West Virginia Turnpike

[Beltway]

The only reason to potentially widen the Turnpike north of Beckley is the number of trucks, about 30% of traffic. AADT in 25K-30K range otherwise doesn't justify it.

That is the big reason. Windy highway through mountainous terrain mixed with a lot of trucks and a decent amount of traffic will warrant 6 lanes. If not now, it will in the future.
It's not solely about the AADT. Truck percentages, terrain, highway geometry, etc. all play factors.

Same as my standard on VA I-81 which has similar or slightly higher AADT and large truck percentages. On averages four lanes is adequate outside of a few urban areas.

I use a "20 weekends per year and holiday weekends" guideline for how many lanes are needed. This would be much higher than the engineering 30th highest design hour.

Weekend defined as Noon Friday to Midnight Sunday/Monday. Basically from Memorial Day to Labor Day inclusive, and Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years.

Most definitely warrants six lanes minimum on weekends on the entire 326-mile corridor (TN, WV, MD and PA likewise).

Plus additional truck climbing lane where their speeds would be considerably reduced by the grade.

[I-55]

I could get behind widening this road, but really it only needs some more climbing lanes for now. Above all, WVPA needs to implement some sort of open road tolling system for E-ZPass holders to reduce backups (particularly at Chelyan).

[sprjus4]

The WV Turnpike seems to be one of the only remaining major turnpikes that refuses to switch to AET open road tolling. Yes, there would be some initial opposition and criticism, but over time more and more will switch to E-ZPass and in 5 years it would be an afterthought.

I noticed the US-19 Beckley toll plaza has been switched to AET, but the physical booths still remain. The mainline now accepts credit card which is a nice addition.

Funny story about the credit card thing by the way... I had an issue a couple years ago prior to the switch at one of the manned lanes where it said my E-ZPass "did not read" and I was forced to pay with cash. Luckily, I had enough cash and coins but how am I supposed to just know to have that, when my E-ZPass has worked everywhere else (including at the next toll plaza that same day). The best part is, my E-ZPass actually did get charged, something along the lines of $6 or $7 for that one plaza (the rate was $4.25 I believe). I got that refunded though after disputing with E-ZPass. What was I supposed to do had I not had cash and their readers were messed up?

[Rothman]

Indiana Toll Road says hello.

[sprjus4]

Indiana Toll Road says hello.

From everything I've heard about the Indiana Toll Road, I'm not sure I'm that surprised by that.

[Beltway]

I could get behind widening this road, but really it only needs some more climbing lanes for now. Above all, WVPA needs to implement some sort of open road tolling system for E-ZPass holders to reduce backups (particularly at Chelyan).

Does anyone have access to highway design software that could do a preliminary design on a feasible relocation between Chelyan and Mossy, 70 mph design speed, grades 5% max?

Be interesting to see what is possible.

[I-55]

I could get behind widening this road, but really it only needs some more climbing lanes for now. Above all, WVPA needs to implement some sort of open road tolling system for E-ZPass holders to reduce backups (particularly at Chelyan).

Does anyone have access to highway design software that could do a preliminary design on a feasible relocation between Chelyan and Mossy, 70 mph design speed, grades 5% max?

Be interesting to see what is possible.

I design roads for a living. In theory, I could do a very high level (which really means low level) mock up based off some satellite imagery or whatnot to throw a new route together that probably doesn't work in reality. To get something feasible there'd need to be profile grades, earthwork calcs, etc. In order to do this in CAD I would need:

1) a topo surface to be able to analyze elevation and set profiles. Not sure where to find online
2) a beefier computer to prevent civil 3d from crashing due to the size of the topo surface. My computer gets bogged down when modeling 3 mile city street corridors, a 20 mile project would either need broken up into 10 pieces or I'd need a supercomputer.
3) months of spare time on my hands that's already dedicated to other things to be able to model a 20 mile long mountainous freeway.

Ofc, if someone else knows something easier to use than CAD please enlighten me, as I would love to do this in a lot of places.

[Beltway]

Does anyone have access to highway design software that could do a preliminary design on a feasible relocation between Chelyan and Mossy, 70 mph design speed, grades 5% max?
Be interesting to see what is possible.

I design roads for a living. In theory, I could do a very high level (which really means low level) mock up based off some satellite imagery or whatnot to throw a new route together that probably doesn't work in reality. To get something feasible there'd need to be profile grades, earthwork calcs, etc. In order to do this in CAD I would need:
1) a topo surface to be able to analyze elevation and set profiles. Not sure where to find online
2) a beefier computer to prevent civil 3d from crashing due to the size of the topo surface. My computer gets bogged down when modeling 3 mile city street corridors, a 20 mile project would either need broken up into 10 pieces or I'd need a supercomputer.
3) months of spare time on my hands that's already dedicated to other things to be able to model a 20 mile long mountainous freeway.
Ofc, if someone else knows something easier to use than CAD please enlighten me, as I would love to do this in a lot of places.

I designed roads for a living in the 1980s before the days of CAD. So I know what kind of topo data is needed to evaluate alignments and then develop profile and cross-sections. But that was manual drafting and mathematical calculations using a TI-59 calculator or the like. Existing topo came from books produced by a survey party. I have not used a CAD system.

I am thinking of a preliminary design or even what would be a feasibility study to show at a public hearing.
Something like these plan views --
https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/projects/hampton-roads/i-64-gap-segment-c-widening/I64GapSegmentCPublicHearingBoards_acc08232023_PM.pdf
. . .
https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/projects/salem/route-58-widening---lovers-leap-in-patrick/western-display.jpg
https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/projects/salem/route-58-widening---lovers-leap-in-patrick/central-display.jpg

I actually did use USGS maps back in the 1980s to develop a conceptual feasible alignment for a 4-lane relocation of US-211 thru Thornton Gap. I used a 60 mph design speed and granted my grades were feasible estimates, but probably no steeper than I-64 at Afton Mountain. I didn't get to a point of estimating cuts and fills, or where viaducts were needed. But it would not require a tunnel.

But it was good enough for me to see what was a close estimate of how this would be done. It was a completely different alignment from what is there today. My own work -- not for my job.

US-211 is one of the Arterial Highways that VDOT targeted for 4-lane widening and town bypasses, back in 1965.

These are the remaining 2-lane sections and mileages --
Sperryville to Nat. Park -- 3.2   
Shenandoah Nat. Park -- 5.0 reloc. thru Thornton Gap
West of Nat. Park -- 0.9      
East of GW Nat. Forest -- 1.4

The first one actually has been in the Six Year Program before for 4-lane widening.

I would say that I-66 has provided the main route between Washington and I-81, and that US-211 would have a low priority for 4-lane completion; and that it would be difficult or impossible to build a new 4-lane highway thru Shenandoah National Park, due to 4(f) regulations.

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 303 and mirrored in 23 U.S.C. § 138.  It established a strong preservation mandate: transportation projects using publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, or historic sites may not proceed unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and all possible planning has been done to minimize harm.

[vdeane]

AET would make it easier.  All that's needed then is a sign gantry with tolling equipment on it.

[Beltway]

AET would make it easier.  All that's needed then is a sign gantry with tolling equipment on it.

Problem is that if they wanted to do both it looks like there is not enough width.

[Bitmapped]

AET would make it easier.  All that's needed then is a sign gantry with tolling equipment on it.

Problem is that if they wanted to do both it looks like there is not enough width.

WVPA could just get rid of the northernmost toll plaza at Chelyan and double the toll at Pax. There's not anything along the Turnpike between those points to originate traffic other than the upper end of Cabin Creek, and they're already skipping the Chelyan plaza unless they have the unlimited E-ZPass. Any losses from Oak Hill traffic (which bypasses Pax plaza) would likely be cancelled out by reduced operating costs and traffic from Montgomery (which bypasses Chelyan plaza).

[SP Cook]

WVPA could just get rid of the northernmost toll plaza at Chelyan and double the toll at Pax. There's not anything along the Turnpike between those points....

I would agree with that.  Part of the mis-design of the Turnpike is the placement of the northern toll booth, especially north bound, where trucks have a twisty road and a needless elevation change that has them already slowing traffic, causing backups.   The middle toll booth southbound also has issues as trucks cannot get up to speed in a safe manner.

The thing to remember about the turnpike is part of the deal for the second (we are now on the third) extension of the tolls was the removal of the "side tolls" which mainly affected locals, which causes huge sections of the turnpike to be "shunpikeable". 

I don't have numbers, but it seems clear 90+% of turnpike travel can be divided into just a few groups:

Charleston-Beckley traffic, either to access Beckley and places around it or I-64 E, and v-v.

Full line traffic, Charleston-Princeton, and v-v.

Beckley-Princeton traffic, taking the "shortcut" of 79-L-77, or just locals going from Princeton to Beckley (or to I-64E, although from Princeton 460 Q east to 81 at Christiansburg is a better route, IMHO).

Thus my modest proposal would be to just have two mainline tolls plus the "side toll" and, with open road tolling these do not have to be in the same places in both directions.  Charge southbound/eastbound in the area near the bypass of the Memorial Tunnel/Bender Bridge bypass, which is un-shunpikeable by anyone normal, and then half as much at the current southern toll booth area.  Charge northbound/westbound half as much at the current southern toll booth area, and again just past the Corridor L interchange, keeping the "side toll" for Corridor L.