Corridor H

[Beltway]

VDOT studied their part of US 48/Corridor H last fall at the request of a state senator. They concluded that a couple spot safety improvements might be merited but that the corridor will remain at LOS C or better for decades, and LOS D or better after the year 2100. Report PDF is available.

The "VDOT study" posted on the WV Highlands Conservancy website (wvhighlands.org) is not a standard VDOT planning or traffic‑engineering product. It was created as a legislative‑request memo for Sen. Timmy French's office, which is why it has no VDOT division, no project number, no authorship, and no modeling documentation. The analysis itself is not credible: it projects traffic conditions all the way to the year 2102, using a compounded 3% annual growth rate that would increase volumes by 9.4×, yet still claims operations remain "acceptable." No DOT, MPO, or FHWA guidance supports 76‑year operational forecasts. This is a consultant quick‑turn memo, not a VDOT corridor study, and it shouldn't be treated as one.

Even though the document is full of charts, nothing in it resembles a real VDOT technical study. There's no VDOT division, no project manager, no UPC, no consultant attribution, no model version, and no calibration/validation data. VDOT never publishes anonymous modeling work. The charts are just generic Synchro/HCS outputs pasted into a memo that was prepared as a legislative‑request for Sen. French's office, not through VDOT's planning or traffic engineering divisions. The fact that it's hosted on wvhighlands.org instead of a VDOT server reinforces that this never went through real VDOT technical review.

Given the lack of a VDOT division, project number, authorship, or methodology -- and the fact it's hosted on an advocacy site rather than VDOT's own servers -- it's doubtful this document ever received real VDOT technical review. It reads like a consultant memo prepared for a legislator, not an actual VDOT study.

[Beltway]

In other words, US 48/VA 55 will remain a two-lane highway forever. On the West Virginia side, will there still be a bypass of Wardensville constructed, even it isn't a four-lane highway east of the Virginia/West Virginia state line?

WVDOH has construction for the Wardensville bypass going out for bid later this year. It will end at the state line, tying into the existing road. The new bypass's plans indicate a design exception is required because it doesn't meet the normal 6% max grade on the climb up to the state line.

I hope they are treating the last half mile as a temporary roadway that would be relocated to connect to a VA alignment that would have standard acceptable grades.

[Bitmapped]

In other words, US 48/VA 55 will remain a two-lane highway forever. On the West Virginia side, will there still be a bypass of Wardensville constructed, even it isn't a four-lane highway east of the Virginia/West Virginia state line?

WVDOH has construction for the Wardensville bypass going out for bid later this year. It will end at the state line, tying into the existing road. The new bypass's plans indicate a design exception is required because it doesn't meet the normal 6% max grade on the climb up to the state line.

I hope they are treating the last half mile as a temporary roadway that would be relocated to connect to a VA alignment that would have standard acceptable grades.

Nope, it's intended to be permanent. The new alignment climbs diagonally northeast up the WV side of the mountain to where it hits the current alignment about 1500 feet west of the state line. From there, it curves east to follow the current alignment through the gap in Great North Mountain. On the Virginia side, the road then immediately curves northeast again to drop down the side of the mountain.

The gap is really about the only logical place to cross through here. Deep creek valleys on the Virginia side hem in VA 55, and what little alignment shift would be possible on the Virginia side, to the north, would require cuts a couple hundred feet deep. This is the place to cross.

[Rothman]

VDOT studied their part of US 48/Corridor H last fall at the request of a state senator. They concluded that a couple spot safety improvements might be merited but that the corridor will remain at LOS C or better for decades, and LOS D or better after the year 2100. Report PDF is available.

The "VDOT study" posted on the WV Highlands Conservancy website (wvhighlands.org) is not a standard VDOT planning or traffic‑engineering product. It was created as a legislative‑request memo for Sen. Timmy French's office, which is why it has no VDOT division, no project number, no authorship, and no modeling documentation. The analysis itself is not credible: it projects traffic conditions all the way to the year 2102, using a compounded 3% annual growth rate that would increase volumes by 9.4×, yet still claims operations remain "acceptable." No DOT, MPO, or FHWA guidance supports 76‑year operational forecasts. This is a consultant quick‑turn memo, not a VDOT corridor study, and it shouldn't be treated as one.

Even though the document is full of charts, nothing in it resembles a real VDOT technical study. There's no VDOT division, no project manager, no UPC, no consultant attribution, no model version, and no calibration/validation data. VDOT never publishes anonymous modeling work. The charts are just generic Synchro/HCS outputs pasted into a memo that was prepared as a legislative‑request for Sen. French's office, not through VDOT's planning or traffic engineering divisions. The fact that it's hosted on wvhighlands.org instead of a VDOT server reinforces that this never went through real VDOT technical review.

Given the lack of a VDOT division, project number, authorship, or methodology -- and the fact it's hosted on an advocacy site rather than VDOT's own servers -- it's doubtful this document ever received real VDOT technical review. It reads like a consultant memo prepared for a legislator, not an actual VDOT study.

Just have to say that this is malarky if one actually looks at the document.  DOTs do studies all the time at various entities' requests.  It's got VDOT's logo on it, the request came in from a Senator per the last page and this was VDOT's response to such.  It's VDOT's official opinion.

[Beltway]

Just have to say that this is malarky if one actually looks at the document.  DOTs do studies all the time at various entities' requests.  It's got VDOT's logo on it, the request came in from a Senator per the last page and this was VDOT's response to such.  It's VDOT's official opinion.

VDOT would never produce a 22nd‑century traffic projection for a highway corridor -- that alone tells you this isn't a VDOT study. Anyone in an RE/T group can post DOT logos onto documents they create.

[hbelkins]

This is a federal highway program (ADHS). If the federal government had any testicles, it would force VDOT to complete the highway to Strasburg/Front Royal.

[Rothman]

Just have to say that this is malarky if one actually looks at the document.  DOTs do studies all the time at various entities' requests.  It's got VDOT's logo on it, the request came in from a Senator per the last page and this was VDOT's response to such.  It's VDOT's official opinion.

VDOT would never produce a 22nd‑century traffic projection for a highway corridor -- that alone tells you this isn't a VDOT study. Anyone in an RE/T group can post DOT logos onto documents they create.

This is like your accusation of journalistic malfeasance in the Key Bridge thread.  Official docs that don't support your own personal opinions send you into this irrational mode ("It's not a study, it's a memo! Someone else slapped the VDOT logo on there!" Either way, it's work VDOT commissioned and signed off on).

DOTs and MPOs project traffic conditions out all the time.  Sure, usually it's done at a 50 year horizon, but the 22nd Century is getting closer and closer every year.

Here it is on VDOT's own site: https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/about/legislative-studies-and-reports/route-55-study-appendices-2026-05-29_acc.pdf

[Beltway]

This is a federal highway program (ADHS). If the federal government had any testicles, it would force VDOT to complete the highway to Strasburg/Front Royal.

They cannot do that -- but they can offer 100% FHWA funding for an ADHS project, like they did with US-219 between Meyersdale and Bedford PA. That is an ADHS corridor and they got ~300 million dollars 100% funded back a few years ago for that segment.

My prediction detailed is upthread. This will be too important and too valuable for VA to pass up.

[Beltway]

VDOT would never produce a 22nd‑century traffic projection for a highway corridor -- that alone tells you this isn't a VDOT study. Anyone in an RE/T group can post DOT logos onto documents they create.

This is like your accusation of journalistic malfeasance in the Key Bridge thread.  Official docs that don't support your own personal opinions send you into this irrational mode ("It's not a study, it's a memo! Someone else slapped the VDOT logo on there!" Either way, it's work VDOT commissioned and signed off on).

Dolphinvomic.

Being posted in VDOT's "Legislative Studies and Reports" folder doesn't make it a VDOT technical study -- that category is where VDOT places legislator‑requested memos, not TMPD or Traffic Engineering work. If this were an actual VDOT study, it would list the responsible division, PM, UPC, and methodology. It lists none of them.

[Bitmapped]

Just have to say that this is malarky if one actually looks at the document.  DOTs do studies all the time at various entities' requests.  It's got VDOT's logo on it, the request came in from a Senator per the last page and this was VDOT's response to such.  It's VDOT's official opinion.

VDOT would never produce a 22nd‑century traffic projection for a highway corridor -- that alone tells you this isn't a VDOT study. Anyone in an RE/T group can post DOT logos onto documents they create.

So your claim is that the WV Highlands Conservancy faked the document, not that a VDOT staffer did some basic analysis in response to a request from a legislator?

The argument from those pushing Virginia to build Corridor H are that the current road is unsafe and won't be able to handle the traffic once West Virginia's section is completed. This document addresses those two issues head-on. If you're trying to illustrate why upgrades aren't needed, laying out when the traffic is expected to exceed LOS thresholds seems like a pretty straightforward way to do that.

Not everything needs an expensive and expansive consultant-led study.

This is a federal highway program (ADHS). If the federal government had any testicles, it would force VDOT to complete the highway to Strasburg/Front Royal.

Kentucky has a pretty notable incomplete section of Corridor F. My understanding from last year's ADHS status report is that KYTC doesn't plan anything beyond spot improvements on a portion of the route. This sounds a lot like what VDOT is suggesting.

[Beltway]

VDOT would never produce a 22nd‑century traffic projection for a highway corridor -- that alone tells you this isn't a VDOT study. Anyone in an RE/T group can post DOT logos onto documents they create.

So your claim is that the WV Highlands Conservancy faked the document, not that a VDOT staffer did some basic analysis in response to a request from a legislator?
The argument from those pushing Virginia to build Corridor H are that the current road is unsafe and won't be able to handle the traffic once West Virginia's section is completed. This document addresses those two issues head-on. If you're trying to illustrate why upgrades aren't needed, laying out when the traffic is expected to exceed LOS thresholds seems like a pretty straightforward way to do that.
Not everything needs an expensive and expansive consultant-led study.

No, I'm not claiming WVHC "faked" anything. I'm saying exactly what VDOT's own folder structure confirms: this is a legislative‑request memo, not a VDOT technical study. That's why it's filed under Legislative Studies and Reports instead of TMPD, Traffic Engineering, or District Planning. Legislative memos often use VDOT branding, but they don't go through the modeling, authorship, PM, UPC, or methodology requirements of an actual VDOT study. And VDOT still doesn't produce 76‑year traffic forecasts to the Year 2102 -- that alone tells you what category this belongs in.

[Rothman]

VDOT would never produce a 22nd‑century traffic projection for a highway corridor -- that alone tells you this isn't a VDOT study. Anyone in an RE/T group can post DOT logos onto documents they create.

So your claim is that the WV Highlands Conservancy faked the document, not that a VDOT staffer did some basic analysis in response to a request from a legislator?
The argument from those pushing Virginia to build Corridor H are that the current road is unsafe and won't be able to handle the traffic once West Virginia's section is completed. This document addresses those two issues head-on. If you're trying to illustrate why upgrades aren't needed, laying out when the traffic is expected to exceed LOS thresholds seems like a pretty straightforward way to do that.
Not everything needs an expensive and expansive consultant-led study.

No, I'm not claiming WVHC "faked" anything. I'm saying exactly what VDOT's own folder structure confirms: this is a legislative‑request memo, not a VDOT technical study. That's why it's filed under Legislative Studies and Reports instead of TMPD, Traffic Engineering, or District Planning. Legislative memos often use VDOT branding, but they don't go through the modeling, authorship, PM, UPC, or methodology requirements of an actual VDOT study. And VDOT still doesn't produce 76‑year traffic forecasts to the Year 2102 -- that alone tells you what category this belongs in.

Nonsense.

[Beltway]

I hope they are treating the last half mile as a temporary roadway that would be relocated to connect to a VA alignment that would have standard acceptable grades.

Nope, it's intended to be permanent. The new alignment climbs diagonally northeast up the WV side of the mountain to where it hits the current alignment about 1500 feet west of the state line. From there, it curves east to follow the current alignment through the gap in Great North Mountain. On the Virginia side, the road then immediately curves northeast again to drop down the side of the mountain.
The gap is really about the only logical place to cross through here. Deep creek valleys on the Virginia side hem in VA 55, and what little alignment shift would be possible on the Virginia side, to the north, would require cuts a couple hundred feet deep. This is the place to cross.

I posted this 12 months ago -- and I certainly hope that like on the rest of the corridor they can come up with a design with a normal mountain grade max of 6 or 7%. Assuming that VA builds theirs and the two DOTs work this out.

This is my proposed corridor --

[The_Ginger]

This is like your accusation of journalistic malfeasance in the Key Bridge thread.  Official docs that don't support your own personal opinions send you into this irrational mode ("It's not a study, it's a memo! Someone else slapped the VDOT logo on there!" Either way, it's work VDOT commissioned and signed off on).

This. The document is an official study. That's all there is to it.

I personally think that another study needs to be completed in a few years once WVDOH finishes the expressway to Mackeyville. More traffic will begin to utilize this highway after that.
Beltway, I'm getting sick and tired of you continuously claiming that you are correct on everything, and I haven't even followed many of your recent "episodes". I'd like you to try to dial back on the untrue and unofficial accusations, and please post about your proposed corridor in the Fictional thread that was split off for you awhile back.

Also, try actually writing a few posts instead of AI doing it. Any AI is now banned according to forum rules.

[sprjus4]

VDOT is spending over $500 million to widen 13 miles of US-58 near Lovers Leap and Vesta in the southern part of the state, a road that carries 2,000 AADT. You read that right - a mere 2,000 AADT.

But they can't spend money on US-48 that carries over 7,000 AADT and is apart of a major east-west corridor (or will soon be).

Regional connectivity and safety has to be a factor in these projects. It seems this study is only taking a traffic analysis approach.

[Bitmapped]

VDOT is spending over $500 million to widen 13 miles of US-58 near Lovers Leap and Vesta in the southern part of the state, a road that carries 2,000 AADT. You read that right - a mere 2,000 AADT.

But they can't spend money on US-48 that carries over 7,000 AADT and is apart of a major east-west corridor (or will soon be).

Regional connectivity and safety has to be a factor in these projects. It seems this study is only taking a traffic analysis approach.

You can drive drive 55 on the existing US 48/VA 55 without much trouble. I looked at Google Maps Street View and didn't see any curves signed below 45, and there were only a handful at 45 and 50. An upgraded route is likely to only be signed at 55, so I don't see that it would provide much in the way of enhanced regional connectivity.

[The_Ginger]

On my return trip, I was able to get another drive of the new road westbound, and WV 72 as well along the concurrency. I took a video of the westbound drive, but the video probably won't be edited and uploaded until late July.

Observations:

—Signage at the WV 72 intersection has been updated.

There's also one trailblazer along the concurrency.


—There's still hardly any traffic on the new route in any direction. Once Apple and Google Maps update, I'd say that will change.

—There isn't a US 48 trailblazer at the end of the eastbound ramp. I personally think one needs to be installed, but I can see why not as this concurrency will only last 2 years.

—Construction is advancing at Mackeyville, where the road will soon run to.

—The US 48 trailblazer after the Parsons intersection remains, however, the one before the Old Route 219 intersection in Kerens is gone. I suspect they will all be removed pretty soon.


This will be the last time that I will be in the area until Winter 2026-2027, likely. Any further updates won't be from me! 

[Beltway]

This. The document is an official study. That's all there is to it.
Beltway, I'm getting sick and tired of you continuously claiming that you are correct on everything, and I haven't even followed many of your recent "episodes". I'd like you to try to dial back on the untrue and unofficial accusations, and please post about your proposed corridor in the Fictional thread that was split off for you awhile back.

I worked for VDOT for 43 years, and the distinction I'm making isn't personal -- it's procedural. VDOT posts many categories of documents on its site: legislative‑request memos, constituent responses, courtesy analyses, consultant deliverables, and full technical studies. They are not interchangeable, and internally they are treated very differently.

This document is in the Legislative Studies and Reports directory, which is where VDOT places non‑technical, legislator‑requested memos. It does not list a responsible division, a project manager, a UPC, or a methodology section -- all of which are required elements of a VDOT technical study.

So yes, it is "official" in the sense that VDOT posted it. But calling it a VDOT technical study ignores VDOT's own classification system and the standards the agency uses to define what a study actually is.

[Bitmapped]

—There isn't a US 48 trailblazer at the end of the eastbound ramp. I personally think one needs to be installed, but I can see why not as this concurrency will only last 2 years.

WVDOH splits maintenance responsibilities for Interstates and ADHS corridors off into separate dedicated groups from the regular county garage staff. This could be at play (or maybe a contractor responsibility thing) but it would be worth submitting a request for signage on the WVDOT website.

[Beltway]

VDOT is spending over $500 million to widen 13 miles of US-58 near Lovers Leap and Vesta in the southern part of the state, a road that carries 2,000 AADT. You read that right - a mere 2,000 AADT.
But they can't spend money on US-48 that carries over 7,000 AADT and is apart of a major east-west corridor (or will soon be).
Regional connectivity and safety has to be a factor in these projects. It seems this study is only taking a traffic analysis approach.

Special program, special funding -- the U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program created in 1989.

Just like Appalachian Development Highway System Program created in 1965 -- special program, special funding -- that is where they need to look for funding Corridor H.

[The_Ginger]

—There isn't a US 48 trailblazer at the end of the eastbound ramp. I personally think one needs to be installed, but I can see why not as this concurrency will only last 2 years.

WVDOH splits maintenance responsibilities for Interstates and ADHS corridors off into separate dedicated groups from the regular county garage staff. This could be at play (or maybe a contractor responsibility thing) but it would be worth submitting a request for signage on the WVDOT website.

I will do that. Is it just through the Request for Road Work form?

[Bitmapped]

—There isn't a US 48 trailblazer at the end of the eastbound ramp. I personally think one needs to be installed, but I can see why not as this concurrency will only last 2 years.

WVDOH splits maintenance responsibilities for Interstates and ADHS corridors off into separate dedicated groups from the regular county garage staff. This could be at play (or maybe a contractor responsibility thing) but it would be worth submitting a request for signage on the WVDOT website.

I will do that. Is it just through the Request for Road Work form?

Yep.

[Dirt Roads]

VDOT is spending over $500 million to widen 13 miles of US-58 near Lovers Leap and Vesta in the southern part of the state, a road that carries 2,000 AADT. You read that right - a mere 2,000 AADT.
But they can't spend money on US-48 that carries over 7,000 AADT and is apart of a major east-west corridor (or will soon be).
Regional connectivity and safety has to be a factor in these projects. It seems this study is only taking a traffic analysis approach.

Back in the M.T.R days (and somewhere early on in this thread) were numerous discussions of why the Commonwealth of Virginia was politically opposed to completion of a major expressway whose primary function was to provide an economic boost to West Virginia.  The main economic concern was that Corridor H would drain off a significant number of vacationers from the D.C. area whose primary mountain destinations [were] in Western Maryland, the Blue Ridge, the Shenandoah Valley and the upper Alleghenies of Virginia.  Certainly, the aforementioned VDOT report filed under Legislative Studies and Reports was intended to continue that political viewpoint.

I am curious as to whether Corridor H also suffered a lack of political support in Virginia back when it appeared to be headed to Harrisonburg.

[Mapmikey]

VDOT is spending over $500 million to widen 13 miles of US-58 near Lovers Leap and Vesta in the southern part of the state, a road that carries 2,000 AADT. You read that right - a mere 2,000 AADT.

But they can't spend money on US-48 that carries over 7,000 AADT and is apart of a major east-west corridor (or will soon be).

Regional connectivity and safety has to be a factor in these projects. It seems this study is only taking a traffic analysis approach.

You can drive drive 55 on the existing US 48/VA 55 without much trouble. I looked at Google Maps Street View and didn't see any curves signed below 45, and there were only a handful at 45 and 50. An upgraded route is likely to only be signed at 55, so I don't see that it would provide much in the way of enhanced regional connectivity.

You can drive 55 on most of VA 55 but not all of it. Unless you are behind a loaded truck WB. I have been stuck behind one going 15 mph the last 4 miles up to the border.

There is a posted curve below 45 mph (excluding at the state line):

https://maps.app.goo.gl/yNL6hH36oZTPLUkY6

I thought there was a second one but don't see it...

[Rothman]

This. The document is an official study. That's all there is to it.
Beltway, I'm getting sick and tired of you continuously claiming that you are correct on everything, and I haven't even followed many of your recent "episodes". I'd like you to try to dial back on the untrue and unofficial accusations, and please post about your proposed corridor in the Fictional thread that was split off for you awhile back.

I worked for VDOT for 43 years, and the distinction I'm making isn't personal -- it's procedural. VDOT posts many categories of documents on its site: legislative‑request memos, constituent responses, courtesy analyses, consultant deliverables, and full technical studies. They are not interchangeable, and internally they are treated very differently.

This document is in the Legislative Studies and Reports directory, which is where VDOT places non‑technical, legislator‑requested memos. It does not list a responsible division, a project manager, a UPC, or a methodology section -- all of which are required elements of a VDOT technical study.

So yes, it is "official" in the sense that VDOT posted it. But calling it a VDOT technical study ignores VDOT's own classification system and the standards the agency uses to define what a study actually is.

These distinctions you're making aren't meaningful, whatever you spent 43 years doing at VDOT (I would have thought you were eligible to retire as of 30 years of service?).  Frankly, official responses are official responses, especially with the work that went into that study with the Synchro and HCS reports attached.

You said those categories are each on VDOT's site.  Where are they individually as you have classified them?