Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dirt Roads]

Any reason why when planning the ARC corridors, they had Corridor D end at I-79, and Corridor H as well?
Why not instead just have Corridor D follow Route 50 to I-81 instead?

I wondered the same thing back in the 1970s.  It's not like parallel corridors are discouraged, such as Corridor A and Corridor K in Western North Carolina. 

My impression is that the massive cost of the east-west crossings of the Allegheny Front limited the number of parallel Appalachian Corridors in the region.  You've got several potential east-west corridors:

Zanesville -to- New Martinsville -to- Morgantown -to- Frostburg -to- Cumberland -to- Hagerstown
Athens -to- Parkersburg -to- Clarksburg -to- Grafton -to- Red House -to- Romney -to- Winchester
Jackson -to- Pomeroy -to- Ripley -to- Spencer -to- Weston -to- Buckhannon -to- Elkins -to- Harrisonburg
Huntington -to- Charleston -to- Summersville -to- Marlinton -to- Staunton
Prestonsburg -to- Williamson -to- Logan -to- Beckley -to- Lewisburg -to- Covington -to- Lexington

Amazingly, one a few of these didn't get connected to by the Appalachian Corridor system (or the Interstate System):  Grafton WV, Jackson OH, New Martinsville WV, Pomeroy OH, Red House MD, Romney WV and Spencer WV.  Looking back with a historical lens, it looks to me that the ARC picked the least expensive routes with the most impact (with the exception of the one remaining section of Corridor H and the one prior to it).

[seicer]

I would argue that today's Corridor H route is more beneficial than the former alignment... but it's always good to look at it from a different perspective. When Corridor H was proposed, the Davis/Thomas area were declined coal and timber communities that ... while surrounded by a state park (Blackwater Falls) and near some natural recreation areas, those sites were not fully developed or marketed. Dolly Sod was still just a Scenic Area and not a Wilderness, and Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge was still an area that was proposed to be damned up for a pumped storage hydroelectric project. The original alignment led to an established recreation area by Seneca Rocks and areas in the Mon National Forest.

Fast forward 30-40 years and Davis/Thomas are fast becoming vacation communities for the eastern seaboard. Blackwater Falls is still there but more popular than ever; Dolly Sods is jam packed during the summer months; Canaan Valley is now a massive National Wildlife Refuge. Ski resorts aren't far away - Canaan Valley is close by and Snowshoe is just down the road - all easier to get to than if Corridor H was on its original alignment.

[SP Cook]

 https://www.wsaz.com/2022/11/02/groundbreaking-ceremony-held-new-culloden-exit-i-64/

Badly needed new exit, between current Milton and Hurricane exits.  Traffic from the growing Culloden and western Hurricane areas make the area around the Hurricane exit very congested. 

[Bitmapped]

I would argue that today's Corridor H route is more beneficial than the former alignment...

I'm inclined to agree with seicer's points. It's also worth noting the original eastern endpoint around Harrisonburg would have resulted in a lot of traffic having to multiplex onto I-81 to get up to I-66 whereas the new alignment has the two meeting fairly closely.

The more northern alignment has been useful in providing better connectivity between the Morgantown area and Moorefield/Shenandoah Valley in a way that the original alignment would not have been. Corridor H now forms the backbone of the preferred route between these areas, at least when it's not snowing.

[Dirt Roads]

I would argue that today's Corridor H route is more beneficial than the former alignment...

I'm inclined to agree with seicer's points. It's also worth noting the original eastern endpoint around Harrisonburg would have resulted in a lot of traffic having to multiplex onto I-81 to get up to I-66 whereas the new alignment has the two meeting fairly closely.

The more northern alignment has been useful in providing better connectivity between the Morgantown area and Moorefield/Shenandoah Valley in a way that the original alignment would not have been. Corridor H now forms the backbone of the preferred route between these areas, at least when it's not snowing.

Not sure what happened to my response to the comment from seicer, so I will repeat:  I certainly agree that the extension of Corridor H from Parsons to the Virginia Line (heading towards Strasburg) is a better route.  It is just not one of the natural east-west corridors that fall in line with each other. 

[bluecountry]

Any reason why when planning the ARC corridors, they had Corridor D end at I-79, and Corridor H as well?
Why not instead just have Corridor D follow Route 50 to I-81 instead?

Corridor D would be unnecessarily close to Corridor E (I-68). Corridor H is also more useful in providing connectivity - Buckhannon and Elkins are larger towns than Grafton, and  the Corridor H alignment is more useful as a jumping-off point to places south than US 50 would have been.

My question was how come ARC did not just have Corridor D terminate at I-81 in Winchester via Route 50 vs having Corridor D end at I-79, then have a Corridor H instead serve from I-79 to I-81.  Wouldn't one segment have made more sense than having people have to do D-79-H to 81?

My guess is that this was done to have a Parsons to Washington DC/66 via Wardensville.
If there was no Corridor H and D was just extended to 81, that would have ended in Winchester, 20+ miles north of I-66.

[Bitmapped]

Any reason why when planning the ARC corridors, they had Corridor D end at I-79, and Corridor H as well?
Why not instead just have Corridor D follow Route 50 to I-81 instead?

Corridor D would be unnecessarily close to Corridor E (I-68). Corridor H is also more useful in providing connectivity - Buckhannon and Elkins are larger towns than Grafton, and  the Corridor H alignment is more useful as a jumping-off point to places south than US 50 would have been.

My question was how come ARC did not just have Corridor D terminate at I-81 in Winchester via Route 50 vs having Corridor D end at I-79, then have a Corridor H instead serve from I-79 to I-81.  Wouldn't one segment have made more sense than having people have to do D-79-H to 81?

My guess is that this was done to have a Parsons to Washington DC/66 via Wardensville.
If there was no Corridor H and D was just extended to 81, that would have ended in Winchester, 20+ miles north of I-66.

Like I said earlier, an extended Corridor D would have been too close to Corridor E east of I-79. That's a major factor in why Corridor D ends at I-79 and not I-81.

Parsons and Wardensville were not on the original planned route of Corridor H. The original route was to continue along US 33 east of Elkins. Issues with that route resulted in lawsuits and settlements that resulted in the realignment north towards its current route.

[bluecountry]

Any reason why when planning the ARC corridors, they had Corridor D end at I-79, and Corridor H as well?
Why not instead just have Corridor D follow Route 50 to I-81 instead?

Corridor D would be unnecessarily close to Corridor E (I-68). Corridor H is also more useful in providing connectivity - Buckhannon and Elkins are larger towns than Grafton, and  the Corridor H alignment is more useful as a jumping-off point to places south than US 50 would have been.

My question was how come ARC did not just have Corridor D terminate at I-81 in Winchester via Route 50 vs having Corridor D end at I-79, then have a Corridor H instead serve from I-79 to I-81.  Wouldn't one segment have made more sense than having people have to do D-79-H to 81?

My guess is that this was done to have a Parsons to Washington DC/66 via Wardensville.
If there was no Corridor H and D was just extended to 81, that would have ended in Winchester, 20+ miles north of I-66.

Like I said earlier, an extended Corridor D would have been too close to Corridor E east of I-79. That's a major factor in why Corridor D ends at I-79 and not I-81.

Parsons and Wardensville were not on the original planned route of Corridor H. The original route was to continue along US 33 east of Elkins. Issues with that route resulted in lawsuits and settlements that resulted in the realignment north towards its current route.

Oh ok, so it had nothing to do with providing a more direct route to DC via Strasburg?

[Mapmikey]

West Virginia tried to get I-66 extended to Weston in 1970 - http://www.vahighways.com/wvannex/route-log/i066.htm

The map suggests it would've followed US 33 then VA 55 - http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/additions-1970.jpg

[amroad17]

Any reason why when planning the ARC corridors, they had Corridor D end at I-79, and Corridor H as well?
Why not instead just have Corridor D follow Route 50 to I-81 instead?

Corridor D would be unnecessarily close to Corridor E (I-68). Corridor H is also more useful in providing connectivity - Buckhannon and Elkins are larger towns than Grafton, and  the Corridor H alignment is more useful as a jumping-off point to places south than US 50 would have been.

My question was how come ARC did not just have Corridor D terminate at I-81 in Winchester via Route 50 vs having Corridor D end at I-79, then have a Corridor H instead serve from I-79 to I-81.  Wouldn't one segment have made more sense than having people have to do D-79-H to 81?

My guess is that this was done to have a Parsons to Washington DC/66 via Wardensville.
If there was no Corridor H and D was just extended to 81, that would have ended in Winchester, 20+ miles north of I-66.

Like I said earlier, an extended Corridor D would have been too close to Corridor E east of I-79. That's a major factor in why Corridor D ends at I-79 and not I-81.

Parsons and Wardensville were not on the original planned route of Corridor H. The original route was to continue along US 33 east of Elkins. Issues with that route resulted in lawsuits and settlements that resulted in the realignment north towards its current route.

Oh ok, so it had nothing to do with providing a more direct route to DC via Strasburg?

I picked up a West Virginia state map in 1996 which showed the proposed routing of Corridor H.  I believe it was to have followed US 33 to Seneca Rocks, then headed up to Petersburg, then Moorefield, and then continued on its current routing east of Moorefield.  I do remember seeing US 33 shown on the map along this proposed routing. 

I believe US 33 was shown constructed to 4-lane expressway standards east of Elkins in preparation for Corridor H--which ended up not being a part of Corridor H because of the change of routing with reasons mentioned in the above posts, hence the nickname of "The Racetrack" given to that section of US 33.  A question I have is if US 33 was to be re-routed on the original proposed Corridor H, what would the current US 33 from Seneca Rocks to Richmond been renumbered as?  US 37?  US 48?

For another topic, why is WV 55 routed the way it is?  Is this a "we need a single number to get from US 19 to Moorefield"?  The extension of WV 55 should not have occurred in the first place as it is concurrent with other routes most of the way across the state.  WV 55 should end at US 220 in Moorefield and have the independent section of WV 55 from US 19 in Muddlety to WV 20 in Craigsville be two different state routes--an extension of WV 41 from where it currently ends at WV 55 to Craigsville and WV 555 along the rest of the route to Muddlety.

[SP Cook]

WV 55 is marketing.  It was signed on the highest and/or most scenic roads in the general area.  As such it breaks the general rule that the most logical route between point a on a numbered route and point b on a numbered route, should be the numbered route, to some degree.

[Dirt Roads]

I picked up a West Virginia state map in 1996 which showed the proposed routing of Corridor H.  I believe it was to have followed US 33 to Seneca Rocks, then headed up to Petersburg, then Moorefield, and then continued on its current routing east of Moorefield.  I do remember seeing US 33 shown on the map along this proposed routing. 

I believe US 33 was shown constructed to 4-lane expressway standards east of Elkins in preparation for Corridor H--which ended up not being a part of Corridor H because of the change of routing with reasons mentioned in the above posts, hence the nickname of "The Racetrack" given to that section of US 33.  A question I have is if US 33 was to be re-routed on the original proposed Corridor H, what would the current US 33 from Seneca Rocks to Richmond been renumbered as?  US 37?  US 48?

The Racetrack portion of US-33 east of Elkins was completed in 1976 before Corridor H was into the planning development stages along the general US-33 corridor from Elkins to Seneca Rocks.  US-33 would have certainly been posted along that portion of the route, but US-220 would have been posted up to Moorefield and US-33 would have continued along its current route to Harrisonburg.  There was some speculation that the more southerly route to New Market would have been a westward extension of US-211.  But the more northernly route to Strasburg would not have been designated as a 2DUS.  Corridor E was still posted as US-48 until 1991 (when it got upgraded to I-68). 

For another topic, why is WV 55 routed the way it is?  Is this a "we need a single number to get from US 19 to Moorefield"?  The extension of WV 55 should not have occurred in the first place as it is concurrent with other routes most of the way across the state.  WV 55 should end at US 220 in Moorefield and have the independent section of WV 55 from US 19 in Muddlety to WV 20 in Craigsville be two different state routes--an extension of WV 41 from where it currently ends at WV 55 to Craigsville and WV 555 along the rest of the route to Muddlety.

WV 55 is marketing.  It was signed on the highest and/or most scenic roads in the general area.  As such it breaks the general rule that the most logical route between point a on a numbered route and point b on a numbered route, should be the numbered route, to some degree.

Indeed, WV-55 was intended to be a scenic route but the more important factor was that the numbering was intended to be a continuation of VA-55 from Strasburg, a logical pickup for tourists coming off of I-66 from the Washington D.C. metro area.

I've mentioned the scenic significance of the former WV-43 route from Muddlety -to- Craigsville on both AARoads and MTR, but it bears discussion again here.  That route was the more scenic road to Craigsville than WV-41.  The just south of Craigsville, there is a scenic overlook of the Gauley River at Crupperneck Bend, a spectacular horseshoe bend in the river.  WV-39 between Summersville and Fenwick was more direct, but most West Virginians preferred that scenic route to get from Charleston over to the Cranberry Highlands.  In 1979, WV-150 (the Highland Scenic Highway) got extended over WV-39, WV-20 and usurped WV-43 to make this route official.  Then in 1983, WV-55 was extended over this same route and WV-150 was truncated back to its former origination point.

Fun fact: WV-55 had to be routed through Marlinton in order to maintain a continuous route in the Winter.  Just like other scenic parkways high up in the Appalachians,  the Highland Scenic way (WV-150) is prone to dense snow and is usually closed for much of the Winter months.  But rather than clinching WV-55, everyone's first time from Summersville -to- Strasburg should take the Highlands Scenic Highway as the intended scenic bypass of WV-55 (and those portions of WV-39 and US-219).  [Unless you want to visit the quaint town of Marlinton].

[hbelkins]

I remember the maps showing WV 55 running only from Moorefield to the state line. There was no concurrency with US 220, WV 28, US 33, US 219, WV 39, etc.

I also remember seeing, but am not sure if I ever got a picture of, some sort of black-on-white reference marker on the "racetrack" segment of US 33 that made reference to APD. There occasionally used to be similar markers on other routes, and I remember seeing one on I-79 somewhere between Charleston and Weston.

[Great Lakes Roads]

https://www.lootpress.com/new-bill-would-increase-speed-limits-to-80-mph-on-interstates/

West Virginia must be crazy enough to raise the speed limits from 70 to 80 mph on interstate highways and four-lane limited access highways in the state. This is round 4! 

[sprjus4]

^ Didn’t they already get 75 mph authorized a few years ago? Why haven’t any interstates been signed as 75 mph since?

[Bitmapped]

^ Didn’t they already get 75 mph authorized a few years ago? Why haven’t any interstates been signed as 75 mph since?

There is no limit in state code. The Commissioner of Highways could set 75, but it needs to bear some relationship to the road itself. Design speeds don’t support a 75 speed limit.

[Ted$8roadFan]

https://www.lootpress.com/new-bill-would-increase-speed-limits-to-80-mph-on-interstates/

West Virginia must be crazy enough to raise the speed limits from 70 to 80 mph on interstate highways and four-lane limited access highways in the state. This is round 4! 

Can any interstate in WV handle an 80 mph speed limit?

[SP Cook]

- It is legislative season.  In WV, and I'm sure most states, 1000s of bills are introduced, 99% of which never get even to the floor, but people get all worked up about these anyway. 

- All speed limit discussions go back to the NMSL.  Advocates for it (police, courthouse insiders, insurance companies, and, most sadly, the useful idiots who open their yaps about subjects they do not understand) spewed their idiocy, those of us who understand traffic and safety quietly made our points.  We were right and you were wrong.  That simple.  Yet people still express their ideas on this subject.  OF COURSE, 80 MPH in WV is a great idea.  It won't pass, but of course it would free police for useful work, save motorists millions of dollars in random taxes and unfair insurance costs, and have no (or perhaps a positive) effect on traffic mortality or morbidity.  Just as we correctly said would happen as the evil NMSL slowly went away. 

[GCrites80s]

WV is an aging state demographically and I wonder how many seniors it would force off the roads. WV isn't like Ohio and many other states where one can often take the U.S. or former U.S. route that parallels the interstate without adding hours and hours to the trip. 70 is manageable for many seniors but 80 is pushing it.

[hbelkins]

https://www.lootpress.com/new-bill-would-increase-speed-limits-to-80-mph-on-interstates/

West Virginia must be crazy enough to raise the speed limits from 70 to 80 mph on interstate highways and four-lane limited access highways in the state. This is round 4! 

Can any interstate in WV handle an 80 mph speed limit?

I-64 from the I-77 split to near the bottom of the mountain where it crosses the New River. 

Seriously, it's not uncommon for me to look down at the speedometer when I'm on I-64 between Barboursville and Milton and find myself doing 80, and being passed with some regularity.

[oscar]

WV is an aging state demographically and I wonder how many seniors it would force off the roads. WV isn't like Ohio and many other states where one can often take the U.S. or former U.S. route that parallels the interstate without adding hours and hours to the trip. 70 is manageable for many seniors but 80 is pushing it.

It's a speed limit, not a target or minimum.

I drove across Montana on I-94 to I-90, in the "reasonable and prudent" era (no fixed daytime speed limit for cars). Little old ladies who were most comfortable with 65 mph did that, in the right lane, while I carefully passed them in the left lane. I think they're still doing that, after R&P limits were replaced with fixed limits (usually 80mph on the Interstates).

[amroad17]

https://www.lootpress.com/new-bill-would-increase-speed-limits-to-80-mph-on-interstates/

West Virginia must be crazy enough to raise the speed limits from 70 to 80 mph on interstate highways and four-lane limited access highways in the state. This is round 4! 

Can any interstate in WV handle an 80 mph speed limit?

In reality, NO!!!  The closest would be the section of I-64 from Barboursville to Hurricane and maybe the section of I-64 from the Morris Branch Road overpass in Lawn to Lewisburg.  Both distances are around 20 miles--which is not even worth posting an 80 mph speed limit for that section.

70 mph is fine for the Interstates in West Virginia.

[sprjus4]

^ I think 75 mph would be more reasonable in some areas.

[SP Cook]

WV is an aging state demographically and I wonder how many seniors it would force off the roads. WV isn't like Ohio and many other states where one can often take the U.S. or former U.S. route that parallels the interstate without adding hours and hours to the trip. 70 is manageable for many seniors but 80 is pushing it.

"Things said about ending 55, then 65, but were dead wrong." ??

Actually, the only parts of the WV interstate system that should not be at least 80 are the mis-designed northern third of the Turnpike, a short urban section through Charleston and a yet shorter section through Wheeling.  Corridors, which most also need a large amount of stop light removal, could almost all go to 70 or 75. 

[SP Cook]

https://wchstv.com/news/local/doh-closed-walkway-to-be-demolished-as-part-of-bridge-painting-project-in-charleston#

The enclosed walkways and staircases, which were built to allow foot traffic from the mostly poor neighborhood on the hillside down into the downtown which was being cut off by the interstate's construction, were rarely used for the intended purpose and became a haven for dope dealing, prostitution, and gang violence.  The city, which really had no authority, just padlocked it in the mid-90s and nobody really objected.