Corridor H

[hbelkins]

So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.

The concerns are really only with a very small area within the overall corridor; that being the Blackwater Falls area. I think you can take just about any new highway construction project and have similar enviro concerns outside that one area.

There are a lot of wind farms in the area of Corridor H, so the topics are a bit related.

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

Well, they're younger than me. (I'm 51). And they were in their early to mid 20s when they got involved in MTR many, many years ago. I think Steve's had the same complaints about virtually all new West Virginia construction. Corridor H is not unlike a lot of the recent construction in eastern Kentucky, specifically newer segments of US 119 northeast of Pikeville and the under-construction US 460 south of Pikeville.

Larry Gross objected to everything. 

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

Have you forgotten his cheerleading of floods in Kentucky, the tornadoes in Kentucky last March, the Texas wildfires, and other disasters? He seemed overly happy anytime something bad happened in a non-urban part of the world. Yet I'm sure he would have been horrified by Hurricane Sandy and the destruction it wrought on urban areas in the NYC region.

He also seemed very unsupportive not only of Corridor H, but practically any new rural construction.

So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.

Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether... 

[1995hoo]

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

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

Yeah, frankly, when I made that suggestion I was more concerned that there seemed to be some incipient nastiness that's since been dialed back.

I never posted on MTR (my USENET usage was pretty much all prior to 1997 on UVA sports groups) so I have nothing to say about those folks. I've glanced at MTR on RARE occasions over the years and so I know enough to refrain from talking about a group with which I'm unfamiliar beyond the origins of "viatology"!

[hbelkins]

So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.

Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether... 

Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked.  And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.

[NE2]

Is that the one about goats?

[J N Winkler]

Well, they're younger than me. (I'm 51). And they were in their early to mid 20s when they got involved in MTR many, many years ago. I think Steve's had the same complaints about virtually all new West Virginia construction. Corridor H is not unlike a lot of the recent construction in eastern Kentucky, specifically newer segments of US 119 northeast of Pikeville and the under-construction US 460 south of Pikeville.

Yes, with the possible exception of Larry Gross, they (and I) are younger than you, but I wouldn't say any of them is "very young."  I have never met any of them in person, but I would think most of them have lived in places with enough new construction for them to have some lived experience of the benefits and drawbacks of new highways.

In regard to Steve and the criticisms he has expressed of excessive cut and fill, I actually happen to sympathize with them.  I have seen the construction plans for a lot of West Virginia's recent rural expressway work (it used to be possible to download them off WVDOT's FTP server before it was taken offline about a year ago), and the contour grading sheets make it blatantly obvious that leveling of mountains and filling of valleys is going on.  The natural landscape of West Virginia is a resource, just like the minerals beneath the surface, and it seems shortsighted to waste it and thereby forfeit opportunities for high-margin economic activity, like ecotourism, rather than to try and see whether the business case for extensive use of tunnels and high-level valley viaducts, as on the Spanish and German motorway networks, could be translated to this side of the Atlantic.

Larry Gross objected to everything. 

It is fair to say that he supported new highway construction in the same way one might support making omelets without breaking any eggs.

Have you forgotten his [Randy Hersh's] cheerleading of floods in Kentucky, the tornadoes in Kentucky last March, the Texas wildfires, and other disasters? He seemed overly happy anytime something bad happened in a non-urban part of the world. Yet I'm sure he would have been horrified by Hurricane Sandy and the destruction it wrought on urban areas in the NYC region.

Most of the cheerleading for natural disasters in Kentucky and West Virginia had more to do with "Don't like H.B. Elkins" (not only you personally, but also what he construed as your no-new-taxes position), rather than "Hate rural America."  In the case of Texas and wildfires, a quick MTR search turns up this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.transport.road/Texas$20wildfires/misc.transport.road/lJ4cTVM9kuw/BXEjlYmQDxgJ

"Couldn't happen to a better bunch of idiots" is in part a reference to the fact that the area of Texas involved (mostly the Panhandle) is heavily dependent on fossil water.  It doesn't prove a "Randy hates rural America" argument--the rural US is much larger than that and there were plenty of natural disasters elsewhere, such as the Greensburg tornado in 2007, the Missouri River flooding in 2011, etc. about which Randy had very little to say.

I established early on a rule, from which I only rarely deviated, of never defending Randy's posts on MTR, because that was consistent with my philosophy of not saying anything unless I believed it had a reasonable prospect of adding to general enlightenment or convincing someone else who was open to persuasion.  This is why I won't say it was proper for Randy to sing the praises of catastrophes which just happened to be local to whomever he was feuding with in MTR at the time, any more than it was for him to go on about black people the way he did.  It is nevertheless true, however, that the name-calling and other abuse went in both directions.  Those who fault Randy for not taking the high road have only themselves to blame for not doing so on their own account and thereby setting a positive example.

He also seemed very unsupportive not only of Corridor H, but practically any new rural construction.

I have a feeling that combing my email archive for mentions of new rural highway construction which Randy supported would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.  Besides Interstate guide signing, his emphases were very much on asset preservation (not just full-depth reconstruction like I-70 Frederick-Baltimore, but also replacement of fracture-critical bridges) and relocation to improve urban amenity (burial of the Gowanus Expressway tunnel being a case in point).  And, to be frank, with some largely rural states (including my own) pushing freeway projects on the basis of sub-10,000 AADT, I have to say Randy's views on this issue were not all that far from the MTR mainstream.

[cpzilliacus]

So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay. We've been overdue. Most projects don't have the types of concerns that this one does. I'm not going to split the topic, even though fracking and nuclear/wind power have nothing to do with Corridor H, but let's try to let that subtopic die and get back to the topic at hand.

The concerns are really only with a very small area within the overall corridor; that being the Blackwater Falls area. I think you can take just about any new highway construction project and have similar enviro concerns outside that one area.

A few more thoughts:

(1) I've stayed at Blackwater Falls State Park.  It is indeed a gem, and deserves protection (and the area within the park is in a sense protected by Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act).  I assert that even the most-fervent supporters of Corridor H don't want the park damaged by highway construction.

(2) If the decision is made to build more wind-powered generating units along the ridgetops around Mount Storm (and elsewhere - there are some along  U.S. 219 south of Davis), then Corridor H makes transporting the towers (they appear to come in segments) and blades (which are huge) easier and presumably less expensive.

In regard to Steve and the criticisms he has expressed of excessive cut and fill, I actually happen to sympathize with them.  I have seen the construction plans for a lot of West Virginia's recent rural expressway work (it used to be possible to download them off WVDOT's FTP server before it was taken offline about a year ago), and the contour grading sheets make it blatantly obvious that leveling of mountains and filling of valleys is going on.  The natural landscape of West Virginia is a resource, just like the minerals beneath the surface, and it seems shortsighted to waste it and thereby forfeit opportunities for high-margin economic activity, like ecotourism, rather than to try and see whether the business case for extensive use of tunnels and high-level valley viaducts, as on the Spanish and German motorway networks, could be translated to this side of the Atlantic.

Having seen all of both sections of Corridor H that are open to traffic, I did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.  Most of the valleys and hollows were spanned by some very high bridges.  There were more than a few massive mountain cuts, however.   

[froggie]

I did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.

There are two notable grade changes on the completed segment of Corridor H where there was a lot of fill placed in what was formerly valley.  One is about 5 miles east of Moorefield (on the other side of the ridge from the Clifton Hollow bridge).  The other is as you make the climb up from where the scenic view spot is west of Moorefield, where you make what is close to a U-shaped turn.  That one especially filled in a lot of valley.  The bridge over WV 93 also has a lot of fill on the west side of it.

[mtfallsmikey]

Yes Virginia, there are stupensously long trains hauling coal into Mt. Storm. Saw a couple of them while visiting at Jennings Randolph Lake.

[mtfallsmikey]

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

gotta love Mexican drivers.  very courteous in general.  the opposite end of the speed spectrum is true as well: a few months ago I was driving MX-2 from Imuris to Cananea across a large mountain pass, and there were lines upon lines of trucks doing 10-15mph.  everyone was doing all they could to allow for cars to get around, including waving out the window that it is safe to pass around a blind curve.

the only drivers I've seen in Mexico that are obstructionist hogs are, you guessed it... Americans.

But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors?

IMHO, a combination of factors.

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

- The area really is thinly populated.  Among the lowest population densities east of the Mississippi.  So that leaves not that many people to agitate and organize against the enemies of progress.

- Its not a coal producing area, really, other than Tucker County, which is already served by an H ending at Elkins and other roads.  A lot of the corridors (G, L, B, Q, E) really help in the modern production of coal via the land improvement method (so called mountaintop removal or strip mining).  The coal companies really don't care if H gets built or not.

- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont, Maine, upstate NY, etc.  Old hippies that want to play farmer, generally supported by parents that are glad to see them finally out of the house.  Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishness, the last thing these people want to see is a good road, so they would have to SHARE their little slice of heaven with others. 

- The "economic development" aspect, to be fair, is overblown.  The only economic potential of that virtually vertical part of the country is tourism.  Nobody is going to build an auto plant in Moorefield.

True, but a new Sheetz went up....

[Grzrd]

So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.

Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether... 

Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked.  And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.

To augment HB's answer for agentsteel, and facing the similar problem of no longer having the correct thread to post it in, the Iowa chapter of a national organization has a six-page compilation of  Bible Quotes In Support of Stewardship. Genesis 1:26 and other "God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature" quotations can be found on pages 3 and 4.

Back to roads after this post; I just wanted to give agentsteel additional info.

[agentsteel53]

So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.

Except the thread where most of that debate was taking place seems to have vanished into the cyber ether... 

Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked.  And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.

To augment HB's answer for agentsteel, and facing the similar problem of no longer having the correct thread to post it in, the Iowa chapter of a national organization has a six-page compilation of  Bible Quotes In Support of Stewardship. Genesis 1:26 and other "God Expects Humans to be His Stewards with Nature" quotations can be found on pages 3 and 4.

Back to roads after this post; I just wanted to give agentsteel additional info.

that's not the primary source.

"steward over your animals [God, 3750BC]" is, by definition, a secondary source citing a primary one.  I want the primary one directly.

[cpzilliacus]

I did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.

There are two notable grade changes on the completed segment of Corridor H where there was a lot of fill placed in what was formerly valley.  One is about 5 miles east of Moorefield (on the other side of the ridge from the Clifton Hollow bridge).  The other is as you make the climb up from where the scenic view spot is west of Moorefield, where you make what is close to a U-shaped turn.  That one especially filled in a lot of valley.  The bridge over WV 93 also has a lot of fill on the west side of it.

I noticed one place on the right going west where it was very obvious that fill (perhaps from some of the mountain cuts) had been used to fill-in a valley.   It was obvious because there was a farmhouse.

[hbelkins]

From the "Birmingham" thread..

That said, the enactment of MAP-21 last summer altered the ARC funding formula to allow 100% federal funding for ADHS projects

Well, there's the answer for building Virginia's part of Corridor H.

[Grzrd]

From the "Birmingham" thread..

That said, the enactment of MAP-21 last summer altered the ARC funding formula to allow 100% federal funding for ADHS projects

Well, there's the answer for building Virginia's part of Corridor H.

Related post earlier in this thread.

[froggie]

Indeed.  Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

[cpzilliacus]

Indeed.  Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

I agree. 

Rep. Wolf is opposed (but then he seems opposed to nearly all highway improvement projects these days).

What I don't know are the positions of the local elected officials in Shenandoah County  and Frederick County, Va.  In order to get from the crest of North Mountain to I-81, it would presumably have to pass through both counties.  There's no mention of needed/desired future improvements to U.S. 48/Va. 55 on the Web sites of Frederick County or Shenandoah County (I checked).

Proponents of Corridor H in West Virginia would be smart to reach out to their neighbors in those two counties if they want an improved highway connection between Wardensville and I-81 at Strasburg.

[mtfallsmikey]

Indeed.  Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia.  It's a lot more complicated than that.

I agree. 

Rep. Wolf is opposed (but then he seems opposed to nearly all highway improvement projects these days).

What I don't know are the positions of the local elected officials in Shenandoah County  and Frederick County, Va.  In order to get from the crest of North Mountain to I-81, it would presumably have to pass through both counties.  There's no mention of needed/desired future improvements to U.S. 48/Va. 55 on the Web sites of Frederick County or Shenandoah County (I checked).

Proponents of Corridor H in West Virginia would be smart to reach out to their neighbors in those two counties if they want an improved highway connection between Wardensville and I-81 at Strasburg.

As a resident, there is really no concensus one way or another among elected officials of Frederick/Shenandoah Co's., on Corridor H at this time. If the Feds/state want to build it, they will, counties have little input into it. As I have mentioned before, I attended pre-construction meetings on Corridor H in both counties, and Hardy Co. W.V.,  and as far as Rt 55/48 are concerned, nothing will be done in W.V. unless the exisiting road becomes "unserviceable", no conditions like that exist in Va., the road will be continue to be maintained as usual.

[cpzilliacus]

As a resident, there is really no concensus one way or another among elected officials of Frederick/Shenandoah Co's., on Corridor H at this time.

That is the impression I draw from the lack of any mention on the planning maps of both counties.  Though I suppose if they were really opposed, the county elected officials in both could have language saying that, though they do not (or maybe I should put it this way - I searched the Web sites of both counties with  Google, and found no mention of Corridor H (or U.S. 48) either way).  Shenandoah County had a few hits on Route 55, but nothing that appeared related to Corridor H. 

If the Feds/state want to build it, they will, counties have little input into it. As I have mentioned before, I attended pre-construction meetings on Corridor H in both counties, and Hardy Co. W.V.,  and as far as Rt 55/48 are concerned, nothing will be done in W.V. unless the exisiting road becomes "unserviceable", no conditions like that exist in Va., the road will be continue to be maintained as usual.

There is some precedent in Virginia of the Commonwealth building highways that were bitterly opposed by local elected officials.  Probably the best (as in most-loudly opposed) example was I-66 across Arlington County in the 1970's, when most planned highways inside the Capital Beltway were removed from planning maps on both sides of the Potomac River, with the notable exception of I-66 and the cancelled (in the 1990's) Barney Circle Modification (since replaced by the reconstructed 11th Street Bridge and the interchange at its south end).

Arlington wanted I-66 cancelled and the Metrorail Orange Line constructed (which  is what happened with  the Green Line in Northeast D.C. and Prince George's County, Maryland), but VDH made it clear that there would be no money for the Orange Line without I-66, and the result is the downsized I-66 (Custis Memorial Parkway) with the Metrorail line down the median seen there today.

I also recall (from the Gribblenation article) this:

Finally, the furthest east segment, Wardensville to the VA line, is in the most limbo.  Construction of this segment was deferred 20 years as a result of a February 2000 agreement with CHA.

As was stated upthread, I do not think construction funding is much of an issue, even though Virginia has billions of dollars in unfunded highway repair and improvement backlogs.

[mtfallsmikey]

But, to get an answer....there will be a House of Rep. member, local and state reps at the upcoming Shenandoah Co. Fair, will ask the question of them....

[cpzilliacus]

But, to get an answer....there will be a House of Rep. member, local and state reps at the upcoming Shenandoah Co. Fair, will ask the question of them....

The answer should be interesting. Thanks for asking it.

[dave19]

http://www.gilmerfreepress.net/index.php/site/corridor_h_construction_could_help_troubled_stream/

[cpzilliacus]

http://www.gilmerfreepress.net/index.php/site/corridor_h_construction_could_help_troubled_stream/

This reminds me of the environmental stewardship work that is being funded as part of the Md. 200 project.

It's a lot of stream restoration and stormwater management retrofit work.

[mtfallsmikey]

That was offered up as part of the effort to quiet the environmentalists who were opposing construction of that section, and kept things locked up in court for a while.

[seicer]

It's sad that it is the responsibility of WVDOH to fund and complete the project, not the coal companies that caused such damage to occur in the first place.

[cpzilliacus]

That was offered up as part of the effort to quiet the environmentalists who were opposing construction of that section, and kept things locked up in court for a while.

To most radical environmentalists, environmental mitigation, even to mitigate damage inflicted by projects and entities having little or nothing to do with the highway project in question, means nothing. 

Getting the highway project cancelled is a priority above all else.