Corridor H

[The_Ginger]

Had an opportunity to drive on Corridor H on a ski trip this weekend. I drove from Weston to Wardensville over the course of three days.

Here's my thoughts.

- The section east of Davis feels like it has ridges in the road's surface, almost like the concrete on US 33 west of Ravenswood in Ohio. It's odd.

- Construction on the US-219 bridge is nearly done. I really like the design of these posts.







- Most of the road is already signed. It seems that US-219 will not be moved on the new alignment, and instead stay on the old road.



- The road from Davis to Wardensville is very scenic. I really enjoyed the views.

[Beltway]

The bid package shows the Wardensville-Virginia State Line section having a design exception for a 9% mainline grade, apparently on the grade heading up to the state line based on the text in the narrative. They said that to meet the 6% would require the project to "extend considerably into Virginia."
To me, spending hundreds of millions on a new alignment and skirting geometric standards calls into question why you're building the project in the first place. The apparent unwillingness to continue into Virginia to correct the grade also suggests VDOT isn't interested in participating in construction.

That calls into question the need to coordinate a design with both states, based on what you said. I didn't realize that a WV alone project to the state line would cause that problem.

I have already opined upthread that Virginia has no reason to be interested ... yet ... but after WV construction reaches the point of having the corridor complete in about 5 years, that the Virginia priority will jump way up ... having a completed Corridor H between WV I-79 and VA I-81 would have major benefits to the state.

I didn't realize that the 60 miles between Davis and Wardensville had been completed by 2014, until I looked at a 2014 WV map. Things have moved very slowly since then.

[Bitmapped]

- Most of the road is already signed. It seems that US-219 will not be moved on the new alignment, and instead stay on the old road.

The signage installed at the WV 72 interchange also just shows US 48. I'm not sure what the rationale would be for not moving it onto the new alignment.

[The_Ginger]

- Most of the road is already signed. It seems that US-219 will not be moved on the new alignment, and instead stay on the old road.

The signage installed at the WV 72 interchange also just shows US 48. I'm not sure what the rationale would be for not moving it onto the new alignment.

Me either. I suppose they just didn't want to create a new county route and sign it along the old path?

[Mapmikey]

Me either. I suppose they just didn't want to create a new county route and sign it along the old path?

I was thinking this was why they hadn't dropped WV 93 from US 48...so that it could be extended over the old route.

[Bitmapped]

Me either. I suppose they just didn't want to create a new county route and sign it along the old path?

I was thinking this was why they hadn't dropped WV 93 from US 48...so that it could be extended over the old route.

Maybe, although if that was the goal, extending WV 90 from Thomas would make more sense since a long multiplex wouldn't be necessary. I don't think there's really a need for the old road to remain a state route since WV 72 will still provide access to Parsons.

[DJStephens]

The bid package shows the Wardensville-Virginia State Line section having a design exception for a 9% mainline grade, apparently on the grade heading up to the state line based on the text in the narrative. They said that to meet the 6% would require the project to "extend considerably into Virginia."

To me, spending hundreds of millions on a new alignment and skirting geometric standards calls into question why you're building the project in the first place. The apparent unwillingness to continue into Virginia to correct the grade also suggests VDOT isn't interested in participating in construction.

Frankly, would stop right there.  Until some agreement can be reached, with Virginia, to continue a properly designed alignment into that state.  9% grade, that is freaking ridiculous.    What exactly is the issue with the "H" corridor, with the Virginia department?  Am also going to guess well heeled political opposition in the Strasburg environs.   Looking at the map, it is close enough, for a dedicated individual to commute to the DC metro.   

[Beltway]

The bid package shows the Wardensville-Virginia State Line section having a design exception for a 9% mainline grade, apparently on the grade heading up to the state line based on the text in the narrative. They said that to meet the 6% would require the project to "extend considerably into Virginia."
To me, spending hundreds of millions on a new alignment and skirting geometric standards calls into question why you're building the project in the first place. The apparent unwillingness to continue into Virginia to correct the grade also suggests VDOT isn't interested in participating in construction.

Frankly, would stop right there.  Until some agreement can be reached, with Virginia, to continue a properly designed alignment into that state.  9% grade, that is freaking ridiculous.    What exactly is the issue with the "H" corridor, with the Virginia department?  Am also going to guess well heeled political opposition in the Strasburg environs.  Looking at the map, it is close enough, for a dedicated individual to commute to the DC metro.   

I posted details upthread why Virginia won't consider it a priority until corridor completion in WVA is imminent (like say 3 to 5 years).

I also said that Wardensville-Virginia State Line should be integrated into the design of the Virginia section, and wait until.

[noelbotevera]

Drove the Kerens-Weston section for the first time in about eight years, along with the Thomas/Davis - Mt Storm section. Didn't have a chance to head east of Mt. Storm because I was visiting friends and thus on a bit of a compressed timetable.

Some observations:

-There seems to be no groundwork laid out to replace the US 219 intersection with an interchange. That means people following US 219 will suddenly be told to turn right (at 70 MPH!) onto some nondescript access road. Probably not a big deal in the long run, but it seems like the newer Corridor H sections (i.e. east of Thomas) have favored interchanges at major roads. Is this going to be a permanent arrangement?

-There's no "anti Corridor H" lawn signs in towns (Parsons, Davis) that are going to be bypassed by the highway. Not like there's a lot of people to annoy, but I'd never underestimate the power of NIMBYs.'
EDIT: Duh, Blackwater Falls near Davis. I think people in that town will probably be pissed about Corridor H, but I haven't seen any signs about it. I actually asked some people in Davis (while on a coffee break / trying to get my car unstuck from a snow bank) what they thought and they seemed indifferent. There's been a lot of new construction in Davis; tourism related or in preparation for Corridor H?

-Based on the construction I saw, the alignment west of Kerens continues northward on US 219 for a few extra miles before turning east across the mountains. I'm guessing this is the path of least resistance given that US 48 is already in a valley.
EDIT: Google Maps aerial view confirms that this is pretty much the case.

-I think the Weston-Elkins section needs some revamping. It's probably impossible to remove the signals near I-79 because of all of the businesses, but it seems doable around Buckhannon and Elkins. At the very least I'd start with US 250 and WV 92. You'd probably have to do some more blasting near WV 92 to build a proper interchange, but the US 250 signal looks like a gimme (and some of the Buckhannon area traffic lights).

In an alternate universe, where West Virginia chose to upgrade US 33 over building a new alignment, do you think Corridor H would've been finished sooner?* They built out the easy part (the racetrack near Elkins) then gave up the second the terrain got tricky. I forgot what the end game of the US 33 upgrade was and why it was abandoned, but it does seem like more of the work was already done.

*Can't remember who told me this - hbelkins? One of my posts about the racetrack might've been deleted.

[74/171FAN]

*Can't remember who told me this - hbelkins? One of my posts about the racetrack might've been deleted.

Maybe it had to do with your account being hacked.  I do not remember removing any of your posts.  -Mark

[SP Cook]

In an alternate universe, where West Virginia chose to upgrade US 33 over building a new alignment, do you think Corridor H would've been finished sooner?* They built out the easy part (the racetrack near Elkins) then gave up the second the terrain got tricky. I forgot what the end game of the US 33 upgrade was and why it was abandoned, but it does seem like more of the work was already done.

Change "chose" to "was allowed to" and you answer your own question.  The early anti progress flatlanders first advocated "North for H" to delay and lengthen H, before this was agreed to and then that admitted they simply opposed this road, and IMHO, all roads.

There is no non political reason H wasn't finished decades ago.  Just people that don't think others need nice things.

[hbelkins]

-There seems to be no groundwork laid out to replace the US 219 intersection with an interchange. That means people following US 219 will suddenly be told to turn right (at 70 MPH!) onto some nondescript access road. Probably not a big deal in the long run, but it seems like the newer Corridor H sections (i.e. east of Thomas) have favored interchanges at major roads. Is this going to be a permanent arrangement?

Which US 219 intersection?

[Beltway]

In an alternate universe, where West Virginia chose to upgrade US 33 over building a new alignment, do you think Corridor H would've been finished sooner?* They built out the easy part (the racetrack near Elkins) then gave up the second the terrain got tricky. I forgot what the end game of the US 33 upgrade was and why it was abandoned, but it does seem like more of the work was already done.

Corridor H's original concept roughly followed US-33, WV-28, US-220, and WV-55, but this was never a literal widening plan. Even in the 1970s, WVDOH and ARC assumed a new alignment because the existing roads ran through narrow hollows, tight curves, steep grades, and towns sitting directly on the roadway.

Traffic‑engineering wise, that corridor was superior: it served Petersburg, the largest town in the region, and followed the natural east-west travel pattern. But physically and environmentally, it was the far harder option.

The US-33 corridor cut through some of the most protected landscapes in West Virginia: Seneca Rocks NRA, Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks NRA, Monongahela National Forest roadless areas, karst valleys, and sensitive trout streams. FHWA's EIS work consistently showed higher impacts and far greater litigation risk. The early Elkins "racetrack" segment is the only piece ever built, and even that was new alignment.

The modern Corridor H route is considerably longer and bypasses Petersburg, but it avoids the worst environmental choke points and sits on broader, more buildable ridges. In the end, it wasn't the best corridor on paper, it was the only one that could actually be permitted and constructed.

[noelbotevera]

-There seems to be no groundwork laid out to replace the US 219 intersection with an interchange. That means people following US 219 will suddenly be told to turn right (at 70 MPH!) onto some nondescript access road. Probably not a big deal in the long run, but it seems like the newer Corridor H sections (i.e. east of Thomas) have favored interchanges at major roads. Is this going to be a permanent arrangement?

Which US 219 intersection?

The intersection at the temporary end near Kerens. It's set up similar to the WV 93 intersection near Mt. Storm, where you turn onto/off an access road that leads to old 219.

This setup would make more sense if US 219 stayed on US 48 or was moved to its old alignment, but there's already a fractional route for old US 219 south of Kerens (219/86). If US 219 is still supposed to return to its old alignment here, then all of a sudden a major route makes a sharp right turn off of a fast moving divided highway with no signals.

[The_Ginger]

It's probably impossible to remove the signals near I-79 because of all of the businesses, but it seems doable around Buckhannon and Elkins.

Not quite.
In theory, two roundabouts or U-turn lanes at either end of the congested area would help, but that's just my opinion. It is a really congested intersection.

[Bitmapped]

Drove the Kerens-Weston section for the first time in about eight years, along with the Thomas/Davis - Mt Storm section. Didn't have a chance to head east of Mt. Storm because I was visiting friends and thus on a bit of a compressed timetable.

Some observations:

-There seems to be no groundwork laid out to replace the US 219 intersection with an interchange. That means people following US 219 will suddenly be told to turn right (at 70 MPH!) onto some nondescript access road. Probably not a big deal in the long run, but it seems like the newer Corridor H sections (i.e. east of Thomas) have favored interchanges at major roads. Is this going to be a permanent arrangement?

Kerens is staying as an intersection. At-grade intersections with Corridor H are used for access roads in a number of other places. Through traffic will stay on Corridor H, and vehicles going from Elkins to Parsons are either going to take Corridor H up to WV 72 or they're just getting on Old US 219 at Elkins.

-I think the Weston-Elkins section needs some revamping. It's probably impossible to remove the signals near I-79 because of all of the businesses, but it seems doable around Buckhannon and Elkins. At the very least I'd start with US 250 and WV 92. You'd probably have to do some more blasting near WV 92 to build a proper interchange, but the US 250 signal looks like a gimme (and some of the Buckhannon area traffic lights).

The signals east of Buckhannon are only about a year old. I wish WVDOH had built RCUTs instead.

The US 250 north intersection near Junior has had an interchange proposed for years but I don't expect it to be built as the signal has been there for decades at this point. The signal with WV 92/Harrison Avenue probably should not have been built - it's caused rear-end accidents and generally increased the delay here.

In an alternate universe, where West Virginia chose to upgrade US 33 over building a new alignment, do you think Corridor H would've been finished sooner?* They built out the easy part (the racetrack near Elkins) then gave up the second the terrain got tricky. I forgot what the end game of the US 33 upgrade was and why it was abandoned, but it does seem like more of the work was already done.

*Can't remember who told me this - hbelkins? One of my posts about the racetrack might've been deleted.

I don't know that it would have been built much faster. The US 33 route has much rougher terrain than the alignment that is being built now.

Traffic‑engineering wise, that corridor was superior: it served Petersburg, the largest town in the region, and followed the natural east-west travel pattern. But physically and environmentally, it was the far harder option.

Moorefield has long been more important than Petersburg. The only thing Petersburg has over Moorefield is the hospital.

[Beltway]

Traffic‑engineering wise, that corridor was superior: it served Petersburg, the largest town in the region, and followed the natural east-west travel pattern. But physically and environmentally, it was the far harder option.

Moorefield has long been more important than Petersburg. The only thing Petersburg has over Moorefield is the hospital.

The original east–west corridor ran through Petersburg, but the full Hardy County alignment inevitably included Moorefield as well.

[hbelkins]

-There seems to be no groundwork laid out to replace the US 219 intersection with an interchange. That means people following US 219 will suddenly be told to turn right (at 70 MPH!) onto some nondescript access road. Probably not a big deal in the long run, but it seems like the newer Corridor H sections (i.e. east of Thomas) have favored interchanges at major roads. Is this going to be a permanent arrangement?

Which US 219 intersection?

The intersection at the temporary end near Kerens. It's set up similar to the WV 93 intersection near Mt. Storm, where you turn onto/off an access road that leads to old 219.

This setup would make more sense if US 219 stayed on US 48 or was moved to its old alignment, but there's already a fractional route for old US 219 south of Kerens (219/86). If US 219 is still supposed to return to its old alignment here, then all of a sudden a major route makes a sharp right turn off of a fast moving divided highway with no signals.

Since US 48 and US 219 are concurrent all the way to Thomas, it would make little sense for the two routes to diverge at Kerens once the construction is complete. I know there's a US 48-only sign installed at the beginning of the new route at Kerens, but I wouldn't read anything into that.

[The_Ginger]

Does anyone have a map of the Wardensville to the Va. state line segment of Corridor H handy? I can't seem to find a map of it anywhere.

[Beltway]

Does anyone have a map of the Wardensville to the Va. state line segment of Corridor H handy? I can't seem to find a map of it anywhere.

The Route - Wardensville to Virginia
https://transportation.wv.gov/highways/major-projects/Corridor-H/route/Pages/Wardensville-to-Virginia.aspx

Question: has Virginia agreed on where to cross the border? If not WVA should not build up to the state line and should stop at a place that leaves options open. I see that they tie into existing US-48 at the state border, and that may not be compatible with the other state.

I know there has been no formal EIS/location study for the VA segment, but it may be possible that they agreed to a crossing location.

This is how it was done on Corridor Q --

By the early ADHS planning era, late 1960s into the early 1970s, Virginia and Kentucky had already settled on a crossing near Breaks / the Pine Mountain–Russell Fork divide, and an about 90 degree crossing angle, consistent with connecting Grundy - Breaks - Elkhorn City - Pikeville.

This wasn't a detailed engineering alignment. It was a corridor envelope that both states committed to so the ADHS system could be mapped as a continuous route. That early envelope is why the official ADHS maps from the 1970s already show Corridor Q crossing the border in essentially the same place it does today.

It is 5 miles from the pre-existing US-460 crossing and is not in a place where one state could build a standalone section and have it tie into something meaningful.

[The Ghostbuster]

If/When the four-lane alignment US 48/VA 55 alignment in Virginia is studied and later constructed, would it be more likely that the four-lane alignment would go north of the existing alignment or south of it? I would guess it would go north of the existing US 48/VA 55.

[1995hoo]

The ideal way would have been if they could have connected it directly to the western end of I-66 at I-81's Exit 300, but I read somewhere that such an alignment is no longer deemed viable for several reasons. I know there's a national historic park somewhere just west of I-81 there, for example.

[The Ghostbuster]

There's also this just west of the Interstate 66/Interstate 81 interchange: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Carmeuse+Strasburg+Operation/@39.0149837,-78.3146122,3515m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89b5becbad34e637:0x16bcab5fda588afd!8m2!3d39.0194816!4d-78.3297805!16s%2Fg%2F126460hfn?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D.

[Rothman]

PE studies tend to be a bit more robust than that, in my experience.

Not sure how long it could be before a real proposed route is put forward.  Even with WV doing the work it's doing, other new-ish corridors that cross state borders of differing levels of interest certainly provide cautionary tales against optimism.

[Beltway]

I see the map got moved over here --
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=36916.0

PE studies tend to be a bit more robust than that, in my experience.
Not sure how long it could be before a real proposed route is put forward.  Even with WV doing the work it's doing, other new-ish corridors that cross state borders of differing levels of interest certainly provide cautionary tales against optimism.

PE is probably too long of a stretch. Preliminary location study is probably a better term.

I did some of these in VDOT Location & Design Division back in the 1980s. Take aerial photographic sheets and USGS maps and show potential realignments for about 20 secondary roads. Very preliminary stuff to give a general picture of what might be done.

Any detailed design would have course need survey data for an alignment. But the above can at least show the survey parties where to go.

Back then we sketched alignments on aerials and USGS quads to identify feasible corridors before any survey crews were sent out. Modern CADD and LiDAR automate a lot of that, but it's still not PE. True PE only starts once a corridor is selected and survey data exists.

Surveying has completely changed since it was converted to electronic devices.