Key Decision on Corridor H Looms in 2026
Plus, county commission president sought removal of political yard signs in Canaan Valley
The long-running controversy over the route of Corridor H between Davis and Parsons will be settled next year, state officials say.
The state wants to build that section of the four-lane divided highway between the towns of Davis and Thomas. Many local leaders agree with that stance, saying it’s the safest and most efficient route.
Opponents say that route would cause severe environmental harm, and it would visually divide the two mountain towns. They prefer a northern route for the highway.
Officials are waiting for a decision from the Federal Highway Administration, which is expected in 2026, with design work to begin soon after. Construction is scheduled to begin in early 2027, according to the West Virginia Division of Highways.
The estimated completion date of the project is 2034. Work on Corridor H has often fallen years behind schedule.
Kerens to Parsons
Meanwhile, a new section of Corridor H from Kerens to Route 72 near Parsons is scheduled to open before Memorial Day, said Robbie Morris, chairman of the Corridor H Highway Authority. Another short section of Corridor H from Route 72 to Mackeyville is scheduled to open in 2027.
The opening of Corridor H from Kerens to Parsons will be a “tipping point” for east-west travel across the state, making Corridor H the fastest route from Charleston to the Washington, D.C. area, said Morris, who also is a member of the West Virginia Senate. It will greatly increase traffic through Davis and especially Thomas, boosting the urgency to complete the section of Corridor H from Parsons to Davis, Morris said.
“Every year that we wait to get started is just another year of that traffic getting worse and worse,” Morris said.
Work is also scheduled to begin in the spring or early summer of 2026 on the seven-mile section of Corridor H from Wardensville to the Virginia state line, with completion expected in 2030 or 2031.
Morris called 2026 an “exciting” year for the highway’s expansion. “Any time you cut ribbons and break ground, it’s a good year for Corridor H,” he said.
More News
County Commission President Rosenau Unsuccessfully Sought to Have Political Yard Signs Removed
Tucker County Commission President Mike Rosenau recently sought unsuccessfully to have dozens of political yard signs removed in Canaan Valley.
The issue arose at a November meeting of the Canaan Valley Board of Zoning Appeals.
The board voted, 3-1, against taking action on the signs.
Country Roads News did not attend the meeting, and has worked to determine what happened.
In response to questions about the meeting, the zoning board issued a statement saying that the zoning inspector received an email from a resident complaining about a neighbor with a yard sign expressing opposition to a proposed power plant and data center.
“The complainant urged the inspector to order the resident, and presumably any other residents displaying the signs, to remove them,” according to the statement.
Rosenau and fellow County Commissioner Fred Davis attended the meeting. Davis is a non-voting member of the zoning board. A discussion about the signs ensued. The zoning board statement says the discussion lasted “well over an hour.”
When asked about his statements at the meeting about the signs, Rosenau initially replied, “It’s not for me not wanting anything. It’s just, follow the codes, that’s all I ask. So why are you saying that I want them removed?”
When told that meeting attendees said he wanted the signs removed, Rosenau stated, “What I said was, we follow the zoning rules, and we follow the state law, is what we do, okay? Don’t bring this into, data center, not data center.”
Rosenau said he believed state law and the Canaan Valley zoning ordinance prohibit “any signs. Look it up.”
He added as he walked away, “you’re just trying to cause division.”
Positions on the Canaan Valley Zoning Board were vacant for nearly two years until the county commission made new appointments to the panel in August.
According to the zoning board statement about the November meeting:
“There are perhaps dozens of these signs presently displayed by Canaan Valley residents. The signs are approximately an 18- by 20-inch rectangle.”
“Political campaign signs have for years been visible in Canaan Valley and their display has never been an issue of debate.”
The zoning ordinance specifies that while signs are generally prohibited, political campaign signs may be displayed “until the political issue has concluded.”
Yard signs in support of the data center project would also be protected as political speech.
“Political speech is unquestionably protected under the U.S. Constitution, as well as the West Virginia Constitution, making its suppression through zoning ordinances a sensitive and questionable endeavor.”
Supreme Court ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1994 that yard signs with political messages are generally protected by the First Amendment.
The case involved a Missouri resident who complained that city officials improperly removed her yard sign protesting the Persian Gulf War. The court conceded that municipalities have a valid interest in regulating “visual clutter,” but the city’s actions “almost completely foreclosed an important and distinct medium of expression to political, religious, or personal messages.”
(This story was researched and written by Mat Cloak and Dan Parks.)
State Lawmakers Divided Over Changes to Data Center Law
Some state lawmakers say they are open to changing a new law that deregulated the data center industry, but Governor Patrick Morrisey stands firmly behind the law, according to a new report in Mountain State Spotlight, a nonprofit news site.
The governor dismissed opponents of the law as “a couple people, a minority, engaging in scare tactics.”
Several state lawmakers said they would like to restore some control to local communities where data centers might be built. Country Roads News reported last month that State Senate President Randy Smith, who represents Tucker County, is dissatisfied with key provisions of the legislation and hopes to amend it.
How disappointing to see your biased coverage on Corridor H. You say " many local leaders" support the original route splitting the towns, when in fact most all residents and leaders support the northern route. And, you refer to those in the majority trying to protect the environment and the local life as " opponents"! You got it backwards!
It took me a bit to figure out that the truck bypass was to avoid Thomas. I think the northern route is better, although I don’t know why the eastbound lane needs to cross over 219 twice.