WV's new governor is proposing $2.9B in new borrowing for roads.
Taxes:
- Raise car registration from $30 to $50 (in WV the county tax is additional to that, and is about $200 for a good standard car, that goes to schools)
- Extend tolls on WV Turnpike for 40 more years, and raise from $2 to $3 per booth, for $9 for a full trip of 88 miles.
- Raise gas tax from 20.5 cents to 30.5
- POSSIBLE reduction in the price of a yearly pass on WV Turnpike from $285/year to $8/year for state residents.
"Phase One" projects:
Expressways:
- Repair I-70 Bridge over the Ohio. $12.5M
- Build Corridor H from US 219 connector to WV 72. $90M
- Build 4-lane US 340 from Virginia line to current 4 lane at Charles Town (this will make 340 4 lane from Berryville, VA to the start of the historic distict at Harper's Ferry). $40M
- Build connector from I-64 Exit 54 to Corridor G @ first shopping center. $65M
- Expand to 6-lanes I-64 from Exit 40 to Exit 45, including twin bridge over the Kanawha (this will make 64 6 lane from the I-77 JCT at MP 60 to Exit 39). $170M
- Re-do Corridor H - I-79 interchange (I-79 Exit 99) . $15.5M
- Expand to 8-lanes from Exit 18 to Exit 20 (combined with a "phase 2" project this will make 64 6 or 8 lanes from Exit 11 to Exit 20, first 8-lane interstate in WV). $65M
- Build King Coal Highway (US 52) from WV 123 to John Nash Blvd (3.8 miles, esentually equal to Bluefield city limits) . $50M
- Build (right of way is already owned) Tolsia Highway (US 52) from I-64 to Prichard Intermodal Facility. $150M
- Pave (aleady graded) Coalfield Expressway (US 121 if approved) in Wyoming County. $54.5M.
Rest of Phase One is surface streets in Morgantown and Parkersburg, and a new 2 lane road for the Hospital in Berkeley Springs; and then $465M for "system and safety repairs, maintenance, bridge repairs and safety improvements."
"Phase Two"
Expressways:
- Re-do I-79-US 50 interchange. $30M
- Expand to 6-lanes I-79 for 3 miles in Fairmont. $60M
- Re-do I-79 Exit 155 Star City.
- Build new exit (the 5th) from I-79 in Morgantown and build elevated connector to "downtown". $100M
- Upgrade to 6-lane an uspecified length of I-81. $75M
- Improve US 340 near the Harper's Ferry historic district. $10.5M
- Build frontage roads along Corridor G inside Charleston city limits. $30M
- Build 4-lane bypass US 522 around Berkeley Springs. $40M
- Upgrade to 6-lanes I-64 from Exit 15 to 18. $50M
- Build new exit for I-64 at Culloden (MP 30) $50M
- Build King Coal Highway (US 52) from Horsepen Mountin to Gilbert. $40M
- Build Coalfield Expressway (US 121 if approved) from WV 16 to Welch. $110M
Parkways:
- New River Parkway. Sandstone to Fall Branch (about 40% of the eventual route).
Rest of Phase Two is surface road improvements in New Cumberland, Morgantown, Berkeley Springs, Cross Lanes, Spencer, and Barboursville, various widening of WV 2 in several places, and $15.5M for WV 10 upgrades (curve removal and like that, not 4 lane replacement) from Man (current 4 lane end) to its end near Princeton; and $15M for similar work on WV 10 from Corridor G @ Chapmanville to I-64 @ Huntington. And $370M as above for "general".
My commentary. Nothing for the new gov's home area. Good for him. The last two govs both built boondoggle projects in their home counties.
I think this will pass the legislature. WV process is that it has to pass the legislature and then the voters. Even under GOP control, the legislature can just say "let the voters decide", which is, well, right. The election will be tight. You can see what projects are left off (rest of H, although some of that is funded already; rest of the two US 52 projects; rest of US 121; downtown Huntington access). Also you can see that the northern panhandle and the gov's home region of SE WV get almost nothing, while Morgantown gets a lot of surface streets and the only project (a 5th I-79 exit and downtown connector) that they do not even have a location for yet, and thw WV coalfields get a lot.
The anti- spin in southern WV will be "you pay, Morgantown benefits". Which is pretty accurate. Turnpike is paying for a lot of this. Big issue in southern WV. Spin in northern panhandle is "you get nothing" which is also pretty accurate. Spin in Huntington (which is getting a lot of bypass, but nothing in the city limits) is "here we go again", as conventional wisdom in Huntington is that the town screwed up 60 years ago when 64 bypassed town but went through Charleston, this will be compounded by Morgantown (WVU) getting exactly the downtown connector Huntington (Marshall) has asked for for 60 years. Spin outside of the coalfields will be "waste" which is also pretty accurate as none of the big projects (52 and 121) make a lot of sense even if finished and this does not come close to finishing them, and the WV 10 upgrades are right through the heart of the most dying area.
Pro spin is, as always "jobs, jobs, jobs" and all of that.
Election will be close.
JMO
Quote- Expand to 8-lanes from Exit 18 to Exit 20 (combined with a "phase 2" project this will make 64 6 or 8 lanes from Exit 11 to Exit 20, first 8-lane interstate in WV). $65M
Is this really necessary? WV traffic, even in the I-64 corridor, doesn't scream "lanes lanes lanes!" to me.
Quote- Upgrade to 6-lane an uspecified length of I-81. $75M
Given the already-underway Potomac River bridge project, this might be enough to finish 6-laning of I-81 in WV.
Quote(US 121 if approved)
AASHTO approved US 121 in 2005.
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 11:48:33 AM
Quote- Expand to 8-lanes from Exit 18 to Exit 20 (combined with a "phase 2" project this will make 64 6 or 8 lanes from Exit 11 to Exit 20, first 8-lane interstate in WV). $65M
Is this really necessary? WV traffic, even in the I-64 corridor, doesn't scream "lanes lanes lanes!" to me.
The eventual plan is 6 lanes from MP 6 to the 77 JCT, which is about 52 miles. The original build was 6 laned from I-77 to MP 54 and since the '70s westbound traffic came to a standstil everyday at rush hour in South Charleston. In the '90s it was 6 laned from 54 to MP 45 along with a short section between MP 39 and 40 related to the US 35 upgrade and traffic comes to a standstill every day not only outbound from Charleston but also in-bound. It is, IMHO, unquestionable that the gap in 6-lanes between 45 and 40 should be finished. The road is clearly over-capacity.
Now, moving on to west of 39. This project, along with some work already completed means a 6 (or 8) lane from MP 11 to 20. I don't know. It is the busiest road in the state not currently 6 lanes, but, as you say, this is WV. It not the most fun drive, as it has a lot of left-lane banditry, especially big trucks and it is (eastbound) just enough of a grade to slow down trucks enough that they should not be left at all. But traffic does not come to a stop. Also note that the parallel surface street of US 60 is getting 4 laned as well in this proposal.
As to the rest, which is not a part of this proposal (MP 20 to 39) it has a certain "I-81 in Virginia" feel to it, which is not fun, but it is not over-capacity.
Personally, I would prefer to see Huntington's share of this be the never built elevated connector from the East End Bridge to US 60 and I-64, which is less than a mile as the crow flies; a downtown connector from Exit 11; and construction of the (right of way bought decades ago) 4 lane from I-64 Exit 11 to the JCT of WV 10 and ALT 10.
JMO
Quote from: SP Cook on February 09, 2017, 10:51:18 AM
- POSSIBLE reduction in the price of a yearly pass on WV Turnpike from $285/year to $8/year for state residents.
What is this? Some sort of E-ZPass transponder that allows passage through the toll booths?
Quote
- Build 4-lane US 340 from Virginia line to current 4 lane at Charles Town (this will make 340 4 lane from Berryville, VA to the start of the historic distict at Harper's Ferry). $40M
Seems to me four-laning all of 522 would be a higher priority, since it gets a lot of through traffic as a shortcut from I-81 at Winchester to I-70 and I-68 to Hancock.
Quote
- Build connector from I-64 Exit 54 to Corridor G @ first shopping center. $65M
I enjoy driving US 119 sometimes as a change of pace, although it's longer than taking I-64 to Charleston, and Kentucky is gradually improving the best route for me to take to hit 64 ... until I top that hill where the radar tower is and hit that mess out at Walmart/Sam's Club.[/quote]
Quote
- Re-do Corridor H - I-79 interchange (I-79 Exit 99) . $15.5M
Trying to enter or exit from I-79 south is funky because of the weaving, and then there's a grade on either side of the interchange. This one will require a lot of blasting. My guess is that the project will retain the loop from Corridor H to southbound 79, but will replace the ramp from southbound 79 to H. [/quote]
Quote
- Pave (aleady graded) Coalfield Expressway (US 121 if approved) in Wyoming County. $54.5M.
Where is this? Does it extend from the current end of 121, which is in Raleigh County, on toward Mullens, or is it a different segment? Aerials show a lot of the grade done beyond the current end of 121 at CR 34 (Slab Fork). If any of this is accessible from side routes, it might make a decent stop on the Beckley area meet I'm contemplating.
Quote
"Phase Two"
- Build King Coal Highway (US 52) from Horsepen Mountin to Gilbert. $40M
Isn't a lot of the grade for this already done? There seems to be a lot of at-grade road beyond the existing end of the four-lane at the WV 44 connector, and several years ago Sherman Cahal arranged for a meet with someone at the Coalfields Expressway Authority to take us up to a combo mining project/highway construction project northwest of Gilbert.
Quote- Build Coalfield Expressway (US 121 if approved) from WV 16 to Welch. $110M
Would this extend from the end of the paving segment you mentioned earlier?
Quote
Parkways:
- New River Parkway. Sandstone to Fall Branch (about 40% of the eventual route).
I vaguely remember this being discussed. I think it has already been assigned a route number, that being WV 125.
Quote
Rest of Phase Two is surface road improvements in New Cumberland, Morgantown, Berkeley Springs, Cross Lanes, Spencer, and Barboursville, various widening of WV 2 in several places, and $15.5M for WV 10 upgrades (curve removal and like that, not 4 lane replacement) from Man (current 4 lane end) to its end near Princeton; and $15M for similar work on WV 10 from Corridor G @ Chapmanville to I-64 @ Huntington. And $370M as above for "general".
WV 2 carries quite a bit of traffic. I really don't have a preference on using it vs. OH 7 if I'm going somewhere and the route takes me parallel to the river. In fact, if I'm in the Parkersburg area and am heading home, I'm more likely to use WV 2 and WV 193 instead of I-77 and I-64 to get to Huntington. I don't think WV 10 needs a full new route, but reconstruction across some of the mountains would be nice.
QuoteMy commentary. Nothing for the new gov's home area. Good for him. The last two govs both built boondoggle projects in their home counties.
Where is he from?
Copy the I-64 explanation. Some of the 6-laning seems logical, but based on traffic data plus my own experience, 8 lanes seems like overkill.
Quote from: hbelkinsSeems to me four-laning all of 522 would be a higher priority, since it gets a lot of through traffic as a shortcut from I-81 at Winchester to I-70 and I-68 to Hancock.
Not as much as you might think. US 522 at the VA/WV line is barely over 6,000 vehicles a day, and much of that is undoubtedly local traffic. US 340 south of Charlestown is roughly twice that. Furthermore, since there's only a ~4mi gap in the US 340 4-lane between Berryville and Charlestown, it can be much more easily funded than any appreciable US 522 widening.
I lived in Knoxville MD 1988 to 1991 and did most of my major shopping in Charles Town, US 340 was a disaster through Harpers Ferry even back then. I would like to see what improvements are involved, but with that price tag, it does not seem much.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 09, 2017, 10:51:18 AM
- Build new exit (the 5th) from I-79 in Morgantown and build elevated connector to "downtown". $100M
Not quite. The proposal is for a partial northern bypass of Morgantown. New I-79 interchange at Pursglove (where US 19/WV 7) cross under I-79, a new Monongahela River bridge, and new road over to the intersection of Van Voorhis Road and West Run Road, then upgrades along Bakers Ridge Road to US 119. This is intended to provide an alternative to WV 705.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 09, 2017, 04:05:06 PM
What is this? Some sort of E-ZPass transponder that allows passage through the toll booths?
Short on details. Currently you can get a yearly pass ($300/year, with $15 discount for using a credit card) and it is just an ezpass that does not charge you anything. At $8 that is not even covering the cost of administration. All he says is it will be via the DMV (not the corrupt Turnpike administration) so my guess is some sort of sticker or plate that you just get waived through. The Turnpike's volume is not so much that an old fashioned waive through is not acceptable.
Quote
Seems to me four-laning all of 522 would be a higher priority, since it gets a lot of through traffic as a shortcut from I-81 at Winchester to I-70 and I-68 to Hancock.
I always thought that 522 would be a great 4 lane toll road.
Quote
I enjoy driving US 119 sometimes as a change of pace, although it's longer than taking I-64 to Charleston, and Kentucky is gradually improving the best route for me to take to hit 64 ... until I top that hill where the radar tower is and hit that mess out at Walmart/Sam's Club.
Same ole story as lots of places. When Corridor G was built in the late 80s the shopping area was worthless rural land with a few trailers. Now it has grown so much that the real purpose of G, which is to get people into town or to the interstate, is becoming difficult due to traffic. This will help some.
QuoteWhere is this? Does it extend from the current end of 121, which is in Raleigh County, on toward Mullens, or is it a different segment? Aerials show a lot of the grade done beyond the current end of 121 at CR 34 (Slab Fork). If any of this is accessible from side routes, it might make a decent stop on the Beckley area meet I'm contemplating.
Pretty much the CE is being built east to west in order, which is to say when you come to the end, the next section is the next section to be built, AFAIK.
Quote
Isn't a lot of the grade for this already done? There seems to be a lot of at-grade road beyond the existing end of the four-lane at the WV 44 connector, and several years ago Sherman Cahal arranged for a meet with someone at the Coalfields Expressway Authority to take us up to a combo mining project/highway construction project northwest of Gilbert.
Yeah. Pretty much if I have this figured right this is the rest of the "win-win" coal mining reclamation area. If they ever go south of Gilbert, its regular construction.
Quote
Where is he from?
White Sulphur Springs, which is Greenbrier County (he owns the Greenbrier Resort). You will note almost nothing for SE WV at all, not that (farm country) it really needs a whole lot. A bypass of Lewisburg would be nice, 64 JCT is the north edge of town and its about 4 miles of town street (singular, no alternate) to the south end, which is where the hospital, schools, and state fair grounds are. Can be a mess.
Gov has a dream of building a 6th golf course for his resort and attracting the US Open. I say pipedream, but the regular PGA event he has is held back by major parking and transportation issues. The parking is 8 miles from the course, which is not acceptable for a Major.
Does the listed Gilbert-area section of King Coal/US 52 have value as a localized SIU, or it is simply a matter of finishing off a "pilot project" started during the times when the corridor was visualized as mostly re-purposed mining facilities?
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 09:40:10 PM
Copy the I-64 explanation. Some of the 6-laning seems logical, but based on traffic data plus my own experience, 8 lanes seems like overkill.
Quote from: hbelkinsSeems to me four-laning all of 522 would be a higher priority, since it gets a lot of through traffic as a shortcut from I-81 at Winchester to I-70 and I-68 to Hancock.
Not as much as you might think. US 522 at the VA/WV line is barely over 6,000 vehicles a day, and much of that is undoubtedly local traffic. US 340 south of Charlestown is roughly twice that. Furthermore, since there's only a ~4mi gap in the US 340 4-lane between Berryville and Charlestown, it can be much more easily funded than any appreciable US 522 widening.
6,000 VPD? some of these projects have the most ridiculously low VPD/$million spent ratios that they're just silly
Quote from: GCrites80s on February 10, 2017, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 09, 2017, 09:40:10 PM
Copy the I-64 explanation. Some of the 6-laning seems logical, but based on traffic data plus my own experience, 8 lanes seems like overkill.
Quote from: hbelkinsSeems to me four-laning all of 522 would be a higher priority, since it gets a lot of through traffic as a shortcut from I-81 at Winchester to I-70 and I-68 to Hancock.
Not as much as you might think. US 522 at the VA/WV line is barely over 6,000 vehicles a day, and much of that is undoubtedly local traffic. US 340 south of Charlestown is roughly twice that. Furthermore, since there's only a ~4mi gap in the US 340 4-lane between Berryville and Charlestown, it can be much more easily funded than any appreciable US 522 widening.
6,000 VPD? some of these projects have the most ridiculously low VPD/$million spent ratios that they're just silly
It'd probably be OK as 2-lanes with a bypass of Berkeley Springs and full width shoulders and turn lanes, but WV doesn't really build that style of road. Given that Virginia has already 4-laned its section and this serves as a connector between I-68/I-70 and I-81, I'm OK with 4-laning this. It'd be a lot more useful than other projects WV talks about building.
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 04:54:10 PM
Does the listed Gilbert-area section of King Coal/US 52 have value as a localized SIU, or it is simply a matter of finishing off a "pilot project" started during the times when the corridor was visualized as mostly re-purposed mining facilities?
The new construction would be an extension of the section of King Coal Highway from WV 44 to WV 65 that opened several years ago. Grading has already been underway for most of this part for a number of years as the mining has taken place. Horsepen Mountain, which this would bypass, is the worst remaining piece of US 52. I don't like the King Coal/Tolsia plans in general but this is one section that I think does make sense to build.
The plans to build 4 lanes are overkill for the traffic. 2 lanes for the Gilbert connector part at the bottom would be fine. 2+climbing uphill would work OK, but since they're seemingly planning to build this with a narrow median (like US 52/US 119 north of Williamson), the cost for the fourth lane probably isn't that much more and it would let cars pass trucks going slow downhill.
Talked to a friend of mine at WV DOT and he said that he believed part of the proposal would be yet more tolls.
- The currently under construction (and already funded) gap in US 35, which this was a proposal several years ago, until the corrupt Turnpike commission over-played its hand and announced the confiscatory price.
- WV 43, which is a toll road in PA and which was supposed to be tolled all along, done in by the cost of the Turnpike having such a small endeavor at the other end of the state (more on that later).
- The Buffalo (or Toyota) Bridge, which connects US 35 to Toyota's engine and transmission plant. This would prevent "shunpiking" by simply crossing the river just before the tolled section of 35 and driving up the not that bad road on the other side of the river.
- The uncompleted parts of Corridor H.
The actual Turnpike commission will be abolished. (Yeah!!!) Currently the highway work on the existing Turnpike is done by a separate set of employees, and the State Police have a separate dedicated set of random taxers. Rather all the toll roads will simply be maintained by the regular DOH and policed by the regular SP, with toll money flowing into their budgets as appropriate.
The ability to toll roads which are not fully controlled access will be interesting. Merging the turnpike's employees (who make more money than DOH workers in the same jobs) and the SP (many of whom are put on the turnpike, where they do nothing but write tickets, because they have skeletons in their closet that prevent them from appearing in court or are simply screw-ups) , will be interesting as well.
He said that indeed the pass will be the lowest of low tech. State residents, and state residents only, and only vehicles in DMV class A (cars, light trucks and SUVs) or class G (motorcycles), and only vehicles owned by individuals (not companies) can (and why would you not) buy a windshield sticker for $8/vehicle/year and be exempted from all tolls statewide.
Commentary:
Adding tolls in other regions, and eliminating the actual turnpike administration, which blows through money on dumb ideas, may help with some of the southern legislators and voters.
This is, of course, a slippery slope. Imagine every state with a plethora of toll roads, with the locals paying a token amount for a yearly pass, and out of staters and companies paying out the nose. The freedom of movement that we all enjoy is somewhat threatened.
Quote from: Bitmapped on February 10, 2017, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 04:54:10 PM
Does the listed Gilbert-area section of King Coal/US 52 have value as a localized SIU, or it is simply a matter of finishing off a "pilot project" started during the times when the corridor was visualized as mostly re-purposed mining facilities?
The new construction would be an extension of the section of King Coal Highway from WV 44 to WV 65 that opened several years ago. Grading has already been underway for most of this part for a number of years as the mining has taken place. Horsepen Mountain, which this would bypass, is the worst remaining piece of US 52. I don't like the King Coal/Tolsia plans in general but this is one section that I think does make sense to build.
The plans to build 4 lanes are overkill for the traffic. 2 lanes for the Gilbert connector part at the bottom would be fine. 2+climbing uphill would work OK, but since they're seemingly planning to build this with a narrow median (like US 52/US 119 north of Williamson), the cost for the fourth lane probably isn't that much more and it would let cars pass trucks going slow downhill.
Hey! You're forgetting that this is going to be part of Interstate 73/74!!!! </sarcasm>
The current northwestern terminus at WV 65 at Red Jacket (the mountain crossing between Delbarton and Matewan) is not a logical place to end a new route. If Horsepen Mountain is the worst remaining part, then the mountain between Williamson and Delbarton (can't recall the name, is it Buffalo?) is the second-worst. They at least need to finish the route from the Williamson area to WV 65.
If I'm going to use US 52 beyond Gilbert, I don't even bother with Williamson. I will cross into West Virginia at Kermit, use US 52 and WV 65 to get to US 119, then will take US 119 and connector routes (WV 73 or old US 119, at one time signed as an extension of WV 44 before having the state designation removed) to Logan, then WV 10 to Man and WV 80 to Gilbert, to reconnect with US 52.
I'd like to know more about
Quote- Build connector from I-64 Exit 54 to Corridor G @ first shopping center. $65M
Quote from: hbelkins on February 11, 2017, 12:06:28 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on February 10, 2017, 06:35:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 10, 2017, 04:54:10 PM
Does the listed Gilbert-area section of King Coal/US 52 have value as a localized SIU, or it is simply a matter of finishing off a "pilot project" started during the times when the corridor was visualized as mostly re-purposed mining facilities?
The new construction would be an extension of the section of King Coal Highway from WV 44 to WV 65 that opened several years ago. Grading has already been underway for most of this part for a number of years as the mining has taken place. Horsepen Mountain, which this would bypass, is the worst remaining piece of US 52. I don't like the King Coal/Tolsia plans in general but this is one section that I think does make sense to build.
The plans to build 4 lanes are overkill for the traffic. 2 lanes for the Gilbert connector part at the bottom would be fine. 2+climbing uphill would work OK, but since they're seemingly planning to build this with a narrow median (like US 52/US 119 north of Williamson), the cost for the fourth lane probably isn't that much more and it would let cars pass trucks going slow downhill.
Hey! You're forgetting that this is going to be part of Interstate 73/74!!!! </sarcasm>
The current northwestern terminus at WV 65 at Red Jacket (the mountain crossing between Delbarton and Matewan) is not a logical place to end a new route. If Horsepen Mountain is the worst remaining part, then the mountain between Williamson and Delbarton (can't recall the name, is it Buffalo?) is the second-worst. They at least need to finish the route from the Williamson area to WV 65.
If I'm going to use US 52 beyond Gilbert, I don't even bother with Williamson. I will cross into West Virginia at Kermit, use US 52 and WV 65 to get to US 119, then will take US 119 and connector routes (WV 73 or old US 119, at one time signed as an extension of WV 44 before having the state designation removed) to Logan, then WV 10 to Man and WV 80 to Gilbert, to reconnect with US 52.
There's a simple fix for this. Redesignate WV 65 north of Delbarton as US 52. It's shorter and doesn't have the mountain crossings that current US 52 does. King Coal Highway was going to follow this route to bypass Williamson anyway.
So if this does go to an election, when would that be? As early as this year's primary? November?
Quote from: Tom958 on February 11, 2017, 06:13:33 PM
I'd like to know more about
- Build connector from I-64 Exit 54 to Corridor G @ first shopping center. $65M
OK. If you take exit 54, it is quite long ramp down to MacCorkle Ave. You can make an immediate turn onto Jefferson Road, which is a surface street, this come to an end at a convoluted deal where you cross a railroad, turn left and then immediately right onto Davis Creek Road, which runs out to the Davis Creek Exit of Corridor G (an actual exit with ramps) just north of the shopping center area.
Jefferson Road and Davis Creek Road are functionally two lane streets (there are some turn lanes which are not relevant to this discussion). A complex as it sounds this is the appropriate way to connect between I-64 eastbound and Corridor G southbound (or v-v). Both Jefferson Road and Davis Creek Road are thus grossly backed up at all hours of the day.
This idea is for a four lane expansion of Jefferson Road, ending at a proper bridge over the railroad and then a new 4-lane to replace Davis Creek Road on the other side of Davis Creek itself then turning slightly west, eliminating the zig-zag and increasing capacity. The road will end at the back side of the first shopping center. Some of the land is being donated by the shopping center management.
More or less this is an upgrade to WV 601.
[/quote]
Quote from: Buck87 on February 12, 2017, 12:13:15 PM
So if this does go to an election, when would that be? As early as this year's primary? November?
There is no primary or general election this year. West Virginia has a Constitutional prohibition on borrowing money (what is called in federal debate a "balanced budget amendment" although that is technically wrong at the state level since it was always in the state Constitution) so what people call a "road bond" is actually a Constitutional amendment that provides an exception to that prohibition. The process of amending the Constitution is a vote by the Legislature and then a vote of the people. It is up to the Legislature when it is, legally they could do it whenever they wanted, if willing to pay for a special election, or wait until November of 18. They won't want to wait that long because they need the money now, so my guess is sometime in late summer of 17, maybe on a Saturday (which saves because teachers and state employees get off for elections). It is probable that the GOP legislature has a couple of other Constitutional amendments it wants as well (Right To Work and changing the way the Legislature is apportioned, among others) so they will probably have a two or three question referendum.
Been awhile since I've been out on G. Does the Davis Creek exit have signage for "To US 60?"
We used WV 601 to get from QSL to the then-under construction I-64 bridge during our Charleston meet a decade ago.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 11, 2017, 11:30:03 AM
This is, of course, a slippery slope. Imagine every state with a plethora of toll roads, with the locals paying a token amount for a yearly pass, and out of staters and companies paying out the nose. The freedom of movement that we all enjoy is somewhat threatened.
Almost sounds like Kentucky in the '70s besides the staggered tolls.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 12, 2017, 04:48:41 PM
Been awhile since I've been out on G. Does the Davis Creek exit have signage for "To US 60?"
Nope. "the shortcut" is just one of those "local knowledge" things. It is just signed WV 601 and "South Charleston" with no mention of I-64 or US 60, with staying on G reading "Charleston". I assume if ever built the new road will get signage for 64.
Technically, the "South Charleston" and "Charleston" are wrong because a motorist has already been in both multiple times. The shopping area on G is insane quilt of land annexed by one town or another. You can cross between the towns 5 times in one parking lot. The very few people who lived out there before G was finished screwed up, because they could have started their own little town and raked in all those taxes for themselves. They could have had gold plated manhole covers.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 13, 2017, 09:06:00 AM
Technically, the "South Charleston" and "Charleston" are wrong because a motorist has already been in both multiple times. The shopping area on G is insane quilt of land annexed by one town or another. You can cross between the towns 5 times in one parking lot. The very few people who lived out there before G was finished screwed up, because they could have started their own little town and raked in all those taxes for themselves. They could have had gold plated manhole covers.
South Charleston has always been curiously named, at least in my eyes. What it's south of is the river. When I think of Charleston, I think of the the area around the 64/77 split, Town Center, the state capitol building, etc. To me, South Charleston should be what's commonly called Kanawha City, and the existing South Charleston should really be East Dunbar.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 12, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
There is no primary or general election this year. West Virginia has a Constitutional prohibition on borrowing money (what is called in federal debate a "balanced budget amendment" although that is technically wrong at the state level since it was always in the state Constitution) so what people call a "road bond" is actually a Constitutional amendment that provides an exception to that prohibition. The process of amending the Constitution is a vote by the Legislature and then a vote of the people. It is up to the Legislature when it is, legally they could do it whenever they wanted, if willing to pay for a special election, or wait until November of 18. They won't want to wait that long because they need the money now, so my guess is sometime in late summer of 17, maybe on a Saturday (which saves because teachers and state employees get off for elections). It is probable that the GOP legislature has a couple of other Constitutional amendments it wants as well (Right To Work and changing the way the Legislature is apportioned, among others) so they will probably have a two or three question referendum.
Interesting, so are they always no regular WV elections in odd years? And is that only for state wide issues, or does it also apply to the local level stuff too? Where I'm from we alway have both a spring and November election every year, with some of those only having local issues on the ballot.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2017, 09:35:41 AM
South Charleston has always been curiously named, at least in my eyes. What it's south of is the river. When I think of Charleston, I think of the the area around the 64/77 split, Town Center, the state capitol building, etc. To me, South Charleston should be what's commonly called Kanawha City, and the existing South Charleston should really be East Dunbar.
Yeah, seems weird that they didn't just call it West Charleston.
Quote from: Buck87 on February 13, 2017, 12:13:32 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 12, 2017, 03:39:40 PM
There is no primary or general election this year. West Virginia has a Constitutional prohibition on borrowing money (what is called in federal debate a "balanced budget amendment" although that is technically wrong at the state level since it was always in the state Constitution) so what people call a "road bond" is actually a Constitutional amendment that provides an exception to that prohibition. The process of amending the Constitution is a vote by the Legislature and then a vote of the people. It is up to the Legislature when it is, legally they could do it whenever they wanted, if willing to pay for a special election, or wait until November of 18. They won't want to wait that long because they need the money now, so my guess is sometime in late summer of 17, maybe on a Saturday (which saves because teachers and state employees get off for elections). It is probable that the GOP legislature has a couple of other Constitutional amendments it wants as well (Right To Work and changing the way the Legislature is apportioned, among others) so they will probably have a two or three question referendum.
Interesting, so are they always no regular WV elections in odd years? And is that only for state wide issues, or does it also apply to the local level stuff too? Where I'm from we alway have both a spring and November election every year, with some of those only having local issues on the ballot.
Kentucky eliminated an election cycle back in 1989, when local elected officials were given a one-time-only five-year term. Prior to that, Kentucky had an election every year, including one cycle that involved only the midterm congressional races. By giving the local officials a five-year term for one term only, their elections were then aligned with the congressional midterms, which had always been the elections with the lowest turnout. This also saved state and local governments a quarter of their quadrennial election costs.
I'm in favor of doing the same thing for state officials. Give then a one-time-only five-year term and align their elections with the presidential election, and eliminate another cycle and save even more money.
Quote from: Buck87 on February 13, 2017, 12:13:32 PM
Interesting, so are they always no regular WV elections in odd years? And is that only for state wide issues, or does it also apply to the local level stuff too? Where I'm from we alway have both a spring and November election every year, with some of those only having local issues on the ballot.
WV state and county offices are all terms of 2, 4, 6, 8, or 12 years and are all elected in even years, when there is a federal election anyway. This is different from our neighbor states of Kentucky and Virginia which have state elections in odd years.
Towns can do whatever they want. Some just add on to regular elections, others have elections at all manner of other times. Some have Republicans and Democrats, some have local parties (often "Citizen's" and "People's" ) some are non-partisan, some have primaries, some do not, in some towns you have to register to vote seperatly, some use the county book, it is whatever the town wants.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2017, 09:35:41 AM
South Charleston has always been curiously named, at least in my eyes. What it's south of is the river. When I think of Charleston, I think of the the area around the 64/77 split, Town Center, the state capitol building, etc. To me, South Charleston should be what's commonly called Kanawha City, and the existing South Charleston should really be East Dunbar.
Quote
Yeah, seems weird that they didn't just call it West Charleston.
It looks that way from the interstate because you first come to South Charleston and then Charleston traveling W to E on I-64, but there is a lot of Charleston you do not see from the interstate. South Charleston is both south of Charleston (the Charleston neighborhood of North Charleston is directly across the river) and west of Charleston (the Charleston neighborhood of South Hills). BTW, there is an island called Blaine Island in the river between South Charleston and North Charleston which is part of South Charleston. It is covered by part of the Dow Chemical plant and connected to the rest of the plant on the SC side by pipes and walkways.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 13, 2017, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2017, 09:35:41 AM
South Charleston has always been curiously named, at least in my eyes. What it's south of is the river. When I think of Charleston, I think of the the area around the 64/77 split, Town Center, the state capitol building, etc. To me, South Charleston should be what's commonly called Kanawha City, and the existing South Charleston should really be East Dunbar.
Quote
Yeah, seems weird that they didn't just call it West Charleston.
It looks that way from the interstate because you first come to South Charleston and then Charleston traveling W to E on I-64, but there is a lot of Charleston you do not see from the interstate. South Charleston is both south of Charleston (the Charleston neighborhood of North Charleston is directly across the river) and west of Charleston (the Charleston neighborhood of South Hills). BTW, there is an island called Blaine Island in the river between South Charleston and North Charleston which is part of South Charleston. It is covered by part of the Dow Chemical plant and connected to the rest of the plant on the SC side by pipes and walkways.
Meh. Looks west of Charleston to me and that the argument that it's south of one neighborhood is a bit of a stretch.
Charleston: https://goo.gl/maps/ESWVdqB1ZTP2
South Charleston: https://goo.gl/maps/HtLhucTcRC72
Fact of the matter is that it's a misnomer.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2017, 01:34:45 PM
Kentucky eliminated an election cycle back in 1989, when local elected officials were given a one-time-only five-year term. Prior to that, Kentucky had an election every year...
This also saved state and local governments a quarter of their quadrennial election costs.
That was the brainchild of the Blazer family that owned what was then Ashland Oil. Ashland was always advocating for inproved education in KY and WV. Some would say because they were really trying to help their home area, other would say because the company found attracting talent to live in the region difficult because prospective employees did not want to send their children to the region's schools. Probably a bit of both.
One year they canceled the entire company's ad budget and spent the $$ on ads in favor of better schools. The company also was the origninator of doing away with KY's every year election cycle, with the idea being that the money saved would be spent on schools. Whether it actually was is, as always, debatable.
As you know, eventually Ashland got out of the oil business and moved its HQ to suburban Cincinnati.
As to KY elections (my daughter lives in Lexington) my favorite politican just passed on. The Fayette County Judge Executive. His sole campain promise was to work to abolish the office. The "urban county" governement merger of Fayette County with Lexington in 1974 eliminated 99% of the office's duties, but the state Constitution still requires one be elected.
Quote from: Rothman on February 13, 2017, 01:50:15 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on February 13, 2017, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2017, 09:35:41 AM
South Charleston has always been curiously named, at least in my eyes. What it's south of is the river. When I think of Charleston, I think of the the area around the 64/77 split, Town Center, the state capitol building, etc. To me, South Charleston should be what's commonly called Kanawha City, and the existing South Charleston should really be East Dunbar.
Quote
Yeah, seems weird that they didn't just call it West Charleston.
It looks that way from the interstate because you first come to South Charleston and then Charleston traveling W to E on I-64, but there is a lot of Charleston you do not see from the interstate. South Charleston is both south of Charleston (the Charleston neighborhood of North Charleston is directly across the river) and west of Charleston (the Charleston neighborhood of South Hills). BTW, there is an island called Blaine Island in the river between South Charleston and North Charleston which is part of South Charleston. It is covered by part of the Dow Chemical plant and connected to the rest of the plant on the SC side by pipes and walkways.
Meh. Looks west of Charleston to me and that the argument that it's south of one neighborhood is a bit of a stretch.
Especially since most of it is also
north of yet another part of Charleston. Hell, you can even find small parts of South Charleston that are
east of parts of Charleston. So I guess we might as well call it N.E.W.S. Charleston.
The US 340 between Berryville, Charles Town, and Harper's Ferry is important because of the Casino/Horse Racing Track in Charles Town. The new casino outside of DC is siphoning off many of the customers, so making it easier to get from the I-81 Corridor will make that destination more appealing than dealing with DC Traffic.
I agree the US 522 had needed to be upgraded and a bypass around Berkley Springs is so overdue it's not funny. I have avoided this by taking VA 127/WV9/MD51 to get to I-68 or I-81 to I-70 thru Hagerstown because of the 30-45 min back-ups on weekends.
The issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.
QuoteThe issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.
However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route. Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.
US 340 is already 4 lane to Berryville, where it interchanges with VA 7, a 4 lane highway that goes into Winchester. As long as Clarke County continues to think it will be some sort of paradise on earth, that's it far as it goes. A 2 mile section from US 522/340 (4 lane highway) split to US 50/17 (another 4 lane highway) was funded a few years ago to be widened to 4 lane, but Clarke County blocked it. It really wasn't needed anyway.
Well, after much amendment, the legislature finally passed the bills related to this.
- The Tax bill, in effect on Saturday raises most DMV fees by between 33% and 50%. A standard car registration goes from $30 to $50 (with the county school tax on top of that), and the fees are now indexed to inflation. A new set of alternate fuel fees is added. $200/year for pure electrics, natural gas or hydrogen, $100/year for hybrids, on top of the $50. Gas tax formula is changed, will result in about a 10-15 cent increase. Total tax increase is $130M
- The Turnpike bill, which unfortunatly does not reform or abolish the corrupt turnpike administration, nor do anything about the Scamarack black hole. Commission is now authorized to set tolls without Legislative approval, and will apparently raise tolls to $9 for a full trip as soon as it can. The commission is told to "study" the gov's ultra-low free pass idea, and, if it wants, set the price at $25/year. IMHO, it will never implement the program. Tolls on the road (paid off since 1987) will continue for the rest of everyone's lives. What money the turnpike generates, after all the graft and corruption, will go to the DOH for work in the 10 counties of southern WV. The commission is also authorized to toll WV 43 (which was supposed to be a toll road when it was built), and ANY ROAD that is built from now on (including the gaps in US 35 and Corridor H) or which has new lanes added (including I-64 from MP 45 westward). Turnpike did not submit how much more it will take in.
- The "bond issue", technically a Constitutional amendment, to allow the state to "borrow" $1.6 BILLION against the increased taxes over 4 years, with the intention of never really paying it back. Election set for October 7, a Saturday. Saturday elections have historically low turnouts, which is the plan.
IMHO, I shall vote no. While the taxes and the tolls are in place anyway, the turnpike administration is simply so corrupt and wasteful that giving it unlimited power to set tolls and retain its unlimited power to "invest" in boondoggle non-transportation projects and to pay its "expenses" in running the toll road(s), which includes so much graft, is unacceptable. Also, unlike previous road bonds, it does not actually list any projects, so they can spend it on whatever they want. This gov has already commited to at least one shady project (the so-called "Boone County Corridor").
Quote from: SP Cook on June 28, 2017, 09:46:01 AM...or which has new lanes added (including I-64 from MP 45 westward).
So does this means the added lanes have to be HOT lanes, or will the entire portion of the interstate be tolled?
I'm not a hardcore shunpiker by any means, but if this means all lanes of I-64 between Charleston and Huntington are tolled, I can see me becoming a heavy user of US 119 or OH 7/WV 2 and US 50.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 28, 2017, 01:32:04 PM
So does this means the added lanes have to be HOT lanes, or will the entire portion of the interstate be tolled?
The bill doesn't say. So they could go either way, either a third "HOT" lane or they could toll the entire road, including the existing lanes. It just says any road not open on July 1, 2017, including the addition of extra lanes or the replacement of a bridge, can be tolled, apparently at its discression. Read litterally, that would mean, of projects likely to be built in the reasonable future, 64 from the current end of the 6 lane at MP 45 to MP 6, plus most of I-81 and I-79 north of MP 121 could be tolled, in additon to whatever new gets built, such as H and 35, all of which are heavy out-of-state use roads.
IF (they won't) approve the "single fee" program then that is $25/year and they did it would be a heck of a deal for about any state resident, even just the existing turnpike. And that is the interesting deal. The bill moved the administration of such passes (the current deal is $300/year for unlimited or $5/year and $1.20/toll (rather than $2) ) from the turnpike (who will sell to anybody) to the DMV via license plate renewals (still using EZ Pass technology), which means only state residents (and specifically only cars, standard pickups and motorcycles owned by non-corporations). That might be a federal Constitutional issue there.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 28, 2017, 01:32:04 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on June 28, 2017, 09:46:01 AM...or which has new lanes added (including I-64 from MP 45 westward).
So does this means the added lanes have to be HOT lanes, or will the entire portion of the interstate be tolled?
I'm not a hardcore shunpiker by any means, but if this means all lanes of I-64 between Charleston and Huntington are tolled, I can see me becoming a heavy user of US 119 or OH 7/WV 2 and US 50.
When I think about previous (and dead-end) talks by NC, PA, and VA to toll historically free interstates, it makes me doubt that this section of I-64 will ever be tolled.
SB 1003, which pertains to the Parkways Authority, is available in its final form at http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb1003%20enr.htm&yr=2017&sesstype=1X&i=1003 (http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb1003%20enr.htm&yr=2017&sesstype=1X&i=1003).
Quote from: SP Cook on June 28, 2017, 09:46:01 AM
- The Turnpike bill, which unfortunatly does not reform or abolish the corrupt turnpike administration, nor do anything about the Scamarack black hole. Commission is now authorized to set tolls without Legislative approval, and will apparently raise tolls to $9 for a full trip as soon as it can. The commission is told to "study" the gov's ultra-low free pass idea, and, if it wants, set the price at $25/year. IMHO, it will never implement the program. Tolls on the road (paid off since 1987) will continue for the rest of everyone's lives. What money the turnpike generates, after all the graft and corruption, will go to the DOH for work in the 10 counties of southern WV. The commission is also authorized to toll WV 43 (which was supposed to be a toll road when it was built), and ANY ROAD that is built from now on (including the gaps in US 35 and Corridor H) or which has new lanes added (including I-64 from MP 45 westward). Turnpike did not submit how much more it will take in.
Tolling of existing roads is only permitted with legislative authorization per West Virginia Code §17-16A-6 and §17-16A-13. SB 1003 does not include authorization for tolling WV 43.
§17-16A-13a only allows the Parkways Authority to raise tolls if it has established the single fee ($25) program.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 28, 2017, 09:46:01 AM
- The "bond issue", technically a Constitutional amendment, to allow the state to "borrow" $1.6 BILLION against the increased taxes over 4 years, with the intention of never really paying it back. Election set for October 7, a Saturday. Saturday elections have historically low turnouts, which is the plan.
IMHO, I shall vote no. While the taxes and the tolls are in place anyway, the turnpike administration is simply so corrupt and wasteful that giving it unlimited power to set tolls and retain its unlimited power to "invest" in boondoggle non-transportation projects and to pay its "expenses" in running the toll road(s), which includes so much graft, is unacceptable. Also, unlike previous road bonds, it does not actually list any projects, so they can spend it on whatever they want. This gov has already commited to at least one shady project (the so-called "Boone County Corridor").
There are two separate bond issues proposed, one by WVDOH and one by the Parkways Authority. The constitutional amendment is to permit general obligation bonds to be issued by WVDOH. The Parkways Authority can already issue its revenue bonds with or without the constitutional amendment
Quote from: SP Cook on June 28, 2017, 02:29:46 PM
IF (they won't) approve the "single fee" program then that is $25/year and they did it would be a heck of a deal for about any state resident, even just the existing turnpike. And that is the interesting deal. The bill moved the administration of such passes (the current deal is $300/year for unlimited or $5/year and $1.20/toll (rather than $2) ) from the turnpike (who will sell to anybody) to the DMV via license plate renewals (still using EZ Pass technology), which means only state residents (and specifically only cars, standard pickups and motorcycles owned by non-corporations). That might be a federal Constitutional issue there.
SB 1003 (see §17-16A-6(a)(6)) indicates the Parkways Authority may include proposals to allow vehicles registered in other states to participate in the single fee program. Since the single fee program will be done implemented E-ZPass as referenced in SB 1003, it wouldn't be hard to have DMV or the Parkways Authority sell E-ZPass transponders to participants.
Tolling WV 43 is covered by existing law, WVC 17017A-5b. They never did do it because (they say) the cost of administration was greater than the cost. Morgantown's delegation was pushing to revolke that power in this act (because that is what Morgantown is all about, everybody else pays, it benefits) but lost. So, yes, technically the bill does not mention WV 43. It did not need to.
In any event, this election, much like Gaston Capperton's 1989 Constitutional "reform" election will not be about the actual proposals, but rather a referendum on the Gov's first year in office. That, IMHO, means he will lose big time, as Capperton did. The sad part is the turnpike mess is already, as you point out, already a done deal, as are the tax increases designed to pay for the borrowing for the non-turnpike roads. Justice is fast becoming a laughable figure.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 29, 2017, 10:03:12 AM
Tolling WV 43 is covered by existing law, WVC 17017A-5b. They never did do it because (they say) the cost of administration was greater than the cost. Morgantown's delegation was pushing to revolke that power in this act (because that is what Morgantown is all about, everybody else pays, it benefits) but lost. So, yes, technically the bill does not mention WV 43. It did not need to.
Prior to the WV 43's opening, WV tried to strike a deal with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to get them to collect tolls and remit part back to WV. PTC wasn't interested. I recall some of the comments at the time being that tolling wasn't feasible since WV didn't allow all-electronic tolling then.
I'm looking at WVC 17-17A-5b and while it seems like it was custom written for WV 43, I don't believe WV 43 actually meet the requirements to be eligible for tolling. One of the listed requirements is that "the adjacent state charges tolls on its portion of the highway immediately adjacent to West Virginia." PA doesn't charge tolls on its section of the Mon-Fayette that is immediately adjacent to WV. Tolling doesn't start until north of the Gans Road interchange, which would seem to render WV 43 ineligible to be tolled under this section of code.
WV Parkways Authority says they will roll out out the E-ZPass single fee program by the end of 2017: http://www.transportation.wv.gov/communications/PressRelease/Pages/New-E-ZPass-Single-Fee-Program-Available-by-the-End-of-the-Year.aspx (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/communications/PressRelease/Pages/New-E-ZPass-Single-Fee-Program-Available-by-the-End-of-the-Year.aspx)
Quote from: Bitmapped on June 29, 2017, 10:42:00 PM
PA doesn't charge tolls on its section of the Mon-Fayette that is immediately adjacent to WV. Tolling doesn't start until north of the Gans Road interchange, which would seem to render WV 43 ineligible to be tolled under this section of code.
This is a bit of a technicality though. While it's true that the NB off / SB on - ramps don't have toll booths, so drivers can
escape the toll, the stretch to WV is still covered by the mainline tolls.
At the very least it's a gray area.
I'm a few days late here, but in regards to HB's question and SP's response, WV would not legally be able to toll all of I-64 on the section in question west of Charleston. Additional lanes, yes, as HO/T lanes are covered under current Federal law, but tolling all of a widened I-64 is currently out of the question.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/governor-kicks-off-roads-program-in-hurricane/article_b0f682f6-f2b3-5001-a171-8e093ac3ceb3.html
"State Transportation Secretary Tom Smith said it will take a while for funding from the bills passed by the Legislature to trickle in. But he said highways officials have been getting ready for months in anticipation of the legislation and bond election and have leveraged $350 million worth of highways projects to start almost immediately.
One of the first will be rebuilding a six-mile stretch of Interstate 64 between Milton and Hurricane. Smith said the $15 million project will employ about 300 people.
He said highways officials hope to let the contract for the project on Aug. 24."
--
This portion of I-64 was originally completed in 1962.
To the best of my knowledge, aside from the West Virginia Turnpike, WVDOH hasn't done a ground-up reconstruction on any of the Interstates. I'm aware of at least one other full depth reconstruction project in the works aside from I-64. DOH just seems to be doing the roadbed in these projects, not the bridges.
Quote from: SP Cook on February 13, 2017, 02:43:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on February 13, 2017, 01:34:45 PM
Kentucky eliminated an election cycle back in 1989, when local elected officials were given a one-time-only five-year term. Prior to that, Kentucky had an election every year...
This also saved state and local governments a quarter of their quadrennial election costs.
That was the brainchild of the Blazer family that owned what was then Ashland Oil. Ashland was always advocating for inproved education in KY and WV. Some would say because they were really trying to help their home area, other would say because the company found attracting talent to live in the region difficult because prospective employees did not want to send their children to the region's schools. Probably a bit of both.
One year they canceled the entire company's ad budget and spent the $$ on ads in favor of better schools. The company also was the origninator of doing away with KY's every year election cycle, with the idea being that the money saved would be spent on schools. Whether it actually was is, as always, debatable.
As you know, eventually Ashland got out of the oil business and moved its HQ to suburban Cincinnati.
As to KY elections (my daughter lives in Lexington) my favorite politican just passed on. The Fayette County Judge Executive. His sole campain promise was to work to abolish the office. The "urban county" governement merger of Fayette County with Lexington in 1974 eliminated 99% of the office's duties, but the state Constitution still requires one be elected.
I have always thought that the best thing to do with the Fayette County Judge/Executive is to just designate the office as the Mayor. That way you don't have to worry about what to do with the office. Just statutorily designate that office as the ex-offico Mayor. I think the only thing that the County Judge does now is call the Fiscal Court into session to decide how to spend the "county road" funds from the state and sign those checks over to the Urban Council.
The WV DOH just released the complete 16 page report of roads, bridges, and highway work that could/would be completed if the Roads to Prosperity amendment is passed this fall. The report can be found here: http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf
Just noticed an odd project on this list. Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12. Total projected cost: $42,000,000. Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need. Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???
- It looks like I-79 from Servia to Flatwoods will be reconstructed.
- I-64 will be widened to eight lanes between East Mall Road/Huntington Mall (Exit 20) and Barboursville/WV 193 (Exit 18).
- I-64 will be widened to six lanes between 29th Street East/US 60 (Exit 15) to Barboursville/WV 193 (Exit 18).
- A new interchange for I-64 at Culloden with related improvements to US 60. (MM 30-32?)
- I-64 reconstruction from Milton (Exit 28) to US 35 (Exit 40).
- I-64 reconstruction near White Sulphur Springs.
- I-79 and US 50 interchange near Clarksburg to be rebuilt with a split diamond interchange.
- I-77 reconstruction from Kenna to Medina.
- US 340 four-lane construction from Charles Town to the Virginia state line.
- I-79 reconstruction from some access road to MM 14.
- WV 622 from I-64 north to WV 62 to be widened to five lanes.
- Jefferson Road/WV 601 to be widened to four lanes from US 119/Corridor G to US 60. RHL Blvd. to be built as part of the project.
- New US 119/Corridor H interchange at Lucado Road with frontage road, flyovers, etc. as part of improvements from MacCorkle Ave. to Jefferson Road/WV 601. (Coord: N 38.34158 W 81.66748) I am going to assume that the Lawndale Lane and Oakwood Road intersections will be closed.
- I-77 reconstruction from Edens Fork to Tuppers Creek.
- WV 2 widening to four lanes from Proctor to Franklin. It passes by numerous industrial facilities.
- King Coal Highway (US 52) to be built from WV 123/Airport Road to John Nash Blvd., a distance of 3.8 miles.
- King Coal Highway (US 52) to be built from Horsepen Mountain to Gilbert Creek, including a connector to Gilbert.
- Widen US 522 in Morgan County to four lanes with a bypass of Berkeley Springs.
- Widen I-64 from US 35 to Nitro with a second Kanawha River crossing.
- Widen I-64 at Beckley.
- Construct the New River Parkway from I-64 near Sandstone to Fall Branch.
- Construct Tolsia Highway (US 52) from Prichard to US 52 south of Kenova on new alignment and alongside existing US 52.
- Construct WV 14 to four-lanes between Parkersburg south to the newer four-lane segment at Pettyville.
- Construct Coalfields Expressway (US 121) from WV 16 to Welch and pave existing graded segments.
Definitely some much needed projects on the list; especially the widening of I-64 in Cabell, Putnam, and Kanawha counties, I-79 widening, US 119 improvements, and the Coalfields Expressway.
When they say I-64 at Beckley I'm thinking they mean the free section. What's the traffic counts here? I wouldn't think there would be a need for more than 4 lanes
Quote from: plain on August 29, 2017, 06:33:33 PM
When they say I-64 at Beckley I'm thinking they mean the free section. What's the traffic counts here? I wouldn't think there would be a need for more than 4 lanes
I've traveled through there many times on the non-turnpike section and have never found traffic to be high enough to warrant expansion past 4 lanes. I could see an expansion to 6 lanes on the turnpike section from US 19 down to the I 64 split though.
Quote from: seicer on August 29, 2017, 04:07:52 PM
- It looks like I-79 from Servia to Flatwoods will be reconstructed.
Why? Do they mean a full-depth pavement rehab or something else? There's nothing particularly wrong with this segment.
Quote- I-64 reconstruction from Milton (Exit 28) to US 35 (Exit 40).
Widening?
Quote- I-64 reconstruction near White Sulphur Springs.
Again, why? Unless this is a full-depth rehab, not necessary.
Quote- I-77 reconstruction from Kenna to Medina.
Again, why? Unless this is a full-depth rehab, reconstruction isn't necessary.
Quote- US 340 four-lane construction from Charles Town to the Virginia state line.
I presume this is the southernmost segment, and not the Harpers Ferry descent.
Quote- I-79 reconstruction from some access road to MM 14.
- I-77 reconstruction from Edens Fork to Tuppers Creek.
Again, why? Unless this is a pavement rehab, it's not necessary.
Quote- WV 2 widening to four lanes from Proctor to Franklin. It passes by numerous industrial facilities.
All of WV 2 should be four lanes, IMO.
Quote- Widen I-64 at Beckley.
Not needed. I've never seen high traffic volumes on that stretch.
HB asks a lot of good questions. I have looked at every halfway trustworthy news source, and really have no idea. They are playing their cards way too close to the vest, IMHO.
I have no idea what "reconstructed" means. The segments listed are among the oldest parts of the interstate system, so is this a down to the dirt rebuild? Be nice if they would say.
The state has had plans to widen 64 from MP 6 to the current end at MP 40 for a long time, but I have no idea if the Milton to Hurricane project includes that. Be nice if they would say.
As to WV 2, yes certainly all of WV 2 should be four lanes. That has been a political football since at least the 60s. One issue is ROW costs, which would be quite high.
As to 64 at Beckley, I'm certain that they are talking about the free part. Turnpike work would not be listed at all. Agree that this seems odd, as there is little traffic on this segment. The needed work at Beckley is a connector from the Glade Springs development directly to either the turnpike or 64. The turnpike was supposed to do that 10 years ago, but just defied the legislature and wasted the money on other things. As Justice owns Glade Springs, he does not dare trying to do anything about it, for which I give him credit.
The big question I have is "in what order". Been down this road (no pun intended) before. Seen lots of road bonds with lots of lists of projects, northern WV ones actually get built, southern WV told to wait its turn and by then inflation has eroded the money and they do a new bond with a new list. Lather, rinse, repeat.
There is no reliable polling, and a Saturday election during football season is designed to get only the most hard core voters out but this is looking like a referendum of Justice more and more, and that will be a hard sell.
I know that Justice was talking about a ground-up reconstruction of I-64 between Milton and Hurricane. It did not indicate that this portion would be widened, just rebuilt.
I would say that while a lot of I-77 and I-79 is in serviceable condition, it can be quite bumpy, especially at the joints. Those projects might entail rehabilitation of the joints with an asphalt overlay, not a ground-up rebuild. I-64 is different; it's old, carries a lot of traffic and has a lot of issues with the original concrete that just can't be patched indefinitely.
I find it interesting that there are quite a few projects (bridge replacements, road & slip repairs, safety improvements, etc.) being done as turnpike bond projects that have no direct ties to the turnpike itself. In fact, many of the projects are nowhere near the turnpike. Shouldn't these projects have been under the general road fund/bonds??? Why would the turnpike authority take on additional debt for projects that have nothing to do directly with the highway??? :hmmm:
Also, HB, it appears the I-77, I-64 & I-79 projects you questioned are pavement rehabilitation's; not reconstruction.
Quote from: seicer on August 30, 2017, 10:24:58 AM
I know that Justice was talking about a ground-up reconstruction of I-64 between Milton and Hurricane. It did not indicate that this portion would be widened, just rebuilt.
In most places where work has been done on I-64 between Exit 15 and Exit (mumble ... the WV 25 exit just after you cross the Kanawha for the first time), such as the Milton exit bridge replacement, preparations have been made for three-laning the road. Given there have been plans to widen I-64 between Exit 15 and Charleston for years, I'd expect it to be a widening. Makes no sense to to a rehab now when you'd just be tearing it up to widen the road in future years.
If there are a lot of lane closures along this corridor, I'll definitely be taking WV 2-US 50 or US 119 to avoid I-64 while that work is ongoing.
Quote from: plain on August 29, 2017, 06:33:33 PM
When they say I-64 at Beckley I'm thinking they mean the free section. What's the traffic counts here? I wouldn't think there would be a need for more than 4 lanes
It's the Turnpike section near Beckley. The Secretary of Transportation mentioned this project during the ribbon cutting for WV 10 near Logan. I'm not sure why they're using general obligation bonds for this rather than Turnpike revenue bonds.
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
Just noticed an odd project on this list. Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12. Total projected cost: $42,000,000. Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need. Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???
That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 30, 2017, 02:22:13 PM
I find it interesting that there are quite a few projects (bridge replacements, road & slip repairs, safety improvements, etc.) being done as turnpike bond projects that have no direct ties to the turnpike itself. In fact, many of the projects are nowhere near the turnpike. Shouldn't these projects have been under the general road fund/bonds??? Why would the turnpike authority take on additional debt for projects that have nothing to do directly with the highway??? :hmmm:
Turnpike tolls are being raised to back a large revenue bond that will fund projects in 10 southern West Virginia counties. The idea is to make out-of-state drivers on the Turnpike pay for the work rather than increasing the state gas tax or DMV fees further.
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 30, 2017, 02:22:13 PM
Also, HB, it appears the I-77, I-64 & I-79 projects you questioned are pavement rehabilitation's; not reconstruction.
No, they are full depth Interstate reconstruction projects. A number of these projects are already out to bid. Like HB, I question the need. Some are DOH-designed projects and others, like I-79 in Monongalia County, are partially contractor-designed with a 9-year pavement warranty. If you're going to do a full depth reconstruction, it seems like you should be pushing for a lot longer lifespan than 9-years.
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2017, 06:26:09 PM
QuoteThe issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.
However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route. Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.
The project segment is in all three states. US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD. As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.
It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2017, 06:26:09 PM
QuoteThe issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.
However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route. Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.
The project segment is in all three states. US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD. As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.
It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.
To clarify, the part of US 340 being widened to 4 lanes is from the Charles Town bypass south to Clarke County, VA. WV does have some minor improvements planned near Harpers Ferry, but no significant widening.
Widening Virginia's section of US 340 near Harpers Ferry looks to be readily doable with a median barrier. Widening WV's section on the east bank of the Shenandoah is not. Extensive blasting and/or retaining walls would be needed. The adjoining land is owned by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and construction of the scale needed is going to cause viewshed issues from Harpers Ferry.
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 31, 2017, 09:50:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2017, 06:26:09 PM
QuoteThe issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.
However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route. Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.
The project segment is in all three states. US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD. As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.
It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.
To clarify, the part of US 340 being widened to 4 lanes is from the Charles Town bypass south to Clarke County, VA. WV does have some minor improvements planned near Harpers Ferry, but no significant widening.
Widening Virginia's section of US 340 near Harpers Ferry looks to be readily doable with a median barrier. Widening WV's section on the east bank of the Shenandoah is not. Extensive blasting and/or retaining walls would be needed. The adjoining land is owned by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and construction of the scale needed is going to cause viewshed issues from Harpers Ferry.
It doesn't appear from maps online of the park, that it extends inland of the low water line on the south bank of the river. So the highway could be widened without impacting the park.
This has needed widening for at least 40 years. There are context sensitive designs that could be utilized to blend the highway embankments into the natural environment. The needs are too great for this widening to remain unbuilt. The Potomac River bridge is old enough that it might warrant a complete replacement with a 4-lane bridge.
Maryland did a good job back in the 1960s building the rest of US-340 as a 4-lane highway.
West Virginia did a good job back in the 1970s building a Charles Town bypass and building a 4-lane US-340 between Charles Town and Harpers Ferry.
Virginia built a 4-lane VA-7 Berryville Bypass in the 1970s and upgraded the rest of VA-7 to 4 lanes (a few places wider) between I-81 and I-495 by about 1995. They also widened US-340 to 4 lanes between Berryville and WVA by about 1980.
I am aware of the 4-mile-long 2-lane segment of US-340 just north of the VA/WVA border.
So there are two un-widened segments of US-340 that need to be widened on the corridor between Berryville, VA, and Frederick, MD.
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 30, 2017, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
Just noticed an odd project on this list. Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12. Total projected cost: $42,000,000. Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need. Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???
That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.
That's the best section of 33 between the two interstates, as it exists now. The drive from Ripley to Spencer isn't that bad. Spencer to Glenville to Weston? Aargh.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2017, 01:03:24 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 30, 2017, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
Just noticed an odd project on this list. Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12. Total projected cost: $42,000,000. Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need. Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???
That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.
That's the best section of 33 between the two interstates, as it exists now. The drive from Ripley to Spencer isn't that bad. Spencer to Glenville to Weston? Aargh.
I have to agree with you HB! Ripley to Spencer is a pretty good road as it is now with fairly low traffic. So, I really question the 42 million being spent on this section. It would have been much better to replace sections east of Glenville from south/west of Linn to Alum Bridge and around Stumptown.
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 12:31:52 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 31, 2017, 09:50:15 AM
Quote from: Beltway on August 31, 2017, 12:18:24 AM
Quote from: froggie on February 15, 2017, 06:26:09 PM
QuoteThe issue with US 340 is that even after the section in West Virginia is four-laned, you have the old section in Virginia and the two-lane Potomac River bridge to deal with.
However, that section's general isolation helps it serve as a de-facto limited access route. Topography would also make it difficult to widen most of the Virginia section.
The project segment is in all three states. US-340 is a major interregional highway between VA-7 (another major interregional highway) at Berryville, VA, to I-70 and I-270 and US-15 freeway at Frederick, MD. As such it needs to be 4 lanes throughout.
It should not be difficult to add two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders and a narrow median with a median barrier.
To clarify, the part of US 340 being widened to 4 lanes is from the Charles Town bypass south to Clarke County, VA. WV does have some minor improvements planned near Harpers Ferry, but no significant widening.
Widening Virginia's section of US 340 near Harpers Ferry looks to be readily doable with a median barrier. Widening WV's section on the east bank of the Shenandoah is not. Extensive blasting and/or retaining walls would be needed. The adjoining land is owned by the National Park Service as part of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and construction of the scale needed is going to cause viewshed issues from Harpers Ferry.
It doesn't appear from maps online of the park, that it extends inland of the low water line on the south bank of the river. So the highway could be widened without impacting the park.
NPS owns up to and over the ridgeline on Blue Ridge. This is shown in the park maps on the Harpers Ferry NHP website (https://www.nps.gov/hafe/planyourvisit/maps.htm) and on Jefferson County's online GIS map (http://www.jefferson.wvassessor.com/ESRIJavascriptMaps/JCParcelViewerCounty/index.html).
While I agree that a four lane corridor would be nice, there's nothing of the sort near Harpers Ferry on WVDOH's radar screen.
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 31, 2017, 02:07:19 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2017, 01:03:24 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on August 30, 2017, 05:12:24 PM
Quote from: bubbamcgee on August 29, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
Just noticed an odd project on this list. Relocation of US 33 to a new two lane road on Scott Miller Hill from CR 3 to CR 5/12. Total projected cost: $42,000,000. Been across that section of road several times and I really question the need. Does anyone know anything about this project or have an idea of why the state feels that there is a need???
That project has been planned for decades to provide a high quality 2-lane route to Spencer.
That's the best section of 33 between the two interstates, as it exists now. The drive from Ripley to Spencer isn't that bad. Spencer to Glenville to Weston? Aargh.
I have to agree with you HB! Ripley to Spencer is a pretty good road as it is now with fairly low traffic. So, I really question the 42 million being spent on this section. It would have been much better to replace sections east of Glenville from south/west of Linn to Alum Bridge and around Stumptown.
The preferred route east of Glenville is to use WV 5 along the Little Kanawha River. That's how WVDOH signs to get to I-79 from Glenville. Nothing is going to happen between Glenville and Weston because there's not really much of anything out that way and that part of US 33 is not a through corridor.
Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?
I drove US 119 from Charleston to Spencer a couple weeks ago. They are doing a project a few miles south of Spencer improving a couple bridges. Otherwise it is worse than Spencer to Weston which I drove both directions that same day.
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 31, 2017, 08:33:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?
I drove US 119 from Charleston to Spencer a couple weeks ago. They are doing a project a few miles south of Spencer improving a couple bridges. Otherwise it is worse than Spencer to Weston which I drove both directions that same day.
I drove that section of 119 several years ago and don't remember all that much about it. But I drove WV 36 a couple of weeks ago and it was awful.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 01, 2017, 01:33:54 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on August 31, 2017, 08:33:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on August 31, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Wonder if WV will ever do anything to either US 119 or WV 36 to improve access from Spencer to I-79?
I drove US 119 from Charleston to Spencer a couple weeks ago. They are doing a project a few miles south of Spencer improving a couple bridges. Otherwise it is worse than Spencer to Weston which I drove both directions that same day.
I drove that section of 119 several years ago and don't remember all that much about it. But I drove WV 36 a couple of weeks ago and it was awful.
I thought about using WV 36 to get back to I-79 but the Gazeteer made it look like it really was awful and I was trying to get home by then, so I elected to use US 33-119 back to Weston even though I had drive it westbound earlier that day.
The only poll before the election is out, from the right-leaning WV Metronews radio chain. It has approval at 67%, but even the pollster says "that is not going to happen". The same pollster has gotten several elections wrong.
A lot of people in the southern part of West Virginia are upset because there aren't many projects in their area covered by the general obligation bonds being voted on. (They are getting their own ~$450M pot of money with bonds backed by Turnpike revenue.) To appease them, a section of Coalfields Expressway paving that was to be paid for with Turnpike bonds has been moved to general obligation bonds. http://www.wvva.com/story/36294882/2017/09/Tuesday/wva-governor-adds-55-million-for-coalfields-expressway-in-upcoming-bond-election
The project list WVDOT has put out don't add up. They're promising $1.9 billion of work to be paid with $1.6 billion of general obligation bonds and have given no indication where the other $300M is coming from.
WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 16, 2017, 11:15:24 AM
WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.
Does that section really need widening?
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2017, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 16, 2017, 11:15:24 AM
WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.
Does that section really need widening?
I maybe could see this section being widened. At first I was thinking they meant the free section, which definitely doesn't need it at all
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2017, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 16, 2017, 11:15:24 AM
WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.
Does that section really need widening?
It's been talked about for years and I think it would be beneficial. Traffic is running about 45K with about 25% trucks, which is comparable with sections of the other Interstates that have been widened. The road has some grades to it and can be crowded at peak times. Having three continuous lanes would also help to clean up some oddly placed climbing lane ends near the Tamarack exit.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 16, 2017, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Bitmapped on September 16, 2017, 11:15:24 AM
WVDOT posted an updated project list at http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/programplanning/Documents/Roads%20to%20Prosperity%20Project%20List.pdf with somewhat better detail. The plan for widening I-64 at Beckley is between MP 40.3 and MP 47.6, which is from the I-64 exit to the US 19 North Beckley exit.
Does that section really need widening?
It couldn't hurt. Going southbound, there is a three-lane climbing lane section that starts north of the U.S. 19 exit and ends at the top of that grade. At that point, there is a combination of through traffic and local traffic in both directions with the added "bonus" of traffic entering and exiting for the service plaza/Tamarac. Adding a third lane would give better separation for through traffic that doesn't want to/need to slow down to enter or exit. As with a lot of projects, the traffic volume at most times may not warrant three lanes (I-95 in South Carolina for example) but when traffic is heavy (hurricane evac, Hoopies traveling after the holidays) having an extra lane is almost a necessity.
Bruce in Blacksburg (who has witnessed Sunday-after-Thanksgiving traffic jams on the Turnpike)
Passed with 71% support.
On 11% turnout.
Responding to criticism that many projects are "disappearing", Gov has a new website with a list of plans and dates.
https://transportation.wv.gov/driveforwardwv/Pages/default.aspx (https://transportation.wv.gov/driveforwardwv/Pages/default.aspx)
(note, these are only the projects related to the gov's borrow one's way to prosperity plan, there are several projects, particularly on Corridor H, that predate it and don't show up).
Quote from: SP Cook on July 31, 2018, 11:52:17 AM
Responding to criticism that many projects are "disappearing", Gov has a new website with a list of plans and dates.
[url]https://transportation.wv.gov/driveforwardwv/Pages/default.aspx/url]
(note, these are only the projects related to the gov's borrow one's way to prosperity plan, there are several projects, particularly on Corridor H, that predate it and don't show up).
I found this in that site. https://transportation.wv.gov/driveforwardwv/projects/Pages/projectdetails.aspx?project=10
I had to look under projects for US33.