The answer might be in this recent Toledo Blade article, about how the new ODOT austerity might, **just might** be a political ploy to pressure Northern Ohio (where most of the cuts are, hint hint) into supporting the Turnpike privatization. Note how the projected highway shortfall and possible $$ gained from a turnpike deal are just about the same.

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2012/01/21/Kasich-denies-turnpike-lease-ploy.html

Kasich denies turnpike-lease ploy

Critics say shelving of projects was effort to push for privatization

COLUMBUS -- Gov. John Kasich insisted Friday that this week's proposed shelving of high-profile transportation projects such as the I-75/I-475 interchange overhaul in Toledo was not an effort to increase public pressure for leveraging the Ohio Turnpike for cash.

 

"For many, many governors' terms, Ohioans have been misled, plain and simple: 'You want a project, we'll get you a project. Don't worry about it,' " Mr. Kasich said. "Well, we're $1.6 billion short. … No more misleading people about this."

 

...

 

But State Rep. Teresa Fedor (D., Toledo) said a back-door campaign to promote turnpike privatization is the only way she can explain how the transportation department's financial forecast darkened dramatically just a year after the state adopted a plan that included funding to build the McCord railroad underpass. The projects being delayed disproportionately hurt northern Ohio, where resistance to a possible turnpike lease has been strongest, she said.

 

"It wasn't the mismanagement of previous administrations," she said Friday. "It's the desire of this administration to sell our public assets. … The northern end of Ohio gets the short end of the stick. There's no other conclusion. We're being held hostage, and he's got us where he wants us."

If there is a shred of truth to this Kasich should be run out of town.  He is not only playing with the economic viability of the Cleveland region, but also the health and safety of some 120,000 motorists a day using the 50 year old bridge. 

ODOT has been fiscal crisis for a LONG time. The crisis wasn't created to privatize the Turnpike. Instead, the crisis was acknowledged by ODOT to get the Turnpike privatized.

so why did the previous administrations all keep the secret that they had a ballooning project list and shrinking budget based on the funding formula....

The Highway Trust Fund wasn't tits up until 2008. A proposal in 2005 would have raised the federal gasoline tax and pegged it to inflation, similar to what Kentucky does for their state tax, which would fund highway transportation projects. It's why some states, like Kentucky, can afford to continue on with their funded projects and plan out projects many years in advance, whereas Ohio has had projects stalled for decades for lack of funding.

 

 

Kentucky isn't in denial about a lot of things that Ohio is. For being a "more conservative" state, they sure have made a lot of progressive decisions.

>so why did the previous administrations all keep the secret that they had a ballooning project list and shrinking budget based on the funding formula....

 

There was no secret.  They had a powerpoint on the looming crisis at last April's TRAC meeting and the Cincinnati media simply couldn't understand it.  Everything we talk about routinely on this site is entirely unknown to the Cincinnati media.

Correct. It wasn't a secret. It just wasn't broadcast by ODOT until it was convenient for them to do so.

 

Under former ODOT Director Jolene Molitoris, her testimony in 2009 to the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee underscored that ODOT was facing a $3 billion shortfall at the middle range of then-known scenarios. I don't remember what the worst-case scenario was, but I guarantee you it did not acknowledge that driving would continue to decline, that young people would continue to be so disinterested in drive-everywhere lifestyles, and that such disinterest would not compensate for the reduction in driving after all those Baby Boomer retirement parties.

 

And ODOT still hasn't acknowledged those realities. If it did, it would realize just how deep of a hole it's about to fall into. As many of you know, I don't like to make predictions, but I'll make one now..... Within 10 years, there will be an Interstate highway or interstate-standard state highway that is closed to traffic because ODOT can't afford to maintain it. This may be a short urban highway segment with a large, aging bridge on it, or it may be a rural four-lane divided highway with little traffic on it. But it will close. If ODOT privatizes the Turnpike, then postpone that prediction by another 5-10 years and then add a few more highways to it.

Kentucky isn't in denial about a lot of things that Ohio is. For being a "more conservative" state, they sure have made a lot of progressive decisions.

 

I still shake my head at the conservative argument against spending on ANYTHING.  Spending on roads, bridges, rail etc are the kind of investments that keeps Ohio growing and moving.  I'd hardly call it wasteful.

The conservatives who wrote the "State and Local Government" political science textbook I read acknowledged that transportation spending did have a positive return in tax receipts. 

Ohio has a competent government until term limits burned out the talent in the legislature in the 1990s.  Now we have a bunch of small town lawyers running the state.

The conservatives who wrote the "State and Local Government" political science textbook I read acknowledged that transportation spending did have a positive return in tax receipts.

 

Acknowledged or assumed?  Based on what I've seen I highly doubt that's true, especially in the long term. 

>I still shake my head at the conservative argument against spending on ANYTHING.  Spending on roads, bridges, rail etc are the kind of investments that keeps Ohio growing and moving.  I'd hardly call it wasteful.

 

A topic we never hit on this site is the inland waterways.  My dad lobbies for the industry and all infrastructure on dams, dredging, etc. is technically an "earmark", and as such, there has been virtually zero allocations to major or minor projects for ten years.

 

The situation is getting so desperate that the industry has proposed to Congress to pay a toll to travel through locks in order to get a dedicated revenue stream above the marine fuel tax.  There are many small operations that use marine fuel but don't actually travel through the locks with any frequency, so on the surface that seems fair, but obviously none of those businesses would be operating if the commercial vessels couldn't travel the length of the rivers year-round. 

 

How much money does the industry need?  It's under $1 billion/year (the current budget is $450~ year).  So we have this incredible asset - the envy of the world - that is not being fully utilized so that Republicans can say they didn't vote for any earmarks. 

 

 

 

Jake, How is Congress' response to adding user fees for passing through the locks? There could also be a fee for entering navigable waterways from the Great Lakes, such as the Cuyahoga, Black and Maumee rivers. The bulkheads on some of these waterways are failing and, at least for the Cuyahoga, the repair cost is astronomical. The Cuyahoga River bulkheads repair cost alone is $200 million!

 

And ODOT didn't even have a water division until a couple of years ago.

We have decades worth of Infrastructure to fix. Too bad we are over our credit limit. No easy way to accomplish everything that needs to be done without massive inflation from printing cash.

I always thought being able to go through a lock for free was kind of strange considering how much it costs to fill or drain one each time. When I was younger, I thought it would be funny to ride up to a lock on a jet ski, get 'em to open it up, lock through, then turn around and make 'em do it again. Apparently it doesn't work that way, though.

>Jake, How is Congress' response to adding user fees for passing through the locks?

 

I don't know, they are in preliminary talks.  I don't know what the fee would be based on either -- number of barges, tonnage, etc.  In smaller locks a towboat has to break its tow, and go through twice, so does that mean paying more?  I don't know.  The situation has caused shipping companies to stop funding Republican campaigns.  There is a lot of tension over how the Army Corps of Engineers administers these projects, since there are cases where contracters have to re-bid every single calander year for huge multi-year projects, like the big Olmstead lock & dam near Paducah, which is replacing two 100 year-old "temporary" dams.   

 

 

In other news, Seattle has started tolling an existing bridge:

 

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/why-im-actually-happy-about-the-520-tolls

Those weren't temporary dams. Those were wicket dams that were once commonplace on the Ohio River. The first "super dam" (as it was then called) was the Greenup Locks and Dam - with construction beginning in 1954 and ending in 1959. It features a main 1,200'x110' lock and a 600'x110' lock. That dam, like all of the others on the Ohio, are not there for flood control - and the length between each dam is now around 60 miles instead of 10-30 miles. It replaced Lock and Dam Nos. 27, 28, 29, and 30, and the Big Sandy Lock and Dam No. 1.

 

Locks and Dam Nos. 52 and 53, at MP 939 and 962, are being replaced with Olmstead at MP 964. The closest dam on the Ohio is Smithland at MP 918.

 

The original wicket dams were wooden. But during the 1940s, when steamboats were being phased out, diesel towboats began towing barge strings longer than 600 feet in length, which required them to be broken up into 2 or more segments at a wicket dam. That led to the construction of the new "super dams."

Dam.... That's some detailed information! ;)

heh

 

I've started documenting the old wicket dams along the Ohio River. Some of the keeper's houses and structures, such as at Chilo, Ohio, are intact and preserved. Others, like at Catlettsburg, Kentucky, are long gone. Some are abandoned (Vanceburg, Kentucky). The Big Sandy No. 1 is gone, although I recently came across a proposal from 1984 that called for the damming of the river as far south as Williamson, West Virginia at a cost of $2 billion - back then. I think I scanned it in. Of course, the AOCE didn't sign off on it because of the cost versus maintaining the existing railroad lines that paralleled the river.

 

The Kentucky River had 14 locks and dams from the Ohio River south to Beattyville. Only 4 remain in operation and the others are either abandoned or now function as pools for city water supplies. The Green River had a network as well, although I think just one is in operation.

 

The Kentucky River dams were interesting in that they were wooden structures, and when they were rebuilt in the 1910s, were encased in concrete. They never bothered to remove the old timbers!

 

I grew up right down the road from the Greenup dam, and pre-2001, I would enjoy my trips to the observation platform in the middle of the dam to watch the boats pass through. When it flooded, it was an even better site. People always complained when the river would flood, and the AOCE would have to release prepared statements (the same from the 1960s) that said the dam was not a flood prevention structure, etc. Always humorous to read.

They've got some of those wooden dam sections sitting in the park at the Hannibal Locks and Dam in Monroe county.

Here is a good article describing what the situation is with the Olmsted Lock & Dam.  Incredibly, this thing has already been under construction for 20 years:

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20111022/NEWS01/310220080/Olmsted-Dam-project-considered-essential-river-traffic

 

 

 

If someone starts a non profit business to build these things. Then maybe we can be saved.

The article on the Congressional reauthorization of the federal surface transportation law was moved to:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.0.html

This may impact state transportation policy-making by affecting one of the policy-makers. Tom Patton of Strongsville is chair of the Ohio Senate Highways & Transportation Committee....

 

Jimmy Dimora trial: Former Parma school board member J. Kevin Kelley testifies he received bribe from state senator, who denies the claim

Published: Thursday, February 02, 2012, 8:02 PM    Updated: Friday, February 03, 2012, 4:02 AM

By John Caniglia, The Plain Dealer

 

AKRON, Ohio -- Former Parma School Board member J. Kevin Kelley testified Thursday that he accepted a $10,000 bribe from Ohio Sen. Tom Patton in connection with a school district copier contract.

 

Patton, who is Kelley's third cousin, works as a consultant for a Blue Technologies, a copier firm that did more than $489,000 in business with the district from 2001 to 2008, according to school vendor records.

 

Kelley testified that the company initially had the low bid on the contract, but that he received the bribe after the school board continued to award the contract to the company without new bids.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.cleveland.com/countyincrisis/index.ssf/2012/02/dimora_trial_j_kevin_kelley_te.html

Someone tell Governor Kasich that the Innerbelt Bridge might need to be bumped up on the list....

 

 

Trucks on federal highways could soon be heavier

 

FORT WORTH, Texas -- Drivers could share the highways with much heavier trucks if Congress decides that the efficiencies of larger loads trump concerns about road damage and safety.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would raise the maximum weight for commercial trucks that routinely travel on highways to 97,000 pounds in most states.

The current threshold in most places is 80,000 pounds unless the truck has a permit to be overweight.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/trucks_on_federal_highways_cou.html

Someone tell Governor Kasich that the Innerbelt Bridge might need to be bumped up on the list....

 

 

Trucks on federal highways could soon be heavier

 

FORT WORTH, Texas -- Drivers could share the highways with much heavier trucks if Congress decides that the efficiencies of larger loads trump concerns about road damage and safety.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would raise the maximum weight for commercial trucks that routinely travel on highways to 97,000 pounds in most states.

The current threshold in most places is 80,000 pounds unless the truck has a permit to be overweight.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/trucks_on_federal_highways_cou.html

 

Two problems with this post:

 

1. It's in the wrong place as it is a federal transportation policy. It belongs here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.0.html

2. Under pressure from the railroad industry and some who saw road/bridge maintenance issues, the heavier trucks provision was removed from the House bill so the USDOT could "study" it for the next two years.

Someone tell Governor Kasich that the Innerbelt Bridge might need to be bumped up on the list....

 

 

Trucks on federal highways could soon be heavier

 

FORT WORTH, Texas -- Drivers could share the highways with much heavier trucks if Congress decides that the efficiencies of larger loads trump concerns about road damage and safety.

The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would raise the maximum weight for commercial trucks that routinely travel on highways to 97,000 pounds in most states.

The current threshold in most places is 80,000 pounds unless the truck has a permit to be overweight.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/trucks_on_federal_highways_cou.html

 

Two problems with this post:

 

1. It's in the wrong place as it is a federal transportation policy. It belongs here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,7852.0.html

2. Under pressure from the railroad industry and some who saw road/bridge maintenance issues, the heavier trucks provision was removed from the House bill so the USDOT could "study" it for the next two years.

 

Understood--just making conversation.  Besides, if that Federal policy were mandated, it WOULD be a problem for our poor ole' innerbelt bridge!

Link to the All Sides with Ann Fisher Show on "Ohio's Transportation Funding Crisis".......well worth your time listening...

 

 

http://beta.wosu.org/allsides/transportation-funding-crisis-in-ohio-2/

 

^Thanks for posting.  My takeaway: we are so sad we are broke, we need alternatives to a highway only system, and we have no ideas for a better funding system other than 3P's. 

 

No one had the cajones to say that we turned down $400,000,000 to help alleviate all three of those issues. 

The discussion wasn't particularly bad, there was acknowledgement that we need a transportation "system" that includes more than just roads and highways, but there was still a lot of highway apologizing.  Things like the Brent Spence Bridge were mentioned as non-negotiable, and they don't even question the notion that transportation facilities are investments.  There was no talk about development patterns, and they all still had a very rural bias.  Again, it could've been a lot worse, but I found myself rolling my eyes to a lot of their comments.  One even responded to the criticism that ODOT is mainly a highway agency by saying that's because highways are most of what we have.  Well no shit Sherlock, that's because ODOT won't build anything else.  It's like saying we don't need alternative transportation options because everyone drives.  Of course everyone drives, because that's the only choice they have! 

 

Sherman: I think I remember reading somewhere that the few remaining Kentucky River Locks were recently closed.

 

Another good place to see old-style locks is on the Muskingum River. Those locks are hand-operated! ODNR operates them on summer weekends for recreational traffic, and even at that they are lightly used. Now might be a good time to see them before they close, too.

 

On ODOT being a highway agency, well, they used to be called the "State of Ohio Department of Highways," without even a hint of doing anything else. Today, they dapple in railroads, bicycle routes, and other modes, but they really haven't changed much from their historical role.

 

I have the DOH report from 1937, a big, hardbound book with lots of stats and photos. Hardly anyone alive today remembers what Ohio was like before highways; you can get a hint of it by traveling to undeveloped countries. Anyway, the first step in highway development was getting the farmers out of the mud, by improving the surface of roads. In 1937, there was still a lot of mud. The second phase was to improve speed and safety. Getting the farmers out of the mud, which occurred more or less from 1910 to 1950, is where the biggest advantage of roads comes from.

What I thought was interesting were the remarks of Gene Krebs of Greater Ohio....and a former and very conservative GOP legislator..... that the way we fund transportation in Ohio needs to become multi-modal in more than name only.  He made it clear that a highways-only transportation policy will do Ohio no good.

$400,000,000

four-hundred million dollars

eight zeroes

 

swirl, swish, glug

Has anyone in office ever proposed an audit for Ohio road expenditures?

 

Since moving here I've always had a suspicion that ODOT uses the cheapest, crappiest materials in the universe, just so that the maintenance is never-ending.

 

For one thing, I'd love to see a study on the negative externalities of road salt. Really, the damage to infrastrucure and personal property must easily be in the billions.

Yes, there are a lot externalities associated with roads, of which road salt is one, but ODOT can't take the blame for everything. Cities, counties, townships, and private owners build roads, including the attached driveways and parking lots, and most of them use salt as well.

 

 

Since moving here I've always had a suspicion that ODOT uses the cheapest, crappiest materials in the universe, just so that the maintenance is never-ending.

 

Quite the opposite.  An ODOT spec for road building is typically stricter than anything you'll ever find in private sector or anywhere else.  They have higher standards for compaction, gravel, pavement thicknesses, higher strength concrete, etc.

 

In the big picture, Ohio has very good roads I think.  Michigan's roads are terrible.  Indiana seems to have some backwoods standards for certain things I've noticed....

Really? I found Michigan's to be one of the best. Ohio? One of the worst. I guess it's about perspective.

Everytime I cross the state line back into Ohio there's a pretty significant difference. KY, WV, and PA keep their roads in better shape than Ohio from my perspective.

The Ohio Turnpike is by far one of the best maintained, including snow removal, in the region....

Really? I found Michigan's to be one of the best. Ohio? One of the worst. I guess it's about perspective.

 

ODOT's annual budget is more than double MDOT's budget.  I lived in Michigan for 5 years, trust me, their roads & bridges are in terrible shape.  They are big believers in concrete paving instead of asphalt and when the road starts to crack & crumble, they patch it and it's a mess for a decade before it ever gets replaced.  Ohio uses more asphalt paving which only requires a mill & fill to resurface (albeit much more frequently) than full depth replacement of a reinforced concrete roadway.

 

Back on topic, given that Ohio has such great needs for transportation funding, why not issue a large bond sale to fund this need for the next 10-20 years?  The Governor recently stated Ohio is on the right track, tax base should be increasing....  I would consider this a reinvestment in the state's future and a good one at that.

ODOT's annual budget is more than double MDOT's budget.  I lived in Michigan for 5 years, trust me, their roads & bridges are in terrible shape.  They are big believers in concrete paving instead of asphalt and when the road starts to crack & crumble, they patch it and it's a mess for a decade before it ever gets replaced.  Ohio uses more asphalt paving which only requires a mill & fill to resurface (albeit much more frequently) than full depth replacement of a reinforced concrete roadway.

 

Why did ODOT choose concrete for some projects, i.e., part of I-275 on the east side of Cincinnati?

because the concrete pavement business has a very powerful lobby and they have studies which show that over a lifespan of 30-40 years, the overall cost of a concrete road is less than an asphalt road.  That doesn't take into account that the quality of the roadway is seriously reduced in the final 10-15 years before it's replaced.  There are also variables to take into account, like the cost of petroleum, a major ingredient in asphalt vs the cost of steel for reinforcing concrete.  Both have alot of price fluctuations.

 

Some sections of new US-30 were paved asphalt in the westbound lanes and concrete in the eastbound lanes to serve as a study for this exact purpose.

Well, there were parts of US 30 that were completed as a super-two (two-lane freeway built on a four-lane right-of-way), whereas the original concrete pavement had been paved over or had all asphalt, and then new concrete lanes poured when the roadway was expanded.

 

But to @taestell: Concrete and asphalt lobbyists are very powerful, and influence the types of pavement that are used across the state. The asphalt lobby donated a lot of money to the Kasich administration, whereas the concrete lobby donated a lot of money to the Strickland administration.

 

Taft: 1999-2007, favored by asphalt lobbyists.

Strickland: 2007-2011: favored by concrete lobbyists

Kasich: 2011-: favored by asphalt lobbyists

 

Interstate 275's concrete pavement, from SR 32 south towards Asbury Road was reconstructed in 2006. This involved the removal of the existing two-lane concrete pavement and asphalt overlay, and the placement of 14" continuously-reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) with three full lanes and two full shoulders. Further west, from Asbury Road to US 52, that was reconstructed in 1993 with CRCP. Further north, that pavement was given an asphalt overlay with a new asphalt third lane in 2001-2002.

 

Of course, the timing of the pavements can be somewhat correlated to the administrations. Construction documents can be written up long before a bid is let for materials, and a project can be delayed.

Back on topic, given that Ohio has such great needs for transportation funding, why not issue a large bond sale to fund this need for the next 10-20 years?  The Governor recently stated Ohio is on the right track, tax base should be increasing....  I would consider this a reinvestment in the state's future and a good one at that.

 

A bond sale typically pays for one-time projects, not ongoing maintenance needs over 10-20 years. If we use a bond sale to build more roads, how do we maintain them if we don't increase the gas tax to compensate for the rising cost of roadwork, combined with the loss of revenues from increased vehicle fuel efficiency and the falling rate of vehicle-miles traveled? We should be reducing the number of lane-miles, not increasing them. This could be done by implementing a cost-effectiveness rating for individual segments of the state's highway system.

 

But to @taestell: Concrete and asphalt lobbyists are very powerful, and influence the types of pavement that are used across the state. The asphalt lobby donated a lot of money to the Kasich administration, whereas the concrete lobby donated a lot of money to the Strickland administration.

 

Taft: 1999-2007, favored by asphalt lobbyists.

Strickland: 2007-2011: favored by concrete lobbyists

Kasich: 2011-: favored by asphalt lobbyists

 

And for what organization did current ODOT Director Jerry Wray serve as Vice President of Government Relations after his last stint as ODOT Director under GOP Governor Voinovich? I'll give you a hint.... http://www.flexiblepavements.org/

>not ongoing maintenance needs over 10-20 years

 

This is the exact reason why gasoline taxes were enacted.  Early on, bonds were sold to fund road improvements, but those improvements would not survive the term of the bonds, esp since 50-year municipal bonds were standard in the early 1900s. Now, bonds could make sense if they paid for right-of-way purchase, but that's not comprising a significant percentage of highway spending these days. 

I remember people coming unglued in West Virginia when they re-issued 50-year bonds for the WV Turnpike after the 50-year bonds that funded its initial construction matured. But of course, being a Turnpike it has an income stream.

The WV Turnpike has the distinction of being bailed out by the federal government at some point.  They might have even defaulted on their bonds. 

 

Exiting the West Virginia turnpike and patronizing any gas station or fast food resaturant makes you wonder if the state should be selling bonds to bring in a few dentists. 

E-check may become obsolete after First Energy's coal fired plants at Bayshore, Cleveland, and Eastlake shut down.  The counties that require E-check may soon have air that is clean enough to meet federal air standards without the vehicle testing program.  Then we can end E-check and leave the money in the state budget for other purposes.

 

I know that Ohio signs multi-year contracts with the vendor(s).  It may be years until the contracts end.

Re: West Virginia Turnpike

 

I once had a page on the Turnpike on my personal site, but moved it to Wikipedia and sourced it from various documents I've gathered over the years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Turnpike.

 

Consider this: the original construction estimate was $133 million. Construction began in 1952 and was completed in November 1954 as a two-lane turnpike.

 

Reconstruction costs in 1974 were $350 million, and the first contract was let in 1976 to widen the Turnpike to four-lanes so it could finally receive interstate designation and to relieve its notorious death trap. In that year alone, $200 million+ in contracts were let. I broke down segment upgrades by year and milepost at Wikipedia.

 

The last segment to be completed was the Memorial Tunnel bypass, which was 1987. The five-lane bypass (two SB, three NB) alone cost $35 million.

 

The total cost of modernization was $683 million - $300 million MORE than the original 1974 estimate. It was one of the few interstates that received 90% federal funding and to charge a toll, due to the extremely high construction costs.

 

In 1989, the West Virginia Legislature created the West Virginia Parkways, Economic Development and Tourism Authority, and rolled in the Turnpike Commission into that. Because of that, funds from the Turnpike were used to finance various economic development projects across the state - including the Tamarack ("The Best of West Virginia") at Beckley's service plaza.

 

Get this: the first bond was not retired until 1982. The Turnpike Commission was not able to pay off even the interest on its bonds. When the original bond expired in December 1989, the Commission had trouble determining how to finance it.

 

A new plan was completed in 1986 based on projections of traffic increasing with Interstate 64's construction from Beckley east to Sam Black Church (1988). Tolls were held at the former rates, $1.25 per booth for cars.

 

Of course, not raising tolls to match inflation is bad. And so is having an Authority that is more interested in economic and tourism development than maintaining the Turnpike, since the Commission was abolished. Because of that, the Turnpike couldn't raise rates without having to go through the Legislature. The first time they tried was in 2006, but was rolled back after a fiasco ensued. It was finally raised in 2009 to $2 per booth - the longest span of same rate toll in the nation. And $2 is still pretty damn cheap.

 

As of 2011, it was till under the misguided West Virginia Parkways, Economic Development and Tourism Authority - the only toll road that is lumped into such a stupid category.

Sherman, did you go to the Turnpike 50th Anniversary party at Tamarack in 2004? It was fantastic. They had Greenbrier food, a bunch of old Governors were there, a guy who drove the entire length of the Turnpike twice a day since it opened spoke and they showed the Turnpike documentary (which was sweet, dunno if you've seen it). In the early '80s, they showed the relocation of Paint Creek (near Cabin Creek, I think) on Mr. Wizard's World. I thought it was gnarly as a 4-year-old.