New Keyser Bridge Traffic Patterns

If your coming from the Fountain area on Rt 46 and want to go North on US 220, then your going to see some major changes in the traffic patterns. The blue lines are where the new roads and bridge will be.

You will no longer be able to turn onto the bridge from Center Street. So you will have to go all the way to Piedmont St and then make a right at the light to access the new bridge. You will also not be able to just drive to the end of Armstrong street and make a left crossing traffic to go to Cumberland. That will now be a one way off ramp for the new bridge. If you stay on Armstrong St. to the end, then it will bring you to Piedmont Street across from Orchard Street. There will be major changes in traffic patterns.
On the McCool side of the river you will no longer be able to turn left to go to Westernport from Keyser. You will now have to turn right and circle under the new bridge to go to Westernport.

Looks like we are going to have major changes in the traffic patterns. Many on the West Virginia side may not be for the best. Davis Street is going to become much more busy than it already is. Looks like we will need a new traffic light at Orchard and Piedmont to handle all the truck traffic that will be routed that way.

Time for 3-lane between Saint Cloud and Lincoln Streets?

The center turn lane on most of Mineral Street and US 220 has really helped with traffic flow. It allows for turning traffic to get out of the way, but there is a 3 block section between Saint Cloud and Lincoln Streets that doesn't have a turn lane.

If your traveling north on 220, you find you get stopped a lot for traffic turning onto State Street or Fort Ave, especially when college is in session. The primary reason for not putting the center turn lane in this area was the needed parking for Potomac Valley Hospital. Now that the hospital has moved the parking is no longer needed. With a new paving project is ready to start, maybe it is time complete that final section of 3 lane between Saint Cloud and Lincoln Streets an improve traffic flow through Keyser?

Better City Government for Keyser

The City of Keyser is reportedly considering a modification to its charter which would change the City Council from three members to five. This would at least diminish the likelihood that the Council would, in the future, get into its present woeful state where there are two members, causing the Council meeting to be postponed if one can't or won't attend, and giving either council member a veto by virtue of their ability to withhold a second for any motion made. If only to alleviate chaos, a charter change to add two more members would be warranted.

There would be the additional benefit of being able to add two additional portfolios which might help the Council deal more directly with issues of concern to the citizenry, and the concerns of businesses and other organizations which are in Keyser, or are considering locating in Keyser. I would argue that one of the new seats should be a director of planning who would represent the City on planning committees and commissions, and who would, over time, lead in the development of long and mid-range plans for the City. With the new 220 bridge moving closer to the construction phase, the City needs to take a good look at how the actual construction process is going to impact on the areas adjoining the construction site on the Keyser side. The Arnold Street Bridge, a relatively small project, was far too disruptive for far too long a time to be acceptable. The 220 bridge is a vastly larger project with the potential of devastating businesses and other activities located near the project. In addition, there will certainly be a need for and interest in redeveloping downtown Keyser after the bridge has been completed; the planning for that should start immediately so that investor interest can be capitalized upon, and where grants may be needed, Keyser is able to get in the queue early, and muster the support it will need.

A second portfolio could be intergovernmental relations. There are a plethora of situations in which nothing much can be done because the state or county does them, but not inside city limits. For example, deer and other wildlife are proliferating and increasingly becoming a nuisance. Do we want the police called to shoot groundhogs, shoot or poison them ourselves, or should the DNR have some more effective provisions for handling wildlife nuisances in city limits? Another example would be water and sewer lines outside the city. It certainly appears that if anyone chooses to develop property near Keyser, all they have to do is petition the State Public Service Commission to order Keyser to take them into the existing systems, and it will be so ordered, even though they are not incorporated into the city. There are other problems, as well. In addition, this council member would be the one who developed the City's legislative package for each session of the State Legislature, and worked with the County Commission and the School Board, as well.

Keyser has a chance to move itself from the ridiculous to the sublime, and the voters need to express their strong support for a charter change

Communication is the basis of progress

April 6th, 2005 Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski of Maryland entered bill number 719. The purpose of the bill is “To extend Corridor O of the Appalachian Development Highway System from its current southern terminus at I-68 near Cumberland to Corridor H, which stretches from Weston, West Virginia, to Strasburg, Virginia.” Now, of the 35 plus miles of road the bill would have created most would have been in West Virginia, yet neither Senator Byrd nor Rockefeller co-sponsored the bill. The bill never made it out of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. On March 28th, 2006 Congressman Alan Mollohan introduced the same bill into the house as 5031. Congressman Mollohan had no co-sponsor and the bill went no farther than the House Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines.

I had the opportunity to speak with Congressman Mollohan’s representative at a US 50 meeting about bill 5031. My specific question was why it had no co-sponsors. The answer I got spoke volumes. Basically I was told the Congressman introduced it, and that should have been enough, if nobody saw it that wasn’t his fault.

I’m sorry but I think communication and cooperation are important. I also think Congressman Mollohan, Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski dropped the ball on this one by not communicating. I firmly believe that the Maryland Senators should have had a staffer pick up the phone and ask Senators Byrd and Rockefeller to co-sponsor the bill. Congressman Mollohan should have done the same with Congresswoman Capito and Congressman Bartlett. On the house side this would have given the bill bi-partisan support.

This is not about partisan politics; this is about doing what these people were elected to do. This is a bill to build a 4-lane road to replace the 2-lane US 220 from Moorefield, WV to Cumberland, MD. This is not a deep dividing issue such as gun control or gay marriage; it is about building a good road where one is sorely needed. I do not fault Byrd, Rockefeller, Capito or Bartlett for not picking up on these bills. With the hundreds of bills introduced every session it would be easy to miss. I do fault Sarbanes, Mikulski, and Mollohan as they had the opportunity to make a call to make the others aware.

Without communication on the easy stuff, how do you expect to solve the hard problems?