News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Corridor H

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

Previous topic - Next topic

SP Cook

Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 09:49:42 AM

Beaver dams have environmental impact. Swarms of locusts have environmental impact.

Actually no.  All are just one part of the environment using it to their advantage.  

The problem, well, one problem, with the EPA is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that the current or "natural" (again, as man is a part of nature, everything he does is, by defination "natural") state of the environment is "good" and change is "bad" and only to be permitted after some obtuse analysis.

Is the environment "better" with or without polio?  Neither "natural" nor "current" are necessiarially "good".  

The same logic needs to be appled to road construction.  The environment will be better with a Corridor H than without it.  We need to return to using terms from wiser generations like "reclamation" and "settle" and "improve".


NE2

Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 12:19:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 09:49:42 AM

Beaver dams have environmental impact. Swarms of locusts have environmental impact.

Actually no.  All are just one part of the environment using it to their advantage. 
Just as cancer is part of your body growing.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

SP Cook

Absolutly.  Cancer is "natural".  The ordinary state of a body.  Today, man has IMPROVED upon his body by learning how to cure and prevent 1000s of types of cancer, and other diseases.

How sad that there are people that equate people with a disease.

SP Cook

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
Also correct. I understand that much of the opposition to Corridor H comes from people with money (frequently from places near Washington, D.C.) who have moved to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia to "get away from it all," and absolutely do not want the (desirable) induced traffic that will result from a completed Corridor H. Because they have money, they have no interest in the economic benefits of the highway.  And never mind the safety benefits of a modern highway.


Absolutly correct.  If by "get away from it all" you mean "start a pot farm".  Many parts of Appalachia are burdened by do-gooder flatlanders who simply "know better" and whose main political agenda is to pull the ladder of success up behind them as they spend daddy and mommy's money.

I should also add that in democrat dominated West Virginia, the Potomac Highlands have always been ancestorally Republican, and thus H was placed at the bottom of the priority list.  The other roads were completed before the BANANA movement got going to the degree of today.  There is really little difference between H and E, L, G, or Q or any of the interstates.

One of the great ironies of the whole environmental movement is the further from the "natural" (original) state of the land one is, the more likely one is to be an environmental extemist.  Consider California.  Unreclaimed, it might support 500K people, max.  An entirely artificial place, filled with people living from the benefits of projects completed by previous generations, none of which the EPA would allow today.

NE2

Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Absolutly.  Cancer is "natural".  The ordinary state of a body.  Today, man has IMPROVED upon his body by learning how to cure and prevent 1000s of types of cancer, and other diseases.
Way to miss the point. Even though cancer is part of the ordinary state, it affects the body, just as something that is part of the environment can impact the environment.

Unless you just like playing word games for the purpose of trolling.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

cpzilliacus

#180
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 02:05:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 12:08:02 PM
Also correct. I understand that much of the opposition to Corridor H comes from people with money (frequently from places near Washington, D.C.) who have moved to the Potomac Highlands of West Virginia to "get away from it all," and absolutely do not want the (desirable) induced traffic that will result from a completed Corridor H. Because they have money, they have no interest in the economic benefits of the highway.  And never mind the safety benefits of a modern highway.


Absolutly correct.  If by "get away from it all" you mean "start a pot farm".

Agreed regarding cannabis cultivation.  Especially in West Virginia, with plenty of undeveloped land and ideal growing conditions (the stuff grows naturally all over the Mountaineer State).

I've never used the stuff and don't like its vile smell.  In spite of that, I still assert that it should be legalized (not decriminalized, legalized) and taxed.  It would raise a lot of money for the state and federal governments - and possibly bankrupt the Mexican Mafias.

QuoteMany parts of Appalachia are burdened by do-gooder flatlanders who simply "know better" and whose main political agenda is to pull the ladder of success up behind them as they spend daddy and mommy's money.

Also correct.  Many of the flatlanders in question are people who have earned enough money working near the Capital Beltway (or sometimes just from real property value appreciation) to be able to relocate to West Virginia.  Yes, some of them are trust fund babies as well.  Though the syndrome is not unique to West Virginia and Corridor H.  There were similar dynamics at work in Jefferson County, W.Va., where Virginia's Piedmont Environmental Council attempted to stop WVDOH's improvements to W.Va. 9 between Charles Town and the Virginia/West Virginia border (VDOT has no money, and there is opposition in Loudoun County to improving Va. 9 between the state line and Clarke's Gap - and never mind that there have been some terrible crashes along this road in both states).

QuoteI should also add that in democrat dominated West Virginia, the Potomac Highlands have always been ancestorally Republican, and thus H was placed at the bottom of the priority list.  The other roads were completed before the BANANA movement got going to the degree of today.  There is really little difference between H and E, L, G, or Q or any of the interstates.

Western Maryland (from west to east Garrett, Alleganey and Washington Counties) was (and is) very Republican as compared to the rest of the state, though the administrations of the late Gov. William Donald Schaefer (D) and before him, Gov. Harry Hughes (also D) strongly supported completing Corridor E, in spite of (occasionally strong) environmental opposition.

QuoteOne of the great ironies of the whole environmental movement is the further from the "natural" (original) state of the land one is, the more likely one is to be an environmental extemist.  Consider California.  Unreclaimed, it might support 500K people, max.  An entirely artificial place, filled with people living from the benefits of projects completed by previous generations, none of which the EPA would allow today.

S.P., sage and correct comment.  Southern California is profoundly dependent on its freeway network, its ports, its high-voltage transmission lines (like this one) and water transportation projects (like this one and this one). 

San Francisco, home to the national headquarters of the Sierra Club, likely would not exist in its current form without the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct (and yes, I know that John Muir, one of the founders of the Sierra Club, was opposed to construction of the O'Shaughnessy Dam which impounds the waters of the Tuolumne River, which are then diverted to San Francisco and environs).

For more reading on so-called environmentalism in California, read this on the NewGeorgaphy site.

For decades I have observed persons loudly (and often cravenly) opposed to the (relatively short) InterCounty Connector toll toad project in my home state of Maryland show up at public meetings and hearings in their single-occupant vehicles to claim that the road is not (and will never be) needed because mass transit is a an acceptable substitute and that "better land use patterns" (in other words, high-density apartment building development far from their single-family detached homes) will obviate the need for the road.
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 am still curious as to why Froggie might think Corridor H is a detriment.

Talking environmentalism in general, seems to me that it would be environmentally correct to have a shorter and faster route from the Midwest to the DC area that would result in the use of less gasoline, and all the supposed problems that come from gas.

Any traffic from the Midwest (Denver-KC-STL-Louisville-Lexington-Huntington-Charleston corridor) driving to DC must go well out of the way to the north via I-79, I-68, I-70 and I-270, or well out of the way to the south using I-77, I-64, I-81 and I-66. This is extra mileage, which would result in the use of more gas if the terrain was level, but add the mountains and even more gas gets burned. Corridor H will provide more of a straight route and will shorten the drive from Charleston to DC. And it seems to me that the mountain crossings are easier than the other routes, as well.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
I've never used the stuff and don't like its vile smell.

I have never even so much as tried marijuana. I'm proud of that fact. And the smell of it gives me a terrible headache.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Alps

A) Marijuana is wonderful.
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.
D) No, seriously, have you smoked up yet?

Beltway

#183
Quote from: NE2 on January 15, 2012, 02:51:51 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 01:53:39 PM
Absolutly.  Cancer is "natural".  The ordinary state of a body.  Today, man has IMPROVED upon his body by learning how to cure and prevent 1000s of types of cancer, and other diseases.
Way to miss the point. Even though cancer is part of the ordinary state, it affects the body, just as something that is part of the environment can impact the environment.

Unless you just like playing word games for the purpose of trolling.

Hurricanes and tornadoes and tsunamis are part of nature, as well.

Post Merge: January 16, 2012, 03:16:26 AM

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
A) Marijuana is wonderful.
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.

Expressway construction cost per mile is about 1/2 that of a freeway.  They provide the benefits of 4 lanes and limited access, at a much more affordable cost, and are quite appropriate for rural interregional highways in the 7,000 to 15,000 AADT range.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

hbelkins

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
B) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.

1. But it will once the entire through route is built and it diverts some traffic off I-68 to the north and I-64 to the south.
2.) When did Randy Hersh adopt Steve Alpert's identity?

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
C) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.

They build them with few traffic lights and sign them for 65 mph. Plenty good enough.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Alps

I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 08:38:41 PM
A) Marijuana is wonderful.

I dislike the stuff.  But I still support its legalization.

QuoteB) Corridor H tears apart hillsides and doesn't get nearly enough traffic to justify itself as a four-lane expressway.

Wonder if they said the same thing about the original Pennsylvania Turnpike?  Or Corridor E/I-68?

Or any number of proposed projects elsewhere? 

"This proposed highway is not needed" is a phrase I have heard more than a few times.

QuoteC) WV's tendency to build expressways instead of freeways is annoying at best.

As long as the road does not bear an Interstate designation, I think expressways are fine.

QuoteD) No, seriously, have you smoked up yet?

Not me!
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.

Beltway

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

Beltway

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

The cuts are not visible from 99% of the land area.

The cuts are an important part of the human environment, just like buildings in cities.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

The cuts are not visible from 99% of the land area.

The cuts are an important part of the human environment, just like buildings in cities.
That last statement proves that you're just arguing for argument's sake.

hbelkins

Kentucky does pretty much the same thing as West Virginia when it comes to building roads through the mountains. You ought to check out the two newest sections of US 119 for evidence.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

J N Winkler

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 15, 2012, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on January 15, 2012, 02:05:57 PMOne of the great ironies of the whole environmental movement is the further from the "natural" (original) state of the land one is, the more likely one is to be an environmental extemist.  Consider California.  Unreclaimed, it might support 500K people, max.  An entirely artificial place, filled with people living from the benefits of projects completed by previous generations, none of which the EPA would allow today.

S.P., sage and correct comment.  Southern California is profoundly dependent on its freeway network, its ports, its high-voltage transmission lines (like this one) and water transportation projects (like this one and this one).

California does depend on infrastructure to carry its population and support its economy, but S.P.'s statement is just wrong.  California's population has been above 500,000 since 1870, when there were no surfaced roads, no aqueducts, and no electricity.  California had almost 7 million people when the first freeway opened.  The era of aqueduct construction began around 1910 (construction on Hetch Hetchy started 1914, Owens Valley aqueduct started 1913), when the population was 2.3 million, and since the main purpose of those aqueducts was to cater for planned rather than existing development, the break-even point on water sales lagged construction by decades--in the case of the Colorado River aqueduct this was 1954 for a facility which was conceived in 1923 and opened in 1935.

California is a large and resource-rich state and this has allowed it to sustain decade-on-decade population increases of more than 18% in every decade after statehood (except in the last two decades, with growth rates of 13.8% from 1990-2000 and 10% from 2000-2010), despite a small, late-developing, and poorly articulated railroad system, a long history of low per-capita and per-mile highway spending before Collier-Burns, and relatively low per-capita freeway provision (in terms both of centerline and lane mileage).

Added infrastructure in California would probably pay its way but it goes too far to say that it is "an entirely artificial place."  Today's population would probably fit in the California of 1940, albeit at some penalty in standard of living.
"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

Beltway

Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:52:51 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:30:59 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 15, 2012, 10:23:04 PM
Quote from: The Situation™ on January 15, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
I didn't say it's not inappropriate, but annoying. Especially because they call them "freeways" and put them in Federal freeway corridors (I-73, I-66, etc.) And most especially because of the way they tear up the hillside. I don't think it's worth it at all. If you have the traffic to justify a four-lane highway, build some freaking tunnels or do some engineering instead of blasting everything away until you have a flat surface. No other state does it like WV does.

How do they call them freeways?

Tunnels are extremely expensive to build, and have operational restrictions.

The cuts make up, what, about 0.0001% of the state's land area?
I have no idea how they define "freeway." But the cuts are visible all over the state and just scar the natural beauty. I hate it, absolutely hate it.

The cuts are not visible from 99% of the land area.

The cuts are an important part of the human environment, just like buildings in cities.
That last statement proves that you're just arguing for argument's sake.

No, it is arguing from a point of reality.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

NE2

#194
Typical right-wing solipsistic behavior. If you don't agree with it it's not real.

Post Merge: January 17, 2012, 04:17:06 AM

Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2012, 07:19:42 PM
a shorter and faster route from the Midwest to the DC area
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

SP Cook

A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66. 

As to California, its a comeback to say that the figure is "only" one out of 50 Californians could actually be supported by the land, unreclaimed, rather than one out of 100?

As to pot, I don't use the stuff.  I used to really not care, but the more potheads I am around, the more I think its a "chicken and egg" deal.  Is it that people that belive crazy crap also smoke pot, or that pot makes you believe crazy crap.  I am begining to think its the latter.

As to WV and expressways, our "corridor standard" is wonderful.  As our great governor once said "if you don't want to look at it, feel free to drive the old route, I'll see you next week when you get here.".  Really the mountainside cuts (which KY, TN, etc also do) are 0.001% of the surface, and if you take a walk in the woods a mile in any direction, you will find plenty of "natural" mountains to look at.

NE2

Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 78, then H, then 66. 
(I assume you mean 79, not 78.) Maybe by passenger cars looking to avoid congestion (in which case I-64 to I-79 to Corridor H would be better, as well as shorter). But trucks benefit from flat highways, which Corridor H is not. Add to that the fact that I-70 to I-270 is shorter (as is the toll bypass via I-68), and the only reason to use Corridor H as a trucker is if you have stops along the way.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

SP Cook

The flatness of a completed H is actually pretty equal to either 70/270 70/79 (yes I made a typo) / 68/70/270.

J N Winkler

Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AMAs to California, it's a comeback to say that the figure is "only" one out of 50 Californians could actually be supported by the land, unreclaimed, rather than one out of 100?

Who said "only"?  What is your attribution for that quote?

In any case, "one out of 50 . . . one out of 100" misrepresents your original claim, let alone the rebuttal.  It is usually a bit silly to fact-check counterfactuals, but your claim about the carrying capacity of "land, unreclaimed" in California bears such a tenuous relationship to the historical demography of that state that it invites a skeptical and suspicious reading of your arguments about Corridor H.
"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

hbelkins

Quote from: NE2 on January 16, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
Only if you count Louisville as being in the Midwest. If you're going anywhere west of St. Louis, I-270 to I-70 is shorter (and probably has better grades).

Not really. I-70 makes that northward jaunt to Indianapolis, whereas I-64 is a straighter shot. Plus with I-70 you have to deal with:

1.) Indianapolis
2.) Columbus
3.) Wheeling
4.) The substandard portion between Washington and New Stanton
5.) Tolls on the Turnpike
6.) Breezewood

I-64/I-79/Corridor H only involves going through Louisville and Charleston, and they are not as big as Indy and Columbus. Plus the scenery is a lot prettier than slogging across Illinois, Indiana and Ohio on I-70, which I've done.

If I'm traveling east on I-70 approaching STL, I choose I-64.

Quote from: SP Cook on January 16, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
A completed Corridor H would be the prefered route from St. Louis to DC.  70 to Columbus, then Corridor D, then 79, then H, then 66.

How would you get from Columbus to Corridor D? Ohio hasn't finished US 33 yet.

To me the whole point of taking I-64 would be to avoid Indy and Columbus.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



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.