Corridor H

[cpzilliacus]

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

I would think that most people would be very unhappy to lose access to such a nice, new highway.  Even more unhappy if they lose access and the road that used to intersect with Corridor H is blocked-off.

[hbelkins]

This is all craziness, anyway. There's no need for this road to become an interstate. It could serve the purpose as an evacuation route just as it is. If there is an evacuation necessary, just block the intersecting routes. There aren't any traffic lights until you get west of Elkins (at the US 250/WV 92 split) and by that point, evacuation traffic could have been dispersed to any number of local roads.

[Beltway]

I agree that it should work fine in its present form as a 4-lane expressway with interchanges at major junctions and intersections at minor junctions.

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

Traffic probably won't exceed 15,000 AADT or so even by 2035 assuming a fully completed highway between I-79 and I-81.  Should operate fine with its current design.

[hbelkins]

Saw this posted in the "USHwys" Yahoo group today.

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

Some photos from this page show an "End US 48" sign at the end of the ramp to Patterson Creek Road. Must be an error.

[seicer]

At present, US 48 ends at Knobley Road, and Patterson Creek Road is one interchange east. That segment, east from there to Moorefield, had opened just slightly before the section west to Knobley Road, and an "END US 48" sign was applied to the US 48 WB to Patterson Creek Road ramp. It's now outdated but just hasn't been removed.

[Grzrd]

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

If this July 23 article is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:

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

[ShawnP]

One trip on WV 72 has me completely sold on any Corridor H upgrades. I would like Interstate quality but can live with expressway like building.

[SP Cook]

If this July 23 article is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:

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

Not exactly.  The devil is in the details.

As I understand it, the previous system was thus:

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

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

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

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

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

[cpzilliacus]

If this July 23 article is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:

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

Not exactly.  The devil is in the details.

As I understand it, the previous system was thus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will be interesting to see how this plays out - especially the segments of Corridor H between Kerens and Davis.

[Beltway]

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

Sounds like something that a NOVA politician claimed ... Just look at the long list of projects on the VDOT website projects page to see that they get a lot more than any other area, and this has always been the case.  Plus they have gotten large amounts of special funding for projects such as Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Springfield Interchange, etc.  Even the I-495 HOT Lanes Project, while mostly PPTA private funding, did get $400 million in state funding, and federally guaranteed TIFIA loans.

[BigRedDog]

One trip on WV 72 has me completely sold on any Corridor H upgrades. I would like Interstate quality but can live with expressway like building.

While I understand your sentiment and don't disagree with the Corridor H upgrades, I thought WV 72 was a lot of fun to drive and was a beautiful in mid-October.

[ShawnP]

It was beautiful no doubt but a shocker how narrow it was. I went thru in early October in 2010 and it was peak season. I was shocked at how much wildlife was out in the open. Saw Deer, Foxes and yes even bear in the distance.

[ARMOURERERIC]

I cannot fathom the amount of preparation H would require to be upgraded to interstatus requirements, there is no way the work could be accomplished smoothly no matter how much DC lubes the funding mechanism

[NE2]

I cannot fathom the amount of preparation H would require to be upgraded to interstatus requirements, there is no way the work could be accomplished smoothly no matter how much DC lubes the funding mechanism

Ha ha ha.

[hbelkins]

Speaking of ARC corridors and federal funding...

Didn't Tennessee use 100 percent state funding to finish US 23 south of the Erwin area to the North Carolina state line, so as to avoid some federal environmental requirements that would have delayed construction? I am sure I have read this elsewhere in the past.

[mtfallsmikey]

I've heard of the DHS/evac. route funding game before. Where are all of these refugees going to stay, and who says we want them?

[NE2]

They'll stay in the Superdome.

[amroad17]

Corridor H does not need to be an interstate highway.  It should work perfectly fine the way it is supposed to be built (assuming it does get finished).  US 50 from Clarksville to Parkersburg, OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways. 

[Sammer]

OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.

Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.

[amroad17]

OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.

Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.

That is true, actually.  With the three traffic lights (I call the triplets) between I-275 and old OH 74 backing traffic up in that area, anything east of that is rather enjoyable.

[dave19]

Drove up to the Mount Storm area today to enjoy the autumn colors and check out the construction. The section from Knobley Road to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr appears to be ready to open any day now - all paving is done, lines are painted, signs are erected. I was so tempted to drive around that single little "road closed" sign sitting on the connector just off Route 93 (of course, about the time I would have done that, there would have been a state cop lying in wait somewhere), and I did see a pickup truck and a couple motorcycles on the new highway. They're probably waiting until closer to election day to have a formal ribbon cutting.

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

[rickmastfan67]

Drove up to the Mount Storm area today to enjoy the autumn colors and check out the construction. The section from Knobley Road to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr appears to be ready to open any day now - all paving is done, lines are painted, signs are erected. I was so tempted to drive around that single little "road closed" sign sitting on the connector just off Route 93 (of course, about the time I would have done that, there would have been a state cop lying in wait somewhere), and I did see a pickup truck and a couple motorcycles on the new highway. They're probably waiting until closer to election day to have a formal ribbon cutting.

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

Keep us up-to-date when ya see it opened so I can update my file @ the CHM project.

[Henry]

OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.

Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.

That is true, actually.  With the three traffic lights (I call the triplets) between I-275 and old OH 74 backing traffic up in that area, anything east of that is rather enjoyable.

Seconded on that! Probably going to be a movement to renumber I-74 in NC, since that isn't connecting back to Cincinnati anytime soon.

[mtfallsmikey]

How were the foliage colors up there last weekend? Thinking about taking the old Cutlass up there for a blast soon.

[dave19]

They're about at peak colors to a little past. Better go pretty soon...