the route will be the logical travelway through that area, and it would seem to me that US 48 could be applied to all completed sections, from I-79 to Wardensville, and onto WV 55 to the VA line. Then apply "Temp 48" or "Detour 48" or "TO 48" or "WV 48, to US 48" (no AASHTO approval needed for that one) to, from west to east, US 219 from Kerens to Thomas, WV 32 from Thomas to Davis, and WV 93 from Davis to Scheer. For the year it will take to get from Scheer to Forman, US 48 could be bannered on WV 42 and CR 5, which is a good 2 lane road in that point.
We might as have the AASHTO take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.
Was Corridor H originally supposed to go to Cincinnati?
AASHTO also provides the specifications for signage. At least, the 1958 interstate signing manual I have here is courtesy of AASHO (which is what AASHTO was known as back then).
Has US-48 been signed anywhere (and not just in WVA)?
Has US-48 been signed anywhere (and not just in WVA)?
It has only been signed in VA along VA-55 from I-81 to the West Virginia boarder.
I want pics!
So US-48 has been signed as such in Virginia but not in West Virginia as of now?
I want pics!
That explains the snow... something that hopefully I'll be seeing quite a bit of when I head to NYC & LI in December.I want pics!
From January 2004...
(http://www.millenniumhwy.net/Washington_CD_2004/PICT1133.JPG)
That explains the snow... something that hopefully I'll be seeing quite a bit of when I head to NYC & LI in December.
speaking of 48, anyone have a photo of a Maryland US 48 shield?
I have not seen one.
If you would have been along I-68 back in the 80's - early 90's, you might have seen one. US-48 became I-68 in 1991.
http://www.usends.com/40-49/048_II/048_II.html (http://www.usends.com/40-49/048_II/048_II.html)
Do other Appalachian corridors have something like this?
It would seem to me that the rest of Corridor H, which is unfunded (the red and yellow parts on this map http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/route/lrgmap.html) ) would be an easy toll road. The vast majority of traffic on that section is not going to be daily commuters who are the people disadvantaged by toll roads. They are going to be people out of Huntington-Charleston or out of state going to the ski resorts, or people using the road as a throughway to and from the DC metro (if you look at a map, a completed H is a good way into DC from much of the midwest and upper south). So you eliminate at grades and start a fully limited road at Kerens, with an exit for WV 72, one for US 219 and WV 32, one at Bismarck and end at Scheer. This would get H finished in whatever amount of time the construction takes (other than the section from Wardensville to the VA line for which funding can be found, and the VA sections, which is a tempest in a teapot, VA will build it).
Hey, I just got the WVDOT Official 2008-2009 Map the other day. Is there any legitimacy or timetable to the proposed area running from Elkins to Route 220 along WV 93 and US 219?
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...
Some of the Alabama corridors have "special signage"...
US 72 east of Huntsville has similar signage. Unfortunately, I don't have a picture. (Or fortunately, if you're agentsteel53. :sombrero:)
There are also blue AL 67, AL 20, & AL 24 shields in Alabama. Most of the blue AL 4 shields are west of Exit 52 on US 78, but there are a few east of there.
I can't see how this thing is going to get completed between Davis and Kerens, though....that is the biggest section and it hasn't even been placed under final design yet!
Mitch Daniels also convinced the Indiana Legislature to "cash in" on the Indiana Toll Road to the tune of $3.85 billion. That, in no small part, is what's paying for the I-69 extension. West Virginia, meanwhile, is relying largely on ADHS funding to pay for Corridor H.
WV-55/WV-259 West. Wardensville to Moorefield, WV
Be well,
Bryant
Apparently, WVDOH is combining and accelerating projects (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/531984.html?nav=5014) to where the Davis-to-Bismark segment (generally along WV 93) will be under contract beginning this fall and could be completed in 2013...5 years ahead of schedule and about the same timeframe that Bismark-to-Forman is expected to be completed.
Someone I know tweeted about this one...it's a partial set of plans (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Manuals/Plan%20Presentation/Large%20Roadway/X312-H-93.37%2002/Pages%20151-179%20from%20X312-H-93.37%2002.pdf) from WVDOH for the soon-to-open segment from Forman to Moorefield, including signage plans at the CR 5 interchange at Forman.
Someone I know tweeted about this one...it's a partial set of plans (http://www.transportation.wv.gov/highways/engineering/Manuals/Plan%20Presentation/Large%20Roadway/X312-H-93.37%2002/Pages%20151-179%20from%20X312-H-93.37%2002.pdf) from WVDOH for the soon-to-open segment from Forman to Moorefield, including signage plans at the CR 5 interchange at Forman.
Two observations:
1.) US 48 is the signed route. WVDOH ought to go ahead and sign the entire corridor, including the existing WV 93 and US 219 two-lane connecting segments.
2.) No Clearview. All the new signage I've seen in West Virginia lately uses Clearview.
1.) US 48 is the signed route. WVDOH ought to go ahead and sign the entire corridor, including the existing WV 93 and US 219 two-lane connecting segments.
2.) No Clearview. All the new signage I've seen in West Virginia lately uses Clearview.
As a general rule, from about a half mile east of WV 32 to about a half mile west of the dam, that is more or less the plan, though the shapefile suggests some curves would be smoothed/straightened out. From the dam east would be off-alignment, starting with a new bridge about a third of a mile downriver from the dam.The one mentioned in the above quoted post. Thanks!
That's WVDOH's "all routes" shapefile. I think it's downloadable from the WVDOT website, but I don't remember offhand where I got it. Requires having a viewer that can read shapefiles.
WV plans are not to sign the route as US 48 until the "logical" route from Wardensville to Elkins. Which I take to mean all of the parts shown in blue on the state's website. The state is concerned about siphoning through traffic off I-81 and dumping it onto the local roads. Once the blue parts are finished, the remaining (the red parts) could easily be signed as "temp 48" and be fine.
If you do Froggie, let me know if US-48 shields are posted, because I would like to get to work on WV US-48's file for the CHM site.
WV plans are not to sign the route as US 48 until the "logical" route from Wardensville to Elkins
QuoteIf you do Froggie, let me know if US-48 shields are posted, because I would like to get to work on WV US-48's file for the CHM site.
Already done and submitted.
What's the CHM site?
I didn't ask in that direction, but presumably only to Knobley Rd.
I didn't ask in that direction, but presumably only to Knobley Rd.
I think then I'll shoot off an e-mail to WVDOT about that later today to be on the safe side.
Someone called VAFreeways (is he a member here?)
- Knobley Rd (CR 3, and the west end of the completed segment)
Quote- Knobley Rd (CR 3, and the west end of the completed segment)
The signing of Corridor H as US 48 currently is limited to the section generally between Knobley Road (Grant CR 3) to Wardensville. If additional information is needed, please contact Mr. David Bodnar of our Engineering Division at [phone number removed].
I talked to a WVDOH sign engineer about this, and he said they plan on signing US 48 all the way to the Virginia line...keeping the WV 55 shields in the process.
QuoteI talked to a WVDOH sign engineer about this, and he said they plan on signing US 48 all the way to the Virginia line...keeping the WV 55 shields in the process.
Have you thought about going out yourself on a Saturday and looking? After all it's only about 2-3 hour drive from Pittsburgh.
Key word there is "plan". I just want 100% conformation that it will(is) posted all the way to VA. ;) Can't hurt to be safe before WV US-48 is put online.
no, it is correctly identifying US-277. It just happens to be made to 1961 spec, complete with Series A font.
Brian Powell has a photo of a US 48 shield on his flickr site (alas I am at work and can't access it) but it is the same as that Oklahoma 62.
You won't. All the US 48 shields are in the same format as the one in the photo.
All of Virginia's posted US 48 shields look like this:
Someone called VAFreeways (is he a member here?) made a video of the new corridor H:
Noticed yesterday that the initial distance sign westbound just before the river bridge in Moorefield (which had shown distances to Thomas and Elkins) has since been replaced by one that only shows the mileage to Patterson Creek Rd. Curiously, a similar distance sign near the west end at Knobley Rd remains in place.
I drove over WV 93 on the way back home yesterday. The piers are all in for the high bridges over 93 between Scherr and US 50 and the approaches are built up; I'm curious to see whether or not this is completed this summer.
Alternatives B, C, and D are the finalists. A pubic hearing will take place next month with a decision being made by April. I travel this way quite a bit from Central PA to Franklin, WV, and I hope that this comes to fruition!
http://times-news.com/local/x1095948073/Highway-officials-outline-routes-to-connect-I-68-with-Corridor-H
Here is the map (on page 12): http://apps.roads.maryland.gov/WebProjectLifeCycle/AL613_11/htdocs/Documents/Location_Design/US%20220%20Brochure%20Spreads%20with%20comment%20card.pdf
I like highways as much as the next guy on here, and I agree that the road is very scenic. However, it's a monumental waste of money that connects nowhere to nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong.
An update at the Corridor H website has 4 new milestones: Knobley Rd to Rt 93, fall of this year
and to the intersection with Rt 32 at Davis, fall of 2014.
Right now it's a pain to take Greenland Gap or WV 42 to Knobley to access the route.
The WV 93 crossing is very close to the WV 42 intersection.
That should be a really easy upgrade, as most of it west of the lake should be just adding two lanes to existing WV 93.
Not really odd, if you factor in topography. CR 1/Scherr Rd is in a valley in that location, while Corridor H will be riding the top of the ridge...hence the extra-long (and extra-high) bridge in that location. Also the reason why Corridor H needs a connector to WV 93 instead of intersecting more directly. That and there's basically nothing to intersect between Scherr Rd and Knobley Rd.
Third: Unless Rt. 55 from Wardensville/Va. border becomes "unserviceable" or money comes in to build w/definite timeline (this per original agreement) to finish, or stimulus money gets allocated in the future (was rerouted to other projects in W.V.) or they attempt again to mooch money from DHS (escape route from D.C.) to finish it,the last W.V. section may not be done in my lifetime to Strasburg.
USEPA Region III Administrator (and former congressman) Peter Kostmayer was fired (http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-20/news/25687710_1_jay-rockefeller-peter-kostmayer-key-waiver) by the Clinton Administration in 1995 in part for opposing Corridor H (and Kostmayer may have been funding groups opposed to the project with federal taxpayer dollars, a no-no). A friend of mine who was with a different federal agency at the time told me that Kostmayer instructed his staff at Region III that his highest policy priority was to get any and all proposed highway projects in the Region III states (Pa., Del., Md., Va., W.Va. and D.C.) cancelled for environmental reasons.
USEPA Region III Administrator (and former congressman) Peter Kostmayer was fired (http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-20/news/25687710_1_jay-rockefeller-peter-kostmayer-key-waiver) by the Clinton Administration in 1995 in part for opposing Corridor H (and Kostmayer may have been funding groups opposed to the project with federal taxpayer dollars, a no-no). A friend of mine who was with a different federal agency at the time told me that Kostmayer instructed his staff at Region III that his highest policy priority was to get any and all proposed highway projects in the Region III states (Pa., Del., Md., Va., W.Va. and D.C.) cancelled for environmental reasons.
At the risk of going off-topic, this is one of the things that irritates me most about government.
We have one agency trying to keep another agency from doing something that would be a benefit to the public. That is a total waste of money and time and effort.
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say. A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5. But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal.
The answer, of course, is a "notwithstanding" clause. Congress should appropriate funds to improve the lives of Earth's most important species "notwithstanding" any environmental regulation.
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say. A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5. But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal.
The answer, of course, is a "notwithstanding" clause. Congress should appropriate funds to improve the lives of Earth's most important species "notwithstanding" any environmental regulation.
To be fair, it's both a benefit AND a detriment to the public.
To be fair, it's both a benefit AND a detriment to the public.
How is Corridor H a detriment to the public?
nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environmentWow.
Corridor H is really no different from any other road in Appalachia. It just has bad timing.
The other interstates and corridors in WV were finished earlier for various political and social reasons. By the time it was Corridor H's "turn" the state was bankrupt and they BANANAs had theirs and wanted no one else to have anything.
Really, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance. Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.
Beaver dams have environmental impact. Swarms of locusts have environmental impact.
Just as cancer is part of your body growing.
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.
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. 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.
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.
I've never used the stuff and don't like its vile smell.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.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?
That last statement proves that you're just arguing for argument's sake.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.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?
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.
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie)) and water transportation projects (like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct) and this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Aqueduct)).
That last statement proves that you're just arguing for argument's sake.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.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?
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.
a shorter and faster route from the Midwest to the DC areaOnly 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).
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.
As 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?
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).
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.
And I-79 winds through the mountains. According to Google Maps, from St. Louis to Washington, DC: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.
And I-79 winds through the mountains. According to Google Maps, from St. Louis to Washington, DC: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.
*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/68/70/270: 845 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/68/70/270: 847 miles
*I-64/79/H/I-66: 848 miles (using US 219-WV 93-Greenland Gap to fill the gap)
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/H/I-66: 862 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/H/I-66: 864 miles
*I-70/D/I-79/68/70/270: 863 miles
*I-64/71/D/I-79/68/70/270: 869 miles
*I-64/79/68/70/270: 872 miles
*I-64/81/66: 879 miles
Personally, if I were making the drive, I'd probably go H one way and I-70 the other. And there are a fair number of decent alternates in the middle (such as cutting down to D on I-74 or US 33). Hell, I could probably choose a route based on where I'd be during rush hour.
But it's clear that Corridor H won't provide any significant advantage over the current routes.
Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.And I-79 winds through the mountains. According to Google Maps, from St. Louis to Washington, DC: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.
*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/68/70/270: 845 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/68/70/270: 847 miles
*I-64/79/H/I-66: 848 miles (using US 219-WV 93-Greenland Gap to fill the gap)
*I-70/US 33/D/I-79/H/I-66: 862 miles
*I-70/US 35/D/I-79/H/I-66: 864 miles
*I-70/D/I-79/68/70/270: 863 miles
*I-64/71/D/I-79/68/70/270: 869 miles
*I-64/79/68/70/270: 872 miles
*I-64/81/66: 879 miles
Personally, if I were making the drive, I'd probably go H one way and I-70 the other. And there are a fair number of decent alternates in the middle (such as cutting down to D on I-74 or US 33). Hell, I could probably choose a route based on where I'd be during rush hour.
But it's clear that Corridor H won't provide any significant advantage over the current routes.
29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures. That is significant. Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.
With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --
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
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.
29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures. That is significant. Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.
With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --
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-70/270: 827 miles29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures. That is significant. Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.
With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --
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-68 is more than a "few" miles, it's more like 20.
Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi
Truckers report very slow speeds on the numerous steep grades on I-68.
I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.
Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --Careful! I don't know where you're getting 614 miles, but drag the line to I-68 and it's 592. A whopping 8 miles extra.
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi
*I-70/270: 827 miles29 miles shorter than I-64/81/66, according to your figures. That is significant. Avoiding 110 miles of I-81 is rather significant as well.Then sacrifice a few miles and take I-68, knocking out #4-#6. I-470 knocks out #3. Indy and Columbus are all that's left. I've been through Indy during rush hour with no problem on either side of town. Time your trip right, I-70/68 is definitely the way to go.
With regard to I-70, as HB said (also very significant) --
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-68 is more than a "few" miles, it's more like 20.
Per Google Maps, D.C. to Indy --
I-70 W -- 584 mi
I-68 W and I-70 W -- 614 mi
Truckers report very slow speeds on the numerous steep grades on I-68.
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.
EDIT: I-68 route becomes 592, compared to 584. Your 614 is at best mistaken, perhaps disingenuous, at worst politicking (=lying).
I got it from Google Maps.You got it wrong. Google Maps says 592 miles, not 614.
I got it from Google Maps.You got it wrong. Google Maps says 592 miles, not 614.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=washington+dc&daddr=39.6982,-79.33052+to:indianapolis&hl=en&sll=39.359785,-78.684082&sspn=1.909058,4.216003&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-ylb5PZa3sa3iTEqXYjUIkVSwg%3BFRi_XQIdKINF-ymP3Sk4rLPKiTGk9kNbdai6mQ%3BFcTRXgIdBlXd-ikDanmn_1BriDF86rlA9p2O1g&vpsrc=0&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9
??? You had the same figure as me for I-70 all the way (584 miles), so unless you dragged the DC marker 22 miles to the east, your 614-miles route wasn't I-70/68.I got it from Google Maps.You got it wrong. Google Maps says 592 miles, not 614.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=washington+dc&daddr=39.6982,-79.33052+to:indianapolis&hl=en&sll=39.359785,-78.684082&sspn=1.909058,4.216003&geocode=FQh-UQIdsoRo-ylb5PZa3sa3iTEqXYjUIkVSwg%3BFRi_XQIdKINF-ymP3Sk4rLPKiTGk9kNbdai6mQ%3BFcTRXgIdBlXd-ikDanmn_1BriDF86rlA9p2O1g&vpsrc=0&mra=dpe&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9
I surmise that that depends on where Google Maps sets the exact point for "Washington, DC", etc. .... also, unless you zoom in and look at the whole route you might not realize that it didn't go exactly where you wanted it to.
Between I-68/I-70 junction in MD and I-79/I-70 east junction in PA --That percentage is meaningless unless you're going from Hancock to Washington. If I'm going a block away, I can make the trip 200% longer by going around the block. But as part of a cross-country trip, those two extra blocks are nothing.
Via I-68 is 166 miles
Via I-70 is 152 miles
I-68 is 9.2% longer, which is significant.
Also, truckers report that I-68's grades make it significantly slower in average speed than on the PA Turnpike. Time for them is money, and they would not necessarily prefer I-68 as an alternate to I-70, even with the tolls on the Turnpike.But we're getting away from the big issue, which is that there's a reason truckers use I-70 over I-68: grades. Somehow I think that's going to be a problem on Corridor H too:
I-68 is a beautiful highway, but it is not a panacea.
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.
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.
Even if the section from Wardensville to Strasburg doesn't get finished anytime soon, that's only a 20-mile stretch of two-lane that is not a bad drive at all. I'd prefer it over I-68/I-70/I-270 or I-64/I-81.
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.
Even if the section from Wardensville to Strasburg doesn't get finished anytime soon, that's only a 20-mile stretch of two-lane that is not a bad drive at all. I'd prefer it over I-68/I-70/I-270 or I-64/I-81.
Is the boldface really necessary?
Actually, I'm winning the argument, and there's no abuse. When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.) Show us your original link that gave 614 instead of 592 and prove your point.*I-70/270: 827 miles
*I-70/79/68/70/270: 835 miles
I fail to understsand how your results vary by more than 0 miles. And I'm referring to cars. Trucks would not want to drive Corridor H any more than they would I-68.
EDIT: I-68 route becomes 592, compared to 584. Your 614 is at best mistaken, perhaps disingenuous, at worst politicking (=lying).
When you are losing an argument, you retaliate with personal abuse.
I got it from Google Maps.
I know what truckers say about I-68 ... you don't know that they think.
When speaking in writing, which usually means without face-to-face contact, I do not think it does any harm.
When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.)
When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.)
You're kidding, right?
You are right that this isn't the place. So please don't pick it up and argue it with me; I'm not interested in picking a fight. Just realize that there a lot of us on the other side of the political spectrum that are of the well-considered opinion (arrived at by both observation and personal experience) that it's just the opposite.
I did my own Indianapolis-to-DC route comparison (traffic circle in downtown Indianapolis to Zero Milestone in DC, to be precise), and came up with all of the distance values that have been referenced so far in this thread, plus 620 miles for a Corridor H variant routing. The best Corridor H routing I have been able to find (passing through Parkersburg, Buckhannon, Elkins, Petersburg, and Moorefield, all of which I have seen referenced in various Corridor H construction plans I have found here and there) is 600 miles, which compares unfavorably with 584 miles by the existing shortest freeway route (I-70/I-270, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike through Somerset County). This 600-mile routing runs along some state highways (e.g., SR 47) in West Virginia which look very tortuous.
When you lose the argument, you make it personal so that you can appeal to emotions. I won't paint all conservatives that way, but it's a tactic used more by them than by liberals. (That's a discussion not for a roads board.)
Naturally, I would disagree. It's been my experience that conservatives tend to use facts and logic more than emotions.
Run St. Louis to DC via I-70 and via I-64/I-79/Corridor H for a better comparison.That's the first comparison I made. I-70 wins.
Actually, I think I've provided some logical reasons why, when completed, Corridor H would be a logical through route over I-70 from St. Louis to DC.
Since some Kentucky corridors are two-lane, there's no reason you can't call the Virginia portion complete.
I've driven US 48 in VA... it's a decent road, and it wouldn't be too difficult to "arterialize" the road like they did with US 522 north of Winchester. A short bypass around Lebanon Church would be in order.
There was a story in a local paper last year (I believe it was the Buckhannon paper) where the republican gubernatorial candidate claimed that he spoke to the gov. of VA regarding Corridor H. He claimed that the VA gov. would be interested in working with a republican gov. from WV to get H done. Seems unlikely to me, but that's politicians for you. I wish I could provide a link, but that paper never did put the article on their web site (which is just about useless, anyway).
(http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/556163_10100703340886150_12904118_50977683_1411683014_n.jpg)
Corridor H/US 48's western terminus at Knobley Road/CO 3 in Grant County, West Virginia northwest of Petersburg. Segments to the west are not signed US 48 currently.
(And yes, a lot of Corridor H has been completed or is under construction in West Virginia. I have more photos to process from the trip, which did not involve photographing Corridor H, but includes a few shots of the ROW clearing and construction along WV 93 east of Davis to Knobley Road.
Corridor H is easily the most important infrastructure project in the state and, when completed, will result in our greatest return on investment.
Unfortunately, Corridor H has long been labeled a pork-barrel project nationally with virtually no politically defensible reason to exist when viewed from that perspective.
But recasting Corridor H's political image can and should be a top priority for West Virginia's congressional delegation.
It begins by making the case for funding its completion as Interstate 66 under the auspices of Homeland Security as a planned evacuation route for Washington and Northern Virginia. ....
Direct access to the Virginia Inland Port in Front Royal, Va., could benefit West Virginia tremendously by opening the state's heartland to a wide range of new international business and industrial opportunities.
This is especially true given the soon-to-be-completed Panama Canal expansion, coupled with the fact that the inland port serves as a designated U.S. Customs and U.S. Department of Agriculture point of entry ....
Let's borrow a page from the Eisenhower administration and expand upon what has been proven to be one of the greatest economic development projects in our nation's history.
I-66 is worth fighting for, and when it is completed it will yield one of the highest returns of any investment in infrastructure in West Virginia history.
I-66 is worth fighting for, and when it is completed it will yield one of the highest returns of any investment in infrastructure in West Virginia history.
Isn't the average spacing of at-grade intersections about 1/2 mile?
QuoteIsn't the average spacing of at-grade intersections about 1/2 mile?
The average spacing is just under a mile. Shortest spacing is 2/10ths, while the longest is 2-and-a-quarter.
Local population would have opinions about whether they would want to see access to the highway eliminated at a particular intersection, or have their local road severed or rerouted to another bridge crossing via construction of a service road.
The main goal is to get it all built including the 10 miles in Virginia to connect to I-81 and I-66.
... the legislation ... eliminat[es] the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars.
If this July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:Quote... the legislation ... eliminat[es] the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars.
If this July 23 article (http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2012/07/transportation_bill_eliminates.html) is correct in reporting that MAP-21 has changed the ADHS funding formula so that ADHS projects now can be paid 100% with federal dollars, then I wonder if Virginia will now make a play for the "free money" and build its ten miles?:Quote... the legislation ... eliminat[es] the requirement that the state provide a 20 percent match for federal funding. Now Appalachian Development Highway System projects can be paid for 100 percent with federal dollars.
Not exactly. The devil is in the details.
As I understand it, the previous system was thus:
There was an "ARC" pot of money that would fund ARC Corridors and only ARC Corridors on an 80-20 basis. This was a seperate pot of money from "regular" DOT money. Esentually this was an "earmark", because a state could not tap the money for any other project. A state had a choice of spending its 20% match to tap the 80% or (the oppositon party would say) "gave back" the 80% money.
Now, if I have this correct, there is no ARC pot of money, nor are there really any "earmarks". Each state just gets $X and can spend them on any "core project" it wishes. The "core projects" include any uncompleted ARC Corridor and 1000s of other roads such as the "High Priority Corridors", and some new thing called the "National Freight System". And, new to MAP 21, each state must spend enough to meet a federal maintence standard (apparently if a state's roads fall to a certain level of disrepair, it has to spend some of its appropriation on that, and not new construction).
To continue with Corridor H, Virginia COULD build its part of Corridor H with 100% federal money, yes. But that would be out of the finite regular amount appropriated to Virginia as a whole, not "free money". Virginia could just as easily build a new road in NOVA, or the Tidewater or whatever from the list of dozens and dozens of "core projects".
The bill does, however, require each state to come up with a "plan" on how it will eventually finish each Corridor, but that that is little more that them saying where on the list of "core projects" they place a particular road.
This does seem to be a "brave new world" as, in the politics of each state (even WV, where although the entire state is in the ARC, all of the Corridors are finished save H) as Appalachian politicians can no longer say that if the state does not build a particular road, it is just walking away from 80% funding and can't spend the money elsewhere anyway. Now it can. The politics of each ARC state would thus come into play here.
Among more than a few elected members of the Virginia General Assembly, Northern Virginia is at the absolute bottom of the list of priorities when it comes to funding. And people in Northern Virginia are (in many cases) themselves to blame for this state of affairs.
One trip on WV 72 has me completely sold on any Corridor H upgrades. I would like Interstate quality but can live with expressway like building.
I cannot fathom the amount of preparation H would require to be upgraded to interstatus requirements, there is no way the work could be accomplished smoothly no matter how much DC lubes the funding mechanismHa ha ha.
OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.
That is true, actually. With the three traffic lights (I call the triplets) between I-275 and old OH 74 backing traffic up in that area, anything east of that is rather enjoyable.OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.
Drove up to the Mount Storm area today to enjoy the autumn colors and check out the construction. The section from Knobley Road to the WV 93 connector north of Scherr appears to be ready to open any day now - all paving is done, lines are painted, signs are erected. I was so tempted to drive around that single little "road closed" sign sitting on the connector just off Route 93 (of course, about the time I would have done that, there would have been a state cop lying in wait somewhere), and I did see a pickup truck and a couple motorcycles on the new highway. They're probably waiting until closer to election day to have a formal ribbon cutting.
Beyond that part, a lot of progress has been made with grading up around Bismarck. Bridge piers are going up just downstream from the dam. There are signs along Route 93 between Davis and the Grant Co. line showing construction segment boundaries; only section 4 appears to have any earth-moving done in it, the others just have the ROW cleared, but that's been done for awhile now.
Seconded on that! Probably going to be a movement to renumber I-74 in NC, since that isn't connecting back to Cincinnati anytime soon.That is true, actually. With the three traffic lights (I call the triplets) between I-275 and old OH 74 backing traffic up in that area, anything east of that is rather enjoyable.OH 32 from Cincinnati (Eastgate) to Belpre, and US 30 across Ohio are similar highways that work well as expressways.Perhaps you should correct that to "OH 32 from the western end of the Batavia bypass..." Of course Corridor H doesn't really enter any major metropolitan area so I think you're right that it doesn't need to be an interstate freeway.
New section of Corridor H from Knobley Road to Scherr (WV 93, I guess) opened on Tuesday. http://www.statejournal.com/story/19911180/grant-county-section-of-corridor-h-opens-this-week?utm_source=StateJournal&utm_medium=twitter
New section of Corridor H from Knobley Road to Scherr (WV 93, I guess) opened on Tuesday. http://www.statejournal.com/story/19911180/grant-county-section-of-corridor-h-opens-this-week?utm_source=StateJournal&utm_medium=twitterWelcome, Brian! :-)
Just for background (not wanting to set off a big political postwar), the area in question is among the most Republican parts of WV. With little coal the natural "vote the way granddaddy shot" unionist loyalties remain strong (similar to parts of Hal Roger's distict in HB's state, etc), unchanged by the advent of the unionized mine workers. The governor's race is pretty close, although I think the democrat will win, but the rush to open this road is to insure that populace that he, unlike some previous democrat governors, actually is commited to H (which I believe he actually is, for what it is worth).
Just for background (not wanting to set off a big political postwar), the area in question is among the most Republican parts of WV. With little coal the natural "vote the way granddaddy shot" unionist loyalties remain strong (similar to parts of Hal Roger's distict in HB's state, etc), unchanged by the advent of the unionized mine workers. The governor's race is pretty close, although I think the democrat will win, but the rush to open this road is to insure that populace that he, unlike some previous democrat governors, actually is commited to H (which I believe he actually is, for what it is worth).
Curiously, a succession of Democratic Maryland governors have spent a whole lot of (mostly federal) dollars to complete what is now I-68, even though it is pretty reliably Republican (it has long been in the congressional 6th District represented by Roscoe Bartlett (R), though the district may have been sufficiently gerrymandered recently to assure his defeat in the election next week). These projects date back to the 1960's, when the old Cumberland Bypass (the now very substandard segment of the freeway through downtown Cumberland) was completed.
Curiously, a succession of Democratic Maryland governors have spent a whole lot of (mostly federal) dollars to complete what is now I-68, even though it is pretty reliably Republican (it has long been in the congressional 6th District represented by Roscoe Bartlett (R), though the district may have been sufficiently gerrymandered recently to assure his defeat in the election next week). These projects date back to the 1960's, when the old Cumberland Bypass (the now very substandard segment of the freeway through downtown Cumberland) was completed.
Because ADHS Corridor "E" was seen as a benefit to the whole state, and it has an inter-state function with the West Virginia segment to connect I-70 in Maryland with I-79 in WV. In addition to promoting economic development in Western Maryland, which was rather isolated from modern highway access.
Maryland named their segment the National Freeway, as a bypass of the National Road. One of the prime project benefits promoted by the MD state government in the 1970s and 1980s was that it would connect the Port of Baltimore with the Ohio Valley.
Because ADHS Corridor "E" was seen as a benefit to the whole state, and it has an inter-state function with the West Virginia segment to connect I-70 in Maryland with I-79 in WV. In addition to promoting economic development in Western Maryland, which was rather isolated from modern highway access.
Maryland named their segment the National Freeway, as a bypass of the National Road. One of the prime project benefits promoted by the MD state government in the 1970s and 1980s was that it would connect the Port of Baltimore with the Ohio Valley.
The larger reason (according to a longtime senior planner with SHA, now retired) was that "induced" demand for highway capacity that might result from the construction of what became I-68 was desirable. In other words, the state wanted more highway traffic headed to and coming from that part of the state.
The larger reason (according to a longtime senior planner with SHA, now retired) was that "induced" demand for highway capacity that might result from the construction of what became I-68 was desirable. In other words, the state wanted more highway traffic headed to and coming from that part of the state.
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?
To US 48? Or To WV 93? :-D
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?
To US 48? Or To WV 93? :-D
It's just a connector, basically a glorified ramp. It's doubtful it will have a name of its own unless Grant County decides it needs ones for E911 purposes.
Does anybody know if the new connector road from US-48 to WV-93 has a name?
To US 48? Or To WV 93? :-D
With the new pieces of Corridor H that are now open, this route is starting to look like a viable alternative for heading from the I-68 corridor to the Shenandoah Valley. I suspect this route will start to pop-up on more people's radar screens especially once the last piece to Bismarck is done in about two years.
Thanks for these. I head up that way a lot to do some backpacking in the mountains, and have watched various segments of Corridor H inch along. The Kerens - Davis segment isn't that bad - for a two-lane, and moves fairly quick. I've been stuck behind some logging trucks on the one long grade but it's easy to pass them on the incline.
I'm not sure why the Davis - Mt. Storm segment is such a high priority though. WV 93 was built on a new alignment in 1963-1964 to serve Mt. Storm Lake and its (very large) power plant that was finished in 1965. It has practically no traffic - although snow clearing may take a higher priority than years past with it being four-laned and a corridor route.
QuoteI'm not sure why the Davis - Mt. Storm segment is such a high priority though. WV 93 was built on a new alignment in 1963-1964 to serve Mt. Storm Lake and its (very large) power plant that was finished in 1965. It has practically no traffic - although snow clearing may take a higher priority than years past with it being four-laned and a corridor route.
It's a quick fix. Basically, all that has to be done is build a stream crossing below the dam and then build two lanes parallel to the existing route. Very little earth-moving will have to be done from the west side of the dam on to Davis. It's a great PR move; shows that progress is being made. Not to mention that it will be a lot cheaper than building from Davis on to Parsons and then on to Kerens.
I'd have rather seen the money spent on Kerens-Parsons or Parsons-Davis where there would a practical improvement.
Looking at the plans WVDOH has for Corridor H at http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/ (http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/), I'd say probably half of the Davis-Bismarck segment will actually be on a new alignment. It's not just a dualization.
From a PR perspective it does show more getting done but it doesn't really add any functional value. I'd have rather seen the money spent on Kerens-Parsons or Parsons-Davis where there would a practical improvement.
Agreed. And I still think there needs to be a US 219/US 250 bypass of Elkins.
That seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.
QuoteThat seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.
I believe there are 2 reasons for this. First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project. This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.
The second reason is that many of the curves along WV 93 don't meet design standards for 65 MPH. Especially one almost 90-degree curve west of the dam. I believe this is why only about 5 miles of the existing WV 93 alignment will be used for the dualization.
QuoteThat seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.
I believe there are 2 reasons for this. First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project. This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.
That seems a real waste, given that Virginia has four-laned a lot of roads by building a parallel carriageway and not improving the old one, and in this case the existing route is pretty flat and straight.
I believe there are 2 reasons for this. First, unlike Virginia, West Virginia has made it a point to improve the old carriageway to modern standards whenever it was used on a 4-laning project. This is a good thing, IMO, and I am very annoyed with Virginia taking the "cheap way out" when there is documented need to smooth out hills, curves, and add shoulders on its old carriageways.
As for Corridor H, I estimated that 70% of the roadway (and general alignment) west of the dam would be used based on my last trip. They were smoothing out some curves with preliminary grading, but there were difficulties with alignment selection due to Canaan Valley and Canaan Valley Institute bordering it to the south.
There is an old rail grade for part of the length, an old WM line, that should be repurposed for a rail to trail. It'd be a great connection to the ongoing efforts to convert the WM line through Thomas into a trail to connect the Blackwater Canyon Trail
thanks to winter storm Draco
People outside of The Weather Channel actually use those names? I purposely don't watch TWC so I don't know how hard they've been pushing it.
People outside of The Weather Channel actually use those names? I purposely don't watch TWC so I don't know how hard they've been pushing it.
Parts of Ontario and Quebec are due to get a big chunk of the winter storm TWC calls "Draco". The Weather Network (Canadian counterpart to TWC) isn't playing along with that name, nor is it contriving a name of its own.
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...
I honestly thought that "Storm Stories" was a decent program.
TWC is owned by NBCUniversal. Their goal is to milk TWC for every bit that it is worth - which is why you now have named winter storms, "reality" programming, even more "brave" weatherfolks standing in inch-deep water proclaiming how dangerous the situation is...
I honestly thought that "Storm Stories" was a decent program.
Agreed. But now TWC is straying too much into non-weather programming. "Coast Guard Alaska" (TWC's contribution to the glut of Alaska "reality" shows) and "Ice Pilots" come to mind. It's getting harder and harder to get actual weather information when you tune in.
Agreed. But now TWC is straying too much into non-weather programming. "Coast Guard Alaska" (TWC's contribution to the glut of Alaska "reality" shows) and "Ice Pilots" come to mind. It's getting harder and harder to get actual weather information when you tune in.
You have been in Alaska. What is your opinion of those shows?
I personally like Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic Channel (because I like cop reality shows, but also because this show seems to strive to show the entire huge state, and not just Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as a lot of the gorgeous Alaska landscape).
My favorite was "Flying Wild Alaska" (series just concluded)
Button-copy sign about to bite the dust...R.I.P. www.alpsroads.net/roads/wv/us_33
http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/558791/Icy-roads-hamper-travel-in-region.html?nav=5014
I'm surprised the existing ones have survived as long as they have.Yeah, that's why I posted that. And those watermarked pix certainly suck; I have no idea why they thought that was necessary.
The signs on I-64 near Huntington were replaced very recently - new sign supports, LED lighting and all.
First proposed in 1964, the 143-mile-long highway is the only leg of the federal Appalachian Corridor System - a network of roads designed to open Appalachia up to economic development - that has yet to be finished, according to information from the Corridor H Authority, a group advocating for the Corridor's completion.
H is the only remaining corridor in West Virginia. That's most likely what they were referring to. Given the small geographical (and exclusively West Virginian) area of the paper's coverage, it's the most logical conclusion.
H is the only remaining corridor in West Virginia. That's most likely what they were referring to. Given the small geographical (and exclusively West Virginian) area of the paper's coverage, it's the most logical conclusion.
Entirely possible, and I did not think of that likelihood.
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.Mississippi, New York, and South Carolina are closer to completion: http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusofCompletionoftheADHS.asp http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusoftheAppalachianDevelopmentHighwaySystemasofSeptember302011.asp
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.
Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?
Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).
http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusofCompletionoftheADHS.asp http://www.arc.gov/program_areas/StatusoftheAppalachianDevelopmentHighwaySystemasofSeptember302011.asp
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.
Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?
Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).
On a side note WV, the last state to complete its original interstate allottment, will probably be the first to finish its ARC.
Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?
Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).
I don't look for anything else to be done on Corridor O (US 220) since Pennsylvania has abandoned plans to build its portion of the route from the state line to Bedford. The road quality deteriorates considerably when you cross the state line going north.
Wonder if Pennsylvania was afraid that an upgrade of U.S. 220 between Bedford and Maryland might cost the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission revenue?
Wonder if Pennsylvania was afraid that an upgrade of U.S. 220 between Bedford and Maryland might cost the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission revenue?
I doubt the welfare of the PTC's revenues had anything to do with it.
I think the fact that they're trying to focus resources ($$$) one county over to finally get an upgraded US-219 between Somerset and I-68 probably had a good bit to do with it.
I can't remember for sure, but they may have actually shifted the ARC south of the Turnpike from US-220 to US-219 to try and get more $$$.
Actually, I think US 220 got swapped out for US 322.Yep. N always went south to E.
Does Maryland (with an admittedly small land area in ARC-land) have any corridors left to build?
Maybe a tiny part of Corridor N (U.S. 219 near Grantsville).
I don't look for anything else to be done on Corridor O (US 220) since Pennsylvania has abandoned plans to build its portion of the route from the state line to Bedford. The road quality deteriorates considerably when you cross the state line going north.
I drive that stretch of US 220 several times a year. Traffic easily flows 55+ through here. While some wider shoulders and turn lanes would be nice, the only real issue I have with the existing road is that traffic is heavy enough that passing can be difficult. A couple of passing lanes would easily solve this problem. A full relocation would really be a waste of money.
US 219 to the west, on the other hand, would greatly benefit from its planned full relocation. The existing alignment is very indirect, has some sharp curves, and is pretty slow.
HAGERSTOWN - Completing Corridor H is one of the most important projects identified in the Appalachian Regional Commission Interstate 81 Corridor Study.
"One of the most important gaps that should be completed is connecting Corridor H to I-81 to provide direct access to I-81 and the Virginia Inland Port," the study concludes. "This would provide intermodal access for much of northern West Virginia and an east/west highway for Virginia to Cincinnati, Ohio; Indianapolis, Ind.; and Chicago."
The study, titled Network 81: Defining the I-81 Corridor, was presented Monday during the I-81 Corridor Coalition annual conference, which is being held in Hagerstown. The coalition consists of state and local governments along the I-81 corridor from New York to Tennessee, including West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.
"West Virginia is building a four-lane, high-speed highway up to the Virginia line, where it becomes a two-lane highway," said Ray Pethtel, who authored the study and is the former interim executive director of the I-81CC.
The Corridor H Authority laid a "stage version" of Corridor H on the second floor of the Capitol on Friday, connecting the Senate chambers to the House of Delegates. The mock highway was dotted with significant markers, information booths and video about Corridor H's path, with special detail paid to a 25-mile uncompleted section midway along the route.
Local economic leaders from a seven-county region gathered in Charleston Friday to lobby for the completion of Corridor H - and garnered pledges of support from state lawmakers.
The Corridor H Authority, a group that advocates for the completion of the highway by the year 2020, set up a lifelike model of the 130-mile highway in the State Capitol Rotunda so legislators could actually see what has - and hasn't - been completed on the road, which begins at the intersection of Interstate 79 and U.S. Route 33 near Weston and will end at the junction of Interstates 81 and 66 in Front Royal, Va.
I've biked Corridor H and some of the routes out there (WV 93, US 219, etc.). Very scenic. Yeah, the grades on Corridor H are long, but it's not incredibly steep.
I went through there today, the full length of the currently-open eastern portion. Not sure how pictures will come out: Ms1995hoo was taking pictures as I drove but does not always do well because she tries to "frame" the pictures too much, and at some point my dashcam froze. So I'll see as the week goes on whether I have any good pictures.
I concur with cpzilliacus about what a great road that is. The speed limit is 65 and I had my cruise control set at 75. Very few other cars on the road. I didn't feel comfortable going faster because of the curves and because the car was somewhat heavily loaded (two sets of golf clubs plus a four-day weekend's worth of luggage). I noted the bike route signs too, but I would NOT want to ride a bike on there at all.
I came from the opposite direction from cpzilliacus. We were at the Omni Bedford Springs for the weekend (our anniversary is July 28) and we decided to go see Fallingwater afterwards. So from Fallingwater I came down PA-381 and US-40 to US-219, took that to Oakland and stopped for gas, and then I picked up US-50 east to WV-42. The view from the top of WV-42 where the Corridor H construction is underway, and from where you can see the huge bridge cp mentions, is a stunning view.
Corridor H is now my default route to or from either Western Maryland, Pittsburgh, or farther west. I'm simply utterly tired of I-270 and I-70 in Maryland. It's just too bad there's no new option across Virginia other than VA-7, US-50, I-66, or US-211 (unless I go WAY too far out of the way, and the Wife Acceptance Factor for that is LESS THAN ZERO....she indulged me quite a bit today with the Corridor H route). I'm always looking for new routes through very familiar territory.
Edited to add: I don't know what happened, but it appears my dashcam malfunctioned and got very little of Corridor H itself. Guess that just means another trip out there is in order, maybe the weekend in September when Ms1995hoo will be out of town. Good opportunity to go clinch a bunch of West Virginia routes.
....
This road should be "marketed" to residents of the D.C. and Baltimore media markets as great drive for the views. I don't know if there was a deliberate effort by WVDOT to route and align the road to make the views more spectacular, but they have done just that.
And coming up to the (current) east end at W.Va. 93, the windmills on the ridge near Mount Storm are pretty neat as well.
....
Well, you guys passed close to my house, should have stopped in for a beer...Yes, cell coverage is minimal out there, no ugly towers, or other signs of urban life needed out that way, but that is not a sermon, just a thought...
The deal with the Wardensville-Va. line is that it will not be built until:
Rt. 55 becomes "unserviceable", or..
Money with time limitations in which to spend it, or
Congress appropiates money for completion.
Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.
Well, you guys passed close to my house, should have stopped in for a beer...Yes, cell coverage is minimal out there, no ugly towers, or other signs of urban life needed out that way, but that is not a sermon, just a thought...
A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage. And I suppose it will happen over time.
Been listening to Pastor Lon's commercials on WTOP? ;-)The deal with the Wardensville-Va. line is that it will not be built until:
Rt. 55 becomes "unserviceable", or..
Money with time limitations in which to spend it, or
Congress appropiates money for completion.
I think it's the last one that will get it done. There was also a "stand still" agreement that I think was part of the Record of Decision for Corridor H between Wardensville and the Virginia border (and maybe all the way to Strasburg).Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.
I cannot answer that. Though in this case Virginia is playing the obstructionist role that Maryland has played on a project that many in Virginia want to see built.
As for running the highway through someones property, that is always a problem, though they are supposed to be made whole as part of any condemnation process.
I understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)
I don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?
QuoteI understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)
When the segment from Moorefield over to Knobley Rd opened a couple years ago, there were several officials at the dedication ceremony (I was present) that used the "emergency evacuation route" line in promoting the corridor's completion.
Completely benefits West Virginia...CP's comments about the Port of Virginia notwithstanding. I just don't see a lot of truck traffic using it to get to the Port of Virginia even if it was completed. And traffic volumes by far don't even come close to warranting 4-lanes. Virginia has other 2-lane segments far more in need of 4-laning than VA 55.
QuoteI don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?
Completely benefits West Virginia...CP's comments about the Port of Virginia notwithstanding. I just don't see a lot of truck traffic using it to get to the Port of Virginia even if it was completed. And traffic volumes by far don't even come close to warranting 4-lanes. Virginia has other 2-lane segments far more in need of 4-laning than VA 55.
Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.
Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.
what is so different about it it, with respect to a regular two-lane?
(1) Higher speeds.
I think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.
Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.
One of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all), and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass. I encountered several situations on Monday on US-219 in far western Maryland where truck drivers easily could have moved to the right halfway onto the shoulder to help let the long line of cars get by, but failed to do so. In Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.
Anyway, returning to Corridor H, if/when the West Virginia portion is ever finished, I'll be interested in seeing to what extent it siphons off any long-distance traffic that currently uses I-70 to I-68; going to southern Ohio, for example, it's easy to use Corridor H, I-79, and Corridor D, and for travel to Charleston and beyond out I-64 I could certainly see Corridor H to southbound I-79 being preferable to mixing it up with all the trucks on I-81. I wonder to what extent people see the US shield instead of the Interstate shield and automatically rule it out as an option because they assume it will be a slow road riddled with traffic lights. Of course, if the Virginia portion stays as it is today you'll have people who won't consider going that way just because they automatically rule out two-lane roads. I've given people directions to various places over the years using two-lane roads and many of them have objected because they assume the two-lane roads will be too slow (though the funny thing there is that with the route I use between Fairfax County and Charlottesville—the one via Fredericksburg, Orange and Gordonsville, emerging at Shadwell—the two-lane portions move along a lot better than the I-95 portion most of the time).
Busy high-speed two lane roads are increasingly rare.
....Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.
It takes experience and some teaching to learn how to pass on a two-lane highway. If she's not used to it, I can understand her concern.
....
QuoteI understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)
When the segment from Moorefield over to Knobley Rd opened a couple years ago, there were several officials at the dedication ceremony (I was present) that used the "emergency evacuation route" line in promoting the corridor's completion.
"Emergency evacuation" was also the excuse for jamming down Arlington's throats a few miles of auxiliary lanes on westbound I-66 inside the Capital Beltway. I was one of the few in Arlington to support the project, but I found the evacuation excuse unconvincing there, as I do for Corridor H.
....Even my wife seems guilty of it....this past weekend whenever I pulled out to pass on a two-lane road (main instances being Friday on US-220 between Cumberland, MD, and Bedford, PA, which gets a fair amount of tractor-trailer traffic) she seemed not to like it at all, even though I wasn't going terribly fast (60 to 65 in a 55 zone). I don't see what the big deal is.
It takes experience and some teaching to learn how to pass on a two-lane highway. If she's not used to it, I can understand her concern.
....
That's the weird part: She's a couple of years older than I am and she grew up in Dayton, Ohio, and drove on lots of two-lane roads, so you'd think she'd be used to it. Maybe living in the DC area and driving a lot less than I do has caused her passing skills to get rusty!
A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage.
Not sure if I'll ever see it completed to I-81 in my lifetime, Va. will not spend the money, unless W.V./Feds lay it out. it will go right thru property that belongs to folks who have owned land on the proposed right of way for generations, about 3 mi. from me.
I understand that some time ago, W.Va. was seeking money from DHS to complete the road, on the basis that it would serve as an emergency evac. route out of the D.C. Metro area in case SHTF... (Do we need all of those city folk coming out into our neck of the woods?)
Used to hear Pastor Lon's words of wisdom on WTOP, but listen to Sirius/WMAL mostly now.
I still have the original (thick!) binder for the planning of Corridor H, got it at a meeting I went to in Wardensville a long time ago....
I don't really consider it obstructionist to not fund a highway that primarily benefits W.Va. (nothing personal to those residents), but no Fed $$, no road, why should we Virginians pick up the entire tab for it?
I think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.
One of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all) . . .
. . . and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass.
In Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.
I think a lot of drivers, at least here on the East Coast, seem to have forgotten, or never learned, how to pass on two-lane roads, regardless of whether it's a "Super-2" or a regular old two-lane road. No doubt part of this may be due to a higher percentage of drivers hailing from, and learning to drive in, urban areas and not encountering two-lane roads nearly as often as was the case even 25 years ago. But I'm rather astonished whenever I drive on a two-lane road nowadays (other than a twisty mountain road) and I see how far back people stay even when the guy in front is a slowpoke. The reason it astonishes me is that on the Interstate or in urban areas, the same people are the ones glued to your rear bumper even if there's nowhere you can go. On a two-lane road it can sometimes be darn difficult to pass if you don't close up the gap first. I sometimes wonder how much of this is also a function of the prevalence of automatic-transmission vehicles simply in terms of many drivers not having the sense for understanding how the car's gearing can help execute the pass when necessary.
I think traffic volumes are a more important variable. A two-lane road is considered to be operating at an acceptable level of service (which for this roadway type is defined in terms of percentage of driving time spent following other vehicles) at AADTs of up to 10,000 VPD in level terrain. For rolling and mountainous terrain this value drops to 7,000 VPD and 5,000 VPD respectively. This means that an increase in traffic that is small in both absolute and percentage terms is far more likely to "break" a two-lane road (in terms of LOS) than a four-lane freeway.
The East Coast butts up against the Appalachians, so a fair proportion of its two-lane rural arterial mileage falls within the rolling and mountainous categories. This region of the country has also seen significant population growth, especially in the Baltimore-Washington area, and that kind of growth brings an increase in traffic volumes in periurban rural areas as well as suburbanization. I would expect that in the last twenty years, there has been a considerable increase in the mileage of two-lane state highway for which it is no longer a realistic prospect to execute a successful overtaking maneuver during daylight hours.
QuoteOne of the things that irks me about typical US road design is that two-lane roads often have a relatively narrow shoulder (if they have one at all) . . .
Shoulder provision is a function of state DOT design policy, which is typically less generous in this regard in Eastern states than in the Midwest or West, where it is increasingly the norm not just to build a shoulder, but also to surface it with a material that will support movement at high speed.
Quote. . . and even when there is a shoulder, the vast majority of drivers refuse to move to the right while maintaining speed to help others pass.
I think it is unrealistic to expect this courtesy as a matter of course, again because of state-by-state variation in design standards. Some states extend the crossfall of the traveled way over the shoulder, while other states use a steeper crossfall on the shoulder. In states that do the latter, a typical crossfall over the traveled way may be 2% (crossfalls range from about 1.5% to 2.5% in the US) while the shoulder crossfall is 4%. It is difficult to steer smoothly while straddling a grade break that large.
There are also variations in how guardrail is treated, and how shoulder drainage is handled on superelevated curves. Some states reduce shoulder width to accommodate guardrail. Some states also start rolling out the superelevation on the high side of the road virtually at the edge line, which leaves only a very narrow width of shoulder that is suitable for maneuvering, generally to recover from tracking errors rather than to allow someone else to pass.
Anyway, returning to Corridor H, if/when the West Virginia portion is ever finished, I'll be interested in seeing to what extent it siphons off any long-distance traffic that currently uses I-70 to I-68; going to southern Ohio, for example, it's easy to use Corridor H, I-79, and Corridor D, and for travel to Charleston and beyond out I-64 I could certainly see Corridor H to southbound I-79 being preferable to mixing it up with all the trucks on I-81.
(1) Higher speeds.
got it. I think I'm just used to two-laners out west which may as well be super-2 given the lack of side roads.
Regarding four lane divided versus two lanes - most U.S. drivers do not know how to drive on a Super-2 type highway any longer (the old West Virginia Turnpike was a Super-2 for many years, and had a pretty bad crash rate, as were the I-695 approaches to the Francis Scott Key Bridge), because such roads are rare in the U.S. and Canada.
what is so different about it it, with respect to a regular two-lane?
(1) Higher speeds.
(2) More than a few drivers forget that they are on a two-lane highway (and not a four lane). When I-95 was first completed from Bangor, Maine to Houlton, it was also a Super-2 (except at the interchanges). There were many signs warning drivers that they were on a two-lane highway.
Md. 90 (Ocean City Expressway) in Worcester County is almost a Super-2, and has suffered plenty of head-on crashes, even with mandatory headlight use and special "rumble" treatment in the middle.
Yawn. You've definitely pushed this bogus talking point before. According to the Goog, Corridor H is 10 miles longer than 70-79-68-70-270. It's a tradeoff of cities on one route vs. cities on the other (I-64 to H also overlaps I-57, and passes through Louisville and Charleston). Creating a roughly equivalent alternate route is a poor reason for an expensive porkway.
This is the argument that I frequently had with the late Randy Hersh about Corridor H.
By rights, it should become the preferred route from St. Louis and points east to Washington, D.C. once it's finished. As of now, your choices are either to follow I-79/I-68/I-70/I-270, or I-77 (WV Turnpike) I-64/I-81/I-66. One goes too far out of the way to the north and involves having to deal with Cumberland, the other goes too far out of the way to the south, has tolls and a long underposted 60 mph section. An all I-70 route from STL eastward involves a short concurrency with I-57; going through Indy, Columbus and Wheeling; the substandard section in SW Pennsylvania; tolls on the PA Turnpike and Breezewood with its attendant traffic problems.
Even at this point, enough of Corridor H is finished that if I was driving to DC from Kentucky, I would not hesitate to use it despite having to deal with two-lane US 219 from Kerens to Davis over I-68.
At least for the time being (and especially when it is completed to Davis next year (according to WVDOT), I agree with you (and at some point, eastern Corridor H may start to fill with some traffic - now it's a drivers delight). Though I have only driven U.S. 219 between Davis and Kerens in daylight, and I presume there are a lot of critters (especially deer) along and in that road at dusk and at night.
Yawn. You've definitely pushed this bogus talking point before. According to the Goog, Corridor H is 10 miles longer than 70-79-68-70-270. It's a tradeoff of cities on one route vs. cities on the other (I-64 to H also overlaps I-57, and passes through Louisville and Charleston). Creating a roughly equivalent alternate route is a poor reason for an expensive porkway.
Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin.
But remember, SPUI, HB hates cities and traffic. So to him, the Corridor H route being longer is of no concern because it has less traffic.
....But remember, SPUI, HB hates cities and traffic. So to him, the Corridor H route being longer is of no concern because it has less traffic.
Plus, I could very easily make up the time lost by those 10 extra miles and then some. The only real advantage the northern route has is that it avoids Virginia.
A road that big should probably have cell tower coverage.
Someone pointed out to me elsewhere that some or all of eastern Corridor H is within the United States National Radio Quiet Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone), which it is!
In addition to the relatively small (and spread-out) resident population, that might explain why there is relatively little cell phone coverage along most of eastern Corridor H.
I found the Car and Driver item about the deer. It's on page 16 of the February 2013 issue and it includes a map showing the odds of hitting a deer in any given state as calculated by State Farm (they've been doing it since 2007). West Virginia has led the rankings every year. Odds for selected states:
Five least dangerous states:
Hawaii, 1:6801 (also the lowest in raw collision numbers with 134)
I found the Car and Driver item about the deer. It's on page 16 of the February 2013 issue and it includes a map showing the odds of hitting a deer in any given state as calculated by State Farm (they've been doing it since 2007). West Virginia has led the rankings every year. Odds for selected states:
Five least dangerous states:
Hawaii, 1:6801 (also the lowest in raw collision numbers with 134)
Plus, the average cost per collision is lower, since there are no native large mammals on the islands. There's the occasional feral donkey or wayward horse, but pigs, dogs and cats, and birds are the biggest wildlife collision problems. But if you run down a nene (Hawaiian goose, endangered by among other things their walking across roads without looking both ways first), the damage to your car can be the least of your problems.
(I suppose we're getting off topic.)
California, 1:940
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).
Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia. :bigass:
Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin. I just search their website but couldn't find that particular item, so the next time I have to pay a visit to the toilet I will check the magazine rack to try to find it!
As I noted earlier, the funny thing about the eastern portion of Corridor H is that while the traffic is light enough to allow you to go pretty much as fast as you want, the road has enough significant curves and hills to act as a natural check on your speed, depending of course on what you're driving and other variables. When I pushed it over 75 mph shortly after entering from the current western end at WV-93 I quickly backed off because it just felt too fast. No doubt I'd probably feel more comfortable going faster in my RX-7 than in my Acura sedan (the Acura is far more top-heavy by comparison), but the RX-7's engine is so much smaller and older that I probably couldn't go all that much faster!
NRQZ isn't the issue. It's the low population and traffic levels relative to the expense because of the terrain causing the dead spots.
But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors? Why is it any different than, say, Columbus to Asheville? Cincinnati to Parkersburg and Clarksburg? London to Chattanooga by way of Somerset, Burkesville and Cookeville? Lake City to Pikeville? Pikeville to Charleston? Pikeville to Blacksburg/Christiansburg by way of Bluefield? Beckley to Sutton? Middlesboro/Harrogate to Morristown? Bedford to Corning/Elmira? Morgantown to Hancock? (Remember, I-68 is also an ARC corridor. Was it pork?)
The ARC corridors were intended to open up inaccessible areas for economic development.
Plus, I could very easily make up the time lost by those 10 extra miles and then some. The only real advantage the northern route has is that it avoids Virginia.
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).
Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia. :bigass:
True enough—well, it's illegal to use, not to possess, anyway. I have a V-1 as well from my law school days in North Carolina, though I haven't upgraded it to the newest model. I used to use it in Virginia all the time on trips to and from Durham by driving at night and using the concealed display module. Never got caught. What I always hated about using the V-1 in Maryland is that it seemed like on the I-95 corridor I got an inordinate number of false positives whenever I'd pass under an overpass. But that's when the bogey counter is nice because if it always says "1" and then suddenly one day it says "2," you know something's up.
I haven't used it in several years because lately I just don't usually go fast enough to bother. I wasn't at all concerned about getting nailed for speeding at 75 mph on Corridor H earlier this week, for example, even though the V-1 was in a drawer at home. I still enjoy the idea of going nice and fast, but the low Wife Acceptance Factor for extremely high speeds coupled with my appreciation for our rather low insurance premiums make me not bother very often.
Some of the opposition dealt with Corridor H running close to Dolly Sods Wilderness/Bear Rocks, adjacent to Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Canaan Valley (National Natural Landmark, unique northern boreal community, highest valley east of the Mississippi), its proximity to Greenland Gap (National Natural Landmark) among other naturally sensitive areas..
One of the early proposals for Corridor H, dating to the US 33 days, had the highway running through Greenland Gap. That was quickly eliminated for obvious reasons.
Heh. One reason I like the Corridor H route is that it avoids Maryland (and, if I'm heading to Ohio, it also avoids Pennsylvania's substandard Interstates).
Yeah, but my V-1 is not illegal in Maryland. It is in Virginia. :bigass:
True enough—well, it's illegal to use, not to possess, anyway. I have a V-1 as well from my law school days in North Carolina, though I haven't upgraded it to the newest model. I used to use it in Virginia all the time on trips to and from Durham by driving at night and using the concealed display module. Never got caught. What I always hated about using the V-1 in Maryland is that it seemed like on the I-95 corridor I got an inordinate number of false positives whenever I'd pass under an overpass. But that's when the bogey counter is nice because if it always says "1" and then suddenly one day it says "2," you know something's up.
I haven't used it in several years because lately I just don't usually go fast enough to bother. I wasn't at all concerned about getting nailed for speeding at 75 mph on Corridor H earlier this week, for example, even though the V-1 was in a drawer at home. I still enjoy the idea of going nice and fast, but the low Wife Acceptance Factor for extremely high speeds coupled with my appreciation for our rather low insurance premiums make me not bother very often.
I understand that the newest breed of radar detector detectors can sniff out V-1s in use. I would assume that the Virginia and maybe D.C. cops have made the upgrade. So I suggest you continue leaving your V-1 at home for short trips into WV (less hazardous environment than, say, Montgomery County MD).
Frankly, it's been several years since I used it; last time was on a trip to Mont-Tremblant and I pulled over at the last rest area before the border to hide it in our luggage since mere possession of a detector is illegal in Quebec. We've made several drives to Florida since then (ranging as far down as Miami) and I haven't brought it on any of those, though maybe last December I might have wanted it when I got fed up with traffic jams and was doing in excess of 90 mph on I-95 between St. Augustine and Daytona. Didn't encounter any cops, though.
Nowadays I suppose I'd have a bit of a problem running a radar detector and a dashcam at the same time, actually, unless I were to buy a dual-plug adapter for the lighter plug (assuming that wouldn't interfere with the six-speed manual). While I have two separate lighter plugs, one of those is inside the center armrest and I therefore use that one for an iPhone charger.
Looking back at this past weekend's trip (home to Bedford Springs, PA, via the Oldtown Low Water Toll Bridge on Friday, then on Monday out the Pennsylvania Turnpike to Fallingwater and back home via US-40, US-219, US-50, WV-42, Corridor H, and I-66) the only time I really went particularly fast was the brief push up to 80 at the western end of Corridor H before deciding it felt too fast. I suppose I was doing 65 in a 55 on most of the two-lane roads, but I was never particularly concerned about getting pulled over, and the only time we saw a cop who would have nailed us (at the Mason-Dixon Line on US-40), Ms1995hoo spotted him in advance before we crossed into Maryland.
Corridor H is the type of road that, if it were in Virginia, would be posted at 60 mph (due to the at-grade intersections) and would receive a fair amount of utterly unnecessary speed enforcement. I'm glad West Virginia seems a bit more enlightened on both fronts. I think we might have passed maybe five other vehicles (at most) in the entire eastern segment from the WV-93 access road to Wardensville.
....In Canada and the parts of Mexico I've visited, it's a given that people do that, especially truck and RV drivers.
You haven't visited Mexico outside Cancún and the surrounding resort areas, have you? In the parts I have travelled in (mainly Chihuahua and Sonora), there are generally no shoulders, so drivers turn out to allow following vehicles to pass. In Canada it helps that traffic densities are generally very low outside the 100-mile-wide belt just north of the US border, but there are plenty of places where two-lane roads operate at bad LOS and drivers don't generally pull onto the shoulder to let others pass--when traffic increases beyond a certain point, that just becomes an exercise in exchanging front position in one queue for tail position in another. When I visited western Canada in 2003, I found long lengths of BC 99 between Vancouver and Whistler and TCH 1 northeast of Kamloops (now being four-laned) that operated that way.
But the larger question is, why does Corridor H come under so much more criticism than the other ARC corridors?
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).
Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishnessFuck you.
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.
- 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.
Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishnessFuck you.
Take it outside.Since environmentalism is just another word for selfishnessFuck you.
Kook fight!
The overpass of the railroad spur leading into the power plant is taking shape (and yes, there is rail traffic in and out of there - I didn't see any on this trip, but the rail head was shiny; I have had to stop for a train there on another occasion).
OK, so what is the next segment to open and when?
A contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.
The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal
- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont,
A contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.
The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal
The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location. They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.
The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal
The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location. They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.
80%: http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-4/features/managing-the-plant-dominion-mt-storm.html
Mount Storm coal fired power plant produces 1,600 MW and contribute 12.5 million tons of CO2, 3,139 tons of sulfur dioxides, 22,464 tons of nitrous oxides and 340 lbs. of mercury each year. Nearby, the NedPower Mountain Storm wind turbines produce 264 MW of power on 132 turbines.
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?
The Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation found.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Each killing of a protected bird is a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind-energy company has been prosecuted ....
“It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,” said Tom Dougherty, a longtime environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West. “But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high.”
When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or would expose trade secrets or implicate enforcement investigations.
“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK,” said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent.
The generating station at Mount Storm consumes coal
The Mt. Storm plant has always consumed coal mined within 20 miles of its location. They pretty much built the plant on top of the coal.
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?
Without going into specifics, coal production is declining sharply, partially because coal seams are becoming too thin, the quality is becoming too poor (e.g. too much sulphur), fracking in unveiling plentiful, cheaper and cleaner burning sources of energy. If we think that the Mount Storm power station will be around burning coal for another 30 to 40 years - then I'd suggest checking out all of the abandoned and disused mining sites within 30 miles of the plant. There are only a handful of mining operations in existence with only a few high volume underground mines left.
Plus, there are now limits on how much fish you can catch in Summersville Lake thanks to mercury contamination (just for one instance). You can consume bass and catfish just once a month, and walleye six times a year.
If I had my way, the nation would be looking to displace coal-fired electric generation with nuclear. Unlike wind and solar power, nuke power works very well (as does coal) to supply baseload power to the grid.
Quote- The area has a heavy newcomer population that is similar to rural Vermont,
You really don't understand rural Vermont. Contrary to popular belief, there has been little "newcomer population" in Vermont outside of far southwestern Vermont, the Rutland area, and the area immediately around Burlington.
QuoteA contract was awarded in December 2010 to Trumbull Corporation for the construction of 6.2 miles of Corridor H, from the existing corridor at Bismarck in Grant County to the WV 93 connector at Mount Storm in Tucker County; construction of that project is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 2014. Construction of the remaining portion of the Davis to Bismarck section is anticipated to begin in the fall of 2012, and the WVDOH intends to complete construction of the 16-mile section in the fall of 2014.
Delays in both cases. As I recall, when that 2010 contract was signed, the goal at the time was to have both segments completed by the end of this year.
Earlier this year Car and Driver ran a one-page "story" about average number of deer collisions per miles driven (or something similar) that showed West Virginia having the highest rate in the country by a substantial margin. I just search their website but couldn't find that particular item, so the next time I have to pay a visit to the toilet I will check the magazine rack to try to find it!
I did not look very closely to see if any part of Corridor H (and I have driven the western part between Kerens and Weston in the past) is fenced. Though it might not matter that much, because the critters can enter at the at-grade intersections and at the interchanges. Even on Md. 200, which is completely and heavily fenced, I nearly hit a deer on an exit ramp last week.
Corridor H is far enough away that cell signals aren't a major problem. The towns have cell coverage (and there are full-power radio stations, too). It's a matter of there not being enough customers to justify the cell towers outside of the towns.NRQZ isn't the issue. It's the low population and traffic levels relative to the expense because of the terrain causing the dead spots.
I do not know enough about radio waves to know what impact cell towers might have on the Quiet Zone, but I suppose that the cell tower antennae be designed to "direct" their signals where there is less (or no?) impact on the Green Bank Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bank_Telescope) and the National Security Agency's SIGINT gathering operations at Sugar Grove.
The overpass of the railroad spur leading into the power plant is taking shape (and yes, there is rail traffic in and out of there - I didn't see any on this trip, but the rail head was shiny; I have had to stop for a train there on another occasion).
This is interesting.
I have never seen a train in or out of Mount Storm when I have driven by there (admittedly much less frequently than you).
I know the tracks go down the mountain to the old Western Maryland line that runs roughly parallel to the Potomac River - and between Bayard (where the spur to the power plant diverges) and Davis, the line has been out of service for many years - I believe it once continued to Parsons and presumably beyond.
Maybe Dominion Virginia Power is now having coal shipped in on those train tracks? At one time, all of the coal burned at Mount Storm was coming by truck from a mine in southern Garrett County, Md., but that mine may be mined-out at this point.
Veering off-topic, but there are thousands upon thousands of acres identified as prime locations for wind farms on mountaintop removal sites. If the land has already been devastated and scarred, why not at least put it to some productive use?
A May 15 Seattle Times article (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020993836_windfarmsbirdsxml.html) reports on an Associated Press investigation which concludes that even wind farms can have severe environmental consequences:QuoteThe Obama administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind farm for killing eagles and other protected bird species, shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret, an Associated Press investigation found.
More than 573,000 birds are killed by the country’s wind farms each year, including 83,000 hunting birds such as hawks, falcons and eagles, according to an estimate published in March in the peer-reviewed Wildlife Society Bulletin.
Each killing of a protected bird is a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines. No wind-energy company has been prosecuted ....
“It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,” said Tom Dougherty, a longtime environmentalist who worked for nearly 20 years for the National Wildlife Federation in the West. “But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high.”
When companies voluntarily report deaths, the Obama administration in many cases refuses to make the information public, saying it belongs to the energy companies or would expose trade secrets or implicate enforcement investigations.
“What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK,” said Tim Eicher, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent.
I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......
Drawing straw arguments doesn't help
there are NIMBY's on both sides.
I guess environmentalists are not a monolithic block .......
There are tradeoffs with every utility choice that we make
Consequences of fracking?
You mean affordable energy? Decent living standards for the middle class?
Environmentalism is just a religion. It's a warmed over nature cult.
Consequences of fracking?
You mean affordable energy? Decent living standards for the middle class?
Environmentalism is just a religion. It's a warmed over nature cult.
I mean things like earthquakes in places like fucking Oklahoma where earthquakes aren't supposed to happen. Live through a few 5.6 earthquakes (and wondering if the "big one" is going to hit) and we'll talk.
In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1)?
Having documented and photographed the entire rust belt and coal producing regions for major publications, magazines and two upcoming books, I offer my opinion in that all we are seeking is a short term gain for long term consequence. If anyone has ever ventured to southwest West Virginia and other coal reliant regions, you can see what has happened. Take McDowell County, home to Welch and one of the first municipal parking garages in the United States. The county peaked at nearly 100,000 residents 60 years ago, and stands under 22,000 today. It will dip under 18,000 by 2020 at the current rate of decline. Welch, the county seat, had nearly 6,800 and will dive under 2,000 by 2020. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. It's median income is one of the lowest. It's school system has been under state control for over a decade, and has some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. Coal began its march out of Appalachia decades ago, first due to mechanization, then to energy slumps before seeing an uptick in the 1980s and 1990s - and then declining due to exhaustion of seams and now fracking.
In Youngstown, Ohio? And elsewhere? Where even the oil and gas industry has admitted the earthquakes were caused by fracking (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1)?
Where were those earthquakes on the Richter scale? Were they little ones like those in Oklahoma most clearly linked to fracking -- the kind that are routine in California, that Californians take in stride?
I'm curious- those of you who are in favor of putting resources into fracking in lieu of putting resources into developing alternative energy - why? Why is this the case? Do you envision this being a permanent thing, or do you envision a transition taking place?
Or is it more of a moderation thing? Obviously we can't flip the switch tomorrow and ditch oil- even if we put a lot of resources into developing other energy sources we're still going to be dependent on oil for a long time and the transition will probably take a generation or three. There's pretty much no way around that either, but when do you think we need to begin to start to really move in that direction? Or do you think we're already headed in that direction but in the meantime we need to keep finding more oil, even if the diversion of resources slows down the development of those other sources?
Fracking is largely about natural gas, not just oil. Natural gas is a little harder to use to power our cars, but does lends itself to large-scale electric power generation, especially as a cleaner substitute for coal.
I'm not sure fracking's an either-or proposition compared to alternative fuels, anyway. There's room for both, at least until the recoverable oil and gas resources peter out.
but think of the children who will be born with two heads!
OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.
I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).
There's still a pretty good segment of Corridor (mumble), which involves US 119 through southeastern Kentucky, not yet built. Will the same howls of objection be heard when the final link, the tunnel under Pine Mountain, gets underway?
VEPCO (Dominion predecessor) had the spur built when they constructed the power plant specifically so they could get coal delivered by rail. They own the line.
The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H) might be great enough that it's a non-issue. Let's hope so.
The distance from Washington, D.C. and its local legacy of trying to stop all highway projects (which is part of the problem with Corridor H) might be great enough that it's a non-issue. Let's hope so.
There's an environmentally sensitive area (Bad Branch Falls) in that general vicinity, but my understanding is that they're taking steps to deal with it appropriately, even at this very preliminary stage of the planning process.
But that may not stop the DC-ites (many of whom, as was pointed out, will be able to use H to get to the ski areas near Davis) from complaining. A new route for KY 715 in Wolfe County, as part of the overall London-to-Ashland corridor, is in the works. It passes near a popular rock climbing area frequented by out-of-staters. We've had a number of comments from Buckeyes about this project. There is an area that is crying out for better access to the interstate system for economic development purposes, and some Ohioans want to stop the road project?
OK, other than S.P.'s reply which sparked all this off-topic discussion and the hostility over on the "Meta" board, no one has supplied an answer as to why Corridor H is so objectionable when compared to all the other Appalachian Regional Commission development corridors.
I wonder if part of it is because so many of those who are objecting to it are very young, and many of the other corridors were finished or well underway before they were born? (That doesn't explain Randy's objection to it; that can be laid at the feet of his hatred for rural America).
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.
I don't get the impression that many of the people objecting to Corridor H are in fact very young. NE2, I think, is aged upwards of 30. Steve Alpert is, I believe, also over 30, and although I don't recall him objecting to Corridor H per se, he has criticized the design of various segments for excessive use of cut and fill. Although I do not believe he is now a member of this forum and certainly has not been active if he has, back in the MTR days Larry Gross objected to Corridor H (receiving attacks and heavy criticism from S.P. Cook for doing so), and I am fairly sure he is aged over 50.
Randy Hersh also never struck me as having a particular anti-rural bias. Yes, he spent most of his life in the vicinity of large cities (grew up in Mayfield Heights, which is a Cleveland suburb; worked in Cleveland for several years; drove cab in Miami for several years; spent most of the remainder of his life and cab-driving career in densely urbanized northern New Jersey), but he also travelled extensively and had a good feel for what roads can and cannot do in terms of bringing economic development to rural areas. I incline to take his objections to Corridor H at face value: unlikely to siphon long-distance east-west traffic off the established Interstate routes, unlikely to bring much economic development to the area of rural West Virginia it serves since that area's primary obstacle to economic growth is the lack of an educated workforce, but definitely likely to siphon funding away from necessary asset preservation, for which his go-to example was the long-delayed reconstruction of I-70 between Frederick and Baltimore.
So, it comes down to the environment, and we've been having a healthy debate on that, and that's okay.
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.
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... :-P
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. :bigass:
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.
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. 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.
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.
I did not get the impression that there were many valleys filled-in by the highway, with one possible exception.
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.
Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked. :-D And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.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... :-P
Upon further review, it got moved and then it got locked. :-D And before I could quote Genesis 1:26 in response to agentsteel's question.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... :-P
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 (http://iowa.sierraclub.org/icag/2004/1104quotes.pdf). 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.
QuoteI 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.
That said, the enactment of MAP-21 last summer altered the ARC funding formula to allow 100% federal funding for ADHS projects
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 projectsWell, there's the answer for building Virginia's part of Corridor H.
Indeed. Furthermore, HB's comment makes the argument that funding was the major obstacle in Virginia. It's a lot more complicated than that.
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.
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.
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....
http://www.gilmerfreepress.net/index.php/site/corridor_h_construction_could_help_troubled_stream/
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.
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.
Nice pics. Are they installing a runaway truck ramp EB from the top of the mt.? Wonder what % grade that works out to?
Where does this access road go to?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201307140047), 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 (http://www.wboy.com/story/20567690/corridor-h-progress-seen-during-helicopter-tour) claims that it will reach Davis sometime this year.
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).
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.
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.
Corridor H could attract a lot of tourists during leaf season - lots less congested than Skyline Drive, and notollwhoops, entrance fee.
Shouldn't the market fill that gap? Why do you want the government to give you the map?Politics aside, I would think leaf enthusiasts would create maps themselves.
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.
Corridor H could attract a lot of tourists during leaf season - lots less congested than Skyline Drive, and notollwhoops, entrance fee.
Shouldn't the market fill that gap? Why do you want the government to give you the map?Politics aside, I would think leaf enthusiasts would create maps themselves.
With West Virginia, it is very much region dependent. The map is just a general guide. Here is how specific it is:
Dolly Sods usually peaks in late September and early October based on my last four years up there. It's one of the wettest areas in the state, one of the windiest and along the Allegheny Front. It's really awesome to watch from Bear Rocks the weather systems as they end and begin overhead.
At the bottom of the Sods, to the west, is Canaan Valley, which usually peaks a week after Dolly Sods.
To the east of the Sods is North Fork Mountain, one of the driest mountain ranges in the eastern United States. It's precipitation is minuscule compared to the rest of the state, and especially Dolly Sods. It's also much warmer and the colors won't start changing until mid October. I did a hike up to Dolly Sods in the winter with a friend a few years back and we were going through 2+ feet of snow at the Sods, and when we climbed up to North Fork Mountain the next day, we had less than one inch.
Heh....the comment above seems more prescient than ever because Skyline Drive is now CLOSED due to the government shutdown.Yes, I have plans to attend a car meet that involved driving on Skyline Drive this weekend. The VA 230 Prelude Meet doesn't have the same ring to it as The Skyline Drive Prelude meet, but hey, curvy mountain road hoonage is curvy mountain road hoonage, and given the leaves are just starting to change here, there should be some decent color up there Saturday. Plus that's $15 I can put elsewhere on the trip.
With West Virginia, it is very much region dependent. The map is just a general guide. Here is how specific it is:
Dolly Sods usually peaks in late September and early October based on my last four years up there. It's one of the wettest areas in the state, one of the windiest and along the Allegheny Front. It's really awesome to watch from Bear Rocks the weather systems as they end and begin overhead.
There is massive elevation change there, especially headed to or from the Allegheny Front. Even in the middle of summer, it's nearly always cooler at the top of the Front than it is to the east.At the bottom of the Sods, to the west, is Canaan Valley, which usually peaks a week after Dolly Sods.
Canaan Valley is still pretty high, but not as high as the Eastern Continental Divide.To the east of the Sods is North Fork Mountain, one of the driest mountain ranges in the eastern United States. It's precipitation is minuscule compared to the rest of the state, and especially Dolly Sods. It's also much warmer and the colors won't start changing until mid October. I did a hike up to Dolly Sods in the winter with a friend a few years back and we were going through 2+ feet of snow at the Sods, and when we climbed up to North Fork Mountain the next day, we had less than one inch.
And even further east is Shenandoah County, Virginia (just east of Great North Mountain) - I recently learned that Shenandoah County is in a "mini" rain shadow, with mountain ranges to the east and west, and is one of the driest places in Virginia. Hence a fair number of vineyards and wineries there.
I'd think the climb on US 211 would be better for "curvey mountain road hoonage" than VA 230. Or is it because of too much traffic on 211?The meet's main site is Heavenly Acres Campground off VA 230 near Stanardsville. The meeting place is in Warrenton. The initial route between them was indeed US 211 to Skyline to US 33 to 230, but the organizer changed the route to US 29 to 230. I offered the compromise route of 211 to Sperryville, then US 522/VA 231 to rejoin US 29 at Madison, but he wasn't comfortable with the idea since he'd never driven it. SR 810 is right there, as well, even though it doesn't look like it has a whole lot of elevation changes.
Not sure if that applies this year or not.
Shenandoah Co. has had more rain than in Frederick Co. You can tell the difference in the overall color of the trees, and fields. The farmers up there got 2 really good cuttings of hay this summer. I noticed the same effect on Sunday when I went to Capon Bridge for the Founder's Day Festival. I went over north Mt. on 55/48, then took 259 N. to Yellow Springs, then River Rd. to C. Bridge, everything's a lot greener there. (BTW, theat is a real nice little scenic drive for you City Folk). The Valley was once the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy", due to the clay soil which is rich in minerals. That's why the Union burned it at the end of the war.
BTW, the Fall Festival in Wardensville is next weekend (Oct. 11-13).
Not sure if that applies this year or not.
I don't claim to know - and I believe your local knowledge is a whole lot better than mine.
I was educated to the microclimate of Shenandoah County by the owner of a vineyard and winery just west of I-81 at Tom's Brook.Shenandoah Co. has had more rain than in Frederick Co. You can tell the difference in the overall color of the trees, and fields. The farmers up there got 2 really good cuttings of hay this summer. I noticed the same effect on Sunday when I went to Capon Bridge for the Founder's Day Festival. I went over north Mt. on 55/48, then took 259 N. to Yellow Springs, then River Rd. to C. Bridge, everything's a lot greener there. (BTW, theat is a real nice little scenic drive for you City Folk). The Valley was once the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy", due to the clay soil which is rich in minerals. That's why the Union burned it at the end of the war.
I have driven 259 from U.S. 50 south across a chunk of West Virginia (Baker and Lost River) and back to I-81/U.S. 11. But not River Road.BTW, the Fall Festival in Wardensville is next weekend (Oct. 11-13).
A lot of work is still ongoing west of Elkins on Corridor H that was completed IIRC 2003. It wasn't in that poor of condition, but it did have some minor joint separation (tar applied in the joints a few years back) and some patches that were done in asphalt. It's being extensively patched with concrete and diamond grinded.
Last time, heading east, we took Corridor D to I-79, then Corridor H to Elkins before turning southeast to Seneca Rocks. I have not travelled the section between Elkins and Thomas, nor have I travelled US-50 between US-219 in Maryland and I-79. I'm sure in terms of travel time Corridor H is the faster route, but just how is that part of US-50? I assume it's a two-lane road. That doesn't bother me much unless it's super-twisty with minimal passing zones.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I know what the route is. I was asking which route you guys think is the better way west to Ohio from "eastern" Corridor H: "western" Corridor H (and the connecting roads required to get there) or north to US-50?
Maybe I wasn't clear. I know what the route is. I was asking which route you guys think is the better way west to Ohio from "eastern" Corridor H: "western" Corridor H (and the connecting roads required to get there) or north to US-50?
Thanks for the feedback. I anticipate a trip to Dayton on fairly short notice sometime soon and I'd rather go via one of those routes than via Pennsylvania's Interstates.
QuoteThanks for the feedback. I anticipate a trip to Dayton on fairly short notice sometime soon and I'd rather go via one of those routes than via Pennsylvania's Interstates.
Not related to Corridor H, but in light of this, have you considered a Cumberland-Uniontown-Washington PA routing (I-68 to US 40 to PA 43 to I-70 in our case)? We did this about 5 years ago heading west from BWI and it wasn't too bad. Much more direct than going through West Virginia, and avoids both Breezewood and the PA Turnpike proper.
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.There is absolutely no need to improve US 48 from 81 through WV into an interstate. This area is sparesly populated and long distance traffic is already served by 70/68/64. Let's not destroy nature here.
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.There is absolutely no need to improve US 48 from 81 through WV into an interstate. This area is sparesly populated and long distance traffic is already served by 70/68/64. Let's not destroy nature here.
I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.
I visit that area, it is absolutely beautiful and pure without chain restaurants.I'm glad to hear about Corridor H- on my revamping of the interstate system in If You Controlled the Highway System , I felt I-74 or I-66 could be extended through West Virginia for a route to Cincinnati , Columbus, and Richmond. What's this obsession about US 48? Should US 48 reappear because I-68 took its place. We might as have the AASHTO take over a bunch of state and county roads and call it US 66.There is absolutely no need to improve US 48 from 81 through WV into an interstate. This area is sparesly populated and long distance traffic is already served by 70/68/64. Let's not destroy nature here.
Thank you very much! I live in this area, enough has been changed by the mass immigration of City Folk and their ilk.
In hindsight, building Corridor H along US 50 to Clarksburg might have been a better option. It would only add about 10 miles to Charleston-bound traffic, while saving 30-35 miles (over the I-79 jog) for Parkersburg-bound traffic.
I don't think anyone's arguing that a 4-lane US 33 from Weston to Elkins is unjustified. I think the point being made is that it would have made more sense to tie Corridor H more directly into Corridor D. From a systems perspective, extending Corridor D east along US 50 to Winchester makes more sense than the Corridor H routing east of Elkins. Heck, you could even tie it into Corridor H (and I-66) by using WV 42 between Mt. Storm and Bismark....would've avoided some of the environmental sensitivity/issues between Parsons and Thomas.
Of course, the original Corridor H routing was supposed to tie into I-81 at Harrisonburg, hence that isolated four-lane portion east of Elkins that was among the first segments of the route built before the corridor was rerouted.Nope:
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.You're not talking about the second map on this page, are you? http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.You're not talking about the second map on this page, are you? http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/
I'll have to find and scan the old WV state maps that show the proposed alignment of US 33 that say otherwise.You're not talking about the second map on this page, are you? http://www.gribblenation.com/wvpics/corrh/
No, the map I remember had a proposed route marked as US 33. That map doesn't have a route number. My old maps are packed away in three or four different places and I don't have handy access to them.
Oh, these are older. Fall foliage is either peak or past peak up there.
Who has one of these except me?
(http://i.imgur.com/DBFuhd6.jpg) (http://imgur.com/DBFuhd6)
Who has one of these except me?
(http://i.imgur.com/DBFuhd6.jpg) (http://imgur.com/DBFuhd6)
Not me.
Looks interesting, of course, and presumably not available online (I looked some time back).
Revealing that the cover of this document by WVDOT reads Elkins to I-81.
Wonder if VDOT or the county elected officials in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties were even given a chance to comment on its contents?
A new study says West Virginia would receive $1.25 billion in new revenue and an uninterrupted link to the Inland Port in Front Royal, Va., if Corridor H is completed ahead of schedule.
The study conducted by RQA Group says the highway's construction would add another $800 million to the state's economy.
The Corridor H Authority released the findings of the study on Monday.
This Steve Foster is obviously clueless when it comes to what's happening on this side of the border.
"I'm sure there are people in Richmond aware of Corridor H"
Of course they're aware. They're aware that the whole push for Corridor H completion is coming from West Virginia economic interests, but there's little benefit (study claims to the contrary) for Virginia directly.
I also got a laugh out of Foster's claim that it would "relieve traffic congestion on I-81". That is complete bunk.
"I'm sure there are people in Richmond aware of Corridor H"
Operation of the Inland Port was at one time going to be turned over to the private sector, has been sort of a money loser, no rail service much west of Front Royal (or Front Roll, as we locals call it), or south in the western part of the Shenandoah Valley. Not a tremendous amount of industial activity in W.V. either, Moorefield has Pilgrim's Pride (KFC supplier), chicken farms, American Woodmark has closed, Grant Co. Mulch, near Petersburg, some nat. gas pipeline activity, logging, not much else. Tourism is becoming the big industry in W.V.
A lot of it goes to the (old Wesvaco) pulp mill in Luke Md.
A friend and I stumbled across this highway in September of 2011 while driving from Cincinnati to Northern VA. He was driving and going entirely by his GPS, which after a long stretch of US 50 to WV 42 started sending us down what, at the time, seemed like completely random back roads. We wondered WTF his GPS was doing, but followed the route it suggested. After several minutes of general confusion we happened across a very new looking interchange for something called US 48, which neither the GPS nor his outdated Rand McNally acknowledged. So we went ahead and jumped on it eastbound, finding it funny that his GPS screen was showing us in the middle of nowhere. This 4 lane road was a very welcome sight after what had been a very stressful and annoying stretch of 2 lane roads since reaching the end of corridor D.
What seems odd to me was that his GPS clearly was updated enough to know exactly where to send us (looking back at it, I'm pretty sure it was Scherr to Greenland Gap to Patterson Creek) but then didn't mention anything about getting on US 48 once we got to it or show it on the map at all.
I hadn't done much research on what that road was until now, so this thread was a very interesting and informative read for me (when it was on topic)
A lot of it goes to the (old Wesvaco) pulp mill in Luke Md.
Agreed. Though there are a lot of trees (hardwoods?) in the High Allegheney Mountains of Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia that are felled for uses other than pulp.
Given how nearly all other industry in Western Maryland has gone out of business or otherwise moved away (except prisons), I am amazed and gratified (as a Maryland taxpayer) that the Luke plant survives.
Supporters of Corridor H got an unexpected boost Nov. 20 with the release of a State of Virginia highway construction schedule that lists a 2026 completion date for Corridor H within the state.
The Appalachian Regional Commission, in its Appalachian Development Highway System 2013 Completion Plan Report, targets September 2026 as the finish time for the 14.4 miles of highway that will run from the West Virginia line to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va.
Some hope for completion of the Virginia end of Corridor H:QuoteSupporters of Corridor H got an unexpected boost Nov. 20 with the release of a State of Virginia highway construction schedule that lists a 2026 completion date for Corridor H within the state.
The Appalachian Regional Commission, in its Appalachian Development Highway System 2013 Completion Plan Report, targets September 2026 as the finish time for the 14.4 miles of highway that will run from the West Virginia line to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va.
http://www.statejournal.com/story/24025767/corridor-h-supporters-encouraged-by-virginia-completion-date-projection
I'll believe it when spades and shovels are turning dirt in the ground. Even the Six Year Program is no guarantee...
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter
Bypassing the steep grade and switchbacks of Scherr Mountain is going to be a big deal. I would expect truck traffic on this route to increase right away. I will not miss getting stuck behind tractor-trailers going 10mph on that stretch!
When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter
As the 4.7 mile section opens, Walker said work is already well underway on another 16.2 mile section of Corridor H from Mt. Storm into Davis. That stretch of roadway could open to traffic by early 2015.I thought that stretch was expected to be done by summer 2014. :(
When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).
What in the world would be the purpose of that? I'd think the opening of US 48 would take traffic out of that intersection, and I can't imagine that this intersection would need lights. Unless they are temporary signals for bridge repairs or something.
4.7 miles of Corridor H from Bismarck to Scherr will open tomorrow.
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/11/21/new-miles-of-corridor-h-to-open/#.Uo4tw2G2KfI.twitter
Bypassing the steep grade and switchbacks of Scherr Mountain is going to be a big deal. I would expect truck traffic on this route to increase right away. I will not miss getting stuck behind tractor-trailers going 10mph on that stretch!
Some hope for completion of the Virginia end of Corridor H:QuoteSupporters of Corridor H got an unexpected boost Nov. 20 with the release of a State of Virginia highway construction schedule that lists a 2026 completion date for Corridor H within the state.
The Appalachian Regional Commission, in its Appalachian Development Highway System 2013 Completion Plan Report, targets September 2026 as the finish time for the 14.4 miles of highway that will run from the West Virginia line to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va.
http://www.statejournal.com/story/24025767/corridor-h-supporters-encouraged-by-virginia-completion-date-projection
I'll believe it when I see it in the VDOT Six Year Program.
When I was through the area last about 2 months ago, it looked like traffic signals were going up at the intersection of existing WV 42 and WV 93 at Scherr (base of the mountain).
What in the world would be the purpose of that? I'd think the opening of US 48 would take traffic out of that intersection, and I can't imagine that this intersection would need lights. Unless they are temporary signals for bridge repairs or something.
So, let's see the VDOT report.... Maybe the new governor will spend out our surplus on that... but I'm going to be a good boy and not get into politics again :}
While they've been in poor repair, WVDOH did have flashers on the Stop Ahead and Stop signs as you approached on WV 93 westbound previously. My guess is people tended to drive through the intersection and they wanted to draw attention to it?
I believe construction cost of ADHS corridors is 100% federal funding, so while VDOT will have to manage the process of design, engineering and construction of the Commonwealth's part of Corridor H (just like it is doing with Corridor Q right now), I do not think it has to spend any state dollars doing so.
If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition. And if they were smart, they'd be spending their STP allocation on the 2 lane roads that REALLY DO need widening, like VA 3 in Culpeper County, US 15 north of US 29 (from 29 to Haymarket seems to have less opposition than north of Leesburg), or VA 20 in Orange County.
I measured 5 miles and 8 minutes of total savings vs. the old 42/93 alignment and elimination of the double-back on 93.
Seems that this new segment now slightly crests 3000' in elevation at the top. Is this a first for Corridor H? How far away does one have to go to find a segment of Interstate highway, or for that matter any segment of 4-lane divided highway, at this high of an elevation?
I thought I-64 might get close cresting Afton Mountain in Virginia, but no - barely 2000' (seems that it should be higher).If it weren't for Rockfish Gap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockfish_Gap), I-64 might have gone via Lynchburg and the James River.
I measured 5 miles and 8 minutes of total savings vs. the old 42/93 alignment and elimination of the double-back on 93.
Seems that this new segment now slightly crests 3000' in elevation at the top. Is this a first for Corridor H? How far away does one have to go to find a segment of Interstate highway, or for that matter any segment of 4-lane divided highway, at this high of an elevation?
Yes, according to Google (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=39.215431,-79.209974&hl=en&num=1&t=p&z=15) it is currently at just over 3000' as it crests the Allegheny Front. It will get even higher west of the generating station, at better than 3400' at the Eastern Continental Divide.
I-68 (Corridor E) never makes it to 3000' in Maryland or in West Virginia (the highest it gets is about 2800').
I-70, I-76 and I-80 in Pennsylvania never get that high.
I thought I-64 might get close cresting Afton Mountain in Virginia, but no - barely 2000' (seems that it should be higher).
Heading further south, I-77 does breach the 3000' barrier in Virginia north of its overlap with I-81 (here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.024895,-81.106875&ll=37.021572,-81.103134&spn=0.016755,0.031714&num=1&t=p&gl=us&z=15)) before it reaches the Big Walker Mountain Tunnel.
Other ideas?
Is it possible to determine elevation in Google Maps, or did you just match the coordinates to a topo map?
I'm impressed that Google Maps already has the new roadway showing up already.
If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition.
Virginia does not mave many primary routes that reach 3000 feet...
US 250 in Highland County
VA 16 north of Marion
VA 311 north of New Castle
VA 160 approaching Ky
US 33 at the WV line area
US 58 in the Grayson Highlands area
VA 362 is the highest road in Virginia as best I can tell. The DeLorme has it reaching about 1425 m or around 4700 ft.
Adam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?
If VDOT were to spend their STP allocation on the ADHS, I'd expect them to focus on finishing US 460 (Corridor Q) in the southwestern corner of the state, where there's much less local opposition.
Adam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?
QuoteAdam, is there really local opposition to Corridor H in Frederick and Shenandoah Counties, Va.?
Yes, there's some. It wasn't just your archnemesis the PEC who pressured Congressman Wolf years ago.
I'd oppose it myself on the grounds that there are higher priorities elsewhere in the state, and even within Frederick/Shenandoah Counties...(I-81, anyone?)
I-81 is not an ADHS corridor anywhere, is it? Perhaps because it is already built and was on the maps when the ADHS system was laid-out in the 1960's? The ADHS is about "inducing" demand in economically disadvantaged parts of Appalachia by building new highways.
So, us Va. residents, in addition to paying our taxes, should be forced to pay tolls on I-81? How do you segregate us locals out of the toll mix, if I'm using I-81 daily, to travel 2 mi., I should not have to pay a toll. That idea was shot down, but elimiating the gas tax was no answer either...
Mr. Foster, and others in the CHA are delusional to assume Va. will build our end of Corridor H, nor is it up to them to design it, that has already been done. They are the real phonies here. We simply do not have the money, and other projects await.... Unless the Feds cough it up, and they do not have the money either... unless they print more. The opposition yrs. ago was more fierce in Shen. Co. than Frederick, and my personal opposition comes from having it pass close to my home, and destroying a beautiful area in the GWNF. I do not see how the Inland Port is going to benefit from the additional traffic coming from W.V., there is simply not that much industry there period. And what about the attempted groveling to procure funds from DHS to complete the road thru Va., for "Emergency evacuation from the D.C. Metro area"... sheesh
QuoteI-81 is not an ADHS corridor anywhere, is it? Perhaps because it is already built and was on the maps when the ADHS system was laid-out in the 1960's? The ADHS is about "inducing" demand in economically disadvantaged parts of Appalachia by building new highways.
(most relevant part)
First off, your argument about inducing demand has far more relevance to Corridor Q (US 460) than it does to VDOT finishing Corridor H...to which Virginia would receive little benefit (as has been discussed upthread).
Secondly, because funding ADHS projects now takes away from a given state's STP allotment, completing either corridor must now compete with "regular" VDOT projects statewide for funding. This is where my argument that there are higher priorities elsewhere comes into play. I cited I-81 as an example both because it's both local to Frederick and Shenandoah Counties but also because there are smaller projects here and there that could easily be done along I-81 (i.e. climbing lanes, interchange improvements, bridge shoulders, etc etc) to improve its operations, which would fit well within the cost envelope that completing Corridor H entails.
If West Virginia wants Corridor H so bad (since they receive virtually all of the benefit from it), *THEY* can pay for it. And while a completed Corridor H would be a "nice-to-have" in Virginia, I cannot support funding it when there are numerous other and more pressing needs elsewhere in the state. I can support funding spot improvements to existing VA 55, but not to Corridor H.
If West Virginia wants Corridor H so bad (since they receive virtually all of the benefit from it), *THEY* can pay for it. And while a completed Corridor H would be a "nice-to-have" in Virginia, I cannot support funding it when there are numerous other and more pressing needs elsewhere in the state. I can support funding spot improvements to existing VA 55, but not to Corridor H.
Having been stuck behind trucks on the existing road between I-81 and Wardensville, and been impressed by the long queues of traffic that quickly formed (and have been forming for many years, back to the 1980's when I first drove it, up and down the grades), and the crosses along the side of the road (presumably marking fatal wrecks) in West Virginia, have convinced me that the new road is needed.
But I think that having West Virginia use at least some of its STP money to get it built is not entirely a bad thing. Think of the precedent that could be cited to get the Western Bypass/Techway built across the Potomac River to Maryland!
West Virginia has enough other needs of its own. It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.It's already built roads in Kentucky (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.7026,-82.302961&spn=0.013769,0.028346&t=m&z=16), so why not?
West Virginia has enough other needs of its own. It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.
West Virginia has enough other needs of its own. It's not going to be building roads in Virginia.It's already built roads in Kentucky (http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.7026,-82.302961&spn=0.013769,0.028346&t=m&z=16), so why not?
In Virginia, that's the matter of Corridor H; there's W.Va./Va. 9; and the (now dormant) Eastern and Western bypass highways of Washington, D.C. (both of which relate to improved ground access to both Dulles and BWI).
And conversely, US 522, US 340 and US 50. Four lanes in Virginia; two lanes in West Virginia.
The newest section of Corridor H will make it much easier and safer for folks from the eastern shore to make to the mountains of West Virginia.
Bill Smith, with the Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau, says the long-awaited opening of a 4.7-mile stretch of the four-lane highway from Scherr to Bismarck, earlier this month, replaces a road filled with hairpin turns.
“From the lower part of Route 93 up Bismarck, that spans 2,000 vertical feet in four miles. The old Route 93 was hampered with a whole lot of sharp switchbacks which was fairly treacherous driving,” according to Smith.
The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield. Two lanes in each direction. I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one. It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.
The new poles I noticed going up at southern WV 42/WV 93 intersection near Scherr on my last trip through are for flashers. Yellow for WV 42, red for WV 93 westbound. It's the most elaborate flasher setup I've ever seen from WVDOH. They even had some pole-mounted flashers.
WV 42 and WV 93 are still signed on their old route. I think they really should be moved to overlap with Corridor H heading up the hill.
I didn't see any "To US 48" signage from WV 42 at either end of the new section.
Since it was night, I couldn't tell if there was enough room to add a climbing lane on the right later. They could put it in the median with a Jersey barrier if they really needed it. I doubt traffic will come to that point, though.The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield. Two lanes in each direction. I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one. It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.
I don't recall seeing climbing lanes on any part of the "eastern" segment of Corridor H between Wardensville and Scherr.
Does there appear to be room to add a climbing lane later?
The new poles I noticed going up at southern WV 42/WV 93 intersection near Scherr on my last trip through are for flashers. Yellow for WV 42, red for WV 93 westbound. It's the most elaborate flasher setup I've ever seen from WVDOH. They even had some pole-mounted flashers.
Wonder why they are doing that now? I think H.B. asked a similar question upthread.
And should the old section of 42/93 (going up the Allegheny Front) then be numbered as a fractional spur route of U.S. 48? Probably the first one? At least I have never seen a fractional spur of 48 before.It would likely be a CR 42/xx number since it would branch off WV 42, not US 48.
I didn't see any "To US 48" signage from WV 42 at either end of the new section.
WVDOH has seemed remarkably reluctant to post trail blazers pointing to the various western ends of eastern U.S. 48.
Had the opportunity to drive it today, which also for me includes the section from Knobley Rd to WV 93 (had not been on that segment either before today). A vast improvement climbing the Allegheny Front. Also continued west on WV 93 to Davis to check status of that construction. I can see why they're saying 2015 now for getting it to Davis...there's a good chunk of it in Tucker County where they've barely begun earth movement.
From what I saw of the status, I think they'll be shooting for incremental openings as completion progresses westward from Bismark...probably starting with the section going to the interchange with 93 (concrete paving is underway on this segment), then probably to past Mt. Storm, then to near the Tucker/Grant County line. In Tucker County, though there's been a lot less progress, there are a couple sections that I think will open early to 2-way traffic on the new lanes...this being because grade changes involving WV 93's existing lanes need to occur in those sections.
Was there much snow on the ground?
The new section of road is full concrete roadway and shoulders like most of the other construction west of Moorefield. Two lanes in each direction. I'm sort of surprised there's no climbing lane heading westbound up the Allegheny Front but the traffic counts probably weren't high enough to justify one. It's a major improvement over the WV 42/WV 93 route.
I don't recall seeing climbing lanes on any part of the "eastern" segment of Corridor H between Wardensville and Scherr.
Does there appear to be room to add a climbing lane later?
ELKINS - The Randolph County Development Authority board voted unanimously Monday to support a Corridor H Authority resolution pushing for a public/private partnership to help complete the highway by 2020.
RCDA Executive Director Robbie Morris read the resolution, which stated the partnership is vital to the growth of Randolph County.
Morris said a recent study on the completion of Corridor H by 2020 - instead of the projected completion date of 2036 or after - suggests a positive economic impact of at least $1.254 billion in income for the state.
Morris said the completion of the section of Corridor H from Kerens to Parsons will mean the entire highway is 87 percent complete.
"The public/private partnership is authorized by the 2013 Legislative session that allows the Department of Highways to enter into contacts for private funding for state projects," Morris said. "Basically the construction company will finance the project and the state will pay them back. The law went into effect July 1, and is basically like a mortgage."
I don't recall ever hearing that one proposed eastern terminus was New Market.http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1665.msg252922#msg252922
http://www.connect-clarksburg.com/connect.cfm?func=view§ion=News&item=County-Commission-Offers-Support-For-Corridor-H-Completion-2790&fb_source=message
I don't recall ever hearing that one proposed eastern terminus was New Market.
And is it definite that Virginia will build its portion?
Despite what some in West Virginia are saying, I doubt it's a "definite" that Virginia will build their portion.
After an hour-long search this afternoon, I've found only two references to Corridor H or its completion within Virginia. The only reference specifically mentioning this supposed 2026 completion comes from an ADHS Completion Plan Report (http://www.arc.gov/images/programs/transp/ADHSCompletionPlanReport-9-2013.pdf) dated last September. The presumption many are making is that VDOT provided the date to the Appalachian Regional Commission. I've also noted some conflicting discrepancies regarding dates within this document (Mississippi Corridor V, for example, which lists "June 2014" as a completion date but also notes plain as day that completion plans for Corridor V are on hold due to lack of funding). So without verification elsewhere (and given Virginia's history with Corridor H), I take this 2026 date with a large grain of salt.
Corridor H is also mentioned in this CTB presentation (http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2013/feb/pres/Presentation_Agenda_Item_7_Final_FY_2014_2019_SYIP_Presentation.pdf) from a year ago. It only mentions that "Corridor H is a commitment after Corridor Q is completed". Nothing else, and no dates.
If West Virginia wants Virginia to move this up on the priorities list and get it into the Six Year Plan, then I suspect that West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin will need to pick up the phone and call Virginia's Governor [several years after the Elk River environmental disaster is sufficiently remediated so that people will have forgotten about it] and offer to pay for Corridor H with West Virginia funds.
I got the impression that the states in the Appalachian Regional Commission footprint were given a directive by the federal government to come up with completion dates for the ARC corridors within their borders, and Virginia did so - probably because they had to supply some sort of date.
What are the deficiencies in Virginia, given that a two-lane road can handle the traffic?
Mainly just a lack of shoulders and turn lanes. I have long said (including earlier in this thread) that spot improvements to VA 55 would be more than adequate to handle current and future traffic volume. To be perfectly fair, it's not like we haven't had 2-lane ARC corridors before (or even presently...there's a couple in Tennessee IIRC)
Not many in Va. are even remotely interested in Corridor H.VA has plenty of economic generators. WV, not so much.
To tie this discussion into the one about the proposed Mountain Parkway widening project in Kentucky, the two-lane segment of the Mountain Parkway is considered an ARC corridor (I can never remember the letter designation) even though it wasn't built with ARC funds. So there's a two-lane corridor.I looked it up. There are two corridors involved with the Mountain Parkway: I & R. Both include two lane sections.
There's a curious gap along the route where no work has started.
Took a ride to Mt. Storm yesterday, will upload pics as soon as I figure out how to get them from Photobucket to here...
"It's beautiful road, and there's lot of great terrain that's available for development all along Weston to Wardensville then into Virginia, there's just great possibilities," said Robbie Morris, executive director of Randolph County Development Authority.
Virginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.
It's beautiful road, and there's lot of great terrain that's available for development all along Weston to Wardensville then into Virginia, there's just great possibilities," said Robbie Morris, executive director of Randolph County Development Authority.
Virginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.
QuoteIt's beautiful road, and there's lot of great terrain that's available for development all along Weston to Wardensville then into Virginia, there's just great possibilities," said Robbie Morris, executive director of Randolph County Development Authority.
There's so much topographically/environmentally wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin…
QuoteVirginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.
Again, I have not seen anything within VDOT or CTB literature to verify this. As before, it's probably a "placeholder" date that VDOT submitted to the annual AHDS report.
....QuoteVirginia is wanting to complete its 10 percent portion of highway by 2026.
Again, I have not seen anything within VDOT or CTB literature to verify this. As before, it's probably a "placeholder" date that VDOT submitted to the annual AHDS report.
Environmentally wrong because some groups want no economic development along Corridor H?
QuoteEnvironmentally wrong because some groups want no economic development along Corridor H?
Environmentally wrong because A) clear-cutting of forests (one of the things some want to do) basically eliminates wildlife habitat, especially in acidic soil such as what they have. This is an ongoing issue in those areas where lumber/timber is a big business. But because it's a big business and because of the demand for wood, it isn't going away anytime soon. B) massive cuts/fills, necessary for large development in mountainous areas, changes drainage patterns significantly, usually resulting in some area or another experiencing higher flood risk.
Induced demand/development may have been all the rage 50 years ago when the ADHS was created. But I'd like to think that we've gotten wiser to the environmental ramifications of such unchecked development since then. Apparently I was wrong.
Environmentally wrong because A) clear-cutting of forests (one of the things some want to do) basically eliminates wildlife habitat, especially in acidic soil such as what they have.
How much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?
Extremist hysteria is no substitute for critical thinking.
I wonder why they installed rusted guardrail on the most recently opened section.
If we were truly doing critical thinking, we wouldn't have put a dime into Corridor H because the traffic level just doesn't justify the expense. I have always maintained that the traffic volume is not sufficient to warrant the cost of this project. If West Virginia wants it built? They should fund it themselves, especially since they reap the vast majority of purputed benefits.
QuoteHow much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?
Not enough to warrant 4 lanes.
Couldn't the same be said about many, if not most of the other ARC corridors? I can think of a number of others that are pretty lightly traveled. The concept of the Appalachian system wasn't centered on traffic volumes. It was built around economic development and improving accessibility. Most of the other corridors involved improving existing through routes (US 23, US 119, etc.). This is one of the few that involves a lot of new terrain construction over a string of routes that isn't a logical corridor. The convoluted US 119-US 25E-TN 63 and KY 80-KY 90-KY 61-TN 53-TN 56-unbuilt connector to Cookeville-TN 111 corridors followed routes that few would consider to be direct alignments, but they improved existing roads, more to the benefit of communities along the route rather than through traffic. (Not too many people are going to go from Chattanooga to London via Cookeville and Burkesville).
You are 100% correct. This is a clear waste of limited resources that would much be better spent repairing exisiting infrastructure and leaving the backwoods alone.QuoteHow much induced demand do you estimate will occur if and when Corridor H is completed?
Not enough to warrant 4 lanes.QuoteExtremist hysteria is no substitute for critical thinking.
If we were truly doing critical thinking, we wouldn't have put a dime into Corridor H because the traffic level just doesn't justify the expense. I have always maintained that the traffic volume is not sufficient to warrant the cost of this project. If West Virginia wants it built? They should fund it themselves, especially since they reap the vast majority of purputed benefits. The environmental ramifications are only secondary.
Once again, someone fails to grasp the concept of the Appalachian Development Highway System.
In addition, it was designed to be a system, like the interstate system, not a collection of individual roads.
Had to drive on the newest segment of Corridor H Saturday. An access road leads from WV 93/42 to Corridor H and down the Allegheny Front. There is an overlook going eastbound of the Lunice Creek valley and beyond. Other than the power and gas lines marring the otherwise unspoiled landscape, it's a great view: http://goo.gl/maps/9hA5K
The segment between US 219 and WV 93/42 is well under construction. Most of the eastbound lanes have been poured and traffic will shift to those lanes while the westbound lanes are graded and constructed.
Pretty much right here: http://goo.gl/maps/HHCkF
To the east, it closely hugs the existing alignment due to the prevalence of the Canaan Valley NWR. To the west, it swings up due to the nearby state parks and geological features.
Fall colors start changing in about two weeks and peak out by early to mid October, depending on elevation. Dolly Sods is always a must-see for the vistas. Canaan Valley for the wetlands and wildlife. Blackwater Falls for the ... waterfalls (there are 3). And of course, all of the awesome locally owned restaurants and shops in Thomas and Davis.
http://www.wboy.com/
Was up there last weekend, the interchange at Rt. 93 not quite ready, paving done. Foliage was near peak. Saw a W.V. State Trooper near Moorefield, first one I've ever seen on the road.
Why is that a 45 mph zone? Because of adjacent construction? Because most every time I've driven that road, i was able to do 65-70 mph and there was very little traffic.
Was up there last weekend, the interchange at Rt. 93 not quite ready, paving done. Foliage was near peak. Saw a W.V. State Trooper near Moorefield, first one I've ever seen on the road.
For folks traveling the remaining 2-lane portion of Route 93 between Bismarck and Davis, I've been advised that the 45 MPH speed limit is being heavily enforced, with tickets being issued for exceeding that speed by as little as 2-3 MPH.
Why is that a 45 mph zone? Because of adjacent construction? Because most every time I've driven that road, i was able to do 65-70 mph and there was very little traffic.
Probably a lot of adjacent construction. It was a real mess around this time last year.
Correction: New segment is 1.9 miles in length. Shortly after passing the RR crossing above Mt. Storm, two-way traffic runs for about 1 mile on the new road, then detours back to old Rt. 93 for 3 miles, and then returns back to the new carriage way for just about 5 more miles. All traffic returns to old Rt 93 at the Beaver Creek crossing, just in front of the Rubenstein Juvenile Center.
An unopened new bridge, which will carry US 48 over the railroad track to the Mt. Storm power plant. The track is to the right of the center pier. The road to the left of the pier may be just a construction access, rather than for a future ramp carrying westbound WV 93 traffic to westbound US 48.
Facing westbound from the same point, WV 93 traffic in both directions uses the concrete pavement on the left, that will be US 48's eastbound lanes. The parallel future westbound lanes remain closed, and for now are mostly asphalt-surfaced (maybe they were the old WV 93 alignment?).
Here are many of the photos I took on my Corridor H construction tour last Monday.
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/US48-WB-at-CommDr-jct_DSC5470.jpg)
^ The newly-extended US 48 westbound, just west of the old end at Communications Drive (signed as "To WV 42"). The US 48 extension is signed here, on the eastbound lanes just east of the new WV 93 interchange, and in both directions on WV 93 at that interchange. This new US 48 marker needs a more solid mounting (perhaps using two supports rather than just one, like many other signs), since it was flapping around a bit that windy day, and I had to wait for a break between wind gusts for the sign to steady enough for me to photograph it.
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/US48-WB-end-ramp-to-WV93_DSC5498.jpg)
^ The end of that exit ramp. The route signs in the background are for WV 93. There are no signs indicating that US 48 continues in either direction.
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/WV93-WB-jct-US48_DSC5444.jpg)
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/WV93-EB-jct-US48_DSC5426.jpg)
^ The new US 48-WV 93 interchange, from WV 93 westbound (with the Mt. Storm power plant in the background) then eastbound. None of the signs so far indicate that WV 93 will be relocated at this point onto the new US 48 roadway west of here once it opens.
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/US48future-bridge-over-RR_DSC5516.jpg)
^ An unopened new bridge, which will carry US 48 over the railroad track to the Mt. Storm power plant. The track is to the right of the center pier. The road to the left of the pier may be just a construction access, rather than for a future ramp carrying westbound WV 93 traffic to westbound US 48.
If the signpost was two U-channels back-to-back, that would not be out of the ordinary for WVDOH when protected by a guardrail. I can't tell from your photo.
Here are many of the photos I took on my Corridor H construction tour last Monday.
(http://www.alaskaroads.com/US48-WB-at-CommDr-jct_DSC5470.jpg)
I drove over to the Bismarck area today. It appears that the section bypassing the dam is going to open soon. I didn't see to much action today (nor did I expect to) - they were working on guardrail around the overpass at the Bismarck interchange, I saw someone driving a roller around in the railroad overpass area, and it looked like some drainage work was going on about halfway to Davis on the north side of the road.I'm not sure why the multiplex would be confusing to anyone. If anything, I think abruptly changing numbers while the corridor is still under construction would be more confusing to people.
More signage has been installed since oscar was there last month, especially west of the railroad overpass. Incredibly, they are going to sign WV 93 concurrently with US 48 west of there. As you approach the dam from the west (from Davis), there is a BGS that says WV 93/Bismarck, 2 miles. Then, after crossing the railroad overpass, is a sign directing route 93 off to the right, back onto its present alignment, after the RR crossing but before the dam. (see the right side of this map: http://www.wvcorridorh.com/mapping/corh_sh_29.pdf ) Shortly after that intersection,there is another BGS that says WV 93/Bismarck, 1 mile. East of the RR overpass, there are West US 48/West WV 93 assemblies.
This makes no sense to me. It will probably confuse people who are not familiar with the area. I though that they would truncate 93 back to its historic terminus at Scherr, and I remember reading a web page somewhere that there was a plan to extend it east along US 50 and then have it replace WV 972.
The WV 48 sign goof that appears in the photo upthread has been corrected. And that scenic overlook east of the WV 42 overpass is now open.
FWIW, WVDOH has long liked useless multiplexes. Today, WV 39 has a useless multiple with WV 16 for the last 6 miles into Gauley Bridge. Aside from the interchange connector at Moorefield, WV 55 is entirely multiplexed with other routes for its easternmost 211 miles. WV 92 and WV 28 also have 40+ mile multiplexes in the middle of their routes. It used to be worse - WV 4 was formerly multiplexed with WV 20, US 33, WV 28, and US 50 from Buckhannon into Virginia.
I do agree the routes should be reshuffled. I'd kill WV 55's multiplexes and move WV 42 onto part of current WV 93 and US 48 between Scherr and Bismarck. I'd either cut back WV 93 to Scherr or Mount Storm Lake. Hopefully DOH will review the issue once the have construction finished into Davis.
Yeah, WV 4 was multiplexed on the west end along US 60 over to Kentucky, too. The signage for WV 92 along WV 7 between Reedsville and Morgantown finally came down a couple years ago. According to some old maps, at point it actually also followed US 19 north to the PA line.FWIW, WVDOH has long liked useless multiplexes. Today, WV 39 has a useless multiple with WV 16 for the last 6 miles into Gauley Bridge. Aside from the interchange connector at Moorefield, WV 55 is entirely multiplexed with other routes for its easternmost 211 miles. WV 92 and WV 28 also have 40+ mile multiplexes in the middle of their routes. It used to be worse - WV 4 was formerly multiplexed with WV 20, US 33, WV 28, and US 50 from Buckhannon into Virginia.
I do agree the routes should be reshuffled. I'd kill WV 55's multiplexes and move WV 42 onto part of current WV 93 and US 48 between Scherr and Bismarck. I'd either cut back WV 93 to Scherr or Mount Storm Lake. Hopefully DOH will review the issue once the have construction finished into Davis.
Indeed, it was worse. I have seen maps showing WV 4 co-signed with US 60 west of Charleston all the way to at least Huntington, if not the Kentucky state line. And isn't there still some WV 92 signage along WV 7 in Morgantown?
I thought that WV 55 was signed as one long route to denote a single scenic corridor. With the addition of US 48 east from Wardensville to the Virginia state line, there's only one small section of it that is independently signed.
OK. It could be a case where they pull the WV thing of removing the shields from the BGS.QuoteI'm not sure why the multiplex would be confusing to anyone. If anything, I think abruptly changing numbers while the corridor is still under construction would be more confusing to people.
It's not the multiplex that is potentially confusing; it's traveling eastbound and seeing a BGS that says WV 93/Bismarck - 2 miles, then continuing less than a mile and seeing signs telling you to turn right to continue onto East 93 but seeing another BGS further down the highway that says WV 93/Bismarck - 1 mile, that's what might cause some confusion.
Agreed regarding the 55 and 92 situations. That's a lot of money spent on signs. 55 should be truncated at Craigsville, and that southern piece of 92 could be an extension of either WV 311 or 84.I've thought a southern extension of WV 28 to replace WV 92 would make sense. WV 92 didn't exist south of Belington until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. WV 28 previously followed what is now WV 92 from Dunmore to Minnehaha Springs, where it ended. The current WV 28 between Dunmore and WV 39 and WV 92 south of WV 39 were county routes.
I've thought a southern extension of WV 28 to replace WV 92 would make sense. WV 92 didn't exist south of Belington until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. WV 28 previously followed what is now WV 92 from Dunmore to Minnehaha Springs, where it ended. The current WV 28 between Dunmore and WV 39 and WV 92 south of WV 39 were county routes.
I've thought a southern extension of WV 28 to replace WV 92 would make sense. WV 92 didn't exist south of Belington until sometime in the 1960s or 1970s. WV 28 previously followed what is now WV 92 from Dunmore to Minnehaha Springs, where it ended. The current WV 28 between Dunmore and WV 39 and WV 92 south of WV 39 were county routes.
I was going to say, I've seen old maps that show 92 extending down to White Sulphur Springs and WV 28 ending at US 250.
The West Virginia Department of Transportation hopes to move forward on a number of highway projects in West Virginia during 2015.
State Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox recently told MetroNews the calendar this year includes advancements on several major projects already underway.
“We’ve got West Virginia 10 down in Logan County. We have let all the mainline contracts and look forward to letting the contract on the paving this year,” said Mattox. “We also continue work on Corridor H. We hope 2015 will see us complete Corridor H almost to the town of Davis.”
The next target for Corridor H will be the section from Parsons to Kerens. Mattox was optimistic that could be launched this year as well.
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW
Cool. More new US 48 to drive when I go to Maryland in September. Will anything else be opened between now and then?
Around four miles of new highway, from Bismarck to the Grant-Tucker line, are opening today: http://www.wchstv.com/news/features/eyewitness-news/stories/WV-Officials-To-Celebrate-Corridor-H-Highway-Opening-141531.shtml#.VWcduEYqqPW
Cool. More new US 48 to drive when I go to Maryland in September. Will anything else be opened between now and then?
With the recent completion of a 4.4-mile section of the Appalachian Corridor H, West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin announced last week that construction on another project -- a 7.7-mile stretch of Corridor H -- would be put out for bid soon.
The new portion of the four-lane highway will run from Kerens, West Virginia, half way to Parsons.
“Completing Corridor H has been a work in progress for a number of years, and I’m pleased we are able to announce work on an additional stretch of roadway to bring this project one-step closer to completion,” Tomblin said. “These continued efforts are made possible through public-private partnerships that not only save taxpayers’ dollars, but help to speed up construction and spur economic growth. By investing in our infrastructure, we have the potential to impact both our state and local economies. I look forward to announcing the bidding process for this new stretch of road in a few weeks.”
The EPA exists to provide cover for politicians to acomplish via regulatation things that they cannot come right out and say. A politican that actually came out and said "I have mine and I really don't care about everybody else." would lose 95-5. But you can, via environmental regulation, acomplish that selfish and self-centered goal.
Really, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance. Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.
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?
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.
I wonder if CPZ and HBE have smelled the good stuff or just old Mexican dirtweed. They smell COMPLETELY different (not that I would know by experience, hehehe). Even different strains of high quality cannabis flowers can smell completely different. Some of it has a skunky odor. You might have smelled some shitty weed because good weed has a wonderful odor.
Really, you can be 2 miles from Corridor H and be unaware of its existance. Its environmental impact (I use the common term the EPA uses, of course, nothing man does can have any real environmental impact, as man is a part of the environment) is really so near zero as to be not worth considering.
The state who allow(s?ed?) mountaintop removal has no room to talk. US 48 (I refuse to call it "Corridor H" because it sounds like a hallway in a psych ward) is barely noticeable and the environmental impacts are very low.
I've never been in that part of West Virginia, but from what I've seen the terrain is similar to the Ozarks (yes, I know they were formed differently) and I-49 (nee I-540) hasn't changed the landscape or ruined the lifestyle of anybody down in the valleys except for a few high bridges that are quite scenic in my opinion. I-49 through the Ouachita Mountains will be going through folded mountains that are more rugged than the eroded plateau that formed the Ozarks.
West Virginia has taken pains to make the easternmost portion of Corridor H as much of a scenic highway as possible, including decorative bridge railings, Core-Ten guardrail, brown signposts and a few other features.
At the Eastern Continental Divide (Tucker County/Grant County border), the road tops out at well over 3,300 feet (the nearby Maryland high point on the ridgetop of Backbone Mountain is about 3,380 feet AMSL, the West Virginia high point is some distance south, on Spruce Knob at better than 4,800 AMSL), all of which are significantly higher than the high point of Arkansas.
The distance above sea level is irrelevant. The distance between the mountain peaks and the valleys below is what is important if you're comparing the two.
The distance above sea level is irrelevant. The distance between the mountain peaks and the valleys below is what is important if you're comparing the two.
That is pretty significant as well.
What's built now rises from an elevation of around 1,000 feet near the Cacapon River at Wardensville up to about 3,400 feet near the crest of the Eastern Continental Divide. By East Coast standards, that is a lot of elevation gain.
Robbie Morris, president of the Robert C. Byrd Corridor H Authority, gave the Elkins Rotary Club an update on the status of Corridor H construction during the club's Monday meeting.
Morris began by giving a factual overview of the Corridor, saying slightly more than three quarters of the roadway within West Virginia either is completed or currently under construction.
"Corridor H is 130 miles long going from Weston, I-79, eventually to Strasburg, Front Royal and the I-81/I-66 interchange in Virginia," Morris said. "With the 4.4 miles just recently opened around Mt. Storm, 76 percent of the road in West Virginia is now complete, with the recent announcement of another 7.5 mile stretch that will go under construction later on this year.
"By the time the current section from Davis to right around Mt. Storm is completed later on this year, we will be up close to 87 percent complete or under construction," Morris continued.
The segments still left to be completed are the 15.5 mile section from Kerens to Parsons, the 9.2 mile section from Parsons to Davis and the 6.8 mile section from Wardensville to the Virginia state line.
Due to the current funding structure of the Corridor H project, the estimated completion date is between 22 and 27 years away.
"Currently with the funding mechanism for Corridor H, depending upon which agency you talk to, Corridor H is expected to be completed by either 2037 or 2042," Morris said. "(The state Division of Highways) says 2037, Appalachian Regional Commission says 2042."
Morris said a transportation bill passed a few years ago took away a requirement that a state must match 20 percent of federal funding to complete ADHS Corridors.
Off topic, but the Ozark Mountains are an eroded plateau, while the Ouachita Mountains are folded mountains. The Ozarks were once flat until they were slowly eroded into what they are today, while the Ouachitas were created when the South American plate crashed into the North American plate and the area that was once a shallow sea was pushed upward. The Ouachitas were once as tall as the Rockies but they have eroded to what they are now.
The Inter-Mountain.com: Rotary hears Corridor H news (http://www.theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/586900/Rotary-hears-Corridor-H-news.html)QuoteRobbie Morris, president of the Robert C. Byrd Corridor H Authority, gave the Elkins Rotary Club an update on the status of Corridor H construction during the club's Monday meeting.QuoteMorris began by giving a factual overview of the Corridor, saying slightly more than three quarters of the roadway within West Virginia either is completed or currently under construction.Quote"Corridor H is 130 miles long going from Weston, I-79, eventually to Strasburg, Front Royal and the I-81/I-66 interchange in Virginia," Morris said. "With the 4.4 miles just recently opened around Mt. Storm, 76 percent of the road in West Virginia is now complete, with the recent announcement of another 7.5 mile stretch that will go under construction later on this year.Quote"By the time the current section from Davis to right around Mt. Storm is completed later on this year, we will be up close to 87 percent complete or under construction," Morris continued.QuoteThe segments still left to be completed are the 15.5 mile section from Kerens to Parsons, the 9.2 mile section from Parsons to Davis and the 6.8 mile section from Wardensville to the Virginia state line.QuoteDue to the current funding structure of the Corridor H project, the estimated completion date is between 22 and 27 years away.Quote"Currently with the funding mechanism for Corridor H, depending upon which agency you talk to, Corridor H is expected to be completed by either 2037 or 2042," Morris said. "(The state Division of Highways) says 2037, Appalachian Regional Commission says 2042."QuoteMorris said a transportation bill passed a few years ago took away a requirement that a state must match 20 percent of federal funding to complete ADHS Corridors.
however they do have it in long range plans.
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.
Ummmm, no it's not. Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document. VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.
Ummmm, no it's not. Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document. VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).
Nothing with Corridor H is in Vtrans 2025 or Vtrans 2035 plans either...
Mike
Fixed quote. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Quotehowever they do have it in long range plans.
Ummmm, no it's not. Those reports that VDOT would supposedly have their part finished in the mid-2020s were from overoptimistic West Virginia politicians who misunderstood a VDOT document. VDOT Staunton District officials have made it clear that they don't have anything on the docket for Corridor H, as recently as last week (http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2015/06/corridor-h-development-moves-forward-without-virginia/).
I have driven Corridor H twice in the past few weeks, once from Davis to Wardensville two weeks ago, and Bismark to Wardensville yesterday. I snapped some photos two weeks ago, and will try to get them off my phone and posted sometime soon. Sections 26-28 look like they will open by the end of the summer. Sections 22-25 Eastbound lanes are completed and open to two way traffic. The Westbound lanes look like they are still in "rough grading" and appear to have a lot of work to do to get them open. Otherwise the route is an easy drive where it has been completed.
It appears to me that a two-lane Corridor H between the current western terminus of the eastern four-lane section at the Tucker County/Grant County border (a few miles west of the DVP Mount Storm Generating Station) and W.Va. 32 between Thomas and Davis should be complete before the current construction season ends. Not sure that all four lanes will be done, however. That may have to wait for 2016.
That seems to have changed. This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).
That seems to have changed. This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).
I saw a WV Trooper heading Westbound on Thursday, the first time I have seen any law enforcement presence on the road.
That seems to have changed. This year, I have seen WVSP as well as deputies from Hardy and Grant Counties stopping motorists (presumably for speeding over the posted 65 MPH limit along most of the road).
I saw a WV Trooper heading Westbound on Thursday, the first time I have seen any law enforcement presence on the road.
I have seen (marked) WVSP trooper cars on the road in the past, but until this year, I had not seen anyone stopped by them or deputy sheriffs. Most recently, I saw the Grant County SO with someone stopped on the westbound side between W.Va. 93 and the Nedpower windfarm east of the generating station.
Speed enforcement in rural areas in WV is generally pretty minimal, but from what I've seen with traffic going well above 65-70 on Corridor H, I'm not surprised there is a move to tamp that down.
Speed enforcement in rural areas in WV is generally pretty minimal, but from what I've seen with traffic going well above 65-70 on Corridor H, I'm not surprised there is a move to tamp that down.
Somewhat surprised that the D.C. crotch rocket (high-powered motorcycle) crowd has not discovered Corridor H yet.
All it will take is for one of them to post a YouTube of their GoPro/camcorder footage and away we go...
Yeah, speed enforcement in the western Virginia counties can be quite strict. A friend of a friend once spent a weekend in the slammer for doing 85 or so along US-211.All it will take is for one of them to post a YouTube of their GoPro/camcorder footage and away we go...
Agreed. Though they might be in for an unpleasant surprise with West Virginia law enforcement and the judicial system.
I suspect that West Virginia law enforcement is not under any limitations when it comes to pursuits, and judges in places like Hardy County and Grant County are probably perfectly willing to sentence a crotch rocketer from the District of Columbia to a stay in jail (though I have not read of speeders being sentenced to jail in West Virginia, as they are with some frequency in rural Virginia counties).
You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.
I'd like to know how he managed that. I'd imagine that the beltway is busy all hours of the day.You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.
Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 in a 55-mph zone on the Capital Beltway that happened to be a work zone. That's just plain dumb on his part.
But yes, anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket regardless of the posted speed limit, and in Virginia reckless driving is a misdemeanor.
At the end of the month I'll be headed through the eastern section of Corridor H. Does anyone know how far west it has been opened to traffic? Google says it's been opened to about CR-90/1, but other mapping sites (OSM, Bing) seem to put its ending further east.
You do not want to be caught driving over 80 ANYWHERE in the Commonwealth, even if the speed limit is 70. Check with Jason Werth.
Jayson Werth was clocked at 105 in a 55-mph zone on the Capital Beltway that happened to be a work zone. That's just plain dumb on his part.
But yes, anything over 80 mph is grounds for a reckless driving ticket regardless of the posted speed limit, and in Virginia reckless driving is a misdemeanor.
I have driven Corridor H twice in the past few weeks, once from Davis to Wardensville two weeks ago, and Bismark to Wardensville yesterday. I snapped some photos two weeks ago, and will try to get them off my phone and posted sometime soon. Sections 26-28 look like they will open by the end of the summer. Sections 22-25 Eastbound lanes are completed and open to two way traffic. The Westbound lanes look like they are still in "rough grading" and appear to have a lot of work to do to get them open. Otherwise the route is an easy drive where it has been completed.
No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.
No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.
IMO, it's about time for WVDOT to (at least) post U.S. 48 trailblazers from the intersection of W.Va. 32 and U.S. 219 in downtown Thomas and from the state parks and resorts along W.Va. 32 south of Davis.
No US 48 signage there, or at the WV 32 junction.
IMO, it's about time for WVDOT to (at least) post U.S. 48 trailblazers from the intersection of W.Va. 32 and U.S. 219 in downtown Thomas and from the state parks and resorts along W.Va. 32 south of Davis.
There is really no reason that WVDOT can't sign US 48 in its entirety from Weston to the state line. Route it concurrently with US 219 from Elkins to the Davis/Thomas area. More than likely, US 219 is going to be concurrent with US 48 from Elkins all the way to where the routes will split in that area anyway.
This would also allow WVDOT to route US 33/250 along the old route into Elkins that is now signed only as WV 92. It really never made a lot of sense to me to have only WV 92 on that road, and the route number designation change completely for through traffic at the interchange north of Elkins where US 33/250 currently leave Corridor H and US 219 enters.
How long before Corridor H is completed and signposted as US 48 between Interstate 79 and Interstate 81?
How long before Corridor H is completed and signposted as US 48 between Interstate 79 and Interstate 81?Construction on the segment from Parsons to Davis is not scheduled to start until 2031 at the earliest.
It also seems that West Virginia is switching to snowplowable recessed markers by installing a groove 8' in length to hold two markers. (Very similar to what Kentucky is now doing after numerous tests over the past few years: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1310&context=ktc_researchreports). The new markers were very effective at night and in the rain on my last trip.
There's really no reason that West Virginia can't extend the US 48 designation to at least the US 219 intersection at Thomas.
Just got back from an afternoon tour of the newest Corridor H section.
There's still no US 48 signage at the WV 32 junction. Indeed, for the 0.8 mile east of that junction, no obvious improvements have been made nor are any under construction. For the next seven miles or so, there's two lanes of concrete pavement (both directions of traffic two-way on what will become the EB roadway). For the parallel future WB roadway under construction, about half is unfinished concrete pavement and the rest is only graded.
The old WV 93 roadway west of the Tucker/Grant county line, that had carried traffic around the new segment while it was u/c, has now been closed off at both ends. All WV 93 traffic west of the county line is now on the new roadways, signed as US 48/WV 93. WV 93 traffic was also moved off fragments of old WV 93 roadway west of the new US 48 segment, to the future US 48 EB lanes, due to curve straightening.
I'll add more later after reviewing my photos. You can also read more (mostly GPS reads and other boring stuff, to get the new segment added to the Travel Mapping highway database) at the Clinched Highway Mapping forum, http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=2332&start=15&mforum=clinched
The area of land that had been cleared beyond the bridges that mark the current end of western Corridor H did not appear to have been touched. H. B. suggested (and I agree with him) that the contractor may have to wait until fall to start clearing and grubbing work along this section of Corridor H.
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.
Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.
I-68 exists for those looking to "shunpike" Pennsylvania. To the south, I-64 exists, and even then, AADT is now under 10,000. It looks like WVDOH may have been using a formula with prior AADT's as the new numbers are much more precise.
Corridor H west of Elkins has areas under 9,000 AADT, with some areas jumping to over 12,000 AADT (closer to Weston). North of Elkins, the route has less than 2,500 AADT (17% trucks). WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis (soon to be four-lane Corridor H) has less than 2,000, with 28% of that trucks. Not too long ago, traffic levels were under 1,000 - for what was essentially a new terrain route built in the late 1960's. The newer segments in the east carry less than 2,000 AADT. East of Moorefield, it goes to over 5,000 before declining to 4,000 at its eastern terminus.
That's hardly any justification for a four-lane route. I wonder how much money could have been saved with a two-lane variant on a four-lane ROW similar to US 19? After all, WV 93 east of Thomas/Davis was more than adequate for traffic.
Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.
At best you are looking at some tourism and making money off what truck traffic does pass through.
Part of the reason why having a high-quality road is important. Get through traffic to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, for example, and you could put people to work at hotels and truck stops. Not glamorous living, but for many people, a job is better than no job.
Nobody is going to take Corridor H instead of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I-68 exists. Traffic is never going to be high enough along this corridor to support truck stops or hotels for through travelers, anyway.
There's certainly available land and there's also an underutilized workforce, and within those two, some basis for economic growth. Get to know the good folks of the highland counties of WV (Tucker, Randolph, Pocahontas to name just three) and you hear a familiar tale running through the last three or four generations. Their kids grow up, get their educations, (sometimes very good ones), and then they move away, far from home.
Take a drive through the US 550 or 340 corridors from Winchester/Stephens City to Front Royal (some of you just did), and see the manufacturing and transportation complexes, the expanding communities, the opportunities for economic growth. Contrast and compare with the highland counties of WV. The missions of the ARC and ADHS may not be any more relevant anywhere else.
How strong were Winchester and Front Royal's infrastructures before I-81 and I-66 came through? In 1950 or 1960, how did folks from the east describe the economic potential of Virginia's northwestern counties? What do we think today?
I-68 exists for those looking to "shunpike" Pennsylvania. To the south, I-64 exists, and even then, AADT is now under 10,000. It looks like WVDOH may have been using a formula with prior AADT's as the new numbers are much more precise.
I-68 was not built as a route to shunpike the Pennsylvania Turnpike (but as Pennsylvania has raised (and will keep raising) tolls to subsidized transit all around the state, it has become an increasingly attractive route for some trucks). The Maryland part of I-68 was built as a way to increase highway connectivity between its two western counties (Garrett and Allegany) and the rest of the state, and to make those counties more attractive to tourist traffic from places to the east (Maryland and elsewhere).