Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, August 23, 1993 TAG: 9312230298
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN B. FLEMING
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
It was thought this relationship would enhance Roanoke's economic-development efforts and eventually lead to a replication of the prosperity of the Golden Triangle in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area in North Carolina.
One idea that evolved from the Connection was to reduce the travel time between Roanoke and Blacksburg. So the idea for a "smart" highway linking Blacksburg and Roanoke was proposed.
With virtually no public debate of the road, local governing bodies in Montgomery County went on record supporting the proposal, and the political, economic and media leadership of Roanoke ardently backed the project. A politically astute friend of mine told me, "This is a done deal. There is too much power behind it and nothing will change the plan." Another local officeholder told me, "Why worry about it? It won't cost us anything because it will be paid for by the federal and state government."
Despite a barrage of media reports implying that the smart highway is virtually an accomplished fact, the issue is far from settled. There are several points raised later in this article that have not been addressed in any public forum. Let us review the current status of the road, including projected costs and related road projects of the area.
Although a recent report stated the cost of the smart road will be $82 million beyond planning costs, this is really only for the first two-lane stage of the five-mile road that will run from the southern end of Blacksburg to the bottom of Christiansburg Mountain. Additional lanes are planned before the year 2010. The total costs of the road could end up in the $120 million range, but this is a very vague estimate.
Other transportation plans for the Montgomery end of the Salem Transportation District include: adding two to four lanes to Interstate 81 between Christiansburg and Troutville at a cost of $165 million; $85 million for Alternate 3A running from Blacksburg to a new intersection at I-81; $32 million for four-laning Virginia 100 in Giles-Pulaski counties; eventually, the four-laning of Virginia 114 between the New River Mall and Radford; and a new intersection off U.S. 460 into Blacksburg.
The total estimated cost of these projects, excluding the smart highway, comes to around $300 million, and this accounts for only part of the 12-county Salem District needs. Looking beyond our region, we find heavy demands being made in other parts of Virginia for more transportation funding, including mass transit.
Apparently the money for the smart highway will have to come from more federal grants, donations by private sources, with the primary source a special Virginia bond issue. State funding will be difficult, since a recent report contends Virginia will be unable to finance $24.2 billion of the $52.1 billion in transportation needs through the year 2010.
The arguments for the smart link generally are as follows. The road will put our region on the cutting edge of a significant new area of technology. As a result, a smart highway research center could possibly emerge, to be located in the Roanoke Valley. New jobs will appear from the building of the highway and perhaps, subsequently, in smart highway research. The road will cut six minutes driving time between Roanoke and Blacksburg, thus drawing the communities closer together, and assist the region in becoming more like the Golden Triangle. The proposed road qualifies for federal funds with the possibility of more money from this source in the future.
The arguments against the road are also several. One concern is the environmental cost of the road, coupled with the need to take private property. A second major issue is cost. With our national government deeply in debt, our state government facing huge costs ahead, and local taxpayers complaining of higher property taxes, is the $120 million cost of the road justified? Some of the urgent needs facing Virginia include funding for public schools and higher education, social services, libraries, prisons and soaring Medicaid costs. Virginia's rank nationally in several of these areas is already low and sinking fast. So a basic decision has to be made as to whether the smart highway is the best use of scarce taxpayer dollars.
This leads to the next issue, is the road really needed or will Alternate 3A do the job as well? Is the smart highway a project of the future or a continuation of the glutting of highways with more and more cars with no place to go? Should smart technology instead focus on enhancing alternate forms of mass transit? In addition, "smart" roads require "smart" cars with new and expensive equipment.
Looking at the big picture, does the New River Valley really have a comprehensive transportation plan for the future? Adding to the confusion here, the proposed new Interstate 73 running from Detroit to Charleston, S.C., following U.S. 460 through Giles and Montgomery counties onto Virginia 8 in Floyd County, is a new factor to consider.
Finally, if creating new jobs is an issue, can we spend our tax dollars in other ways and better? There are many deteriorating primary and secondary roads and bridges needing work. More schools, libraries, prisons, parks and recreational facilities are needed. Schools could also use more teachers and teacher aides to reduce pupil-teacher ratios. Toxic-waste dumps could be eliminated and garbage-disposal needs met. There are countless routes to provide jobs other than building new superhighways. Another choice to create jobs may be to cut taxes and allow private enterprise to flourish.
There are very good arguments on both sides of the smart highway proposal. Unfortunately, very little opportunity has been provided to the public to discuss the issues involved. It is rather sad that in our open and democratic society advocating citizen participation, this controversial issue has received so little public debate.
The project to date has the classic earmarks of what Barry Goldwater called "the camel gets his nose into the tent" approach. Of course, once the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow. I have a strong suspicion that the backers of the road hope that they can keep the Pandora's box of questions over the road from being opened long enough for them to be able to say, "Well we have spent all this money so far for planning; it is too late to turn back."
This local smart-highway project seems to symbolize the dilemma facing us all today. There are many great ideas out there, but can government and, thus, taxpayers afford them all? It seems we will have to make some hard, common-sense choices. The smart highway may be a great investment of tax dollars, or maybe not. Certainly it is not free, as some people seem to think.
By not allowing the public to participate in discussing vital issues, we only breed greater cynicism in an already apathetic citizenry. The implications of the smart-road project touch all levels of government, national, state and local. In fact, the concepts behind the road open up even broader questions about visions for the destiny of our region. But this is a topic for another time.
What can still be done is for public hearings to be held by the Blacksburg and Christiansburg town councils and the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors to review the project.
It certainly makes more sense to face the issue today rather than wait a few years when a new bond greets us as voters, and we feel trapped by circumstances.
\ Dan B. Fleming, professor emeritus in social studies education at Virginia Tech, is co-author of "By the Good People of Virginia ... Our Commonwealth's Government."
by CNB