Corridor H

[cpzilliacus]

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, 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, here, the mandatory truck stop here, more signs here, a truck escape ramp here, a second mandatory truck stop here, another set of warning signs, still more, and finally the sharp turn to the right (check out the apparent number of fatalities) here.

[froggie]

Adam, 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?)

[Mapmikey]

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

[cpzilliacus]

Adam, 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.

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.

[mtfallsmikey]

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 

[froggie]

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.

(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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[hbelkins]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

(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. 

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. 

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!

[Bitmapped]

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.

[NE2]

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, so why not?

[cpzilliacus]

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).

[Bitmapped]

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, 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.

[hbelkins]

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).

And conversely, US 522, US 340 and US 50. Four lanes in Virginia; two lanes in West Virginia.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

Corridor H connecting businesses with customers

The 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.

Bill 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.

"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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Bitmapped]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[froggie]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

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.

[froggie]

Was there much snow on the ground?

VERY little (basically none except for VERY isolated patches).  Will probably change this weekend.

[oscar]

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. 

[oscar]

Here's some of my photos of the Corridor H extension, which I took on Saturday 11/20, the day after the extension opened.



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.



Continuing on westbound US 48, to the Elklick Run bridge over WV 93.



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. 



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).



The north end of the connector, at WV 93 less than 0.2 miles west of WV 42.



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.



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.



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.




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).




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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.