Originally Posted by
Chele
Agreed, if you move that parentheses! Seriously, I don't see why concern about a dangerous intersection should be equated with opposition to road improvements. I favored construction of the 4-lane new Rt. 9, both this stretch and the one from CT to Martinsburg, built earlier. But it was already known that the authorities in Virginia were not going to four-lane Rt. 9 in Loudoun any time soon, so it does seem to me that the consequences of that fact needed to be taken into account to a greater degree. Real-world physical consequences like the fact that an intersection right after the end of a 4-lane, higher-speed highway is of a different nature than, say, the already-difficult left turns from Chestnut Hill or Hostler Roads onto the old Rt. 9.
I've not seen detailed budget and planning calculations for the new Rt. 9, but it's conceivable that they may have involved not only out-and-out cost savings, but also the widespread practice of benchmarking. In this case, that would mean planning of this intersection based on some database of info about other at-grade intersections with state highways that have similar traffic loads - but, without fully studying and thinking through the specifics of the given intersection: mountaintop location, interface with a very different highway in another state, various patterns among the residents of the mountain (where we work, where we shop, etc.), etc. This is speculation on my part, but I do know that various WV state agencies use benchmarking. One wild example was the property assessments that occurred on the mountain a few years ago, when the state instructed assessors to use a computerized assessment program designed for fairly homogenous tract developments. In mountain neighborhoods where 1200 sq ft homes are side-by-side with 3500+ sq ft ones, this resulted in some truly bizarre assessments, especially on land values, even after application of all the "equalizing" coefficients and even discounting how much of it was due to the real estate bubble.
Without getting into the larger question of how infrastructure should be financed in this country, I have to wonder about that "could afford" assumption. After the Home Depot, etc. shopping strip was built, suddenly a traffic light on the new Route 9 was affordable. I've driven on a lot of the beautiful roads of the Appalachian Highway Network in central and southwestern West Virginia, and while there are controversial places like where U.S. Highway 33 goes from four lanes to two east of Elkins, in many other locations it appears that the quality necessary for safety was somehow "afforded", be it bridges over ravines, handling of at-grade intersections, etc.
)
Reply With Quote
3:56 
