Corridor H

[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?

[Beltway]

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.

Corridor H has also been called the I-66 Extension by some over the years. I-81 to I-79. Granted it is an expressway and not post-able as an Interstate, but it still would provide similar levels of service at its low volumes. So it would have multiple roles national, regional, and local.

The West Virginia portion of Corridor H is planned to be approximately 132 miles long. And 12 miles in Virginia.

A corridor segment only has value when the upstream segment is real, funded, and on a defined construction horizon. Until then, the Virginia portion is functionally a stub with no value to the state.

West Virginia is just now approaching the point where the final two Corridor H segments are expected to be awarded by the end of 2027. When WVDOH establishes a credible 5-6 year corridor completion window, meaning contracts awarded, schedules published, and construction underway, then the situation changes. At that point, the Virginia segment gains actual network value because it would connect to a corridor with a defined operational future.

That in a nutshell is why VA has not shown interest in building their segment... yet.

[Beltway]

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?

The only ownership I can see is the state senator from that district. And I am not quite sure of that. There is no contact info for what VDOT project manager I could talk to so as to ask questions. Such as who created the report. What firm, what office, what AI app, etc. Standard info for professional traffic studies. Not there.

[Rothman]

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.

Huh?  Read the letter from Sen. Timmy French in the document:

"Dear Commissioner Brich:

I am writing to respectfully request that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) conduct a comprehensive safety and traffic study of Route 55 (John Marshall Highway) between I-81 and the West Virginia state line in Shenandoah and Frederick counties.  This corridor serves as a critical route for both local and regional travel, and the study is intended to identify any existing safety or operational issues along this stretch of roadway.

In addition, I ask that VDOT coordinate with the West Virginia Division of Highways to determine what projects are currently programmed along Route 55, especially how programmed projects in West Virginia may impact traffic flow, operations or safety conditions within Virginia."

The letter is written out of concern of what improvements need to be made on the VA side of the line, rather than opposition to such (i.e., note the letter references existing conditions as well as future).  I suppose it could be taken either way as a State Senator with quixotic dreams of somehow stopping WV's plans or a State Senator is simply concerned about safety issues along a corridor and things the DOT needs to speed up addressing such, which I've seen be very, very common.

***

1,000th time over it's been proven on this forum that you have to look at the primary sources rather than take someone's word on what they say.

[Rothman]

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?

The only ownership I can see is the state senator from that district. And I am not quite sure of that. There is no contact info for what VDOT project manager I could talk to so as to ask questions. Such as who created the report. What firm, what office, what AI app, etc. Standard info for professional traffic studies. Not there.

Dear heavens, I sincerely doubt VDOT was as impenetrable to the public as you seem to imply:

https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/contact/

Your elimination of my last question indicates you were indeed making stuff up.

[The_Ginger]

AI app

Your last few posts may not be fully AI, but you are the last person that needs to throw that in there.

[Beltway]

AI app

Your last few posts may not be fully AI, but you are the last person that needs to throw that in there.

I mentioned AI for a simple procedural reason: when a document has no listed division, no PM, no consultant, no signature block, and no methodology, there's no way to verify who produced it. That's the only point. It's not about who uses AI on this forum; it's about the document lacking the authorship metadata that defines a VDOT technical study.

[The_Ginger]

AI app

Your last few posts may not be fully AI, but you are the last person that needs to throw that in there.

I mentioned AI for a simple procedural reason: when a document has no listed division, no PM, no consultant, no signature block, and no methodology, there's no way to verify who produced it. That's the only point. It's not about who uses AI on this forum; it's about the document lacking the authorship metadata that defines a VDOT technical study.

This the last that I'm posting here regarding a "false" study about the Va. side of U.S. Route 48.

—

Yes, but haven't you been known to derail threads by doing similar actions?

[Beltway]

One more procedural note: several of the charts in the document carry a "Copyright © 2025 University of Florida" footer. That alone raises additional questions about authorship and sourcing, because a VDOT technical study does not embed third‑party copyrighted graphics without attribution, explanation, or a consultant of record. In a standard VDOT study, every figure is traceable to the responsible division or consultant. Here, the graphics aren't.

[Rothman]

"The graphs are attributed but they're not attributed."

Again, the entire forum is bring brought down by this crap and the shenanigans that ensue because of this crap.

I find the general lack of moderator action lately to mean that the moderators and admins and gods in charge just prefer to watch Rome burn (well, smolder, anyway).

[Bitmapped]

One more procedural note: several of the charts in the document carry a "Copyright © 2025 University of Florida" footer. That alone raises additional questions about authorship and sourcing, because a VDOT technical study does not embed third‑party copyrighted graphics without attribution, explanation, or a consultant of record. In a standard VDOT study, every figure is traceable to the responsible division or consultant. Here, the graphics aren't.

The HCS Highways software used to generate the included reports is from the University of Florida. It embeds those notices in the generated output, like in those embedded in this TnDOT environmental assessment. This isn't hard to figure out if you're not absurdly pedantic.

[Beltway]

"The graphs are attributed but they're not attributed."

I'm pointing out a factual issue: several graphs in the document carry a "Copyright © 2025 University of Florida" footer. That's not drama -- it's a sourcing question. A VDOT technical study doesn't embed third‑party copyrighted graphics without attribution or explanation. If you have a procedural explanation for that, I'm listening.

[The_Ginger]

"The graphs are attributed but they're not attributed."

I'm pointing out a factual issue: several graphs in the document carry a "Copyright © 2025 University of Florida" footer. That's not drama -- it's a sourcing question. A VDOT technical study doesn't embed third‑party copyrighted graphics without attribution or explanation. If you have a procedural explanation for that, I'm listening.

check post #1635

[Beltway]

One more procedural note: several of the charts in the document carry a "Copyright © 2025 University of Florida" footer. That alone raises additional questions about authorship and sourcing, because a VDOT technical study does not embed third‑party copyrighted graphics without attribution, explanation, or a consultant of record. In a standard VDOT study, every figure is traceable to the responsible division or consultant. Here, the graphics aren't.

The HCS Highways software used to generate the included reports is from the University of Florida. It embeds those notices in the generated output, like in those embedded in this TnDOT environmental assessment. This isn't hard to figure out if you're not absurdly pedantic.

Right there on page 2 of the TnDOT example you linked, the document clearly identifies the responsible office and staff: "Greg Dyer, P.E., Traffic Modeling Manager, Traffic Design Division," with full contact information. That's the point I'm making. In a proper DOT technical study, every figure and appendix is traceable to a responsible division or consultant.

The "VDOT document" we're discussing has no division, no PM, no consultant, no signature block, and no contact information.

[Rothman]

Eh, Beltway's now just Beltwaying again at this point.

[The_Ginger]

One more procedural note: several of the charts in the document carry a "Copyright © 2025 University of Florida" footer. That alone raises additional questions about authorship and sourcing, because a VDOT technical study does not embed third‑party copyrighted graphics without attribution, explanation, or a consultant of record. In a standard VDOT study, every figure is traceable to the responsible division or consultant. Here, the graphics aren't.

The HCS Highways software used to generate the included reports is from the University of Florida. It embeds those notices in the generated output, like in those embedded in this TnDOT environmental assessment. This isn't hard to figure out if you're not absurdly pedantic.

Right there on page 2 of the TnDOT example you linked, the document clearly identifies the responsible office and staff: "Greg Dyer, P.E., Traffic Modeling Manager, Traffic Design Division," with full contact information. That's the point I'm making. In a proper DOT technical study, every figure and appendix is traceable to a responsible division or consultant. The "VDOT document" we're discussing has no division, no PM, no consultant, no signature block, and no contact information.

First of all, what was I talking about back during post #1632 which conveniently had no answer?

Second of all, we've gone over this already. No need to reinstate your crumbling claim.


I'm done with your dolphrubbish here. Find another thread to derail.

[The_Ginger]

On an unrelated note:

Environmental groups file lawsuit against final stretch of Corridor H

As it stands, if West Virginia were to complete its section of Corridor H to the Virginia state line, the four-lane highway would suddenly turn into a two-lane road as soon as drivers cross the state line, something a 1994 impact statement said would increase accident rates.

On top of the logistical issues, the suit also claims that construction of the Wardensville segment would negatively impact the area both environmentally and economically. Similar to arguments made by those opposing the Parsons-Davis segment, the plaintiffs claim that construction of such a highway would compromise the region's natural landscapes, which it relies on to promote tourism and outdoor-based recreation in the area.

So we could actually see WV's road being delayed here. Personally, I'm fine with not building the road over here until we coordinate with Virginia to finish it to I-81. Worst comes to worst Virginia re-builds their side as a Super 2 (plus climbing lanes) with trees cleared (but not graded) for another set of lanes. This would tie in to a relocated I-66 interchange at I-81.

[Beltway]

I understand WVDOH's position, but that actually reinforces the concern I was raising. If the last half‑mile is being treated as a permanent approach with a 9% grade and a fixed summit tied to the old VA‑55 geometry, then WV is essentially locking in a terminal design that only works if Virginia never builds its side.

The alternative would have been to treat that last stretch as a temporary connector -- something that gets traffic to the line now, but is understood to be reprofiled later once Virginia defines a standard‑grade alignment. That's the normal way cross‑state mountain corridors are handled when one state is ready to build and the other is dormant.

WV could also have left the Wardensville to state line segment unbuilt for now, but that 6‑mile piece has enough standalone utility that there's a real downside to deferring it. So I get why they're moving ahead this year when everything is ready to go.

The tradeoff is that WV's permanent 9% approach may have to be rebuilt in the future if Virginia ever advances a 4‑lane design with a more typical 4-6% grade. Without coordinated profiles, the two sides won't match cleanly at the summit.

[Beltway]

I also am drafting a letter to the appropriate CTB and VDOT parties to advocate the inclusion of the 12 mile segment in the next update of the VDOT SYIP for preliminary engineering (EIS/location studies).

[seicer]

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.

The tunnel under Pine Mountain will not be completed in my lifetime. It's not on the six-year project list for further study, and in its place are improvements to the existing alignment to extend the improvements that were completed earlier.

[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.

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.

The tunnel under Pine Mountain will not be completed in my lifetime. It's not on the six-year project list for further study, and in its place are improvements to the existing alignment to extend the improvements that were completed earlier.

Corridor F also seems stable as a relocated 2-lane highway.

[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.

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.

The tunnel under Pine Mountain will not be completed in my lifetime. It's not on the six-year project list for further study, and in its place are improvements to the existing alignment to extend the improvements that were completed earlier.

Corridor F also seems stable as a relocated 2-lane highway.

[NE2]

I also am drafting a letter to the appropriate CTB and VDOT parties to advocate the inclusion of the 12 mile segment in the next update of the VDOT SYIP for preliminary engineering (EIS/location studies).

Too bad DOGE is gone or you could also request its removal from federal funding sources.

[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.

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.

If you're referring to the Pine Mountain crossing on US 119 southwest of Whitesburg, there were plans several years ago for a tunnel beneath the mountain that was to be federally funded. I wouldn't be adverse to FHWA/USDOT forcing Kentucky to complete the route -- or the federal government itself contracting for the route's completion.

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.

If the FHWA can withhold a certain percentage of federal highway funding to states that don't pass a primary seat belt law or a reduced blood-alcohol percentage for DUI charges, then why can't it withhold some or all of a state's federal funding unless it builds a segment of a federally-authorized highway?

[Rothman]

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.

If the FHWA can withhold a certain percentage of federal highway funding to states that don't pass a primary seat belt law or a reduced blood-alcohol percentage for DUI charges, then why can't it withhold some or all of a state's federal funding unless it builds a segment of a federally-authorized highway?

Depends on the type of funding due to federal law, which defines the limits and eligibilities of federal funding.  That's why federal transportation bills are so important (which included the seat belt penalty and others).  You know, that whole Constitution thing defining the difference between the Executive and Legislative Branches. FHWA implements the laws Congress passes and distributes the funding Congress authorizes.

Anyway, usually there's a lapse in place for discretionary fund sources.  "Core" funding (NHPP, STBG, CMAQ..) does not.  Also, if there isn't any timeframe teeth behind highway designations, not much FHWA can do about that, except leave any schedule up to the respective State.

Take the I Love NY signage that caused the Feds to threaten to withhold federal funds from NY:  NY was found to be in violation of regulation, so FHWA was able to control the money valve (NY just changed things slightly and life went on).  Designated corridors just don't have that same kind of teeth:  Up to the states to build them whenever.