Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 16, 1992 TAG: 9202170224
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: E-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
AVOID ROADBLOCKS TO SMART ROAD
MONTGOMERY County supervisors were right the first time when they endorsed the Blacksburg-Roanoke direct highway link, the so-called Smart road.They ought to stand by that endorsement now.
Sure, the road's opponents are turning up the heat. They've gathered petitions, organized a telephone campaign, spoken up at hearings.
County officials should, of course, listen to their criticisms. A small group of Virginia Tech graduate students and Ellett Valley residents are orchestrating most of the ruckus. Like anyone else, they have a right to be heard.
The supervisors, though, have responsibilities to consider.
Steve Musselwhite, the Salem District's member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, has usefully reminded them that if they withdraw support for the direct link, they risk losing state backing for a proposed bypass to congested U.S. 460.
The bypass and the Smart road shortcut are a package deal, understand, in which Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Virginia Tech and the county came together to support both projects for the benefit of the region.
A deal, Musselwhite points out, is a deal. (Which isn't so bad: Supervisors can always say they reaffirmed support for the Smart road to avoid jeopardizing the desperately needed bypass.)
Funding realities aren't, however, the only reason the board should reject a motion to reverse its endorsement of the direct link. The fact is that combining the two road projects makes practical as well as political sense.
Listen to the nay-sayers; what do you hear? Fear, among some, that their properties will be affected. For others, resistance to further growth - now that they're happily ensconced in the area. Exaggeration of the project's environmental impact. Underestimation of its benefits. A lot of misunderstanding and misinformation.
The supervisors, meantime, have their constituents to consider. The direct link not only would speed Roanoke-Blacksburg traffic, a considerable benefit in itself. It also is needed to ease congestion within the New River Valley.
If the Smart road isn't built, an extra $40 million would have to be spent on the bypass to add two lanes, an interchange at Rt. 114, and an I-81 interchange. Even then, projected traffic on the new bypass would be unacceptably congested, subject to constant delays and safety hazards.
If that's not good enough cause to stick with the plan, supervisors might consider the economic-development benefits for the region - not just in tying the New River and Roanoke valleys closer together, but also in bringing many tens of millions of outside dollars into the area, while showcasing Virginia Tech's and a growing local industry's expertise in smart transportation technologies.
Not inconsiderable, meanwhile, are the productivity enhancements in saving 1,500 total hours per day in commuting time, and - for all those environmentalists out there - the potential reduction in carbon dioxide emissions if 15,000 trips per day between Roanoke and Blacksburg are shortened by six minutes.
If Ellett Valley residents don't want an interchange, fine. It isn't necessary for the project. The supervisors, though, must take a broader and longer view. What offers more promise of progress: the Smart road, or a missing link?
***CORRECTION***
Published correction ran on February 18, 1992.
A Sunday editorial, in a reference to auto pollution, cited the wrong chemical compound. It should have said carbon monoxide.
Memo: CORRECTION