News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Corridor H

Started by CanesFan27, September 20, 2009, 03:01:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Sherman Cahal on August 21, 2013, 10:15:11 AM
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.

That is a recurring theme over much of West Virginia  (and  I have not been to many of the counties in the southern part of the state, where I have been told the damage is much  greater than it is in the vicinity of Corridor H).  And there are is still some mining taking place near the Mount Storm generating station.

It's a problem in Maryland  and Pennsylvania as well.   Maryland's Department of the Environment has spent a small fortune to mitigate acid mine drainage from abandoned mines in the upper Potomac River watershed - one especially bad mine is located at Kempton in extreme southwest Garrett County, a short distance from the source of the Potomac at Fairfax Stone (and not especially far from the interim terminus of Corridor H near Davis).

When I-81 was newly constructed, the damage from coal strip mining was very obvious between U.S. 209 (Exit 107) and I-80 near Hazleton (Exit 151).  But in the intervening years, trees have grown up to hide most of that ugliness.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.


cpzilliacus

I have posted quite a few images from Corridor H on Facebook.  Link via the posting below:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10306.msg244300#msg244300
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mtfallsmikey

Nice pics. Are they installing a runaway truck ramp EB from the top of the mt.? Wonder what % grade that works out to?

cpzilliacus

#478
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 03, 2013, 12:45:21 PM
Nice pics. Are they installing a runaway truck ramp EB from the top of the mt.? Wonder what % grade that works out to?

Thank you.

There is no evidence of one along the open section of Corridor H that this ties into at W.Va. 93 (Scherr).

But since you asked, and it's an interesting question, I looked at the unopened section with Google (the images are fairly recent), and it appears that such a ramp is being built for eastbound (downhill) traffic just before the big bridge (completed for a while now) that will carry Corridor H over W.Va. 93.

Look for yourself here.  That certainly might be a runaway ramp.

The steepest grade I have seen posted on Corridor H is 5% or maybe 6%.  I assume this will not be any steeper.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

agentsteel53

are there any formal standards for which situations must have a runaway truck ramp installed?  or is it a seat-of-the-pants "would be a good idea if we put one here" sort of thing?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

mtfallsmikey

Could be a runaway ramp, or the EB ramp for the Rt. 93 exit?? From the pics, looks like a steep enough drop from the top of the mt. to warrant one. I have not been up there since last fall, need to take a ride up there in the old ragtop soon. From the end of 48, how far is it up to Rt. 50 via Rt. 93?

froggie

No, there is no eastbound ramp planned to WV 93.  The existing (and now open) access road on the east side of WV 93 comprises the access between the two routes.  Most likely, it's a runaway truck ramp.

mtfallsmikey

Where does this access road go to?

agentsteel53

live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

J N Winkler

Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 01:17:30 PMare there any formal standards for which situations must have a runaway truck ramp installed?  or is it a seat-of-the-pants "would be a good idea if we put one here" sort of thing?

There are research reports on the economics of runaway truck ramp provision.  The latest edition of the AASHTO Green Book might also have warrants for runaway truck ramps along the lines of "When grade is steeper than X% or curves are involved, consider providing escape ramps."  Costs can be attributed both to runaway truck events and to construction and maintenance of ramps, so it is a conceptually simple cost-benefit comparison.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on September 04, 2013, 09:19:11 AM
No, there is no eastbound ramp planned to WV 93.  The existing (and now open) access road on the east side of WV 93 comprises the access between the two routes.  Most likely, it's a runaway truck ramp.

I agree with Adam's comment above.  The connector between U.S. 48 and W.Va. 93 is obviously intended to be permanent.  I assume that 93 will be rerouted onto Corridor H once the  sections between Scherr and Bismarck (and ultimately Davis) open to traffic.

Speaking of steep, that connector road between the current terminus of U.S. 48 and W.Va. 93 is very steep, at about 10% (!).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: J N Winkler on September 04, 2013, 10:59:17 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 03, 2013, 01:17:30 PMare there any formal standards for which situations must have a runaway truck ramp installed?  or is it a seat-of-the-pants "would be a good idea if we put one here" sort of thing?

There are research reports on the economics of runaway truck ramp provision.  The latest edition of the AASHTO Green Book might also have warrants for runaway truck ramps along the lines of "When grade is steeper than X% or curves are involved, consider providing escape ramps."  Costs can be attributed both to runaway truck events and to construction and maintenance of ramps, so it is a conceptually simple cost-benefit comparison.

Traffic headed east ("down the mountain," in this case the Allegheny Front) will have a relatively straight stretch until the ramp, then the road will curve pretty sharply  to the right (south).  So it is a logical place for such a ramp.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

hbelkins

I'm surprised that there are no "To US 48" signs at the intersection of WV 42 and WV 93. They sure went up in a hurry on WV 42 when Corridor H was opened as far west as Knobley Road.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 11:43:50 AM
I'm surprised that there are no "To US 48" signs at the intersection of WV 42 and WV 93. They sure went up in a hurry on WV 42 when Corridor H was opened as far west as Knobley Road.

Great minds think alike.  I was asking myself that question.  Maybe WVDOT figured that the section between W.Va. 93 and Bismarck will be open so soon that they did not want to bother - though on the other hand, such signage would be useful even after U.S. 48 is open to Bismarck and then to Davis.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

hbelkins

Based on what I saw when I drove through there (8/16), they are at least a full calendar year away from opening anything to the west of WV 93. There's a bridge that will take US 48 across WV 42/WV 93 up near the top of the mountain. They'll have to route 42/93 traffic under it so they can blast through where the current road now passes. I couldn't tell if there is going to be an interchange there or not, but there is going to be one where 48 crosses 93 between 42 and Mt. Storm Lake. That would be the next logical section of independent use that could be opened.

Once the four-lane is finished all the way to Davis, I think US 48 could be signed along existing US 219 to Elkins and then on US 33 west to Weston.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

cpzilliacus

#490
Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 12:10:28 PM
Based on what I saw when I drove through there (8/16), they are at least a full calendar year away from opening anything to the west of WV 93. There's a bridge that will take US 48 across WV 42/WV 93 up near the top of the mountain. They'll have to route 42/93 traffic under it so they can blast through where the current road now passes. I couldn't tell if there is going to be an interchange there or not, but there is going to be one where 48 crosses 93 between 42 and Mt. Storm Lake. That would be the next logical section of independent use that could be opened.

A lot  of that work appears to have been completed, and it looks like they were ready to start pavement work west of the mountain crest in the direction of Mount Storm Lake and the DVP electric generating station.  The bridge that will carry Corridor H over the railroad spur that serves the power plant appeared to be ready to have stringers hung and the deck paved. A short section of the westbound lanes between the power plant and the Grant Count/Tucker County line has actually been paved.

But - the elevation there is high (by east-of-the-Mississippi standards).  According to Google, the elevation at the crest of the mountain, where U.S. 48 will cross W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93, is between 2800 and 3000 feet above sea level, and then the alignment rises to between 3200 and  3400 feet near the lake. 

That means that the construction season is shorter than it is at lower elevations.  How much shorter, I don't know.

Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2013, 12:10:28 PM
Once the four-lane is finished all the way to Davis, I think US 48 could be signed along existing US 219 to Elkins and then on US 33 west to Weston.

I think that's a great idea.  I hope WVDOT is planning that.

I do wonder if the published plans for final engineering and design, and construction start between Parsons and Davis are really as far in the future as WVDOT says on its Web page for the  section - 2025 and 2031 respectively.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mtfallsmikey

That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.
As far as climate for construction goes... according to a friend who was running heavy equipment during the construction of the first section going west from Wardensville, they worked during any good weather, regardless of temperature, biggest limiting factors were fog/heavy snow, or saturated soil. And, maybe an early completion bonus for the G.C.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.

Agreed on both points.  I get the impression (from those persons and groups in favor of Corridor H) that they would love to move those dates closer to now - by  a lot.

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
As far as climate for construction goes... according to a friend who was running heavy equipment during the construction of the first section going west from Wardensville, they worked during any good weather, regardless of temperature, biggest limiting factors were fog/heavy snow, or saturated soil.

But it gets to be more of a challenge to pour (and cure) concrete when it is cold.  It can be done, but a lot of "extra" heating is needed when it is cold (I've seen large construction projects built out of concrete under way in Finland and Sweden during the long Nordic winters - the contractors put up massive amounts of scaffolding and tarps around the project, and keep the air inside the tarps warmed while the concrete cures).

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
And, maybe an early completion bonus for the G.C.

Had not thought about that.  If there is a bonus to be paid for getting done ahead of schedule, that will motivate the contractor(s).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

dave19

Check this web page:
http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/
Several of the maps have been updated recently. Check maps 33 and 34 - that does look like a runaway truck ramp off the eastbound lanes in the location discussed upthread.
Other parts of that Corridor H site have not been updated in at least a year.

machpost

Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.

According to this article, work on the Davis to Scherr section should be wrapped up late this year or early next. That seems like a rather ambitious goal to me.

This story claims that it will reach Davis sometime this year.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: machpost on September 05, 2013, 10:56:40 AM
Quote from: mtfallsmikey on September 04, 2013, 01:47:07 PM
That timeline for the Parsons/Davis section has been on the Corrridor H site since the beginning. The section going to Bismarck is supposed to be open late next year.

According to this article, work on the Davis to Scherr section should be wrapped up late this year or early next. That seems like a rather ambitious goal to me.

The contractor has made a lot of progress on the segment between Bismarck and Scherr, and I suppose that could be done - but the bridges that will carry Corridor H  over W.Va. 42/W.Va. 93 - and over the railroad at the generating station - have not had their stringers hung yet (though the bridge piers appear to be complete and ready for the stringers).

Quote from: machpost on September 05, 2013, 10:56:40 AM
This story claims that it will reach Davis sometime this year.

That seems optimistic, since the grading of the roadbed is not yet complete from Davis to the Grant County/Tucker County border.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

machpost

I passed through the present construction area last weekend, and they're working seven days a week. It looked like paving was complete at Bismarck, near the 93-42 split. Westward, along 93 toward Davis, a lot of work remains to be done. Depending on the amount of paving that still needs to be completed between Bismarck and Scherr, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that section open to traffic within a few months.

froggie

Even if paving was done, it may still take them a couple months to finish things up and open the road.  I've seen that with previous segments (most notably Moorefield to Knobley Rd).

cpzilliacus

Quote from: froggie on September 17, 2013, 12:22:31 PM
Even if paving was done, it may still take them a couple months to finish things up and open the road.  I've seen that with previous segments (most notably Moorefield to Knobley Rd).

Yes, and the difference in elevation (which may matter to some extent) is impressive.  Bismarck is probably the highest point along the entire Corridor H, at over 3,000 feet above sea level.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

mtfallsmikey

Being that the some of the leaves are starting to turn out my way, they should be in full color up on Corridor H in a couple of weeks or so...early this year for some reason.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.