News:

Finished coding the back end of the AARoads main site using object-orientated programming. One major step closer to moving away from Wordpress!

Main Menu

West Virginia

Started by logan230, October 16, 2014, 05:42:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

seicer

Many bridges from that final phase of Interstate 64's construction are being rehabilitated with deck overlays and painting, but none have involved significant substructure rehabilitation. The highway was opened in 1988, but many of those bridges, depending on the segment, were built from 1982 until 1988.


Beltway

Quote from: seicer on August 19, 2025, 09:26:24 AMMany bridges from that final phase of Interstate 64's construction are being rehabilitated with deck overlays and painting, but none have involved significant substructure rehabilitation. The highway was opened in 1988, but many of those bridges, depending on the segment, were built from 1982 until 1988.
1988 is old enough -- 37 years old -- a long time for a freeway bridge that carries large volumes of cars, trucks and buses.

I was thru there a few weeks ago and the bridges do indeed need rehabilitation.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

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

seicer

Quote from: seicer on August 07, 2025, 03:29:40 PMH. Laban White Memorial Bridge Project
The West Virginia Division of Highways (WVDOH) will hold an informational workshop public meeting on August 19, 2025, at the Waldomore building on the grounds of the Clarksburg-Harrison Public Library, 404 W. Pike St., Clarksburg, WV, to provide background information on the proposed H. Laban White Memorial Bridge project. This project includes the replacement of two existing bridges structures, the H. Laban White Memorial Bridge, carrying United States (US) Route 19 over West Fork River, and the West Pike Street bridge carrying US-19 over Elk Creek. Along with the bridge
work, the existing intersection of US-19 and West Virginia (WV) Route 20 was evaluated for replacement with a Y-intersection, roundabout, or conversion to a T-intersection. This meeting complies with the public involvement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966.


  • Alternatives and matrix: I am a fan of alternatives 5 and 6 with the roundabouts, as they simplify a complicated junction. I am not a fan of alternatives 2, 3, or 4, as they feature very wide turning radii with undefined barriers that seem out of scale for an urban environment with pedestrian crossings. I am not a fan of alternative 1, as it incorporates a dated and confusing intersection design.
  • Preferred alternative: Alternative 1 will be moved forward. I hope they incorporate better pedestrian crossings, as few exist on the map.
  • Flyer