kind of traffic to avoid a lot of miserable I-81 and the expense of the WV Turnpike.  While US 48 from I-81 to Wardensville isn't terrific for trucks, there are no switchbacks.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on July 31, 2021, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 30, 2021, 10:15:55 PM

Elkins was and is the primary town in the Potomac Highlands area. The development along US 219/US 250 has nothing to do with Corridor H.

Elkins is west of the Eastern Continental Divide.  It is not in the Potomac drainage. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on July 31, 2021, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2021, 11:03:28 PMThomas and Davis seem to be propped up by ski areas and Blackwater Falls visitors, so it's doubtful those two small towns will get a boom.

Thomas and Davis are already booming, as Corridor H has made these towns much more accessible to the DC area. Tourism that used to be much more seasonal has become a year-round industry. It's a lot harder to get a hotel room for the weekend there than it was a decade ago, and housing prices have skyrocketed as people from the DC area have bought up a lot of existing stock as vacation homes and/or rentals. And with the Virgin Hyperloop certification center coming to the area, I'm hearing that the population there could possibly double or triple in the coming years. So US 48 has become very important to these communities in a very short time.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on July 31, 2021, 09:07:27 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2021, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 30, 2021, 10:15:55 PM

Elkins was and is the primary town in the Potomac Highlands area. The development along US 219/US 250 has nothing to do with Corridor H.

Elkins is west of the Eastern Continental Divide.  It is not in the Potomac drainage. 

Tucker, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties are traditionally grouped as part of the Potomac Highlands even though little to none of them is in the Potomac River watershed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
I think I've noted this before, but more and more mapping services and GPS units are suggesting Corridor H/I-66 as the preferred route from this area to the DC region, over I-79/I-68 and I-64/I-81/I-66. I expect that to increase as more segments of H are completed. Right now, with the unfinished segments as they are, I'd still rather take US 48 than either I-68 or I-64.

Traffic patterns from this region to DC have really morphed over the years. I know I've mentioned working with Malcolm "Mac" Kilduff before. He took a couple of trips annually back to DC. He originally used KY 15, US 119, US 23, and Alternate US 58 to access I-81 at Abingdon. When enough of the future routing of I-68 was complete, back in that route's US 48 days, he started taking that route. I don't know if he ever used the WV Turnpike and I-64 when the route was finished between Beckley and Sam Black Church or not.

On my family's vacation to DC in the early 1980s, we used the northern route. I don't think the four-lane was finished past Cumberland, but it still wasn't a bad route even then.

Quote from: Bitmapped on July 31, 2021, 09:07:27 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2021, 01:40:36 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 30, 2021, 10:15:55 PM

Elkins was and is the primary town in the Potomac Highlands area. The development along US 219/US 250 has nothing to do with Corridor H.

Elkins is west of the Eastern Continental Divide.  It is not in the Potomac drainage. 

Tucker, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties are traditionally grouped as part of the Potomac Highlands even though little to none of them is in the Potomac River watershed.

Tourism groupings often make little sense. For years, Kentucky's tourism books had Powell and Wolfe counties, which are adjacent and both in the Red River Gorge area, in separate regions. There was even a notation acknowledging that. Seems like it would have been easier and made more sense for them to just move one the counties to a more appropriate region.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

It would be worth it to avoid the tolls on the PA Turnpike and Breezewood. (Presuming your route is 71-70-270).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 01:39:36 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

But U.S. 50 east of I-79 (not part of Corridor D) has a lot of sharp curves and steep grades.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 01, 2021, 02:08:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 01:39:36 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

But U.S. 50 east of I-79 (not part of Corridor D) has a lot of sharp curves and steep grades.

Something tells me such a trip would involve a southbound jog on I-79 from Clarksburg to Weston then east on Corridor H rather than continuing east on US 50.  The latter is indeed a bit of a PITA to drive; although necessary for railfanning the old B & O "coal conduit" from Grafton to Cumberland, MD. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 01, 2021, 09:53:08 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2021, 02:08:31 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 01:39:36 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

But U.S. 50 east of I-79 (not part of Corridor D) has a lot of sharp curves and steep grades.

Something tells me such a trip would involve a southbound jog on I-79 from Clarksburg to Weston then east on Corridor H rather than continuing east on US 50.  The latter is indeed a bit of a PITA to drive; although necessary for railfanning the old B & O "coal conduit" from Grafton to Cumberland, MD. 

US 50 to US 250 to Corridor H isn't bad as US 250 was rebuilt across much of Barbour County and some of Taylor County in the 1960s, but taking I-79 to Weston would still be preferable.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 31, 2021, 09:07:27 PM
Tucker, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties are traditionally grouped as part of the Potomac Highlands even though little to none of them is in the Potomac River watershed.

Isn't the nearly all of the border between Tucker County and Grant County also the Eastern Continental Divide?  With almost all of Tucker County being on the Mississippi River side of the divide?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 01, 2021, 11:46:02 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 11:08:16 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on July 31, 2021, 09:07:27 PM
Tucker, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties are traditionally grouped as part of the Potomac Highlands even though little to none of them is in the Potomac River watershed.

Isn't the nearly all of the border between Tucker County and Grant County also the Eastern Continental Divide?  With almost all of Tucker County being on the Mississippi River side of the divide?

The source of the North Branch Potomac River is at the intersection of Preston, Tucker, and Grant counties at the site of the Fairfax Stone. The North Branch heads west and then north in Tucker County from the Fairfax Stone, then east through Preston before hitting the corner of Garrett County where it becomes the MD/WV state line. On a small part of Preston and Tucker counties is in the Potomac watershed.

Large portions of the eastern borders of Tucker, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties are on the Eastern Continental Divide.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 01, 2021, 01:49:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
I think I've noted this before, but more and more mapping services and GPS units are suggesting Corridor H/I-66 as the preferred route from this area to the DC region, over I-79/I-68 and I-64/I-81/I-66. I expect that to increase as more segments of H are completed. Right now, with the unfinished segments as they are, I'd still rather take US 48 than either I-68 or I-64.

Traffic patterns from this region to DC have really morphed over the years. I know I've mentioned working with Malcolm "Mac" Kilduff before. He took a couple of trips annually back to DC. He originally used KY 15, US 119, US 23, and Alternate US 58 to access I-81 at Abingdon. When enough of the future routing of I-68 was complete, back in that route's US 48 days, he started taking that route. I don't know if he ever used the WV Turnpike and I-64 when the route was finished between Beckley and Sam Black Church or not.

On my family's vacation to DC in the early 1980s, we used the northern route. I don't think the four-lane was finished past Cumberland, but it still wasn't a bad route even then.

I understand the interest in Kentucky (and the western part of West Virginia where I grew up) in a better route to our nations capital district, but there has been such a great need since rail travel waned in the 1940s to connect the Eastern Panhandle with the state's capital.  It's perhaps less of an issue today, but back in my day the only place to get motor vehicle license tags was at the State Capitol Complex.  The ADHS process of building a "fourlane road" has sidetracked the main goal of building a better route across the mountains where a two lane road with truck lanes upgrade would have suffiiced back in the 1960s.  It's sad that I will never see a day where it makes any sense to drive this entirely instate (even though I've done it instate many times).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 01, 2021, 01:49:34 PM
I understand the interest in Kentucky (and the western part of West Virginia where I grew up) in a better route to our nations capital district, but there has been such a great need since rail travel waned in the 1940s to connect the Eastern Panhandle with the state's capital.  It's perhaps less of an issue today, but back in my day the only place to get motor vehicle license tags was at the State Capitol Complex.  The ADHS process of building a "fourlane road" has sidetracked the main goal of building a better route across the mountains where a two lane road with truck lanes upgrade would have suffiiced back in the 1960s.  It's sad that I will never see a day where it makes any sense to drive this entirely instate (even though I've done it instate many times).

Yikes. You had to drive all the way to Charleston from Berkeley Springs, Martinsburg, or Charles Town to get a license plate?

Of course, the only in-state route connecting the eastern panhandle to the rest of the state is WV 9, which would cost a fortune to upgrade. And then, you'd have to improve WV 29 to tie it in to Corridor H for the all in-state connection.

My understanding is that eastern panhandle traffic going to Charleston uses I-68 through Maryland. Would that traffic switch to Corridor H if it was completed, at least as far east as Wardensville and Virginia's section remaining unbuilt?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on August 01, 2021, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 01:39:36 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

But U.S. 50 east of I-79 (not part of Corridor D) has a lot of sharp curves and steep grades.


Note that Google shows an alternative routing using CR 25 from US 48-219 to make a straight line from Davis to WV 38 them over via WV 57 that is a couple minutes faster than using WV 42 to US 50.  WV 38/57 is nowhere near as bad as US 50 for curves.

Weather permitting I am going to try the CR 25 routing next weekend to see how it is.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 01, 2021, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 04:25:02 PM
Yikes. You had to drive all the way to Charleston from Berkeley Springs, Martinsburg, or Charles Town to get a license plate?

I doubt anyone ever did.  We always mailed in the forms, but one of my early memories is going to the Transportation Building at the State Capitol when my father went to get a form from the racks outside the DMV Office.  Strangely enough, the first DMV Office outside of Charleston was at the Teays Valley exit and incorrectly listed as my hometown of Scott Depot.  It's still there, located in Putnam Village just a few doors down from the Teays post office.  That's in the area where Hurricane addresses are along the east side of WV-34, Winfield addresses are on the west side of WV-34, and Scott Depot addresses are on the south side of I-64.  The original Teays Depot post office was along the railroad about two miles southwest of there.

Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 04:25:02 PM
Of course, the only in-state route connecting the eastern panhandle to the rest of the state is WV 9, which would cost a fortune to upgrade. And then, you'd have to improve WV 29 to tie it in to Corridor H for the all in-state connection.

My understanding is that eastern panhandle traffic going to Charleston uses I-68 through Maryland. Would that traffic switch to Corridor H if it was completed, at least as far east as Wardensville and Virginia's section remaining unbuilt?

Amazingly, the I-64/I-81 route to Martinsville is only 15 miles longer but takes about an hour longer.  I do think that more folks will take Corridor H over to I-79 just because of the tremendous scenery, even if the route is longer.  Regarding WV-9 versus VA-55 (US-48), I wonder if old-timers will recall the out-of-state route connecting the two pieces of WV-45 across northern Frederick County.  Virginia never did acknowledge that WV-45 was a big deal for the Eastern Panhandle and West Virginia finally gave up getting a through route across Virginia by 1974.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 01, 2021, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 01, 2021, 01:49:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
I think I've noted this before, but more and more mapping services and GPS units are suggesting Corridor H/I-66 as the preferred route from this area to the DC region, over I-79/I-68 and I-64/I-81/I-66. I expect that to increase as more segments of H are completed. Right now, with the unfinished segments as they are, I'd still rather take US 48 than either I-68 or I-64.

Traffic patterns from this region to DC have really morphed over the years. I know I've mentioned working with Malcolm "Mac" Kilduff before. He took a couple of trips annually back to DC. He originally used KY 15, US 119, US 23, and Alternate US 58 to access I-81 at Abingdon. When enough of the future routing of I-68 was complete, back in that route's US 48 days, he started taking that route. I don't know if he ever used the WV Turnpike and I-64 when the route was finished between Beckley and Sam Black Church or not.

On my family's vacation to DC in the early 1980s, we used the northern route. I don't think the four-lane was finished past Cumberland, but it still wasn't a bad route even then.
The ADHS process of building a "fourlane road" has sidetracked the main goal of building a better route across the mountains where a two lane road with truck lanes upgrade would have suffiiced back in the 1960s.  It's sad that I will never see a day where it makes any sense to drive this entirely instate (even though I've done it instate many times).

You've hit on an important point here - WV has become obsessed with building new 4-lane alignments to the point that there haven't been many (any?) significant high speed 2-lane alignments built since the 1960s. (Excluding Corridor L, which was widened, and the maybe someday 4-lane part of the King Coal Highway.) The "Roads to Prosperity" program includes a 2-lane relocation of the Scott Miller Hill section of US 33 west of Spencer and, as far as I can think, that will be the first major new 2-lane construction in decades.

At this point, nearly every intercity corridor in WV that has the traffic counts to justify four lanes has been four-laned. A number of corridors remain, like Summersville to Sam Black Church, Clay to I-79, and Marlinton to Lewisburg, where an improved 2-lane with passing zones and/or climbing lanes would make a tremendous difference in connectivity.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 09:17:05 PM
Will we ever see significant improvements to the WV 2 corridor, or will West Virginia just let Ohio handle that via OH 7?

Moundsville to Chester is a slog on the east side of the river, but is much better on the Buckeye side.

On my last major trip along that corridor, I was trying to make the best possible time to my overnight destination in western Pennsylvania. I took WV 2 all the way to St. Marys, then crossed over and used OH 7 the rest of the way, especially since I was going to have to cross the river to East Liverpool anyway.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 01, 2021, 10:48:22 PM
West Virginia had vastly improved their old routes with higher speed two-lanes in the 1950s and 1960s. WV 93 (replaced with US 48) and WV 28 come to mind, along with parts of WV 92 north of White Sulphur Springs and WV 39 east of Richwood. I wish the state would focus on improving these routes versus investing in new-terrain corridors. Not everything needs to be 65 MPH highways blasted through mountains.

As for WV 2, I know WVDOH is working to move the highway along the hillside slope north of New Martinsville. That corridor has a lot of plant traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2021, 08:48:00 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

My wife grew up in Dayton and I've used the Corridor H/Corridor D combination several times for the trip back and forth. I much prefer it to the boring I-70 route, although there's no denying that the segment from Davis to Kerens slows things down a little. We use I-79 to connect between the two, as suggested in another reply. On our most recent trip west (last October), instead of the Corridor D part we took I-79 south to Charleston and connected to US-35. That was a very nice way to go, and when West Virginia finishes the four-laning on US-35 it'll be even better. I suspect for travel to or from Cincinnati that route might be marginally faster than the Corridor D route.

The thing that's frustrating about Virginia not showing much interest in upgrading its portion of the Corridor H route is that there's just enough traffic between Wardensville and I-81 to make passing rather difficult if you get stuck in a line of cars behind a slowpoke.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 02, 2021, 09:47:55 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 01, 2021, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2021, 04:25:02 PM
Yikes. You had to drive all the way to Charleston from Berkeley Springs, Martinsburg, or Charles Town to get a license plate?

I doubt anyone ever did.  We always mailed in the forms, but one of my early memories is going to the Transportation Building at the State Capitol when my father went to get a form from the racks outside the DMV Office.  Strangely enough, the first DMV Office outside of Charleston was at the Teays Valley exit and incorrectly listed as my hometown of Scott Depot.  It's still there, located in Putnam Village just a few doors down from the Teays post office.  That's in the area where Hurricane addresses are along the east side of WV-34, Winfield addresses are on the west side of WV-34, and Scott Depot addresses are on the south side of I-64.  The original Teays Depot post office was along the railroad about two miles southwest of there.


As to the DMV, if you go back long enough every type of plate had a month where they all expired.  IIRC, cars were July, trucks (then a separate category) were February and so on.  That was back when you got a new plate every year, and the DMV charged extra for postage.  There is an old photo in the state archive of people lined up as far as the eye can see in front of the DMV building to get plates.

Every town had somebody who was a "tag agent"  which was just some guy who knew the ins and outs of the DMV and most boasted "daily trips to Charleston"  (no mean feat in those days) who would take care of complex transactions, for a fee.   

The state switched to "permanent"  plates in the early 70s for cars, and did away with trucks as a different category a few years later; and let the sheriffs in on renewals a few years later.  Then it opened DMV branches all over the state in the 1990s, which pretty much killed the tag agents.

The reason the only branch office was the one in Putnam County, for many decades, was that it had parking, while Charleston did not, and it was a local call to Charleston.  It is odd that the only branch was just 20 miles from HQ.  BTW, it was, and still is, called the "Winfield branch"  because Exit 39 used to be labeled "Winfield"  before the new US 35 was built.   The state built a branch in Martinsburg in the late 80s and then the current system of 24 branches across the state was brought in in the late 90s.

BTW, before the branch system, you got your DL photo at the State Police office, unless you lived in Charleston, where you went to the DMV.  The background sheet was yellow, but in Charleston they had a blue one they would pull down and use for the politicians and insiders.  Which indicated someone who was immune to the speeding ticket random tax.  While they don't do it anymore "blue back"  is still WV cop lingo for a connected person.

As to Hurricane-Scott Depot-Teays Valley-Winfield, the Post Office, the phone company (back when that mattered), school board, and business all have different opinions of which place was where.  There are places will all combinations such as a Scott Depot phone number, Hurricane address, etc.  The area around Exit 39 has Hurricane addresses, Scott Depot phone numbers, but most business will advertise as being in "Teays Valley"  because that is what the exit sign says now.  They used to say they were in "Winfield"  back when the exit read that. 

There is a Post Office for Teays, 25569, which has a population of zero.   It is just a set of boxes in an old strip mall, no service area at all.  It saves the businesses in the area a trip.   It is only staffed a few hours per day.  I look for it to close someday.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 02, 2021, 10:29:53 AM
Quote from: seicer on August 01, 2021, 10:48:22 PM
West Virginia had vastly improved their old routes with higher speed two-lanes in the 1950s and 1960s. WV 93 (replaced with US 48) and WV 28 come to mind, along with parts of WV 92 north of White Sulphur Springs and WV 39 east of Richwood. I wish the state would focus on improving these routes versus investing in new-terrain corridors. Not everything needs to be 65 MPH highways blasted through mountains.

A lot of the backbone of WV's network, especially in the northern half of the state, is stuff that was built in the 1920s and 1930s. Things like US 119 from Morgantown to Grafton, WV 92 from US 50 to Belington, and US 250 from Huttonsville most of the way to the Virginia line. The mountain crossings aren't the greatest by today's standards, but the rest of the alignments are pretty good and easily support 55+ mph travel.

I agree that WV would be better off making piecemeal improvements to existing corridors rather than building new terrain alignments for everything. Straightening a curve or adding a turn lane or passing lane here or there would make noticeable improvements on a lot of routes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 02, 2021, 10:37:48 AM
Or adding shoulders. I've noticed with more recent repavings (WV 10, and others) that shoulders are being added where feasible. Nothing extravagant, but an extra 2' or 4' makes a huge difference when hauling RV's (as in my case lately).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2021, 12:47:03 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2021, 06:59:10 PM
You've hit on an important point here - WV has become obsessed with building new 4-lane alignments to the point that there haven't been many (any?) significant high speed 2-lane alignments built since the 1960s. (Excluding Corridor L, which was widened, and the maybe someday 4-lane part of the King Coal Highway.) The "Roads to Prosperity" program includes a 2-lane relocation of the Scott Miller Hill section of US 33 west of Spencer and, as far as I can think, that will be the first major new 2-lane construction in decades.

This  may not be a failure of WVDOT as much as at is a "feature" of the federal ADHS network, which was presumed to be a system of four lane arterials, expressways or freeways (at least for the most part).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SkyPesos on August 02, 2021, 12:51:30 PM
Something I like about West Virginia is that they sign ADHS routes with the ADHS letter on mile markers. You would have to look up the internet to find out that OH 32 east of I-275 and US 23 south of I-270 are ADHS routes in Ohio, because it's not mentioned as such at all in the state.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 02, 2021, 01:03:03 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2021, 06:59:10 PM
You've hit on an important point here - WV has become obsessed with building new 4-lane alignments to the point that there haven't been many (any?) significant high speed 2-lane alignments built since the 1960s. (Excluding Corridor L, which was widened, and the maybe someday 4-lane part of the King Coal Highway.) The "Roads to Prosperity" program includes a 2-lane relocation of the Scott Miller Hill section of US 33 west of Spencer and, as far as I can think, that will be the first major new 2-lane construction in decades.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2021, 12:47:03 PM
This  may not be a failure of WVDOT as much as at is a "feature" of the federal ADHS network, which was presumed to be a system of four lane arterials, expressways or freeways (at least for the most part).

Agree.  The funding available through the Interstate Highway System and the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) pretty much forces West Virginia to press on from end-to-end with four-lane highways. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 02, 2021, 01:38:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2021, 12:47:03 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2021, 06:59:10 PM
You've hit on an important point here - WV has become obsessed with building new 4-lane alignments to the point that there haven't been many (any?) significant high speed 2-lane alignments built since the 1960s. (Excluding Corridor L, which was widened, and the maybe someday 4-lane part of the King Coal Highway.) The "Roads to Prosperity" program includes a 2-lane relocation of the Scott Miller Hill section of US 33 west of Spencer and, as far as I can think, that will be the first major new 2-lane construction in decades.

This  may not be a failure of WVDOT as much as at is a "feature" of the federal ADHS network, which was presumed to be a system of four lane arterials, expressways or freeways (at least for the most part).

Kentucky failed at that task, most assuredly. KY 15 and the super-2 portion of the Mountain Parkway were grandfathered in to the ADHS, but look at the other corridors outside B, G, and Q. They are mostly two-lane or 2+1 routes. KY 90 between Burnside and Burkesville is indistinguishable from, say, KY 11 between Mt. Sterling and Maysville.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2021, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
On my family's vacation to DC in the early 1980s, we used the northern route. I don't think the four-lane was finished past Cumberland, but it still wasn't a bad route even then.

You are correct.  From Cumberland west, the road looked much like it does today.

But Hancock to east of Sideling Hill had some pretty rough spots, especially the switchback at the top of Sideling Hill and between Rocky Gap and Flintstone.  There was also an isolated and short freeway segment on what is now I-68 that included the interchange at Exit 64 (Orleans Road). 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 02, 2021, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2021, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
On my family's vacation to DC in the early 1980s, we used the northern route. I don't think the four-lane was finished past Cumberland, but it still wasn't a bad route even then.

You are correct.  From Cumberland west, the road looked much like it does today.

But Hancock to east of Sideling Hill had some pretty rough spots, especially the switchback at the top of Sideling Hill and between Rocky Gap and Flintstone.  There was also an isolated and short freeway segment on what is now I-68 that included the interchange at Exit 64 (Orleans Road). 

I can attest to that as well; my first time using that corridor (WB) was in mid-1989 when the western portion was signed as US 48.  Saw the Sideling construction in progress up the hillside; that portion reminded me of the effort on I-80 in the Sierras circa 1959-60, with long gashes carved out of hillsides above the original highway.  Less impressed with the narrow Cumberland "snake" freeway, but the section into WV, including the long/high bridge over the Youghiogheny River made up for that.  Did the trip in reverse about two and a half years later after it was completed and signed as I-68; got to see Sideling "freshly cut" as it was -- a geologist's playground!   
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2021, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 08:54:26 PM
I can attest to that as well; my first time using that corridor (WB) was in mid-1989 when the western portion was signed as US 48.  Saw the Sideling construction in progress up the hillside; that portion reminded me of the effort on I-80 in the Sierras circa 1959-60, with long gashes carved out of hillsides above the original highway.  Less impressed with the narrow Cumberland "snake" freeway, but the section into WV, including the long/high bridge over the Youghiogheny River made up for that.  Did the trip in reverse about two and a half years later after it was completed and signed as I-68; got to see Sideling "freshly cut" as it was -- a geologist's playground!

The Cumberland Thruway section of I-68 is pre-Interstate engineering and design.  It was originally the U.S. 40 bypass through the downtown area of Cumberland (not sure if it was signed as bypass U.S. 40) and opened to traffic about 1962. When U.S. 48 and then I-68 came along, it was incorporated into those freeways with little or no modification.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SkyPesos on August 03, 2021, 01:04:55 AM
Is US 48 the most used 2dus number on separate routings at this point? First in San Jose, then on I-68/Corridor E, and now on Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 03, 2021, 03:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2021, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 08:54:26 PM
I can attest to that as well; my first time using that corridor (WB) was in mid-1989 when the western portion was signed as US 48.  Saw the Sideling construction in progress up the hillside; that portion reminded me of the effort on I-80 in the Sierras circa 1959-60, with long gashes carved out of hillsides above the original highway.  Less impressed with the narrow Cumberland "snake" freeway, but the section into WV, including the long/high bridge over the Youghiogheny River made up for that.  Did the trip in reverse about two and a half years later after it was completed and signed as I-68; got to see Sideling "freshly cut" as it was -- a geologist's playground!

The Cumberland Thruway section of I-68 is pre-Interstate engineering and design.  It was originally the U.S. 40 bypass through the downtown area of Cumberland (not sure if it was signed as bypass U.S. 40) and opened to traffic about 1962. When U.S. 48 and then I-68 came along, it was incorporated into those freeways with little or no modification.

And yet FHWA signed off on its Interstate status (obviously with waivers) circa 1991.  Since it appears they've tightened up their standards as of late, I wonder if the Cumberland Thruway would be approved today. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 10:18:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 03:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2021, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 08:54:26 PM
I can attest to that as well; my first time using that corridor (WB) was in mid-1989 when the western portion was signed as US 48.  Saw the Sideling construction in progress up the hillside; that portion reminded me of the effort on I-80 in the Sierras circa 1959-60, with long gashes carved out of hillsides above the original highway.  Less impressed with the narrow Cumberland "snake" freeway, but the section into WV, including the long/high bridge over the Youghiogheny River made up for that.  Did the trip in reverse about two and a half years later after it was completed and signed as I-68; got to see Sideling "freshly cut" as it was -- a geologist's playground!

The Cumberland Thruway section of I-68 is pre-Interstate engineering and design.  It was originally the U.S. 40 bypass through the downtown area of Cumberland (not sure if it was signed as bypass U.S. 40) and opened to traffic about 1962. When U.S. 48 and then I-68 came along, it was incorporated into those freeways with little or no modification.

And yet FHWA signed off on its Interstate status (obviously with waivers) circa 1991.  Since it appears they've tightened up their standards as of late, I wonder if the Cumberland Thruway would be approved today.

Seems like it would be hard not to approve it, given that there are modern interstates touching either side of a very short piece of elevated freeway. I suppose the alternative would be to post "To I-68" signs along it if it wasn't considered to be an actual part of the interstate. It's not like NY 17 where you have sections with at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on August 03, 2021, 10:23:22 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 03, 2021, 01:04:55 AM
Is US 48 the most used 2dus number on separate routings at this point? First in San Jose, then on I-68/Corridor E, and now on Corridor H.

Yes...

Very few have even been used twice:
US 46, US 96

Note that the first US 46 and first US 48 were never posted...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on August 03, 2021, 10:46:00 AM


Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 10:18:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 03:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2021, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 08:54:26 PM
I can attest to that as well; my first time using that corridor (WB) was in mid-1989 when the western portion was signed as US 48.  Saw the Sideling construction in progress up the hillside; that portion reminded me of the effort on I-80 in the Sierras circa 1959-60, with long gashes carved out of hillsides above the original highway.  Less impressed with the narrow Cumberland "snake" freeway, but the section into WV, including the long/high bridge over the Youghiogheny River made up for that.  Did the trip in reverse about two and a half years later after it was completed and signed as I-68; got to see Sideling "freshly cut" as it was -- a geologist's playground!

The Cumberland Thruway section of I-68 is pre-Interstate engineering and design.  It was originally the U.S. 40 bypass through the downtown area of Cumberland (not sure if it was signed as bypass U.S. 40) and opened to traffic about 1962. When U.S. 48 and then I-68 came along, it was incorporated into those freeways with little or no modification.

And yet FHWA signed off on its Interstate status (obviously with waivers) circa 1991.  Since it appears they've tightened up their standards as of late, I wonder if the Cumberland Thruway would be approved today.

Seems like it would be hard not to approve it, given that there are modern interstates touching either side of a very short piece of elevated freeway. I suppose the alternative would be to post "To I-68" signs along it if it wasn't considered to be an actual part of the interstate. It's not like NY 17 where you have sections with at-grade intersections.

Depends on the FHWA Division Office.  I suspect if NC's was in NY, I-86 would be further along.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SkyPesos on August 03, 2021, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2021, 10:18:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 03:43:33 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 03, 2021, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2021, 08:54:26 PM
I can attest to that as well; my first time using that corridor (WB) was in mid-1989 when the western portion was signed as US 48.  Saw the Sideling construction in progress up the hillside; that portion reminded me of the effort on I-80 in the Sierras circa 1959-60, with long gashes carved out of hillsides above the original highway.  Less impressed with the narrow Cumberland "snake" freeway, but the section into WV, including the long/high bridge over the Youghiogheny River made up for that.  Did the trip in reverse about two and a half years later after it was completed and signed as I-68; got to see Sideling "freshly cut" as it was -- a geologist's playground!

The Cumberland Thruway section of I-68 is pre-Interstate engineering and design.  It was originally the U.S. 40 bypass through the downtown area of Cumberland (not sure if it was signed as bypass U.S. 40) and opened to traffic about 1962. When U.S. 48 and then I-68 came along, it was incorporated into those freeways with little or no modification.

And yet FHWA signed off on its Interstate status (obviously with waivers) circa 1991.  Since it appears they've tightened up their standards as of late, I wonder if the Cumberland Thruway would be approved today.

Seems like it would be hard not to approve it, given that there are modern interstates touching either side of a very short piece of elevated freeway. I suppose the alternative would be to post "To I-68" signs along it if it wasn't considered to be an actual part of the interstate. It's not like NY 17 where you have sections with at-grade intersections.
Considering MD have no shortage of "To I-68"  signs on WB I-70 (and even one on I-270 I think) right now, they're probably fine with that to encourage drivers to shunpike.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2021, 12:40:41 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 03, 2021, 10:23:22 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 03, 2021, 01:04:55 AM
Is US 48 the most used 2dus number on separate routings at this point? First in San Jose, then on I-68/Corridor E, and now on Corridor H.

Yes...

Very few have even been used twice:
US 46, US 96

Note that the first US 46 and first US 48 were never posted...
There are a couple of 3-digit routes that have also moved around. US 117 is one, US 121 now (well, soon) is another.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: mvak36 on August 04, 2021, 10:05:38 AM
https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/west-virginia-sen-manchin-infrastructure-package-includes-200m-for-corridor-h/article_588f3d5a-f46c-11eb-9d0b-4bb5aa169e4f.html

Quote
WASHINGTON (WV News) – West Virginia could receive nearly $200 million to support the completion of Corridor H as part of the infrastructure package currently before Congress, according to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

On Tuesday, Manchin, along with Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, announced the inclusion of their bipartisan, bicameral Finish the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Act in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

...

Currently, 101 miles of Corridor H are open to traffic in West Virginia, with 31 miles left to open, including the section from Kerens to Parsons. To date, an estimated $1.93 billion has been spent on Corridor H. However, an estimated $1.10 billion worth of work remains.

According to information from the West Virginia Encyclopedia, development of West Virginia's Appalachian Corridor highways began in 1965 when Sen. Jennings Randolph, D-W.Va., helped to create the Appalachian Regional Commission.

The Appalachian Development Highway System was created under the Appalachian Regional Commission to attract industry and diversify the economic base by building good roads throughout the previously isolated region.

Originally including 23 individual corridors designated alphabetically from A to W, the 3,285-mile system was designed to link the interstate highways of the 13 Appalachian states.

Of West Virginia's six routes, designated D, E, G, H, L and Q, Corridor H is the only corridor highway that remains incomplete.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sparker on August 04, 2021, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on August 04, 2021, 10:05:38 AM
https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/west-virginia-sen-manchin-infrastructure-package-includes-200m-for-corridor-h/article_588f3d5a-f46c-11eb-9d0b-4bb5aa169e4f.html

Quote
WASHINGTON (WV News) – West Virginia could receive nearly $200 million to support the completion of Corridor H as part of the infrastructure package currently before Congress, according to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

On Tuesday, Manchin, along with Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, announced the inclusion of their bipartisan, bicameral Finish the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Act in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

...

Currently, 101 miles of Corridor H are open to traffic in West Virginia, with 31 miles left to open, including the section from Kerens to Parsons. To date, an estimated $1.93 billion has been spent on Corridor H. However, an estimated $1.10 billion worth of work remains.

According to information from the West Virginia Encyclopedia, development of West Virginia's Appalachian Corridor highways began in 1965 when Sen. Jennings Randolph, D-W.Va., helped to create the Appalachian Regional Commission.

The Appalachian Development Highway System was created under the Appalachian Regional Commission to attract industry and diversify the economic base by building good roads throughout the previously isolated region.

Originally including 23 individual corridors designated alphabetically from A to W, the 3,285-mile system was designed to link the interstate highways of the 13 Appalachian states.

Of West Virginia's six routes, designated D, E, G, H, L and Q, Corridor H is the only corridor highway that remains incomplete.

With Manchin in the "catbird" position in the Senate, this was a no-brainer on his part.  Wouldn't be at all surprised to see money for Coalfields earmarked as well before the final bill's approval. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 04, 2021, 01:05:04 PM
Wonder if the Portman/Manchin bill includes any work for getting US 119 (Corridor F) finished in Letcher County? The state had talked about making improvements to the section already finished (parts of it four lanes, the rest 2+1) between Whitesburg and Jenkins, but isn't moving on finishing the rest of the "valley floor" portion or the Pine Mountain crossing.

Since McConnell has acquiesced to supporting parts of the infrastructure bill, seems like this is something he could get behind.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 04, 2021, 01:45:44 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 04, 2021, 01:05:04 PM
Wonder if the Portman/Manchin bill includes any work for getting US 119 (Corridor F) finished in Letcher County? The state had talked about making improvements to the section already finished (parts of it four lanes, the rest 2+1) between Whitesburg and Jenkins, but isn't moving on finishing the rest of the "valley floor" portion or the Pine Mountain crossing.

Since McConnell has acquiesced to supporting parts of the infrastructure bill, seems like this is something he could get behind.

Potentially: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article253253363.html#storylink=topdigest_latest
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on August 07, 2021, 10:20:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 01, 2021, 04:45:34 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 01, 2021, 01:39:36 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on July 31, 2021, 09:44:17 PM
I haven't paid attention to Corridor H that much, but looking at a map, it sort of looks like an eastward continuation of the OH 32 Corridor D to DC. This seems like a nice alternative routing from Cincinnati to DC to I-70, and I might try it out next time going to DC.

But U.S. 50 east of I-79 (not part of Corridor D) has a lot of sharp curves and steep grades.


Note that Google shows an alternative routing using CR 25 from US 48-219 to make a straight line from Davis to WV 38 them over via WV 57 that is a couple minutes faster than using WV 42 to US 50.  WV 38/57 is nowhere near as bad as US 50 for curves.

Weather permitting I am going to try the CR 25 routing next weekend to see how it is.

I did get out that way yesterday...

CR 25 has good pavement, but the road is mostly 1.5 lanes wide, mostly unstriped, steep and twisty.  Larger passenger vehicles would find this uncomfortable as a through route and I'm pretty sure I won't use it again either.

Super impressed with the bridge being built southwest of Parsons which as CP mentioned has the piers essentially done but no horizontal pieces.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 02:31:15 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2021, 03:18:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 31, 2021, 09:33:52 PM
On my family's vacation to DC in the early 1980s, we used the northern route. I don't think the four-lane was finished past Cumberland, but it still wasn't a bad route even then.

You are correct.  From Cumberland west, the road looked much like it does today.

But Hancock to east of Sideling Hill had some pretty rough spots, especially the switchback at the top of Sideling Hill and between Rocky Gap and Flintstone.  There was also an isolated and short freeway segment on what is now I-68 that included the interchange at Exit 64 (Orleans Road).

So I have this map https://raisedrelief.com/products/cumberland-usgs-regional-3d-map (https://raisedrelief.com/products/cumberland-usgs-regional-3d-map), what portions of it on the I-68 and US 48 corridors are accurate?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 02, 2021, 10:02:03 PM
The original signage installed on the US 219 portion of Corridor H between Elkins and Kerens had an empty steel post at each set of reassurance markers to accommodate signs for another route. I assumed this was done in preparation for US 48 eventually to be extended over the highway.

I found some plans for this section of road from the 1990s at https://www.bidx.com/wv/attachment?filekey=6c8e3451-c479-11eb-a0d8-aa18e2af2746/files/a3f44ec5-c47a-11eb-a622-b2cce3f6d0f8.pdf&drive=1. It appears the plan was originally to move WV 55 onto this route, having Elkins-Kerens signed as US 33 and WV 55. It appears the second set of posts were intended for WV 55 markers.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 03, 2021, 11:11:12 AM
Where would US 33 have connected to? It would have required a reroute in VA.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 03, 2021, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 03, 2021, 11:11:12 AM
Where would US 33 have connected to? It would have required a reroute in VA.

I think US 33 was supposed to have gone to around Harrisonburg, but keep in mind Elkins-Kerens was designed and built after the US 33 alignment east of Elkins had already been cancelled.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 03, 2021, 01:01:02 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on November 03, 2021, 12:01:59 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 03, 2021, 11:11:12 AM
Where would US 33 have connected to? It would have required a reroute in VA.

I think US 33 was supposed to have gone to around Harrisonburg, but keep in mind Elkins-Kerens was designed and built after the US 33 alignment east of Elkins had already been cancelled.

Yes, and I've seen maps (WVDOT official) with a proposed routing of US 33 that indicated as such.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 04, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
Interesting.

Also from a recent trip up that way, US 48 is being asphalted west of Elkins for a number of miles. That segment is older than I had thought (1994) and the concrete joints were all deteriorating. WVDOH has invested a lot to replace practically every joint. I'm surprised they just didn't diamond grind it down afterward.

And it's good to see the state investing in recessed reflective markers. Kentucky recessed its markers decades ago and only recently began doing it state-wide. I noticed Virginia doing the same on newly paved routes.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2021, 06:08:22 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 04, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
Interesting.

Also from a recent trip up that way, US 48 is being asphalted west of Elkins for a number of miles. That segment is older than I had thought (1994) and the concrete joints were all deteriorating. WVDOH has invested a lot to replace practically every joint. I'm surprised they just didn't diamond grind it down afterward.

And it's good to see the state investing in recessed reflective markers. Kentucky recessed its markers decades ago and only recently began doing it state-wide. I noticed Virginia doing the same on newly paved routes.
I find it interesting that the joints didn't even last 30 years. I can't swear to it, but the joints of the same age along I-287 here appear to still be original and those see much heavier traffic and similar freeze/thaw.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 05, 2021, 10:07:21 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 04, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
Also from a recent trip up that way, US 48 is being asphalted west of Elkins for a number of miles. That segment is older than I had thought (1994) and the concrete joints were all deteriorating. WVDOH has invested a lot to replace practically every joint. I'm surprised they just didn't diamond grind it down afterward.

The Randolph County section had concrete rehab and diamond grinding a couple years ago. There were still issues with panels settling. I'm not sure if the joints lacked dowels or what.

Quote from: seicer on November 04, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
And it's good to see the state investing in recessed reflective markers. Kentucky recessed its markers decades ago and only recently began doing it state-wide. I noticed Virginia doing the same on newly paved routes.

Not really in any sort of widespread manner. They get installed on Interstates, Corridors, and multilane highways but aren't really maintained. There's been some limited testing with installing them on a couple stretches of 2-lane, like US 219 around the Randolph/Tucker line.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 05, 2021, 10:10:03 AM
The Elkins-Kerens portion of Corridor H is going to be closed for about a year due to reconstruction of the ~20-year old bridges over Pearcy Run and Harpertown Road (Randolph CR 1). The bridges have failing abutments. Traffic will be detoured using Old US 219 during the closure.

https://www.wdtv.com/2021/11/01/corridor-h-close-bridge-reconstruction/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 05, 2021, 11:19:31 AM
Yikes. For reference, it's at https://goo.gl/maps/hMgyxMhc842Uzutp6
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on November 05, 2021, 11:49:13 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 05, 2021, 11:19:31 AM
Yikes. For reference, it's at https://goo.gl/maps/hMgyxMhc842Uzutp6

Seems to me the campground shown on the map there should be located southeast of town, IF you know what I mean...

:bigass:
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on November 05, 2021, 01:16:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 04, 2021, 06:08:22 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 04, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
Interesting.

Also from a recent trip up that way, US 48 is being asphalted west of Elkins for a number of miles. That segment is older than I had thought (1994) and the concrete joints were all deteriorating. WVDOH has invested a lot to replace practically every joint. I'm surprised they just didn't diamond grind it down afterward.

And it's good to see the state investing in recessed reflective markers. Kentucky recessed its markers decades ago and only recently began doing it state-wide. I noticed Virginia doing the same on newly paved routes.
I find it interesting that the joints didn't even last 30 years. I can't swear to it, but the joints of the same age along I-287 here appear to still be original and those see much heavier traffic and similar freeze/thaw.

As Brian noted, I wonder if they were not jointed. It reminds me of I-88 condition - not necessarily with slabs faulting, but with the joints separating. There is much about concrete's chemistry that I do not understand but it's interesting that it's not uniform.

It reminds me of I-99 near State College. The northernmost segment built in 1997 just got repaved after the slabs were faulting. Segments just to the south were built in 2001 and are in perfect condition. On the surface they looked the same.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on November 05, 2021, 08:47:25 PM
That bridge closing sounds like the contractors did shoddy work. Those structures should still be in pristine condition.

And why should they close the entire section? Why not detour traffic along CR 1 that passes under the bridge and has a connection to the four-lane?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on November 05, 2021, 09:03:57 PM
I doubt CR 1 would be able to handle the traffic volume.  While it's paved, it's a tad narrow and also lacks edge striping.

Also, using CR 1 as you suggest would require five turns that would not exist with the planned CR 219/86 detour route.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on November 05, 2021, 09:22:22 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 05, 2021, 08:47:25 PM
That bridge closing sounds like the contractors did shoddy work. Those structures should still be in pristine condition.

And why should they close the entire section? Why not detour traffic along CR 1 that passes under the bridge and has a connection to the four-lane?

It's faster and easier just to have traffic stay on Old US 219 (CR 219/86). It's a straight shot, no turns required, and you can drive 55mph without any trouble. With the four-lane highway ending just a couple miles north of the work zone, there's no advantage to having traffic get on this short portion of road.

A substantial percentage of locals continued to use Old US 219 all along rather than bother getting on/off Corridor H if they're heading north from Elkins. Traffic counts are actually higher (about 2800 VPD versus 2400) on Old US 219 versus Corridor H.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on January 26, 2022, 07:20:58 PM
Looking through Corridor H's website from WVDOT, it looks like the Parsons to Davis as well as the Wardensville to Virginia state line sections are "tentatively scheduled to start construction in 2024". Getting closer to a full four-lane highway from I-79 in WV to I-81 in VA!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on January 27, 2022, 09:16:49 AM
The governor stated yesterday that it was his plan to have all sections under construction before he leaves office (he is term limited and cannot run in 24). 

No idea about Virginia, but I would assume the change in party makes things like finishing H and Q better, just looking at the color map.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 27, 2022, 10:38:52 AM
^ However, the new Virginia governor is from Northern Virginia so I would expect more of a push from him there than for finishing the Corridors.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:04 PM
The Corridors really aren't a big priority for Virginia at this point. The unbuilt portions of H and Q would do little for Virginia. Far more things that would actually benefit the state, such as US 220 south of Roanoke, I-81, I-64, and I-95.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Life in Paradise on January 27, 2022, 12:55:18 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:04 PM
The Corridors really aren't a big priority for Virginia at this point. The unbuilt portions of H and Q would do little for Virginia. Far more things that would actually benefit the state, such as US 220 south of Roanoke, I-81, I-64, and I-95.
You just never know, if WV gets all of their work done to the VA state line, that short stretch will stand out, and perhaps from VA legislators and DC types that like to take skiing or other recreational trips to Northern WV will start to make some noise.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2022, 04:36:11 PM
I highly doubt US 48/Corridor H will ever be a four-lane highway in the state of Virginia. The four-lane highway segment will likely always have its eastern terminus right where it is today, just west of the town of Wardensville, West Virginia. I think the WV 55 designation should end at is junction with US 48 in Mooresville, and 48 should continue as the sole designation east of there to Interstate 81 in Strasburg, Virginia (the VA 55 duplex with 48 should be eliminated as well). As I've stated before, all of VA 55 to its eastern terminus at US 29 in Gainesville should be part of US 48.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on January 27, 2022, 04:49:39 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2022, 04:36:11 PM
The four-lane highway segment will likely always have its eastern terminus right where it is today, just west of the town of Wardensville, West Virginia.
Wardensville to Virginia state line begins construction in 2024.

A safer bet is that the eastern terminus will end up there... not where it is today.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2022, 04:52:42 PM
I sit corrected!
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 27, 2022, 10:12:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2022, 04:36:11 PM
The four-lane highway segment will likely always have its eastern terminus right where it is today, just west of the town of Wardensville, West Virginia.

Quote from: sprjus4 on January 27, 2022, 04:49:39 PM
Wardensville to Virginia state line begins construction in 2024.

A safer bet is that the eastern terminus will end up there... not where it is today.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2022, 04:36:11 PM
I highly doubt US 48/Corridor H will ever be a four-lane highway in the state of Virginia. The four-lane highway segment will likely always have its eastern terminus right where it is today, just west of the town of Wardensville, West Virginia. I think the WV 55 designation should end at is junction with US 48 in Mooresville, and 48 should continue as the sole designation east of there to Interstate 81 in Strasburg, Virginia (the VA 55 duplex with 48 should be eliminated as well). As I've stated before, all of VA 55 to its eastern terminus at US 29 in Gainesville should be part of US 48.

Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:04 PM
The Corridors really aren't a big priority for Virginia at this point. The unbuilt portions of H and Q would do little for Virginia. Far more things that would actually benefit the state, such as US 220 south of Roanoke, I-81, I-64, and I-95.

Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 27, 2022, 12:55:18 PM
You just never know, if WV gets all of their work done to the VA state line, that short stretch will stand out, and perhaps from VA legislators and DC types that like to take skiing or other recreational trips to Northern WV will start to make some noise.

It was always my impression that VDOT would never build a four-lane US-48 to help out West Virginia, but then VTGoose posted this in the Virginia thread yesterday:

(https://brucebharper.info/varoads/WarnerMap.png)

Twenty million won't even touch the engineering costs for this section, but there should be enough planning money to get the ball rolling.  However, the same factions that stopped the upgrade of US-15 through Loudoun will be in play here.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: VTGoose on January 28, 2022, 08:37:59 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on January 27, 2022, 10:12:12 PM

It was always my impression that VDOT would never build a four-lane US-48 to help out West Virginia, but then VTGoose posted this in the Virginia thread yesterday:

(https://brucebharper.info/varoads/WarnerMap.png)

Twenty million won't even touch the engineering costs for this section, but there should be enough planning money to get the ball rolling.  However, the same factions that stopped the upgrade of US-15 through Loudoun will be in play here.

Sen. Mark Warner made that announcement. What isn't clear is if that is an additional $20 million for those two highways (U.S. 48 and U.S. 460) or if it is just a specific part of  what has already been tagged in the infrastructure act: Appalachian Development Highway System: $102,835,469

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on January 28, 2022, 08:39:17 AM
Notice also the graphic says "eligible." "Eligible for" is not the same thing as "slated for" or similar. (Put differently, I'm "eligible" to be elected President of the United States.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 28, 2022, 08:42:22 AM
Given the focus on completing Corridor Q, which has active projects and studies going on, I would suspect/expect that the $20M would go there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on January 28, 2022, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 27, 2022, 12:55:18 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:04 PM
The Corridors really aren't a big priority for Virginia at this point. The unbuilt portions of H and Q would do little for Virginia. Far more things that would actually benefit the state, such as US 220 south of Roanoke, I-81, I-64, and I-95.
You just never know, if WV gets all of their work done to the VA state line, that short stretch will stand out, and perhaps from VA legislators and DC types that like to take skiing or other recreational trips to Northern WV will start to make some noise.

VA 9 serves as a counter-example to this idea...

It probably would require legislative action to get US 48 4-laned in Virginia.  VDOT has never put out anything, even in long range stuff suggesting they are looking at improving US 48.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on January 28, 2022, 09:20:47 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 28, 2022, 09:17:37 AM
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 27, 2022, 12:55:18 PM
Quote from: cl94 on January 27, 2022, 12:49:04 PM
The Corridors really aren't a big priority for Virginia at this point. The unbuilt portions of H and Q would do little for Virginia. Far more things that would actually benefit the state, such as US 220 south of Roanoke, I-81, I-64, and I-95.
You just never know, if WV gets all of their work done to the VA state line, that short stretch will stand out, and perhaps from VA legislators and DC types that like to take skiing or other recreational trips to Northern WV will start to make some noise.

VA 9 serves as a counter-example to this idea...

....

That's an excellent point–arguably Virginia doubled down on not "upgrading" and widening Route 9 by abandoning the proposal to bypass Hillsboro and instead building the roundabouts at each end of the town, installing sidewalks, and reducing the amount of on-street parking.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cl94 on January 28, 2022, 09:28:49 AM
Quote from: froggie on January 28, 2022, 08:42:22 AM
Given the focus on completing Corridor Q, which has active projects and studies going on, I would suspect/expect that the $20M would go there.

Isn't Q down to two unopened segments of the entire thing? Grundy-Breaks in VA and 80-195 in Kentucky are the only things that stand out to me, with the KY one under construction.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on January 28, 2022, 09:57:45 AM
Yes, Q is down to Grundy-Breaks in VA, but that will still cost well into the 9-digits.  And studies are still underway on most of it.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rte66man on January 29, 2022, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: seicer on November 05, 2021, 01:16:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 04, 2021, 06:08:22 PM
Quote from: seicer on November 04, 2021, 02:01:38 PM
Interesting.

Also from a recent trip up that way, US 48 is being asphalted west of Elkins for a number of miles. That segment is older than I had thought (1994) and the concrete joints were all deteriorating. WVDOH has invested a lot to replace practically every joint. I'm surprised they just didn't diamond grind it down afterward.

And it's good to see the state investing in recessed reflective markers. Kentucky recessed its markers decades ago and only recently began doing it state-wide. I noticed Virginia doing the same on newly paved routes.
I find it interesting that the joints didn't even last 30 years. I can't swear to it, but the joints of the same age along I-287 here appear to still be original and those see much heavier traffic and similar freeze/thaw.

As Brian noted, I wonder if they were not jointed. It reminds me of I-88 condition - not necessarily with slabs faulting, but with the joints separating. There is much about concrete's chemistry that I do not understand but it's interesting that it's not uniform.

It reminds me of I-99 near State College. The northernmost segment built in 1997 just got repaved after the slabs were faulting. Segments just to the south were built in 2001 and are in perfect condition. On the surface they looked the same.

Most likely one of two reasons: Either the concrete wasn't specced (specked?) correctly or the bed wasn't sufficiently compacted.  I would put my money on the former. I work for a concrete company and was stunned to learn we have literally hundreds of mix designs, many of which are custom to a particular DOT job. DOT's are always looking for ways to save money by using a less than adequate mix design, especially when the bids come in over estimate.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 24, 2022, 10:08:30 PM
https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/west-virginia-officials-announce-corridor-h-bid-award/article_3b7ab8a2-93ea-11ec-a35d-776695beb3d4.html

Construction will be underway on another section of the Corridor H project in eastern West Virginia- the 3300-foot long Cheat River Bridge.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: lepidopteran on August 01, 2022, 12:07:11 PM
Tucker County residents seek "better route"  for Corridor H in Davis-Thomas area
https://wvmetronews.com/2022/07/31/471182/ (https://wvmetronews.com/2022/07/31/471182/)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/wvmetro-uploads-prod/2022/07/Corridor-H-Map.jpg)

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 01, 2022, 12:32:21 PM
These people are the BANANA/NIMBY crew that has held up this road for decades.  While they talk about "alternatives"  their goal is the same as it has been for 60 years.  Kill the project. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2022, 12:32:21 PM
These people are the BANANA/NIMBY crew that has held up this road for decades.  While they talk about "alternatives"  their goal is the same as it has been for 60 years.  Kill the project. 

Hardly. The Town of Davis surveyed homeowners - 45% supported the proposed northern route, only 10% supported DOH's preferred route, and the rest wanted more information. Several dozen local businesses have also signed petitions against DOH's preferred routing. See https://www.theintermountain.com/news/local-news/2022/07/petition-fights-corridor-hs-tucker-route/ and https://parsonsadvocate.com/news/pa-top-stories/headlines/corridor-h-proposed-route-from-parsons-to-davis-discussed-in-local-meetings/ for coverage from local newspapers.

In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2022, 01:47:33 PM
So the genius business owners there are in favor of a route that would take traffic away from then instead of a route that would bring traffic directly to them.

I've never thought of Davis and Thomas as thriving towns with lots of tourists. Both places have looked pretty dead every time I've been through them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 01, 2022, 02:17:35 PM
How many homeowners are in Davis? 

Hopefully these people will be ignored and a safe, high speed highway will be built and help people throughout the region. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2022, 01:47:33 PM
So the genius business owners there are in favor of a route that would take traffic away from then instead of a route that would bring traffic directly to them.

I've never thought of Davis and Thomas as thriving towns with lots of tourists. Both places have looked pretty dead every time I've been through them.

DOH's proposed route was going to bisect the land between the towns. People would still have to get off Corridor H to go into either town, same as with a proposed northern bypass. Access to Thomas would likely be better with the proposed northern bypass and access to Davis would still be good with an interchange with current WV 93 about a mile outside of town. Extend 3rd Street out to Corridor H and it would be comparable to an interchange at WV 32 on DOH's preferred alignment.

Tourism has grown in Tucker County substantially over the past decade, in part because of improved Corridor H access from the DC metro. Go up on a weekend with nice weather (during warm weather months) or during ski season and the area is quite busy.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on August 01, 2022, 02:47:41 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 01, 2022, 01:47:33 PM
So the genius business owners there are in favor of a route that would take traffic away from then instead of a route that would bring traffic directly to them.

I've never thought of Davis and Thomas as thriving towns with lots of tourists. Both places have looked pretty dead every time I've been through them.

My 17-hr rides that head out that direction frequently find me in Thomas on a Saturday early evening on my return and it is pretty busy in that small downtown district.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on August 02, 2022, 10:49:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.

Why were they going to have to build a truck bypass? Would that routing of Corridor H be unsuitable for trucks?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 02, 2022, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: machpost on August 02, 2022, 10:49:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.

Why were they going to have to build a truck bypass? Would that routing of Corridor H be unsuitable for trucks?

WV 32 (and now US 48) split into a pair of one-way streets on separate elevations. My guess is that the truck bypass would be needed for what would be the new routing of US 219 splitting from US 48 heading north toward I-68.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2022, 06:21:28 PM
I'm disappointed the Parsons-to-Davis will have to wait until 2025 for final design to begin, and 2031 before construction begins. I know money isn't unlimited, but it would be nice if Corridor H could have been completed sooner (dito for the Coalfields Expressway and the King Coal Highway).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 02, 2022, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2022, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: machpost on August 02, 2022, 10:49:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.

Why were they going to have to build a truck bypass? Would that routing of Corridor H be unsuitable for trucks?

WV 32 (and now US 48) split into a pair of one-way streets on separate elevations. My guess is that the truck bypass would be needed for what would be the new routing of US 219 splitting from US 48 heading north toward I-68.

No, the truck bypass is for WV 32 to take truck traffic off the pair of one-way streets through downtown Thomas. There is no new routing of US 219 planned north of Thomas.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on August 03, 2022, 09:00:54 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 01, 2022, 12:32:21 PM
These people are the BANANA/NIMBY crew that has held up this road for decades.  While they talk about "alternatives"  their goal is the same as it has been for 60 years.  Kill the project. 

Hardly. The Town of Davis surveyed homeowners - 45% supported the proposed northern route, only 10% supported DOH's preferred route, and the rest wanted more information. Several dozen local businesses have also signed petitions against DOH's preferred routing. See https://www.theintermountain.com/news/local-news/2022/07/petition-fights-corridor-hs-tucker-route/ and https://parsonsadvocate.com/news/pa-top-stories/headlines/corridor-h-proposed-route-from-parsons-to-davis-discussed-in-local-meetings/ for coverage from local newspapers.

In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.

A letter from a Davis resident in today's paper states that this group is spreading misinformation about the preferred route: https://parsonsadvocate.com/pa-opinions/to-davis-residents-letter/

Corridor H is a project that should've been completed 50 years ago, and I'd bet that longtime residents of Tucker County probably just want it to be completed, without further studies and delays. The progress of this project has been held up many times in the past by lawsuits from outsider groups and the area's demographics have changed dramatically over the last decade or two, due in no small part to the much easier access to the area via the completed sections of Corridor H to the east. Without a doubt, those with deeper roots in the community are worried that this is little more than the latest attempt at stalling or further delaying the completion of the highway through the county. To them, it's a coal mining community that has been dying a slow death for the last 70 years. Those folks are starving for the economic opportunities that were promised by the arrival of this highway, and they see the project's opponents as wealthy outsiders from the DC area who treat it as their outdoor playground. And while that's a big reason for the area's recent growth, much of the jobs it's generated are low paying service jobs, and all the homes once occupied by these low wage workers have been bought up and turned into short-term rentals, so businesses in turn have a hard time finding workers for their businesses when they can't afford to live nearby. A great deal of upheaval for a place that was quiet for so long.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on August 03, 2022, 09:12:04 AM
Another article from today's paper with pertinent information: https://parsonsadvocate.com/news/pa-top-stories/headlines/cvb-updates/

QuoteWhen mentioning the Corridor H, a discussion among the member of the board started was commenced about the alternative route option. [Tucker County Convention and Visitor's Bureau Board Director Jessica] Waldo said, "The Chamber of Commerce has been asked by a group to consider the possibility of a Northern Route. They are not saying they want the northern, but they want the Department of Highways to consider the possibilities of the northern route. The group is asking for a letter of support from the Chamber. The Chamber board was divided as to whether they wanted to take a stance on that, and opinions were all over on how that should be written."  The Chamber decided to survey the Chamber members and see what the consensus is from there.

Board member Kevin White said, "One thing that Travis Long (Division of Highways Technical Support Division Director) said is that there is not a northern route nor has there ever been a northern route. It is a crayon mark on a map is what the northern route is. I was at several meetings with Travis, and I am not trying to persuade anyone in a certain way. I am just trying to state what the facts are, but unfortunately there is a group out there pushing very false information. Very, very false information.

Number one there is no northern route. It does not exist. It never has existed. Secondly, the biggest thing is if you look at the infrastructure bill. It expires in 2026. The money expires, and it will take 3 and a half to four and a half years to do a study if they trash the southern route and go another way and then the money is gone. If the money is gone the highway is killed. It has killed nine miles of road between Mackeyville and Davis/Thomas.

We know what the traffic is doing to Thomas and Davis now. Imagine what it is going to do once it gets that far up. It is killed and goes no further, and you have that traffic dumping in on Front Street of Thomas and right through Davis. Where it could instead be on the Corridor.

They mentioned the fact that is going to divide the towns. I do not know if you have read the brochures or not but there is actually a preferred route that goes up under Route 32. It is not visible until it gets out at the interchange."

White went to explain the bridge proposed for the Coketon Historic Coke and Coal production site would be design astatically appealing to tourists and traveler with a steel arch bridge designed to complement the area.

White lastly mentioned the threat to EMS crews and emergency response individuals that have to travel the dangerous roads in the winter with severe weather conditions like snow and ice. The Corridor would provide a safer route for everyone traveling in that direction.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 03, 2022, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 02, 2022, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2022, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: machpost on August 02, 2022, 10:49:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.

Why were they going to have to build a truck bypass? Would that routing of Corridor H be unsuitable for trucks?

WV 32 (and now US 48) split into a pair of one-way streets on separate elevations. My guess is that the truck bypass would be needed for what would be the new routing of US 219 splitting from US 48 heading north toward I-68.

No, the truck bypass is for WV 32 to take truck traffic off the pair of one-way streets through downtown Thomas. There is no new routing of US 219 planned north of Thomas.

But wouldn't this become the route of US 219 once Corridor H is built? Or would US 219 split off from US 48 out near the high school at the top of the mountain and then following the existing route and turn left at the bridge where it currently intersects WV 32, and US 48 currently splits?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on August 03, 2022, 03:18:18 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 03, 2022, 02:07:10 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 02, 2022, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 02, 2022, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: machpost on August 02, 2022, 10:49:40 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 01, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
In my opinion, DOH undercut their own case for their preferred routing by saying they'd need to build a truck bypass of Thomas. If you're going to do that, it becomes a lot harder to argue that you can't just reroute the mainline to a similar alignment and avoid the impacts to the towns and Blackwater Canyon altogether.

Why were they going to have to build a truck bypass? Would that routing of Corridor H be unsuitable for trucks?

WV 32 (and now US 48) split into a pair of one-way streets on separate elevations. My guess is that the truck bypass would be needed for what would be the new routing of US 219 splitting from US 48 heading north toward I-68.

No, the truck bypass is for WV 32 to take truck traffic off the pair of one-way streets through downtown Thomas. There is no new routing of US 219 planned north of Thomas.

But wouldn't this become the route of US 219 once Corridor H is built? Or would US 219 split off from US 48 out near the high school at the top of the mountain and then following the existing route and turn left at the bridge where it currently intersects WV 32, and US 48 currently splits?


DOH hasn't indicated what route US 219 would take, but considering that they left WV 42 and WV 93 on their original alignments near Bismarck I wouldn't be surprised if US 219 stays on its existing alignment.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 23, 2022, 02:00:41 PM
https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/Parsons-to-Davis_Complete-Handout.pdf

This is the handout from the September workshop on the Parsons-Davis segment. It actually answers many of my questions regarding the viewshed of the highway - route re-designations, and more. It looks like the truck bypass will be WV Route 32 with the existing route through Thomas becoming WV Route 32 Business. See page 6 for the selected route.

Roll plot for that segment: https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/2022-09-07-Corridor-H-Mainline-Roll-Plot-500.pdf

This more clearly shows that the N. Fork Blackwater River bridge will be an arch, and that there will be a split in the median further west. I wish that West Virginia actually built more of its highways with split elevations or medians - it provides more variety in driving and can be more complimentary to the terrain.

https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorH-WardensvilletoVaLine/Documents/ROW-Plans.pdf

ROW plans for the Wardensville-Virginia segment which shows the highway being tapered down with grading for a future extension into Virginia planned (even if Virginia does not have active plans for that).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 23, 2022, 02:04:10 PM
So I guess WV 32 BUS would be the first business route in WV?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 23, 2022, 04:08:59 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 23, 2022, 02:04:10 PM
So I guess WV 32 BUS would be the first business route in WV?

West Virginia never could make up its mind whether it wanted to sign the route through downtown Hurricane as ALT WV 34 or Business WV 34. At one time, it was signed both ways.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2022, 01:22:22 PM
Washington Post gets in on the act.

West Virginians fear a road meant to help their towns could destroy them -
The Appalachian highway project, expanding to the scenic Blackwater Falls area, has been 60 years in the making
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/10/09/west-virginia-corridor-h-blackwater-falls/)

I am not an attorney but I know that the litigation about Corridor H and the route that it takes was settled decades ago, in about 2000.  Not sure that the federal courts want to spend more time and resources on something that was litigated and settled over two decades ago.

QuoteRodd, who has worked to preserve the natural landscape in and around Blackwater Falls since the 1990s, said the nonprofit organization has been raising money to extend existing bike and walking trails along the North Fork of the Blackwater River, past Douglas Falls and into Blackwater State Park – right below the planned site of the bridge crossing.

QuoteShe and other opponents complain that West Virginia Division of Highway (DOH) officials have given short shrift to environmental and historical preservation. They say the massive highway project is the sort of state and federal highway project that sometimes split neighborhoods and created other harmful, unintended consequences reaching far into the future.

QuoteWriston, the state's transportation secretary, expressed little patience for what he said was "a small minority"  spreading "misinformation"  on the need to find a northern alternative. He said moving the planned route northward would have more severe environmental impacts, delay the project and cost more.

Quote"We've been working on Corridor H for three decades now,"  Wriston said in a brief interview after testifying before a congressional panel last month. He had expressed to that panel his frustration with federal micromanaging of state projects and environmental concerns about a species of bumblebee recently found near Corridor H that could delay construction. "There's nothing left to study,"  he said. "It's everything I talked about today."
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2022, 01:24:07 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 03, 2022, 03:18:18 PM
DOH hasn't indicated what route US 219 would take, but considering that they left WV 42 and WV 93 on their original alignments near Bismarck I wouldn't be surprised if US 219 stays on its existing alignment.

WV-55 between Wardensville and north of Lost River was put on Corridor H and the old road signed "Old Route 55" which I have seen in other parts of West Virginia too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2022, 07:22:55 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 23, 2022, 02:04:10 PM
So I guess WV 32 BUS would be the first business route in WV?

My guess is that the truck route bypass of Thomas becomes US-219  and then joins US-48 on Corridor H for the trip to Elkins, and that old US-219 is signed as Old 219 or OLD US-219.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 09, 2022, 09:33:24 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 09, 2022, 07:22:55 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 23, 2022, 02:04:10 PM
So I guess WV 32 BUS would be the first business route in WV?

My guess is that the truck route bypass of Thomas becomes US-219  and then joins US-48 on Corridor H for the trip to Elkins, and that old US-219 is signed as Old 219 or OLD US-219.

And probably given a county route number.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on October 09, 2022, 10:09:20 PM
Pfft.  "Federal micromanaging" as they just follow NEPA.  Cry me a river.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2022, 01:56:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 09, 2022, 10:09:20 PM
Pfft.  "Federal micromanaging" as they just follow NEPA.  Cry me a river.

NEPA is the law and it needs to be followed.  The NEPA process is why Corridor H eastbound diverges sharply from US-33 at Elkins and heads to the north and east toward Parsons and then splits the difference between Thomas and Davis (east of Thomas and Davis, the road is open to Wardensville in Hardy County (WVDOT plans to have the section up to the Virginia/West Virginia under contract in 2024)). The original early Corridor H plans had it running roughly along US-33 all the way from Elkins to Harrisonburg, Virginia,. a distance of about 120 miles along present-day US-33. Hence the "racetrack" section of US-33 east of Elkins - at one time, that would have been Corridor H.

There was litigation that was settled in 2000 in the federal courts that avoided environmentally sensitive areas including Seneca Rocks, Corrick's Ford Battlefield and habitat of the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (that is what WVDOT calls this animal in environmental documents).

An EIS and SDEIS have been completed for Corridor H between Parsons and Thomas/Davis.  IMO the people that do not like this route should not be granted another bite of the apple to further delay the project.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on October 10, 2022, 06:50:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2022, 01:56:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 09, 2022, 10:09:20 PM
Pfft.  "Federal micromanaging" as they just follow NEPA.  Cry me a river.

NEPA is the law and it needs to be followed.  The NEPA process is why Corridor H eastbound diverges sharply from US-33 at Elkins and heads to the north and east toward Parsons and then splits the difference between Thomas and Davis (east of Thomas and Davis, the road is open to Wardensville in Hardy County (WVDOT plans to have the section up to the Virginia/West Virginia under contract in 2024)). The original early Corridor H plans had it running roughly along US-33 all the way from Elkins to Harrisonburg, Virginia,. a distance of about 120 miles along present-day US-33. Hence the "racetrack" section of US-33 east of Elkins - at one time, that would have been Corridor H.

There was litigation that was settled in 2000 in the federal courts that avoided environmentally sensitive areas including Seneca Rocks, Corrick's Ford Battlefield and habitat of the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (that is what WVDOT calls this animal in environmental documents).

An EIS and SDEIS have been completed for Corridor H between Parsons and Thomas/Davis.  IMO the people that do not like this route should not be granted another bite of the apple to further delay the project.
I was referring to the Transportation Secretary whining about FHWA's ongoing concerns.  FHWA is following NEPA, which we both agree should be followed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on October 10, 2022, 08:53:10 AM
Understand there was back in 2000 no one to "settle"  with. 

A small group of sell-appointed BANANAs (very few NIMBYs, mostly non-locals) called itself "Corridor H Alternatives"  (the "alternative"  was "live in squalor and poverty and drive on dangerous roads, we don't care, we have ours"  ) ran out of money and purported to settle with the state. 

Which was fine.  Except one group of extremists cannot settle for all extremists in the history of the world.  All that settlement covered was the tiny group of people in that self-appointed cabal.  There are people that were not even alive when that "settlement"  was made. 

The goal of the BANANAs remain the same, here and everywhere.  To prevent the progress of ordinary people.  The most recent things, including the supposed harm to the 595 residents of Davis, the "northern route"  crayon mark, and the discovery of a supposed rare strain of bumble bee, which, apparently is so special that it is incapable of flying 200 yards away from the construction site and getting on with whatever bumble bees do.  To kill this project and as many other projects, everywhere, as they can.  They have theirs.  They don't care about other people.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 10, 2022, 10:23:42 AM
It's interesting that this area, long neglected, is receiving a major infusion of cash for major highways, so to speak. I would assume it's because of the state's major push to make the Allegheny Highlands a huge tourism draw.

- Completing Corridor H
- New terrain, 19-mile, four-lane US 522 alignment from Maryland to Virginia
- New terrain, four-lane US 220 alignment from Corridor H to I-68
- Thomas bypass
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 10, 2022, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 10, 2022, 06:50:19 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2022, 01:56:10 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 09, 2022, 10:09:20 PM
Pfft.  "Federal micromanaging" as they just follow NEPA.  Cry me a river.

NEPA is the law and it needs to be followed.  The NEPA process is why Corridor H eastbound diverges sharply from US-33 at Elkins and heads to the north and east toward Parsons and then splits the difference between Thomas and Davis (east of Thomas and Davis, the road is open to Wardensville in Hardy County (WVDOT plans to have the section up to the Virginia/West Virginia under contract in 2024)). The original early Corridor H plans had it running roughly along US-33 all the way from Elkins to Harrisonburg, Virginia,. a distance of about 120 miles along present-day US-33. Hence the "racetrack" section of US-33 east of Elkins - at one time, that would have been Corridor H.

There was litigation that was settled in 2000 in the federal courts that avoided environmentally sensitive areas including Seneca Rocks, Corrick's Ford Battlefield and habitat of the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (that is what WVDOT calls this animal in environmental documents).

An EIS and SDEIS have been completed for Corridor H between Parsons and Thomas/Davis.  IMO the people that do not like this route should not be granted another bite of the apple to further delay the project.
I was referring to the Transportation Secretary whining about FHWA's ongoing concerns.  FHWA is following NEPA, which we both agree should be followed.

Jimmy Wriston doesn't appear to be the typical transportation agency leader. I could very well be wrong, but he doesn't act like the normal political appointee that leads most state DOTs. He came up through the ranks at WVDOH and just about every time I've seen photos of him, he's dressed more like an engineer in the field than a bureaucrat.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on October 12, 2022, 09:14:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 10, 2022, 08:53:10 AMThey have theirs.  They don't care about other people.
This is the key takeaway here. Corridor H is almost singlehandedly responsible for the absolute explosion in tourism around Davis and Thomas, but now that these wealthy city dwellers have safe, convenient access to the area from DC and have set up camp in their little corner of paradise, well, screw everybody else! Unlike the locals, they have the money and the political skills to really turn back the progress that has been made in getting this thing completed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 12, 2022, 09:19:19 AM
Oddly, this morning Google Maps is showing Corridor H as complete through that area:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.120947,-79.5573729,11.83z
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 12, 2022, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 12, 2022, 09:19:19 AM
Oddly, this morning Google Maps is showing Corridor H as complete through that area:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.120947,-79.5573729,11.83z

Interesting. So it would appear that US 48 and US 219 will have a longer concurrency with WV 72, running from north of Parsons and then turning left at the traffic light to follow the existing concurrency, until the section between Parsons and Thomas/Davis is done.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on October 12, 2022, 09:07:50 PM
Quote from: machpost on October 12, 2022, 09:14:38 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 10, 2022, 08:53:10 AMThey have theirs.  They don't care about other people.
This is the key takeaway here. Corridor H is almost singlehandedly responsible for the absolute explosion in tourism around Davis and Thomas, but now that these wealthy city dwellers have safe, convenient access to the area from DC and have set up camp in their little corner of paradise, well, screw everybody else! Unlike the locals, they have the money and the political skills to really turn back the progress that has been made in getting this thing completed.

I think the opponents are right and reasonable in asking for the Davis segment to be shifted north, if the choice is build where they want now or no build, I say no build.
Do not destroy Blackwater, if you want it so bad, build north. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 12, 2022, 10:33:11 PM
The preferred alternative goes ... north of Davis and Thomas. And it's north of Blackwater Falls and other sensitive sites. The alignment cuts across the N. Fork Blackwater River near the remains of old coal tipples and coke ovens and traverses on former strip mine land - it's not virgin territory.

So I can't report the Corridor H alignment on Google Maps - how can that be removed?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 13, 2022, 07:39:02 AM
Quote from: seicer on October 12, 2022, 10:33:11 PM
The preferred alternative goes ... north of Davis and Thomas. And it's north of Blackwater Falls and other sensitive sites. The alignment cuts across the N. Fork Blackwater River near the remains of old coal tipples and coke ovens and traverses on former strip mine land - it's not virgin territory.

So I can't report the Corridor H alignment on Google Maps - how can that be removed?

I clicked on all those segments yesterday to report them for removal on the basis that the road does not exist. We'll see what happens. I did ask for directions from one end of the segment to the other just to see how long it would be, but it used the current road instead.

Last night I looked at that area using Apple Maps. It correctly doesn't show the proposed/under construction segment, but the satellite view is more up-to-date than Google's. That extremely high-level bridge near Moore is visible (well, the piers are visible) in Apple Maps but not in Google Maps, for example.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on October 13, 2022, 08:14:54 AM
Quote from: seicer on October 12, 2022, 10:33:11 PM
The preferred alternative goes ... north of Davis and Thomas. And it's north of Blackwater Falls and other sensitive sites. The alignment cuts across the N. Fork Blackwater River near the remains of old coal tipples and coke ovens and traverses on former strip mine land - it's not virgin territory.

So I can't report the Corridor H alignment on Google Maps - how can that be removed?

I've heard that the northern route won't work because it could impact the municipal water supply for Thomas. And if WVDOH is to be believed, the preferred alignment won't even affect the viewsheds that some people are concerned about disrupting.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 09:39:38 AM
Quote from: seicer on October 12, 2022, 10:33:11 PM
The preferred alternative goes ... north of Davis and Thomas. And it's north of Blackwater Falls and other sensitive sites. The alignment cuts across the N. Fork Blackwater River near the remains of old coal tipples and coke ovens and traverses on former strip mine land - it's not virgin territory.

So I can't report the Corridor H alignment on Google Maps - how can that be removed?

Quote from: machpost on October 13, 2022, 08:14:54 AM
I've heard that the northern route won't work because it could impact the municipal water supply for Thomas. And if WVDOH is to be believed, the preferred alignment won't even affect the viewsheds that some people are concerned about disrupting.

Indeed, as the closest that the proposed route of Corridor H ever gets to the Blackwater River is a short section near Hendricks, and that segment is located on the north side of the Backbone Mountain ridgeback, whereas the Blackwater River is located on the south side.  But I suspect that the main issue for environmentalists is that the proposed corridor crosses the North Fork of the Blackwater River, which is considered by some as a continuation of the Blackwater Canyon (and also part of the mysterious Blackwater River Industrial Historic District). 

Pouring over the geography of the area, you will find that the terrain east of the confluence of the North Fork and the Blackwater is less entrenched all the way up to the falls, as compared to the North Fork itself. 

Like many scenic rivers in West Virginia, the North Fork of the Blackwater (as well as the portion of the Blackwater west of the confluence) was a major coal mining district that included the West Virginia Central and Pittsburg (sic) Railway (later part of the Western Maryland).  Beneath the old growth trees in the Blackwater Canyon is a myriad of long-abandoned old-timey coal facilities.  Like many old buildings, they are considered eligible for historic preservation and protected under Federal law.  But Corridor H is proposed to bridge over all of this stuff.

I need to stay out of the politics of all of this.  But for the record, I love all of the old railroad and coal mine structures.  And I also love all of the bridges over top of them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:51:54 AM
They've beaten this horse to death. The environmental issues have been hashed and re-hashed and re-re-hashed.

There is absolutely nothing in Thomas or Davis worth stopping for. I think I stopped to take a leak in Davis once, and if I bought anything, it was just a pop and/or a snack. If I'm driving Corridor H straight through, I might have stopped at the Sheetz in downtown Parsons, but it's closed now. Otherwise, there's nothing between Buckhannon and Moorefield. All the services in Elkins are on the south side of town.

Those idiots -- yes, they're idiots -- who are fighting this road are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They want to eliminate something that would make it easier for people to access their businesses.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on October 13, 2022, 01:14:51 PM
Thomas is still a cute little tourist town and Davis is the gateway to the State Park.  Saying that there's nothing to stop for there is way off mark.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:51:54 AM
There is absolutely nothing in Thomas or Davis worth stopping for.

I know that you added this in the midst of a rant, but man this one hurts.  I love all of these little old coal mining towns all over including Southwestern Pennsylvania, Western Maryland, Southwest Virginia and (yup) Eastern Kentucky.  They don't look pretty, and the folks in Eastern Kentucky are very leery of outsiders (even those of us with a strong Appalachian dialect), but every business that remains open has got an interesting history (and fun stories to tell).

Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2022, 01:14:51 PM
Thomas is still a cute little tourist town and Davis is the gateway to the State Park.  Saying that there's nothing to stop for there is way off mark.

On the other hand, there's a lot of old rambleshacks in both towns (which is probably what hbelkins was referring to.  It's been about 10 years ago or so, but I stayed at a friend's house in Davis and it was one of the "fancy" ones.  Two stories, round light switches and ceramic screw-in light fixtures, all decked out with exposed plumbing upstairs.  (Kind of like most of the student apartments near WVU back when I was in college somewhere else).  It's charming to a [wannabee] country-boy like me.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 14, 2022, 09:13:54 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:51:54 AM
There is absolutely nothing in Thomas or Davis worth stopping for. I think I stopped to take a leak in Davis once, and if I bought anything, it was just a pop and/or a snack. If I'm driving Corridor H straight through, I might have stopped at the Sheetz in downtown Parsons, but it's closed now. Otherwise, there's nothing between Buckhannon and Moorefield. All the services in Elkins are on the south side of town.

Those idiots -- yes, they're idiots -- who are fighting this road are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They want to eliminate something that would make it easier for people to access their businesses.

Just because you only stop at gas stations doesn't mean that others don't see value in local restaurants and shops, which Davis and Thomas have and which already draw significant crowds.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on October 14, 2022, 09:15:03 AM
Has anyone been to the brewpub in Thomas? I've passed it on the road but have never had time to stop, so I'm curious whether it's any good. If it is, then I would see that as something worth stopping for in that town.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 14, 2022, 11:12:10 AM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 02:52:49 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:51:54 AM
There is absolutely nothing in Thomas or Davis worth stopping for.

I know that you added this in the midst of a rant, but man this one hurts.  I love all of these little old coal mining towns all over including Southwestern Pennsylvania, Western Maryland, Southwest Virginia and (yup) Eastern Kentucky.  They don't look pretty, and the folks in Eastern Kentucky are very leery of outsiders (even those of us with a strong Appalachian dialect), but every business that remains open has got an interesting history (and fun stories to tell).

I like all those little towns as well. The drive from Welch to Bluefield on US 52 is interesting because of all the little coal camps the road passes through. But the reality is that there's little there from an economic generation standpoint.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 14, 2022, 03:57:14 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on October 13, 2022, 09:51:54 AM
There is absolutely nothing in Thomas or Davis worth stopping for.

Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2022, 02:52:49 PM
I know that you added this in the midst of a rant, but man this one hurts.  I love all of these little old coal mining towns all over including Southwestern Pennsylvania, Western Maryland, Southwest Virginia and (yup) Eastern Kentucky.  They don't look pretty, and the folks in Eastern Kentucky are very leery of outsiders (even those of us with a strong Appalachian dialect), but every business that remains open has got an interesting history (and fun stories to tell).

Quote from: hbelkins on October 14, 2022, 11:12:10 AM
I like all those little towns as well. The drive from Welch to Bluefield on US 52 is interesting because of all the little coal camps the road passes through. But the reality is that there's little there from an economic generation standpoint.

Indeed.  You were trying to hammer down a point and you cut a bit of yourself down in the process.  Not sure that everybody watching took notice.  One of the charms of West Virginia is the willingness to tackle nearly-impossible highway projects that they know they can't really afford, just to get a big payoff 50 years down the road.  And improve the beauty of the State in the process.  (Not all of those projects hit paydirt, but many have).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 14, 2022, 08:06:41 PM
Come on HB. Nothing to stop in Thomas or Davis? I know there are next to no chains (thankfully) in that area, but both towns are in a vacation mecca. It's next to Blackwater Falls State Park, Dolly Sods Wilderness, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and the Monongahela National Forest - among many smaller private preserves by the Nature Conservancy and other entities. I've been going up there for 15+ years, and it's gone from being a fairly quiet and remote outpost of the state - more for locals, to one that's been noticed nationwide. Dolly Sods had a literal traffic jam last year, where it was gridlocked for 10 miles because of too much traffic and not enough control or movement.

Using your analogy, we'd be excluding most of Appalachia because we know there isn't much of anything in southwest West Virginia or eastern Kentucky. Parks are far and few between, the scenery isn't exceptional, the coal mining jobs (which the area was exclusively supported on) is dwindling, and the poverty is astounding. A new road won't fix that down there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on October 14, 2022, 09:46:12 PM
^ On top of that, the Canaan Valley (and all its resorts) is literally right up the hill from Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 15, 2022, 09:59:03 AM
Corridor H Parsons To Davis Comment Period Is Extended (https://www.wvpublic.org/energy-environment/2022-12-13/corridor-h-parsons-to-davis-comment-period-is-extended)

The West Virginia Division of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration have extended the comment period for the Parsons-to-Davis section of Corridor H to Jan. 6, 2023.

-

Comment at https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Pages/default.aspx

-

Preferred alternative roll plot: https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/2022-09-07-Corridor-H-Mainline-Roll-Plot-500.pdf

This shows a trumpet interchange for WV 32/US 219 between Davis and Thomas, a bridge over the N. Fork Blackwater River by the old coke ovens near Coketon and Thomas, a bridge over Long Run, an interchange for US 219 at Mackeyville, and a truck escape ramp. It does not seem like there will be any intersections on this segment. This map also depicts the WV 32 bypass of Thomas.

I think the problem with going north of Thomas is the impact on the city of Thomas' reservoir, so more likely than not, you would need to loop further to the northerly WV 32/US 219 intersection. The bonus with a rerouting to the north of Thomas is the elimination of the WV 32 bypass of Thomas - which seems to be overkill even in the busiest of seasons. The money on the bypass could be better spent upgrading pedestrian infrastructure in Thomas and Davis - with proper sidewalks, ADA ramps, and curbing.

Edit: Looks like the 2007 SFEIS shows all of the proposed alignments: https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/Parsons-to-Davis_Complete-Handout.pdf
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on December 16, 2022, 10:14:28 PM
Quote from: seicer on December 15, 2022, 09:59:03 AM


This shows a trumpet interchange for WV 32/US 219 between Davis and Thomas, a bridge over the N. Fork Blackwater River by the old coke ovens near Coketon and Thomas, a bridge over Long Run, an interchange for US 219 at Mackeyville, and a truck escape ramp. It does not seem like there will be any intersections on this segment. This map also depicts the WV 32 bypass of Thomas.

I believe there will be an at-grade intersection with existing US 219 near Tucker County High School. I think this is a mistake personally as you're going to be putting a bunch of school busses through this intersection, which will probably drive it to become signalized. Build at least a RIRO like is proposed at Mackeyville.

It looks like the existing route of US 219 will remain its own independent road up the mountain, albeit with some relocations in places to move it out of the footprint of new Corridor H constructions.

I think the trumpet dumping out on present WV 93 by Davis is an attempt to appease people complaining about the new highway dividing Thomas and Davis. The plans show Corridor H being buried in a cut at WV 32. I'm not a fan of making traffic use side access roads to get to the highway like is proposed here and happens at Moorefield. Use a trumpet on the mainline and have it end on WV 32, or if you're going to keep the trumpet along WV 93, connect the street grid to provide better connectivity from the interchange to downtown Davis.

The Thomas bypass was originally intended to get trucks out of town but it seems to have taken on a life of its own. I do agree that relocating mainline Corridor H north of Thomas would eliminate the need for the Thomas bypass and wrote as much in the comments I submitted on this project.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: TheOneKEA on December 23, 2022, 11:09:43 AM
Quote from: Bitmapped on December 16, 2022, 10:14:28 PM
I think the trumpet dumping out on present WV 93 by Davis is an attempt to appease people complaining about the new highway dividing Thomas and Davis. The plans show Corridor H being buried in a cut at WV 32. I'm not a fan of making traffic use side access roads to get to the highway like is proposed here and happens at Moorefield. Use a trumpet on the mainline and have it end on WV 32, or if you're going to keep the trumpet along WV 93, connect the street grid to provide better connectivity from the interchange to downtown Davis.

Agreed. A standard diamond interchange between US 48 and WV 32 makes much more sense and would not require the circuitous routing shown on the plans. If there are (potentially unfounded) concerns that the resulting freeway canyon will cut off commerce between the towns, there are lots of ways that the bridge carrying WV 32 could be streetscaped to provide more than enough room for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A trumpet between US 48 and WV 32 would also be okay IMO, as long as the WV 32 overpass was designed to promote, or at least make room for, non-car traffic along that road between the two towns.

I'll be interested to see if any of the land surrounding the planned intersection between the trumpet ramps and WV 93 will be zoned commercial or not; I could see the existing Marathon station at the corner of WV 32 and Blackwater Falls Road closing down and moving to a new location closer to US 48.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on December 23, 2022, 04:23:34 PM
The concerns about the N. Fork Blackwater River canyon are interesting... because these alternatives avoid the canyon entirely. The roadway crosses through what was the Davis Coal & Coke property, part of which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge would not disturb any former industrial sites, but it would potentially cut through the remains of the coke ovens, most of which are not that visible or collapsed.

More concerning is the distance from the bridge to natural sites - Albert Falls would be less than a half mile away, and Douglas Falls is about a mile away. There would be visual intrusions from Albert Falls and possibly noise intrusions down to Douglas Falls. I would say runoff would be a concern (such as salt). Still, regardless, the N. Fork Blackwater River is already sullied with extensive acid mine drainage (despite attempts at correcting it) and runoff from former strip mine sites (which have more recently been reclaimed, for the most part). There isn't as much of a concern about impacting any natural areas if Corridor H is run to the north of town and it avoids former mining sites.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rte66man on March 15, 2023, 09:12:25 AM
from the Engineering News-Record
https://www.enr.com/articles/56015-west-virginia-wild-crews-carve-out-corridor-h-through-the-appalachian-mountains?oly_enc_id=8129J3592389J4M

Quote
West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

The photos are spectacular.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 15, 2023, 09:18:51 AM
Thanks for that. Beautiful aerial photography along with what is some great descriptors giving a fresh look into this project.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 15, 2023, 03:44:40 PM
This may be a rarity, but Bing Maps has updated aerials on the new Corridor H segment being built from Karens to Parsons: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.032047%7E-79.809902&lvl=14.3&style=a

On a related note, the abutments on the bridge over Leading Creek have been repaired, and Corridor H is once again open from Elkins to Karens. And on another note, two new traffic lights are being installed just east of Buckhannon.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on March 15, 2023, 06:41:19 PM
^^^^

Thanks for that. In case you don't know, Bing Maps has its own version of Street View; they call it "Streetside" and it works sort of like Google's used to in that you drop the man where you want to view. Unfortunately, the pictures of the huge overpass being constructed over the existing road near Moore over Haddix Run have too much sun glare to be any good.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 15, 2023, 06:54:20 PM
How does one activate the "labels" tab in Bing Maps, or does it not have that feature? Without labels, I don't know what I am looking at in a place I have never been to.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 15, 2023, 07:45:24 PM
Switch to hybrid instead of just aerial.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on March 15, 2023, 10:29:41 PM
I have photos from November that I should probably get around to posting sometime...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 16, 2023, 11:04:43 AM
Quote from: seicer on March 15, 2023, 03:44:40 PM
This may be a rarity, but Bing Maps has updated aerials on the new Corridor H segment being built from Karens to Parsons: https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=39.032047%7E-79.809902&lvl=14.3&style=a

On a related note, the abutments on the bridge over Leading Creek have been repaired, and Corridor H is once again open from Elkins to Karens. And on another note, two new traffic lights are being installed just east of Buckhannon.

I'm hard-pressed to think of any intersections in that area where a signal would be needed. Unless there's been a lot of growth out that way, it's very rural. I would thiink a J-turn/RCUT would be a better option than a signal to keep traffic free-flowing there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 16, 2023, 11:30:54 AM
My memory is a little hazy but I believe it's with CR 5/9 (https://goo.gl/maps/2xR4rf1UqfVNSqvq6) and CR 3 (https://goo.gl/maps/1DkQzNDtDWm4YeRX8) - the latter which is a stone's throw from CR 151/former US 33.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on March 16, 2023, 12:18:08 PM
Quote from: seicer on March 16, 2023, 11:30:54 AM
My memory is a little hazy but I believe it's with CR 5/9 (https://goo.gl/maps/2xR4rf1UqfVNSqvq6) and CR 3 (https://goo.gl/maps/1DkQzNDtDWm4YeRX8) - the latter which is a stone's throw from CR 151/former US 33.

Yes, those are the intersections. Both provide access to CR 151 (old US 33). WVDOH should have just picked one to signalize and made the other RIRO IMHO.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 17, 2023, 10:20:13 AM
One of those is Kesling Mill. There used to be button copy there; it's probably gone by now.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 17, 2023, 07:15:53 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 17, 2023, 10:20:13 AM
One of those is Kesling Mill. There used to be button copy there; it's probably gone by now.

They're gone. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9810952,-80.1764164,3a,15y,126.81h,91.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snSINh2BiskRQHbaGRD2O-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 18, 2023, 09:13:50 PM
Looks like all the button copy at the US 119 interchange at Buckhannon is also gone. I suspect the button copy that was at the US 250 intersection west of Elkins is gone as well.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on March 18, 2023, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 18, 2023, 09:13:50 PM
Looks like all the button copy at the US 119 interchange at Buckhannon is also gone. I suspect the button copy that was at the US 250 intersection west of Elkins is gone as well.

There was a near-complete sign replacement project on Corridor H from Weston to Kerens in 2021. (There is one BGS for Buckhannon Mountain Road that I've noticed wasn't replaced, but everything else seems to have been done.) Much of the signage between Buckhannon to Elkins was from the original construction of this alignment in the 1990s and was way overdue for replacement.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 19, 2023, 09:29:36 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on March 18, 2023, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on March 18, 2023, 09:13:50 PM
Looks like all the button copy at the US 119 interchange at Buckhannon is also gone. I suspect the button copy that was at the US 250 intersection west of Elkins is gone as well.

There was a near-complete sign replacement project on Corridor H from Weston to Kerens in 2021. (There is one BGS for Buckhannon Mountain Road that I've noticed wasn't replaced, but everything else seems to have been done.) Much of the signage between Buckhannon to Elkins was from the original construction of this alignment in the 1990s and was way overdue for replacement.

There were a lot of faded route markers from the US 250 intersection at Norton to the WV 92 split. I'm surprised they didn't get replaced when the US 48 signage was added.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on March 20, 2023, 10:44:13 AM
There are some button-copy signs in Elkins that are way past their prime. Worth getting photos if someone is down there.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on March 20, 2023, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: seicer on March 20, 2023, 10:44:13 AM
There are some button-copy signs in Elkins that are way past their prime. Worth getting photos if someone is down there.

I have several pics of them, taken at different times over the years.

That town needs a bypass of the downtown area. It's interesting because the developed commercial area is well to the south of what has become the through highway (Corridor H.)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 30, 2023, 03:42:07 PM
https://wvmetronews.com/2023/08/30/doh-will-evaluate-route-to-avoid-blackwater-canyon-on-corridor-h/

WV gives into the BANANA groups.  The latest tactic is to propose route changes, which set off new permitting, which they can then object to and tie up in court for years.

Way past time to save lives and spur development. 
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:12:19 PM
What was wrong with the originally proposed alignment? Are this "BANANA" groups' objections frivolous? Surely this segment of Corridor H has enough support to be designed and built in an orderly fashion.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on August 31, 2023, 08:57:50 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:12:19 PM
What was wrong with the originally proposed alignment? Are this "BANANA" groups' objections frivolous? Surely this segment of Corridor H has enough support to be designed and built in an orderly fashion.

There is nothing wrong with the original.  This thing has a long history.  A tiny group of BANANAs have locked onto this very needed highway and prevented its from being built for almost 50 years.  It should have, and could have, been completed decades ago.  This new tactic is to propose all sorts of changes, bleeding money and forcing permitting to restart, and then to tie that up in court with frivolous lawsuits. 

And, yes, the support level for Corridor H, among those who will benefit from it, is 99%.  That is what environmental extremists do.  A fringe 1% who don't care about other people, and who will ask a single judge to substitute his opinion for that of the elected representatives.

Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 31, 2023, 09:36:11 AM
Except in this case, re-routing Corridor H north of Thomas would have the side benefit of eliminating the separate need (by WVDOH) to build the US 219 bypass. But the original routing isn't exactly going through an environmentally sensitive area. If anything, it cuts through an industrial heritage area. The bridge would pass over closed coal mines/portals, and dozens of beehive coke ovens. The N. Fork Blackwater River has a lot of acid mine drainage because of those abandoned mines and despite years of efforts to mitigate those issues with limestone retention ponds, the river is just as orange as before.

If it does cut through the industrial area, WVDOH could mitigate concerns by remediating the acid mine drainage, working with area partners to build new trails/trailheads for the waterfalls in the area, enhancing access to the industrial heritage area, and building pedestrian infrastructure in Thomas/Davis (which is sorely needed regardless).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2023, 03:42:07 PM
https://wvmetronews.com/2023/08/30/doh-will-evaluate-route-to-avoid-blackwater-canyon-on-corridor-h/

WV gives into the BANANA groups.  The latest tactic is to propose route changes, which set off new permitting, which they can then object to and tie up in court for years.

Way past time to save lives and spur development.

The Volvo-driving crowd from the east coast can now get to Davis and Thomas on an improved route. That's as far as the road needs to be built. No reason to connect it to Parsons, Elkins, Buckhannon, Weston and points westward. /sarcasm
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:38:10 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2023, 03:42:07 PM
https://wvmetronews.com/2023/08/30/doh-will-evaluate-route-to-avoid-blackwater-canyon-on-corridor-h/

WV gives into the BANANA groups.  The latest tactic is to propose route changes, which set off new permitting, which they can then object to and tie up in court for years.

Way past time to save lives and spur development.

The Volvo-driving crowd from the east coast can now get to Davis and Thomas on an improved route. That's as far as the road needs to be built. No reason to connect it to Parsons, Elkins, Buckhannon, Weston and points westward. /sarcasm
"We sneer at tourists while wanting to attract them for their money," moans one of the poorest states in the country.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on August 31, 2023, 01:05:24 PM
No kidding. You should have seen the "local" reaction to Summersville Lake State Park being created. You know, on 100 acres or so of vacant scrub land next to US 19. Next to federally protected lands (Army Corps) that owns all of the shoreline and land around the lake.

"We don't any more tourists" and "keep them out" (them, being out of staters) were being the two biggest arguments against the park. You know, because they bring in a LOT of money into the state.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 01, 2023, 04:38:36 PM
I was debating on removing SP Cook's post at first, but the aftermath of that post made my decision easy.  Please chill out and stick to discussing Corridor H ramifications.  -Mark
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on September 07, 2023, 03:29:39 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 31, 2023, 08:57:50 AM

There is nothing wrong with the original.  This thing has a long history.  A tiny group of BANANAs have locked onto this very needed highway and prevented its from being built for almost 50 years.  It should have, and could have, been completed decades ago.  This new tactic is to propose all sorts of changes, bleeding money and forcing permitting to restart, and then to tie that up in court with frivolous lawsuits. 

Something that nobody seems to be mentioning is the proximity of the proposed northern route to the reservoir that is the source of Thomas's municipal water supply. That alone may end up disqualifying that option.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 07, 2023, 03:47:59 PM
In the 2007 study (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/Parsons-to-Davis_Display_4-2007-Alt.-Alignments.pdf), it was proposed as Alternatives 1D, 1E and 1G. The SFEIS (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorHParsonsToDavis/Documents/CorrH_PtoD_2007_SFEIS_Complete.pdf) notes:

"Potential environmental impacts to the two public water supplies were evaluated for each of the Build Alternatives. The Build Alternatives cross the Beaver Creek and the Blackwater River system downstream of the Thomas and Davis PSDs intakes. Potential impacts to the Thomas and Davis PSDs are not anticipated because both the intakes and recharge areas are upstream of the Build Alternatives."

- I'm curious as to why a trumpet interchange is proposed for WV 32 (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/Parsons-to-Davis_Display_7-Interchange-Detail.pdf) in Davis. Why not just a conventional diamond interchange? This trumpet interchange will feed into old WV 93 and motorists will have the contend with a 90-degree turn.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on September 08, 2023, 12:17:45 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 07, 2023, 03:47:59 PM
- I'm curious as to why a trumpet interchange is proposed for WV 32 (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/Parsons-to-Davis_Display_7-Interchange-Detail.pdf) in Davis. Why not just a conventional diamond interchange? This trumpet interchange will feed into old WV 93 and motorists will have the contend with a 90-degree turn.
My guess is elevation difference.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 08, 2023, 09:36:38 AM
It's pretty flat up there (relatively).
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: bluecountry on September 10, 2023, 09:24:23 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:38:10 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2023, 03:42:07 PM
https://wvmetronews.com/2023/08/30/doh-will-evaluate-route-to-avoid-blackwater-canyon-on-corridor-h/

WV gives into the BANANA groups.  The latest tactic is to propose route changes, which set off new permitting, which they can then object to and tie up in court for years.

Way past time to save lives and spur development.

The Volvo-driving crowd from the east coast can now get to Davis and Thomas on an improved route. That's as far as the road needs to be built. No reason to connect it to Parsons, Elkins, Buckhannon, Weston and points westward. /sarcasm
"We sneer at tourists while wanting to attract them for their money," moans one of the poorest states in the country.
Yea really.
The road is NOT needed, this a lightly traveled corridor, no reason to spend limited $$ to degrade the environment.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 10, 2023, 12:16:22 PM
I don't think Corridor H supporters would want a gap to permanently remain between Kerens and Davis. Given the money and effort put into building Corridor H, I think it should be completed as proposed. If there is one portion that may never be expanded to four lanes, it is the portion from Wardensville eastward.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 10, 2023, 01:45:34 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 08, 2023, 12:17:45 AM
Quote from: seicer on September 07, 2023, 03:47:59 PM
- I'm curious as to why a trumpet interchange is proposed for WV 32 (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Documents/Parson%20to%20Davis/Parsons-to-Davis_Display_7-Interchange-Detail.pdf) in Davis. Why not just a conventional diamond interchange? This trumpet interchange will feed into old WV 93 and motorists will have the contend with a 90-degree turn.
My guess is elevation difference.

The trumpet is an attempt to mollify those complaining about Corridor H serving to divide Thomas and Davis. They're trying to minimize the visual impact of the highway by moving the ramps to a side road.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 10, 2023, 03:32:40 PM
Regarding the perception that Corridor H is underutilized, this concern has been raised about many other corridors as well. In my research on various corridors such as Corridor L (US 19), Corridor G (US 119), Corridor D in Ohio (OH 32), Corridor Q in Kentucky (US 460), Corridor B (US 23), Corridor T (NY 17), and Corridor U (US 15), I found similar sentiments.

However, it's important to note that traffic counts aren't the sole reason for the development of these corridors. For instance, Corridor H sees over 24,000 vehicles per day (VPD) at its westernmost point, 11,700 VPD near Elkins, and 4,400 VPD approaching the Allegheny Front. It would not be fair to judge the highway's low traffic counts east of Elkins at this juncture because it has glaring gaps in its completion. Accessing some ski resorts from I-79, for instance, is still easier to do via US 33 than US 48; others will always be more accessible from US 33 but were made easier to get to via US 48 elsewhere. Furthermore, safety, especially concerning truck routes, plays a significant role. In the western segments of Corridor H, trucks constitute 11% of the traffic. Economic development and the goal of providing all regions with equal access to dependable transport networks are other influential factors. Indeed, the ADHS highway corridors are crucial to the mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

As for the environmental impact of Corridor H, it's relatively minimal. In areas where many believe the highway encroaches on "pristine" ecosystems, the land has already been altered significantly due to coal strip mining, timber harvesting, and other developmental activities. For instance, east of Davis towards the Allegheny Front, the route–though a matter of concern for environmentalists–follows the path of the existing WV 93, which was not that old of a road. This section also passes through areas previously mined. Additionally, west of Thomas, the highway will intersect with land historically used for extensive mining and timbering, marked by remnants like beehive coke ovens that were highly polluting. While this doesn't negate the need for careful construction measures, it does provide a more balanced perspective on the project's environmental implications.

The development and debate around Corridor H illustrate the complexities of regional development, especially when balancing economic, environmental, and societal needs.

Corridor H, being the most studied roadway in the state, showcases the importance and impact a single infrastructure project can have on an entire region. While the original alignment of US 33 might have served its purpose at the time, shifting development priorities, ecological concerns, and regional growth necessitated a re-evaluation. The new terrain northward then became a viable option.

My personal observation of the Davis/Thomas area over the past two decades highlights the transformative power of infrastructure. Towns like Thomas, once dwindling coal communities similar to many in the southwest of the state, and Davis, a timber-based town, were in decline. Their primary economic draw centered on what little tourism there was up there at the time, specifically Blackwater Falls and the ski resorts.

However, with the improved accessibility provided by Corridor H, previously under-recognized areas like Dolly Sods, Canaan Valley, and the National Forest have seen a surge in visitors and interest. Thomas is completely full of shops in a renovated downtown, and Davis is seeing a lot of new construction. This influx has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, property values are on the rise, and out-of-state investments have increased. This has brought economic vitality, opportunities, and growth that otherwise would not have existed. On the other hand, these changes come with their own set of challenges, such as potential overdevelopment and loss of the area's intrinsic character.

It'll be interesting to see how much more Corridor H will transform those two mountain towns and Elkins, Parsons, Moorefield, and Wardensville, all of which are seeing a lot of new investment over the next decade.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on September 11, 2023, 11:02:03 AM
seicer:  Excellent post


https://wvmetronews.com/2023/09/08/plans-for-another-study-frustrate-corridor-h-advocates/
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 11, 2023, 11:16:06 AM
The Coalfields Expressway's completion to Mullens is a testament to how transportation infrastructure can act as a catalyst for development, even in areas that have experienced devastation, like the floods of 2001 in Mullens. The town's trajectory from destruction to stagnation and finally to redevelopment might be less dramatic than what's seen in places like Thomas or Davis, but the change is still significant, especially considering the region's economic challenges.

Proximity to significant attractions or resources can amplify the effects of such infrastructure. In this case, the Hatfield-McCoy trail system provides an added incentive for development and tourism.

It's interesting to note the disparity in public response between two major infrastructure projects like Corridor H and the Coalfields Expressway. While Corridor H faced a lot of controversy from certain groups, the extension of the Coalfields Expressway to Mullens (and now to Pineville) encountered little resistance.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 11, 2023, 11:21:43 AM
Little resistance but being constructed at a snail's pace. Not unlike the US 52 King Coal Highway. At least Corridor H will eventually be completed (hopefully). The jury is still out on the other two.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 11, 2023, 03:59:44 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on September 10, 2023, 09:24:23 AM
Quote from: Rothman on August 31, 2023, 11:38:10 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2023, 11:30:16 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on August 30, 2023, 03:42:07 PM
https://wvmetronews.com/2023/08/30/doh-will-evaluate-route-to-avoid-blackwater-canyon-on-corridor-h/

WV gives into the BANANA groups.  The latest tactic is to propose route changes, which set off new permitting, which they can then object to and tie up in court for years.

Way past time to save lives and spur development.

The Volvo-driving crowd from the east coast can now get to Davis and Thomas on an improved route. That's as far as the road needs to be built. No reason to connect it to Parsons, Elkins, Buckhannon, Weston and points westward. /sarcasm
"We sneer at tourists while wanting to attract them for their money," moans one of the poorest states in the country.
Yea really.
The road is NOT needed, this a lightly traveled corridor, no reason to spend limited $$ to degrade the environment.

The whole point of the ADHS is to induce traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on September 19, 2023, 12:59:54 PM
I drove from DC to Davis and back last weekend, and that ~20 mile stretch of 2-lane road between Strasburg and Wardensville was agonizingly slow going with the amount of traffic going through there these days. I think I averaged maybe 30 MPH in both directions, having to follow a tour bus, tractor trailers and some good ol' Sunday drivers. A truck lane or two would be nice at the very least.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on September 20, 2023, 01:26:14 AM
Quote from: machpost on September 19, 2023, 12:59:54 PM
I drove from DC to Davis and back last weekend, and that ~20 mile stretch of 2-lane road between Strasburg and Wardensville was agonizingly slow going with the amount of traffic going through there these days. I think I averaged maybe 30 MPH in both directions, having to follow a tour bus, tractor trailers and some good ol' Sunday drivers. A truck lane or two would be nice at the very least.
West Virginia is planning to build the corridor out to the state line as a four lane limited access divided highway (with intersections), but I wouldn't expect anything from Virginia for quite a time.

Hopefully the completion of Corridor H in West Virginia in the near future will pressure VDOT to study widening US-48 to 4 lanes, or to construct a new alignment connecting into I-81... and study is being pretty generous.

VDOT cannot even get funding to widen I-81 to six lanes besides from the mini few mile project near I-66 - when it is bogged down with truck traffic.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2023, 10:05:36 AM
The last few times I've been on the Virginia segment of US 48, it was at night. While the lanes are wide enough, there are numerous long grades and steep descents that make it fun to drive in a car, but much less so if you are driving a commercial vehicle or in an RV (speaking from experience). It's also a speed trap. On my last drive through there, I saw 3 state police cars that had vehicles pulled over.

I do remember driving it during the day some years back when the Wardensville segment had just opened, and US 48 in Virginia was a crawl. Not consistently slow, but that 20 or so mile stretch took twice as long to drive because of turning vehicles, trucks, and a slew of cars.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 1995hoo on September 20, 2023, 11:32:26 AM
Not a lot of good passing zones on that segment, either–or at least, not a lot of them that you'll ever actually get a chance to use given how busy the road is. If you want to try to pass, you have to be extremely aggressive about it.

Other than alleviating traffic, though, I'm not sure what benefit there is to Virginia of widening or replacing that road, beyond maybe adding a few stretches of three-laning to allow for climbing lanes or making it easier to pass. It seems like major improvements would primarily benefit the Counties That Refer to Themselves as West Virginia.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 20, 2023, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 20, 2023, 11:32:26 AM
Not a lot of good passing zones on that segment, either–or at least, not a lot of them that you'll ever actually get a chance to use given how busy the road is. If you want to try to pass, you have to be extremely aggressive about it.

Other than alleviating traffic, though, I'm not sure what benefit there is to Virginia of widening or replacing that road, beyond maybe adding a few stretches of three-laning to allow for climbing lanes or making it easier to pass. It seems like major improvements would primarily benefit the Counties That Refer to Themselves as West Virginia.

The ADHS system is supposed to be a regional one.

In what way did I-76 benefit Nebraska?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2023, 04:07:40 PM
There is a public informational workshop (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorH-WardensvilletoVaLine/Pages/default.aspx) tomorrow for the Wardensville-Virginia segment.

2023 Alignment (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/CorridorH-WardensvilletoVaLine/Documents/9-21-23%20meeting/W%20to%20VA_2023%20Public%20Mtg_Boards_Alignment%20Rev_2023-09-18.pdf)

This calls for an intersection with an on-ramp west of Wardensville, a full interchange at CR 23/10, an intersection at CR 5/1, and a final tie-in with US 48 at the border. It doesn't look like there will be much of a stub for the continuation of the expressway east. A connector from WV 55 to US 48 near the border was eliminated, too.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tmoore952 on September 20, 2023, 04:57:09 PM
Quote from: seicer on September 20, 2023, 10:05:36 AM
The last few times I've been on the Virginia segment of US 48, it was at night. While the lanes are wide enough, there are numerous long grades and steep descents that make it fun to drive in a car, but much less so if you are driving a commercial vehicle or in an RV (speaking from experience). It's also a speed trap. On my last drive through there, I saw 3 state police cars that had vehicles pulled over.

I do remember driving it during the day some years back when the Wardensville segment had just opened, and US 48 in Virginia was a crawl. Not consistently slow, but that 20 or so mile stretch took twice as long to drive because of turning vehicles, trucks, and a slew of cars.

The Virginia stretch is something I would probably avoid driving at night unless it was absolutely necessary. I used to feel much differently when I was younger. Over the last couple decades, I've had too many run-ins with deer (both collisions and near-collisions) to try to drive fast (over the speed limit) on it. To be fair, none of this has actually happened to me on that particular stretch of US 48 since I haven't driven it at night, but it's got a lot of wooded areas, and I just won't take chances like that anymore. And so I'm one of the ones letting people pass.

That and the WV parts are beautiful stretches of road scenery-wise. WV more so, since on the expressway parts you are above the trees, rather than under them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on September 20, 2023, 05:01:43 PM


Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2023, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 20, 2023, 11:32:26 AM
Not a lot of good passing zones on that segment, either–or at least, not a lot of them that you'll ever actually get a chance to use given how busy the road is. If you want to try to pass, you have to be extremely aggressive about it.

Other than alleviating traffic, though, I'm not sure what benefit there is to Virginia of widening or replacing that road, beyond maybe adding a few stretches of three-laning to allow for climbing lanes or making it easier to pass. It seems like major improvements would primarily benefit the Counties That Refer to Themselves as West Virginia.

The ADHS system is supposed to be a regional one.

In what way did I-76 benefit Nebraska?

Connected Omaha to Denver
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
What about the portion of US 48 between the Virginia state line and Interstate 81? Will that portion also be under construction next year, with a completion date of 2031? Or will we have to wait longer for Virginia to widen their segment of Corridor H?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 20, 2023, 07:35:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
What about the portion of US 48 between the Virginia state line and Interstate 81? Will that portion also be under construction next year, with a completion date of 2031? Or will we have to wait longer for Virginia to widen their segment of Corridor H?

Yeah, I am not sure VDOT has discussed anything in relation to Corridor H beyond signing US 48 along VA 55.  So yeah, it is not getting built any time soon.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on September 20, 2023, 07:37:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
What about the portion of US 48 between the Virginia state line and Interstate 81? Will that portion also be under construction next year, with a completion date of 2031? Or will we have to wait longer for Virginia to widen their segment of Corridor H?

Virginia to my knowledge has not even studied this route for improvement.  It has also yet to appear on their long range VTRANS documents they update every 5 years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: froggie on September 20, 2023, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 20, 2023, 07:37:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
What about the portion of US 48 between the Virginia state line and Interstate 81? Will that portion also be under construction next year, with a completion date of 2031? Or will we have to wait longer for Virginia to widen their segment of Corridor H?

Virginia to my knowledge has not even studied this route for improvement.  It has also yet to appear on their long range VTRANS documents they update every 5 years.

They have.  I don't recall where I found it or what I did with it, but there was an alignment study done sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on September 20, 2023, 09:19:25 PM
With the intense opposition to the project in that Virginia county, VDOT could twin the existing route with less impact. It's not an awful alignment and although the grades may be steep or long, having an extra lane to maneuver could solve some of its biggest issues. I also don't see VDOT doing anything with it with many other projects underway across the state.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Mapmikey on September 20, 2023, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2023, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on September 20, 2023, 07:37:30 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2023, 07:00:41 PM
What about the portion of US 48 between the Virginia state line and Interstate 81? Will that portion also be under construction next year, with a completion date of 2031? Or will we have to wait longer for Virginia to widen their segment of Corridor H?

Virginia to my knowledge has not even studied this route for improvement.  It has also yet to appear on their long range VTRANS documents they update every 5 years.

They have.  I don't recall where I found it or what I did with it, but there was an alignment study done sometime in the 1990s or early 2000s.

I found an early 1990s document that has alternatives considered and a 404 permit for Corr H from Elkins to I-81 - see pg. 687 here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556030096713&seq=687&view=1up
It mentions Virginia alignments were considered and some eliminated, but descriptions of the alignments they keep have no Virginia alignments...more research is necessary.

The 2016 Shenandoah County Comprehensive Plan (https://shenandoahcountyva.us/planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2014/01/Chapter-8-Final-Approved-BOS-08232016.pdf) only says VDOT should keep an eye on VA 55 traffic west of I-81.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:27:28 AM
Widening existing US 48 to four lanes in Virginia would still require the removal of homes and businesses in some locations, so such an undertaking would be tricky. I expect US 48 in Virginia will be left alone until/if a new alignment is funded and constructed.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on September 21, 2023, 11:33:35 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 20, 2023, 05:01:43 PM


Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2023, 02:48:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 20, 2023, 11:32:26 AM
Not a lot of good passing zones on that segment, either–or at least, not a lot of them that you'll ever actually get a chance to use given how busy the road is. If you want to try to pass, you have to be extremely aggressive about it.

Other than alleviating traffic, though, I'm not sure what benefit there is to Virginia of widening or replacing that road, beyond maybe adding a few stretches of three-laning to allow for climbing lanes or making it easier to pass. It seems like major improvements would primarily benefit the Counties That Refer to Themselves as West Virginia.

The ADHS system is supposed to be a regional one.

In what way did I-76 benefit Nebraska?

Connected Omaha to Denver

Similarly, completing US 48 would connect the inland port at Front Royal to points west.

If the traffic increases on the Virginia portion to the point where congestion or accidents become problematic, it will force Virginia's hand eventually.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: machpost on September 22, 2023, 09:04:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 21, 2023, 11:33:35 AM

Similarly, completing US 48 would connect the inland port at Front Royal to points west.

If the traffic increases on the Virginia portion to the point where congestion or accidents become problematic, it will force Virginia's hand eventually.

They seem more than willing to add endless lanes to other big highways in Northern Virginia.

I'm guessing that I won't see a completed, four lane highway from I-81 to I-79 in my lifetime, so at the very least it would be nice to see some truck lanes added to the 2-lane portion of 48 between Strasburg and Wardensville.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on September 22, 2023, 10:03:24 AM
Quote from: machpost on September 22, 2023, 09:04:44 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 21, 2023, 11:33:35 AM

Similarly, completing US 48 would connect the inland port at Front Royal to points west.

If the traffic increases on the Virginia portion to the point where congestion or accidents become problematic, it will force Virginia's hand eventually.

They seem more than willing to add endless lanes to other big highways in Northern Virginia.

I'm guessing that I won't see a completed, four lane highway from I-81 to I-79 in my lifetime, so at the very least it would be nice to see some truck lanes added to the 2-lane portion of 48 between Strasburg and Wardensville.

Some climbing lanes, turning lanes, and spot improvements are likely to be adequate for Virginia's portion of US 48 for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2023, 11:15:50 AM
Quote from: machpost on September 22, 2023, 09:04:44 AM
They seem more than willing to add endless lanes to other big highways in Northern Virginia.
And yet somehow I-95 is still just six general purpose lanes south of the Occoquan, and daily backups every afternoon continue due to the lane drop.

I think what you meant is they are willing to add endless toll lanes where they can just hand it off to a private company.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tmoore952 on September 22, 2023, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: machpost on September 22, 2023, 09:04:44 AM

They seem more than willing to add endless lanes to other big highways in Northern Virginia.

I'm guessing that I won't see a completed, four lane highway from I-81 to I-79 in my lifetime, so at the very least it would be nice to see some truck lanes added to the 2-lane portion of 48 between Strasburg and Wardensville.

But if the earlier poster is to be believed, adding these truck lanes may be tricky, depending on where the existing houses and businesses are. 
I also cannot see at this point how they could possibly do the part between Wardensville and the state line given the terrain, but I'm also not a civil engineer.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on September 22, 2023, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: tmoore952 on September 22, 2023, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: machpost on September 22, 2023, 09:04:44 AM

They seem more than willing to add endless lanes to other big highways in Northern Virginia.

I'm guessing that I won't see a completed, four lane highway from I-81 to I-79 in my lifetime, so at the very least it would be nice to see some truck lanes added to the 2-lane portion of 48 between Strasburg and Wardensville.

But if the earlier poster is to be believed, adding these truck lanes may be tricky, depending on where the existing houses and businesses are. 
I also cannot see at this point how they could possibly do the part between Wardensville and the state line given the terrain, but I'm also not a civil engineer.
They're doing some impressive earthmoving work down near US-58 at Lovers Leap. Also take a look at the amount of earthmoving work in West Virginia with the construction of Corridor H and also US-121 Coalfields Expressway. It's certainly possible...
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rover on October 20, 2023, 11:43:07 PM
Quote from: seicer on September 10, 2023, 03:32:40 PM
Regarding the perception that Corridor H is underutilized, this concern has been raised about many other corridors as well. In my research on various corridors such as Corridor L (US 19), Corridor G (US 119), Corridor D in Ohio (OH 32), Corridor Q in Kentucky (US 460), Corridor B (US 23), Corridor T (NY 17), and Corridor U (US 15), I found similar sentiments.

However, it's important to note that traffic counts aren't the sole reason for the development of these corridors. For instance, Corridor H sees over 24,000 vehicles per day (VPD) at its westernmost point, 11,700 VPD near Elkins, and 4,400 VPD approaching the Allegheny Front. It would not be fair to judge the highway's low traffic counts east of Elkins at this juncture because it has glaring gaps in its completion. Accessing some ski resorts from I-79, for instance, is still easier to do via US 33 than US 48; others will always be more accessible from US 33 but were made easier to get to via US 48 elsewhere. Furthermore, safety, especially concerning truck routes, plays a significant role. In the western segments of Corridor H, trucks constitute 11% of the traffic. Economic development and the goal of providing all regions with equal access to dependable transport networks are other influential factors. Indeed, the ADHS highway corridors are crucial to the mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

As for the environmental impact of Corridor H, it's relatively minimal. In areas where many believe the highway encroaches on "pristine" ecosystems, the land has already been altered significantly due to coal strip mining, timber harvesting, and other developmental activities. For instance, east of Davis towards the Allegheny Front, the route–though a matter of concern for environmentalists–follows the path of the existing WV 93, which was not that old of a road. This section also passes through areas previously mined. Additionally, west of Thomas, the highway will intersect with land historically used for extensive mining and timbering, marked by remnants like beehive coke ovens that were highly polluting. While this doesn't negate the need for careful construction measures, it does provide a more balanced perspective on the project's environmental implications.

The development and debate around Corridor H illustrate the complexities of regional development, especially when balancing economic, environmental, and societal needs.

Corridor H, being the most studied roadway in the state, showcases the importance and impact a single infrastructure project can have on an entire region. While the original alignment of US 33 might have served its purpose at the time, shifting development priorities, ecological concerns, and regional growth necessitated a re-evaluation. The new terrain northward then became a viable option.

My personal observation of the Davis/Thomas area over the past two decades highlights the transformative power of infrastructure. Towns like Thomas, once dwindling coal communities similar to many in the southwest of the state, and Davis, a timber-based town, were in decline. Their primary economic draw centered on what little tourism there was up there at the time, specifically Blackwater Falls and the ski resorts.

However, with the improved accessibility provided by Corridor H, previously under-recognized areas like Dolly Sods, Canaan Valley, and the National Forest have seen a surge in visitors and interest. Thomas is completely full of shops in a renovated downtown, and Davis is seeing a lot of new construction. This influx has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, property values are on the rise, and out-of-state investments have increased. This has brought economic vitality, opportunities, and growth that otherwise would not have existed. On the other hand, these changes come with their own set of challenges, such as potential overdevelopment and loss of the area's intrinsic character.

It'll be interesting to see how much more Corridor H will transform those two mountain towns and Elkins, Parsons, Moorefield, and Wardensville, all of which are seeing a lot of new investment over the next decade.
This is not a good argument.
Corridor H is not heavily traveled, nor heavily populated, nor vitally important since it serves such a small isolated population with other nearby major E-W corridors.
As such, the justification to destroy the environment is not warranted given the low volume and the increase that would result just from inducement.
I find it ironic to say the environment impact is minimal, while claiming this is not a low volume corridor.  Actually it is the other way around, this is a luxury corridor that is not necessary causing major environmental degradation to an area which is a pristine treasure and is still in recovery.

1.  The corridor is a luxury, not a necessity.  It serves a sparse area with E-W long distance covered by other roads.
2.  The corridor will destroy the major attraction, and do it for an unneeded purpose.  The corridor volume is low, the environment impact high. 
3.  The area has a history of poor management that is only now recovering.  It should have an even higher standard to be bulldozed.
4.  In a time of climate change, the need to lower emissions, habitat fragmentation, and last of all, not even funds to maintain most roads, how on earth a boondoggle environmental disaster can take priority in funding  is completely backwards.
Only a special interest person, or somebody looking at a map wanting to see a complete corridor would support this project.
The environmental impact
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:14:29 AM
The corridor will not see its full benefits in terms of increased traffic volumes until it is fully complete as a four lane divided highway between I-66 and I-79.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on October 21, 2023, 01:12:59 AM
I agree with rover on this one, Corridor H does not need this level of improvement at all.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rover on October 21, 2023, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:14:29 AM
The corridor will not see its full benefits in terms of increased traffic volumes until it is fully complete as a four lane divided highway between I-66 and I-79.
Which essentially means there is not a need for this improvement, and any volume justifications would only be inducement that are served by other corridors.
This is such a backwards project, it is a road in search of volume and justification at the expense of the environment in a time of limited road funding and more progressive climate policy so somebody can have their SimCity grid fantasy completed (or some pork)?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: zzcarp on October 21, 2023, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: rover on October 21, 2023, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:14:29 AM
The corridor will not see its full benefits in terms of increased traffic volumes until it is fully complete as a four lane divided highway between I-66 and I-79.
Which essentially means there is not a need for this improvement, and any volume justifications would only be inducement that are served by other corridors.
This is such a backwards project, it is a road in search of volume and justification at the expense of the environment in a time of limited road funding and more progressive climate policy so somebody can have their SimCity grid fantasy completed (or some pork)?

Asserting some outsized environmental impact for this project is absurd. In an area of poor management in the past, engineers will improve the environmental conditions after the improvements are constructed, not degrade them.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rover on October 21, 2023, 07:44:19 PM
LOL, how/when has that ever been the case?
So a forest is better environmentally after a road is cut through it?
Are you kidding me?

Blackwater canyon will be environmentally better when there is a visible, loud, air polluting highway running adjacent/over?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: vdeane on October 21, 2023, 08:56:55 PM
Quote from: rover on October 21, 2023, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:14:29 AM
The corridor will not see its full benefits in terms of increased traffic volumes until it is fully complete as a four lane divided highway between I-66 and I-79.
Which essentially means there is not a need for this improvement, and any volume justifications would only be inducement that are served by other corridors.
This is such a backwards project, it is a road in search of volume and justification at the expense of the environment in a time of limited road funding and more progressive climate policy so somebody can have their SimCity grid fantasy completed (or some pork)?
You do realize that the entire point of the ADHS is to bring people into these rural areas to help revitalize them, right?

As for climate emissions... what excuse are you going to use once cars are all electric and won't emit CO2 anymore?  The complaint seems to be more about cars themselves than about the emissions.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 22, 2023, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on October 21, 2023, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: rover on October 21, 2023, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:14:29 AM
The corridor will not see its full benefits in terms of increased traffic volumes until it is fully complete as a four lane divided highway between I-66 and I-79.
Which essentially means there is not a need for this improvement, and any volume justifications would only be inducement that are served by other corridors.
This is such a backwards project, it is a road in search of volume and justification at the expense of the environment in a time of limited road funding and more progressive climate policy so somebody can have their SimCity grid fantasy completed (or some pork)?

Asserting some outsized environmental impact for this project is absurd. In an area of poor management in the past, engineers will improve the environmental conditions after the improvements are constructed, not degrade them.

The parts that remain to be built in West Virginia mostly traverse Monongahela and George Washington National Forest. The suggestion that the highway corridor is going to improve the environmental conditions is laughable, especially considering the record of WVDOH and its contractors for getting fined by WVDEP for permit violations on previous sections of Corridor H.

As for the through traffic comments others have made, good luck in the winter. WVDOH uses much salt on a per lane-mile basis than other agencies in surrounding states, has a fraction of the snow removal equipment of other agencies, and doesn't use deicers that are effective in the below-20 degree temperatures commonly seen in the winter. Look at WVDOH's webcams and you'll often find US 219 at Tucker County High School and Corridor H at Bismarck snow-covered days after a storm. Through traffic during the winter is far better served taking I-68, which has less exposure to high elevation terrain and much more capable SRIC operations in Maryland. I travel Corridor H east of Bismarck on the way to from Moorefield and the Shenandoah Valley a couple times a year. I make it a point to stay away from the Mount Storm area during anything that could involve winter weather conditions after some very bad experiences.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 23, 2023, 10:43:50 AM
Quote from: rover on October 21, 2023, 07:44:19 PM
LOL, how/when has that ever been the case?
So a forest is better environmentally after a road is cut through it?
Are you kidding me?

Blackwater canyon will be environmentally better when there is a visible, loud, air polluting highway running adjacent/over?

You do realize it's not Blackwater Canyon?

It's the North Fork of the Blackwater River, and the highway as currently proposed will cut through former underground and strip-mined sites - not National Forest lands. The bridge will be in the vicinity of 300+ coke ovens, all of which were much more environmentally degrading than a highway will ever be. Toxic coke gas killed much of the vegetation for miles around, but the impact was limited as the trees had all been timbered to feed the massive lumber mills in Davis. The land today is still polluted, and acid mine drainage runs forth from several leaky plugs. There have been several expensive attempts at remedying the acidic drainage but none have worked successfully.

The deep valley starts south of there by Douglas Falls, which is within the National Forest Service boundary.

And while some of Corridor H cuts through two National Forest boundaries, much of the highway is on private lands. It doesn't excuse WVDOH's violations in the past but puts the highway location in context.

As for the deicing comment by @Bitmapped, the state has historically used more cinders/plowing than salt, which is probably for the better. There are numerous lakes in upstate New York that are becoming adversely affected by the massive amount of salt and deicing chemicals being dumped by NYSDOT. It's affecting ecosystems throughout the Adirondacks (as an example): https://www.protectadks.org/long-awaited-adirondack-road-salt-reduction-task-force-report-is-released/

Related, I noticed that WVDOH now has installed signs that require chains on trucks on US 219 in the winter during inclement conditions. Passenger cars should at least carry them. But with just one major snowfall for the 2022-23 season, the need for them is becoming less and less.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Bitmapped on October 23, 2023, 03:08:07 PM
Quote from: seicer on October 23, 2023, 10:43:50 AM
As for the deicing comment by @Bitmapped, the state has historically used more cinders/plowing than salt, which is probably for the better. There are numerous lakes in upstate New York that are becoming adversely affected by the massive amount of salt and deicing chemicals being dumped by NYSDOT. It's affecting ecosystems throughout the Adirondacks (as an example): https://www.protectadks.org/long-awaited-adirondack-road-salt-reduction-task-force-report-is-released/

Related, I noticed that WVDOH now has installed signs that require chains on trucks on US 219 in the winter during inclement conditions. Passenger cars should at least carry them. But with just one major snowfall for the 2022-23 season, the need for them is becoming less and less.

How many through travelers do you think are going to choose a route that forces them to significantly slow their travel speeds on snow-covered roadways or use tire chains?
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 23, 2023, 03:34:36 PM
Currently? Very few, as those signs are on US 219 which is not used heavily by through traffic - especially trucks. Once US 48 is completed through the area, trucks can use the expressway which does not have a requirement for chains. Regardless, truck drivers driving in this terrain already carry chains.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2023, 11:06:59 AM
I drove what was completed of Corridor H during a heavy snow along the Allegheny Front back in 2004. At the time, the only section completed was from Baker to the East Moorefield exit. Beyond that, I took US 220 south, WV 28 south/WV 55 west, and WV 42 west to Bismarck. The snow picked up west of Petersburg and was very heavy all the way to the Davis area. WVDOH was plowing and spreading cinders between Petersburg and Davis. I saw no indication the road was salted.

The snow was markedly less beyond Thomas and there was much less on the ground at Parsons. By the time I got to Elkins and Buckhannon, it was practically nonexistent.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 24, 2023, 11:12:34 AM
Similarly, I drove on Corridor H from Moorefield west to Davis in a blizzard two years ago. It was later in the night and I passed only *one* car in the opposing direction - another Subaru. The lanes had been plowed at least once, and the lanes were cindered, but they were not salted because of the lower temperatures. Salt is not effective below 20F.

The state does use salt and brine on the Corridor H segments west of Elkins, and it's absolutely destroyed the concrete pavement over the years. It's not a terribly old roadway in parts.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: rover on October 30, 2023, 10:25:30 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on October 22, 2023, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: zzcarp on October 21, 2023, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: rover on October 21, 2023, 09:53:23 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 21, 2023, 12:14:29 AM
The corridor will not see its full benefits in terms of increased traffic volumes until it is fully complete as a four lane divided highway between I-66 and I-79.
Which essentially means there is not a need for this improvement, and any volume justifications would only be inducement that are served by other corridors.
This is such a backwards project, it is a road in search of volume and justification at the expense of the environment in a time of limited road funding and more progressive climate policy so somebody can have their SimCity grid fantasy completed (or some pork)?

Asserting some outsized environmental impact for this project is absurd. In an area of poor management in the past, engineers will improve the environmental conditions after the improvements are constructed, not degrade them.

The parts that remain to be built in West Virginia mostly traverse Monongahela and George Washington National Forest. The suggestion that the highway corridor is going to improve the environmental conditions is laughable, especially considering the record of WVDOH and its contractors for getting fined by WVDEP for permit violations on previous sections of Corridor H.

As for the through traffic comments others have made, good luck in the winter. WVDOH uses much salt on a per lane-mile basis than other agencies in surrounding states, has a fraction of the snow removal equipment of other agencies, and doesn't use deicers that are effective in the below-20 degree temperatures commonly seen in the winter. Look at WVDOH's webcams and you'll often find US 219 at Tucker County High School and Corridor H at Bismarck snow-covered days after a storm. Through traffic during the winter is far better served taking I-68, which has less exposure to high elevation terrain and much more capable SRIC operations in Maryland. I travel Corridor H east of Bismarck on the way to from Moorefield and the Shenandoah Valley a couple times a year. I make it a point to stay away from the Mount Storm area during anything that could involve winter weather conditions after some very bad experiences.
Excellent points, this is such a wasted, unnecessary road.
I forgot all about the snow and salt.
What a needless waste of $$.

The ARC has already brought appalachia into better access, finishing Corridor H is needlessly redundant.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on October 31, 2023, 09:47:07 AM
With all respect, you simply do not know what you are talking about. 

Corridor H will improve lives, and it will SAVE lives.  That SHOULD be important to you, and everyone.  Sad to see that it isn't.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Alps on October 31, 2023, 07:28:38 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on October 31, 2023, 09:47:07 AM
With all respect, you simply do not know what you are talking about. 

Corridor H will improve lives, and it will SAVE lives.  That SHOULD be important to you, and everyone.  Sad to see that it isn't.
Higher speed limit will COST lives.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on October 31, 2023, 07:58:05 PM
The safety of each road is arguable. US 219 has speed limits ranging from 25 to 55 MPH, with numerous bends and steep inclines. Notably, the ascent on Backbone Mountain is where trucks often need to use chains. There are few areas for trucks to exit the highway when their brakes overheat. On the other hand, Corridor H has speed limits between 55 and 65 MPH and features milder inclines. However, only a few sections of this road have runaway ramps.

While higher speeds might be associated with more severe injuries, this risk could be balanced by fewer accidents due to decreased traffic on certain roads.

After West Virginia increased speed limits to 70 MPH on interstates and 65 MPH on four-lane corridor routes, there has been a notable decrease in fatalities and serious injuries. According to WVDOH (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/traffic/Documents/StrategicHighwaySafetyPlan.pdf), since 2009, fatalities have dropped by 25% and serious injuries by 69% (as mentioned on page 8). Meanwhile, the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rate has remained consistent (as seen on page 14). Most accidents are because of speeding/aggressive driving followed by roadway departures and then speeding.

Interestingly, 65% of fatalities and serious injuries involved roadway departure crashes and 56% of these were on state routes or county/HARP routes, not roads like Corridor H/US 48 (as seen on page 22). Unfortunately, those rates are not broken down further other than interstate/US route/WV route/county or HARP route/city street/other, so accidents on Corridor H/US 48 will get lumped into those on US 219. Therefore, an argument that Corridor H will increase accident rates because it has a higher speed limit is not an accurate statement.

Raising the speed limits in Virginia also did not produce an increase in focus crash types (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361198118793499), either.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: SP Cook on November 01, 2023, 09:11:06 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 31, 2023, 07:28:38 PM

Corridor H will improve lives, and it will SAVE lives.  That SHOULD be important to you, and everyone.  Sad to see that it isn't.
Higher speed limit will COST lives.
[/quote]

WRONG.

First, every speed limits have been followed by a decline in traffic mortality, every time they have been tried.  The IDIOTS who advocated for the NMSL were simply wrong.

Second, HAVE YOU PERSONALLY EVER DRIVEN THE CURRENT ROAD?  If you have, and you do not understand how many lives will be saved by a modern high speed highway, you lack the ability to comment on this subject.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Rothman on November 01, 2023, 11:18:37 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on November 01, 2023, 09:11:06 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 31, 2023, 07:28:38 PM

Corridor H will improve lives, and it will SAVE lives.  That SHOULD be important to you, and everyone.  Sad to see that it isn't.
Higher speed limit will COST lives.

WRONG.

First, every speed limits have been followed by a decline in traffic mortality, every time they have been tried.  The IDIOTS who advocated for the NMSL were simply wrong.

Second, HAVE YOU PERSONALLY EVER DRIVEN THE CURRENT ROAD?  If you have, and you do not understand how many lives will be saved by a modern high speed highway, you lack the ability to comment on this subject.
[/quote]*suspicious of rants that caveat themselves*
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 13, 2024, 11:23:19 AM
Justice approves award for next section of Corridor H from Kerens to Parsons (https://www.wboy.com/road-patrol/justice-approves-award-for-next-section-of-corridor-h-from-kerens-to-parsons/)

During the 2024 State of the State Address on Wednesday night, Gov. Jim Justice announced that construction on the next section of Corridor H will soon begin. Specifically, the section that will connect Kerens to Parsons.

According to a release, the project will pave a 3.3-mile four-lane stretch of highway that will run from U.S. Route 219 to the interchange with West Virginia Toute 72. The project, once completed, will also allow the West Virginia Division of Highways to open a new section of Corridor H to traffic.

[...]

This is section two of a five-section project and paving work will be done concurrently with section one of the project, which connects U.S. 219 with Kerens and is already being worked on by West Virginia Paving. Both sections are expected to open to traffic in the summer of 2025.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 13, 2024, 09:47:49 PM
As of January 2024, Corridor H, also known as US Route 48, is a partially completed 157-mile four-lane expressway connecting Interstate 79 in Weston, West Virginia, to Interstate 81 in Strasburg, Virginia. In West Virginia, most segments of Corridor H are complete. However, the segment from Karens to Parsons is under construction, while the Parsons to Davis and Wardensville to Virginia sections are still in the planning stages.

Traversing some of the most challenging mountainous terrain in the eastern United States, Corridor H crosses two significant rivers. The highway also runs through two national forests and is in proximity to about 150 native trout streams, thousands of acres of wetlands, high mountain bogs, and areas of karst terrain. Additionally, the route is near approximately 1,000 historic structures, five historic districts, two Civil War battlefields, and numerous abandoned coal mines.

I've posted many more photos and history here (http://bridgestunnels.com/2024/01/13/constructing-west-virginias-corridor-h/).

1 North Elkins bypass (January 2024)
(https://i0.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64968-Enhanced-NR-1024x684.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

2 Haddix Run Bridge west of Parsons (January 2024)
(https://i2.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64743-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

3 (August 2023)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41568-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

4 (August 2023)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41545-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

5 East of Davis (January 2024)
(https://i2.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64957-1024x684.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

6 Near Davis and WV Route 32 (January 2024)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240105-20240105-64393-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

7 Allegheny Front (January 2024)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64564-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

8 (January 2024)
(https://i2.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64621-Enhanced-NR-2-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

9 Greenland (January 2024)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64681-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

10 New Creek Mountain (January 2024)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64659-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

11 (January 2024)
(https://i0.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20240107-20240107-64674-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

12 Clifford Hollow Bridge east of Moorefield (August 2023)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41438-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

13 Bridge over the Lost River at Hanging Rock (August 2023)
(https://i1.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41328-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

13 (August 2023)
(https://i2.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41305-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

14 Bridge over the Lost River west of Wardensville (August 2023)
(https://i2.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41264-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

15 (August 2023)
(https://i0.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41291-Enhanced-NR-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)

16 Terminus of four-lane Corridor H at County Route 23/10 west of Wardensville (August 2023)
(https://i0.wp.com/bridgestunnels.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/20230821-20230821-41411-1024x767.jpg?strip=info&w=1600)
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tmoore952 on January 16, 2024, 09:33:13 PM
Very nice pictures!

I have driven the I-81 to Moorefield stretch about 10 times, and also used to drive through that area (e.g. Lost River) before the highway was ever built. It is amazing how different the same area feels to me when you are driving on the old roads (at surface elevation) and when you are driving on US 48 (how ever many feet you are above the same places when on the long bridges).

I would get off at Moorefield to head south on US 220 to places like Petersburg, Seneca Rocks, Spruce Knob etc.

Only once or twice have I ever ventured west of US 220, and the last time I did that was about 2013 or 2014 (I had no reason to go west of Moorefield save to see the new road). The road went maybe an additional 15 miles west at that time. I should get out there again and check it out. It'll get much easier for me to do this in a couple years.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on January 16, 2024, 10:04:16 PM
About the closest you could get with the same elevation profile was WV Route 93 east of Davis. Most everything else was routed through valleys, making such dramatic views unattainable. I hope that WVDOH keeps the vegetation cut back to allow for the sweeping views.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: tmoore952 on January 21, 2024, 01:14:22 PM
I was reminded today via a family discussion that I have ancestry roots in the Phillipi-Belington-Kalamazoo (WV) area.

If I ever go out there again (wouldn't be for a couple years) I will use what I can of US 48 to go there (from DC area). At least now I have a semi-valid reason to use the road west of Moorefield.

EDIT - all of my previous trips out that way (3 hours to 4 hours, some were very long day trips) were done before I was a parent. Back then, it would not be unusual for me to decide to drive out there spur-of-the-moment. Driving a long stretch of road "just to see it" without another good reason to do so, doesn't happen anymore.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 28, 2024, 08:28:16 PM
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/0f8f8fafce874104be6d75e6a542873f

https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/Pages/Parsons-to-Davis.aspx

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the Corridor H segment between Parsons to Davis.
Title: Re: Corridor H
Post by: seicer on February 28, 2024, 10:01:12 PM
Thanks for posting this. It appears that 15% are in favor of the ROPA alternative (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/Documents/Projects/Parsons%20to%20Davis/P%20to%20D_2024_2-27_Public%20Mtg_Boards_R%20ROPA%20Alternative.pdf), 83% for a different alternative (assuming it's the BAA 2 alternative (https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/comment/Documents/Projects/Parsons%20to%20Davis/P%20to%20D_2024_2-27_Public%20Mtg_Boards_BAA2%20Alternative.pdf)), and 3% for neither.

"To minimize encroachment into the valley of the North Fork of the Blackwater River and within the Blackwater Industrial Complex Archaeological and Historic District, the Coketon bridge has been redesigned. The R-ROPA Coketon bridge will now be a steel arch structure with two piers located in previously disturbed reclamation areas within the historic district but well away from the mainline of the WVC&P historic railroad bed and the Powerhouse Site. Additionally, to further minimize the impact on the visual environment, the bridge has been raised an additional 75' above the valley floor."

I know this wouldn't be as high as New River Gorge, but a Corten steel arch structure could be a visual addition to the valley.

"Because of community concerns relating to pedestrian safety and connectivity between the City of Thomas and the Town of Davis."

Few walk between Thomas and Davis, although there is now a bike path partially constructed between the two. I'm not sure about the construction status, but having the highway less visually apparent through a reduction in the right-of-way or enhanced vegetation would be a plus.

If the state is still looking to pursue a truck bypass of Thomas, they should consider at least streetscaping the city - and streetscaping Davis. Both suffer from poor sidewalk connectivity, undefined parking areas, and stormwater control issues.