Corridor H

[cpzilliacus]

- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont,

You really don't understand rural Vermont.  Contrary to popular belief, there has been little "newcomer population" in Vermont outside of far southwestern Vermont, the Rutland area, and the area immediately around Burlington.

I had a cousin once removed that lived in various places in Vermont (he loved the state), but was definitely an "outsider" (he was born in Finland, but spent a lot of his youth in the U.S., in particular in Cos Cob, Connecticut).  Interestingly, he did live near Rutland for a while, and also in Burlington.

A contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.

Delays in both cases.  As I recall, when that 2010 contract was signed, the goal at the time was to have both segments completed by the end of this year.

At least it's getting built.  Wonder what the delay  was caused by?

[Bitmapped]

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

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

The road is fenced, but right-of-way fences mean nothing to a deer.  They jump right over them.

NRQZ isn't the issue.  It's the low population and traffic levels relative to the expense because of the terrain causing the dead spots.

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

Corridor H is far enough away that cell signals aren't a major problem.  The towns have cell coverage (and there are full-power radio stations, too).  It's a matter of there not being enough customers to justify the cell towers outside of the towns.

[Bitmapped]

The overpass of the railroad spur leading into the power plant is taking shape (and yes, there is rail traffic in and out of there - I didn't see any on this trip, but the rail head was shiny; I have had to stop for a train there on another occasion).

This is interesting. 

I have never seen a train in or out of Mount Storm when I have driven by  there (admittedly much less frequently than you). 

I  know the tracks go down the mountain to the old Western Maryland line that runs roughly parallel to the Potomac River - and between Bayard (where the spur to the power plant diverges) and Davis, the line has been out of service for many years - I believe it once continued to Parsons and presumably beyond.

Maybe Dominion Virginia Power is now having coal shipped in on those train tracks?  At one time, all of the coal burned at Mount Storm was coming by truck from a mine in southern Garrett County, Md., but that mine may be mined-out at this point.

VEPCO (Dominion predecessor) had the spur built when they constructed the power plant specifically so they could get coal delivered by rail.  They own the line.

[seicer]

Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?

A May 15 Seattle Times article reports on an Associated Press investigation which concludes that even wind farms can have severe environmental consequences:

The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation found.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country's wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Each killing of a protected bird is a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind-energy company has been prosecuted ....
"It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,"  said Tom Dougherty, a longtime environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West. "But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high."
When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or would expose trade secrets or implicate enforcement investigations.
"What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK," said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent.

I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......

Drawing straw arguments doesn't help. Let's face it, there are NIMBY's on both sides. Remember Senator Kennedy who championed solar and wind farms? Until they "blocked" his view off of the Cape, despite the towers being so far away from shore that they would be all but invisible.

For all of the ills of coal, the consequences of fracking, and the associated risks with nuclear, wind and solar would be obvious choices. There are tradeoffs with every utility choice that we make, some that impact humans more so than others; some that impact animals more so than others. I know that with early wind farms, the studies did not take into account migratory patterns with birds. With the recent projects in West Virginia - along US 219 and now near Bluefield, migratory patterns were taken into account in the EIS.

[Grzrd]

Drawing straw arguments doesn't help

Neither does the ad hominem tactic of accusing someone of intentionally misrepresenting your position.  I merely pointed out that wind farms have negative environmental consequences, too. Please point out where I misrepresented your position.

there are NIMBY's on both sides.

Of course, that was the essential point of my post after I quoted the article:

I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......

There are tradeoffs with every utility choice that we make

Agreed.

[bugo]

I still can't believe they blew up entire mountains just for the coal.  I'm so glad they didn't do that to my beloved Ouachitas.

[bugo]

Consequences of fracking?
You mean affordable energy? Decent living standards for the middle class?
Environmentalism is just a religion. It's a warmed over nature cult.

I mean things like earthquakes in places like fucking Oklahoma where earthquakes aren't supposed to happen.  Live through a few 5.6 earthquakes (and wondering if the "big one" is going to hit) and we'll talk.

[Brandon]

Consequences of fracking?
You mean affordable energy? Decent living standards for the middle class?
Environmentalism is just a religion. It's a warmed over nature cult.

I mean things like earthquakes in places like fucking Oklahoma where earthquakes aren't supposed to happen.  Live through a few 5.6 earthquakes (and wondering if the "big one" is going to hit) and we'll talk.

Earthquakes happen everywhere, not just in California or Alaska.

[seicer]

In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking?

Where poisonous waste was disposed of in storm sewers that led to massive fish kills in the Mahoning River? And we're not talking about a little bit - how about 20,000+ gallons?

And water quality issues and fracking go hand-in-hand.

Yes, we are not ripping apart mountaintops for cheap energy, but we are still causing damage both to the environment and to human health. I appreciate that there has been over $2 billion in investment in Youngstown for just V&M Star (producing piping and other associated steel for fracking sites), $1 billion in Cadiz, $1 billion near New Castle for a cracker plant and elsewhere. It's jobs that can pay quite well. It's employment in areas that have been devastated by years of declining economic fortunes.

Having documented and photographed the entire rust belt and coal producing regions for major publications, magazines and two upcoming books, I offer my opinion in that all we are seeking is a short term gain for long term consequence. If anyone has ever ventured to southwest West Virginia and other coal reliant regions, you can see what has happened. Take McDowell County, home to Welch and one of the first municipal parking garages in the United States. The county peaked at nearly 100,000 residents 60 years ago, and stands under 22,000 today. It will dip under 18,000 by 2020 at the current rate of decline. Welch, the county seat, had nearly 6,800 and will dive under 2,000 by 2020. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. It's median income is one of the lowest. It's school system has been under state control for over a decade, and has some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. Coal began its march out of Appalachia decades ago, first due to mechanization, then to energy slumps before seeing an uptick in the 1980s and 1990s - and then declining due to exhaustion of seams and now fracking.

One of the firms I did work for hired about 30% of their staff from West Virginia's coal producing counties. These guys and gals traveled up from the mountains to work on some sites in eastern Ohio, staying in RV's, hotels and even tents to make a decent wage. Most were not married, and those that did were very much depressed and sent money home every other week. Travel out to the Dakota's, and you'll see temporary cities galore.

[1995hoo]

Methinks the moderators might consider a thread-split......

[oscar]

In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking?

Where were those earthquakes on the Richter scale?  Were they little ones like those in Oklahoma most clearly linked to fracking -- the kind that are routine in California, that Californians take in stride?

[corco]

Having documented and photographed the entire rust belt and coal producing regions for major publications, magazines and two upcoming books, I offer my opinion in that all we are seeking is a short term gain for long term consequence. If anyone has ever ventured to southwest West Virginia and other coal reliant regions, you can see what has happened. Take McDowell County, home to Welch and one of the first municipal parking garages in the United States. The county peaked at nearly 100,000 residents 60 years ago, and stands under 22,000 today. It will dip under 18,000 by 2020 at the current rate of decline. Welch, the county seat, had nearly 6,800 and will dive under 2,000 by 2020. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. It's median income is one of the lowest. It's school system has been under state control for over a decade, and has some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. Coal began its march out of Appalachia decades ago, first due to mechanization, then to energy slumps before seeing an uptick in the 1980s and 1990s - and then declining due to exhaustion of seams and now fracking.

Right- for me, if we dumped the money we're dumping into developing fracking technology right now into developing technology to make renewable energy more productive...those are also skilled, high paying jobs right there and those aren't subject to boom-bust nearly as much as fracking is.

It's not like we're lowering energy costs. We're making more energy in America right now, which don't get me wrong- that's awesome and critical to national security and why I can't be totally opposed to fracking, but it costs a heck of a lot more to frack oil than it does to get it by conventional means, and those conventionally producing countries can just and do just cut supply to keep the prices up. We still have little control over it.

And that price is going to go up- the deeper that oil is, the more it's going to cost to drill it. The oil industry just has to wait for prices to sustain a slightly higher level and they can go after the Niobrara Shale, but they can't get that out and make money at the current price levels. People who think that we can flood the market with cheap shale oil and lower gas prices...that's not how shale works. It's really expensive to get out of the ground.  Unless the economy tanks again, energy of any kind is not going to get cheaper over the long run no matter how much we produce as long as we maintain something resembling a free market system and I'd challenge anybody to find an economic model that demonstrates otherwise. In a strong economy, energy is an inelastic need- there's no incentive for any company to produce inexpensive energy or for competition to drive prices down. The only way prices drop is if we have another 2008 and people stop buying things altogether, reducing the demand for fuel to the point that prices have to go down.

One thing I don't understand- the fact is we're going to need to dump a ton of money into R&D to keep getting energy. We're either going to have to develop new, cost effective ways to get oil deeper and deeper from the earth or we're going to have to develop new, cost effective ways to get the same energy from other sources. There's no way around that. Why is the focus on the first? The cynic in me thinks it's a fear that moving away from oil will change our lifestyle into some hippie environmentalist lifestyle that nobody wants, but is there any proof that that's either a valid supposition or something that would actually happen?

I'm curious- those of you who are in favor of putting resources into fracking in lieu of putting resources into developing alternative energy - why? Why is this the case? Do you envision this being a permanent thing, or do you envision a transition taking place? 

Or is it more of a moderation thing? Obviously we can't flip the switch tomorrow and ditch oil- even if we put a lot of resources into developing other energy sources we're still going to be dependent on oil for a long time and the transition will probably take a generation or three. There's pretty much no way around that either, but when do you think we need to begin to start to really move in that direction? Or do you think we're already headed in that direction but in the meantime we need to keep finding more oil, even if the diversion of resources slows down the development of those other sources?

[1995hoo]

When I hear "frack" I still think of the "profanity" in the original 1970s version of Battlestar Galactica.

[bugo]

In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking?

Where were those earthquakes on the Richter scale?  Were they little ones like those in Oklahoma most clearly linked to fracking -- the kind that are routine in California, that Californians take in stride?

The geology of California is not the same as the geology of Oklahoma.

[oscar]

I'm curious- those of you who are in favor of putting resources into fracking in lieu of putting resources into developing alternative energy - why? Why is this the case? Do you envision this being a permanent thing, or do you envision a transition taking place? 

Or is it more of a moderation thing? Obviously we can't flip the switch tomorrow and ditch oil- even if we put a lot of resources into developing other energy sources we're still going to be dependent on oil for a long time and the transition will probably take a generation or three. There's pretty much no way around that either, but when do you think we need to begin to start to really move in that direction? Or do you think we're already headed in that direction but in the meantime we need to keep finding more oil, even if the diversion of resources slows down the development of those other sources?

Fracking is largely about natural gas, not just oil.  Natural gas is a little harder to use to power our cars, but does lends itself to large-scale electric power generation, especially as a cleaner substitute for coal.

I'm not sure fracking's an either-or proposition compared to alternative fuels, anyway.  There's room for both, at least until the recoverable oil and gas resources peter out.

[corco]

Fracking is largely about natural gas, not just oil.  Natural gas is a little harder to use to power our cars, but does lends itself to large-scale electric power generation, especially as a cleaner substitute for coal.

I'm not sure fracking's an either-or proposition compared to alternative fuels, anyway.  There's room for both, at least until the recoverable oil and gas resources peter out.

Right, I just said "oil" for simplicity, but yeah. Out here we just call them the "oil fields" but there's definitely a lot more to it than that.

Okay, that seems like a perfectly reasonable argument. I guess the follow up would be- in an ideal world, are you in favor of funneling oil profit towards the development of alternative energy? How do you envision the economics playing out that allow alternative energy to eventually usurp oil and gas use? Should energy prices just continue rising until renewable energy is profitable enough for mass scale implementation, or where should the money come from for the R&D to lower the price of renewable energy generation?

[hbelkins]

OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.

I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).

There's still a pretty good segment of Corridor (mumble), which involves US 119 through southeastern Kentucky, not yet built. Will the same howls of objection be heard when the final link, the tunnel under Pine Mountain, gets underway?

[Revive 755]

but think of the children who will be born with two heads!

<Almost makes snide comment regarding second head, thinks better of it>

[cpzilliacus]

OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.

IMO, most of the reasons for objecting to Corridor H are without merit.  Especially the environmental objections, since the design of the new segments appears to be state-of-the-art in terms of things like stormwater controls, and vehicle emissions are less and less of a problem as the on-highway vehicle fleet turns over.

I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).

There are plenty of people in  the United States that think good highways are inherently evil, and presumably want to return the nation to the transportation system that we had in about 1920, when most intercity travel was by railroad (or in some cases interurban) and a large percentage of the urban and suburban population was (as they call it) "carfree."  Yes, there were suburbs in the United States in 1920.

There's still a pretty good segment of Corridor (mumble), which involves US 119 through southeastern Kentucky, not yet built. Will the same howls of objection be heard when the final link, the tunnel under Pine Mountain, gets underway?

The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H)  might be  great enough that it's a non-issue.  Let's hope so.

[cpzilliacus]

VEPCO (Dominion predecessor) had the spur built when they constructed the power plant specifically so they could get coal delivered by rail.  They own the line.

That was not clear to me, since (as S P Cook pointed out) the Mount Storm Generating Station was sited where it is in part to be near large supplies of coal (that would presumably not arrive on rail). I thought the railroad spur may have been there to allow delivery of heavy machinery to the plant that might be easier to move on rail instead of by truck.

In the electric generating business, Mount Storm is known as a "mouth of mine" plant.  There are several others relatively close in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  I think Mount Storm may be the easternmost plant of this type (I believe it may be the only one in the Chesapeake Bay watershed - the rest of them are in the Ohio River watershed).

[hbelkins]

The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H)  might be  great enough that it's a non-issue.  Let's hope so.

There's an environmentally sensitive area (Bad Branch Falls) in that general vicinity, but my understanding is that they're taking steps to deal with it appropriately, even at this very preliminary stage of the planning process.

But that may not stop the DC-ites (many of whom, as was pointed out, will be able to use H to get to the ski areas near Davis) from complaining. A new route for KY 715 in Wolfe County, as part of the overall London-to-Ashland corridor, is in the works. It passes near a popular rock climbing area frequented by out-of-staters. We've had a number of comments from Buckeyes about this project. There is an area that is crying out for better access to the interstate system for economic development purposes, and some Ohioans want to stop the road project?

[cpzilliacus]

The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H)  might be  great enough that it's a non-issue.  Let's hope so.

There's an environmentally sensitive area (Bad Branch Falls) in that general vicinity, but my understanding is that they're taking steps to deal with it appropriately, even at this very preliminary stage of the planning process.

That's the right time to deal with sensitive environmental issues, and I think good highway engineers and planners know that they need to handle them during planning and preliminary engineering. 

But that may not stop the DC-ites (many of whom, as was pointed out, will be able to use H to get to the ski areas near Davis) from complaining. A new route for KY 715 in Wolfe County, as part of the overall London-to-Ashland corridor, is in the works. It passes near a popular rock climbing area frequented by out-of-staters. We've had a number of comments from Buckeyes about this project. There is an area that is crying out for better access to the interstate system for economic development purposes, and some Ohioans want to stop the road project?

Under the U.S. federal system, this sort of thing goes on frequently.  Over and over again, I saw representatives from large and small municipalities located relatively far from the route of Md. 200 (including at least one not even in Maryland) raising environmental objections to the project.  And the one county to be served by the project (Prince George's) had two long County Council resolutions against the project, even though they included weasel language deep in both endorsing the project in their own  jurisdiction.

Getting to your last sentence above, access (and improved access) to the national highway network by places in need of economic development should be stated as a goal in national transportation policy by Congress, but more than a few of the nice people there don't seem to grasp how important that is to underserved parts of the nation.  That obviously includes large parts of Appalachia, but it also (in my opinion) includes at least some roadless areas of Alaska.

Economic development is the fundamental reason that I believe Corridor H (including the sections between Wardensville and Strasburg, Va.; and between Kerens and Davis) should be completed. 

[froggie]

OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.

Population centers and pre-existing corridors.  Most of the other corridors you mentioned have (at least by rural-standards), medium population centers to anchor the ARC corridor to, not to mention generally following long-existing highway corridors (US 50, US 52, US 119, US 460, etc etc).  No such pre-existing corridor or (except for Buckhannon and Elkins) population centers exist along Corridor H.  Within West Virginia, some of these corridors (thinking US 50 and US 460 here) had high enough traffic to where they probably would have been 4-laned even without the ARC regional highway program, much as parts of US 340 and WV 9 are up in the WV Panhandle.

[J N Winkler]

I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).

I don't get the impression that many of the people objecting to Corridor H are in fact very young.  NE2, I think, is aged upwards of 30.  Steve Alpert is, I believe, also over 30, and although I don't recall him objecting to Corridor H per se, he has criticized the design of various segments for excessive use of cut and fill.  Although I do not believe he is now a member of this forum and certainly has not been active if he has, back in the MTR days Larry Gross objected to Corridor H (receiving attacks and heavy criticism from S.P. Cook for doing so), and I am fairly sure he is aged over 50.

Randy Hersh also never struck me as having a particular anti-rural bias.  Yes, he spent most of his life in the vicinity of large cities (grew up in Mayfield Heights, which is a Cleveland suburb; worked in Cleveland for several years; drove cab in Miami for several years; spent most of the remainder of his life and cab-driving career in densely urbanized northern New Jersey), but he also travelled extensively and had a good feel for what roads can and cannot do in terms of bringing economic development to rural areas.  I incline to take his objections to Corridor H at face value:  unlikely to siphon long-distance east-west traffic off the established Interstate routes, unlikely to bring much economic development to the area of rural West Virginia it serves since that area's primary obstacle to economic growth is the lack of an educated workforce, but definitely likely to siphon funding away from necessary asset preservation, for which his go-to example was the long-delayed reconstruction of I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore.

[Alps]

Methinks the moderators might consider a thread-split......

I've been away for a couple of days, but I applaud a few people in this thread for consistently bringing it back on-topic from the energy discussion to Corridor H. It's all tied together with the environment aspect, which seems to be the most controversial part. Although traffic volumes aren't very high in general in WV, the road quality is so poor that I find it hard to argue with the ongoing upgrade. Could it be graded for 4 lanes and paved for 2? Probably not, because the road will encourage high speeds and truck use, and it's better to have that separated.
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.