Reply from WVDOH on GPS Warning Signs

Thank you for your November 23, 2007 email to Highway Commissioner Paul Mattox on behalf of the US 50 Association.

In your correspondence, you expressed the US 50 Association's concerns regarding the effects of GPS navigational systems on traffic volumes and safety on US 50 between I-79 in Harrison County and New Creek in Mineral County. Specifically, the US 50 Association is requesting that signs warning GPS users of the characteristics of Route 50 be posted at both ends of this roadway segment.

Drivers who are planning a trip into unfamiliar territory use a variety of resources to select their routes. These include, but are not limited to, verbal or written directions from family members and/or friends; various types of maps; tour guide books and periodicals; advertising materials obtained from various business and governmental and private organizations; automobile clubs or travel services such as the American Automobile Association (AAA); Internet resources, such as MapQuest or Google Maps; or electronic devices such as GPS units.

Drivers use these tools, singly or in combination, to assist them in making route choices based on the time available; the lengths and other characteristics of various alternate routes; the probability of encountering road work or other sources of congestion and delay; weather; their assessments of their own skills; the availability of services; and many other tangible and intangible factors.

The West Virginia Division of Highways (WVDOH) does not have the legal authority to require drivers to avoid a certain route unless there is some obstacle or condition which prevents the facility from being used by all vehicles, or by certain classes of vehicles. We also believe, given the wide range of travel planning resources and choices which are available, that the posting of warning signs, such as those the US 50 Association is suggesting, would have very little effect on the overall travel patterns that long distance, unfamiliar drivers will chose to take. These signs may also meet with some resistance from various institutions and businesses located along US 50 due to the potential diversion of their customers and visitors. We, therefore, must respectfully decline any requests to install these or similar signs, or to permit them to be installed on WVDOH right of way.

Should the US 50 Association still desire to pursue the installation of such signing, you can explore the option of placing your own signs on private property adjacent to the DOH right of way. However, certain other restrictions would apply, in that the WEST VIRGINIA CODE specifies that such signs located on property adjacent to WVDOH right of way cannot contain any commercial advertising; and that the signs may not be an imitation of or resemble an official traffic control device. This means that 1) certain color combinations incorporated into official highway regulatory signs (i.e. STOP, YIELD, DO NOT ENTER, SPEED LIMIT, WRONG WAY, etc.) and warning signs (i.e. CURVE AHEAD Symbol, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Symbol, TRUCK CROSSING Symbol, ROAD WORK AHEAD, etc.) signs could not be used and 2) official highway signing shapes, such as diamonds (warning signs) or octagons (STOP signs), could not be used.

We understand and appreciate the concerns expressed in your e-mail. We continually monitor the operation and condition of US 50, and we attempt to address any identified deficiencies as rapidly as possible.

Thank you again for bringing this issue to our attention and for your Association's continuing efforts on behalf of the Division of Highways and the public. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Barry Warhoftig, P.E.
Director, Traffic Engineering
West Virginia Division Of Highways
Capitol Complex
1900 Kanawha Boulevard East
Charleston, WV 25305
Telephone: 304.558.3722
Fax: 304.558.1209
Email: bwarhoftig@dot.state.wv.us

Requested Letter to WVDOH generated as a result of November meeting

Commissioner Mattox,

The increasing traffic collisions, some fatal, on US 50 are being attributed to GPS Navigation Units putting through traffic onto US 50 that otherwise would not be on the route. In order to reduce collisions, the US 50 Association request signage be placed on US 50 or just before US 50 warning drivers that GPS Navigation is not the best option.

On US 50 West bound in Mineral County before the US 220 North split we request a large warning sign of the following nature be placed at the US 220 North split and one a 1/4 to 1/2 mile prior to the US 220 North split. Below is a suggestion for the sign.

GPS NAVIGATION WARNING

US 50 WEST NOT BUILT TO MODERN STANDARDS THROUGH TRAFFIC TO CLARKSBURG, WV RECOMMEND FOLLOWING US 220 NORTH TO I-68 WEST TO I-79 SOUTH

On US 50 East bound in Harrison County prior to the I-79 intersection and on I-79 North bound prior to the US 50 intersection we request a warning sign of the following nature.

GPS NAVIGATION WARNING

US 50 EAST NOT BUILT TO MODERN STANDARDS THROUGH TRAFFIC TO WINCHESTER, VA RECOMMEND FOLLOWING I-79 NORTH TO I-68 EAST TO US 220 SOUTH TO US 50 EAST

From the US 220 split to Clarksburg it is a drive of about 2 hours whether or not you take US 50, or take US 220 to I-69 to I-79. Taking the interstate is a much safer route and adds no additional time to the trip.

Please consider this request to increase the safety of US 50 through the most mountainous section.

Thank You
US 50 Association

November 2007 Minutes

November 21^st, 2007

Recorded Attendees: Gary Howell – Mineral County, Wayne Spiggle-Mineral County Commission, Charlie Baker – Hampshire County Planner, Ken Musgrave – Mineral County, Bill Woods – WVDOH Charleston, Clyde Burdock – Mineral county Planning Commission, Evelyn Baker – Hampshire County, Miranda L. Kessel – Congresswoman Capito’s Office, Eileen Johnson – City of Romney, Marc Bashoor – Mineral County OEM, Brian Carr – WVDOH Charleston, Eric Goff – Berkeley County.

Introductions: Mineral County Commissioner Wayne Spiggle made the introductions welcoming everyone to the meeting so close to the holiday. He especially thanked Bill Woods and Brian Carr from WVDOH Charleston for making every meeting.

Correspondence: Wayne Spiggle received a letter from a gun owner stating that they were required to unload their weapon when traveling US 50, and wanted to know of they group could lobby for gun rights. Several people responded that the person needed to get a WV concealed carry permit. Commission Spiggle stated he would relay the information to the person.

Old Business: At the September meeting Charlie Baker informed the WVDOH that Hampshire County was told that if they decided to fund a project that WVDOH could not guarantee that the money would be used on that project. At the time it was believed this was a miscommunication.

Brian Carr of WVDOH went on to state this was definitely a miscommunication. If Hampshire County or any county wished to fund a project, then they could and WVDOH would use that money for only that project. 100% of the funding would have to be provided by the county. The county would have to enter into a contract with WVDOH that spelled out what each was responsible, including cost over runs.

Gary Howell asked if Federal matching funds could be used if available. Bill Woods of WVDOH replied, “They could be used but it would be unlikely any would be available.” Federal matching funds will pay 80% of the cost of a project when available.

Since the US 50 Association is a participating agency with Federal Highway Administration on the US 220 north-south corridor a follow up on Tier 2 funding was given. At this time Maryland has funded it portion of the Tier 2 study, but West Virginia has not. According to Senator Byrd’s office the request for funding needs to come from the governor’s office.

It was decided that Gary Howell should draft a letter requesting the governor ask for the funding from the states Senators and Congressmen with copies going to all parties. If the WV portion of the funding is secured, it will allow the Tier 2 study to start as soon at the Tier 1 study is completed. The Tier 1 study is currently underway.

Cate Johnson of Congressman Mollohan’s office sent notice that the Corridor-O bill had not been reintroduced. She was not a liberty to neither confirm nor deny that the bill would be introduced this session. The Corridor-O bill would make the US 220 north-south corridor part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. This would allow a different funding source for earlier completion of a 4-lane US 220 connecting Corridor-H to I-68.

New Business: The recent fatal collision on US 50 in Mineral County was discussed. Again GPS Navigation Systems were blamed for putting additional traffic on the routes. It was stated that the GPS does not account for the condition of the road the drivers are faced with.

The group asked Gary Howell and Marc Bashoor to look into warning signs that could be placed at the intersection of US 220 and US 50, and I-79 near Clarksburg to warn driver that US 50 is not built to modern standards and the alternative Route US 220, I-68, and I-79 between New Creek and Clarksburg should be used for through traffic.

November Meeting:

Grant County is next on the schedule to host the January 16th meeting.

Meeting Adjourned at 1:41.