Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 15, 1994 TAG: 9403150120
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: BRIAN KELLEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG LENGTH: Medium
The county Board of Supervisors went on record opposing a Catawba Valley route for the proposed highway. But the supervisors did not throw out a January endorsement that in effect backs a route through the Ellett Valley via the "smart road."
"It's bittersweet," said Robin Boucher, a leader of a citizens' group organized in the last month over the issue. "Our objective is to get it out of Montgomery County."
Don Barber, who had urged the board to oppose any corridor using U.S. 460 through Giles and Montgomery counties, was more blunt.
"Disgusting," he said of the vote.
The 4-3 approval of Supervisor Jim Moore's resolution against Alternative 6 - which highway planners ranked low in a study released last week - came after 13 people spoke against the highway and three supervisors gave lengthy explanations for their votes.
Supervisor Nick Rush, for instance, apologized to the crowd for voting for the initial Jan. 10 resolution in favor of a route through Montgomery because the board didn't have enough information to know the ramifications of its vote.
"I didn't do a very good job," he said. The crowd applauded him, though he voted against Moore's resolution because it didn't address the route through the Ellett Valley, which he represents.
Supervisor Joe Stewart drew laughs with his admission: "When we passed the first resolution we actually didn't know what we were talking about."
Supervisor Henry Jablonski, on the other hand, said a new interstate would help the county and he had to view the issue from a larger perspective than just that of the people whose land or homes would be affected.
An interstate "does make a difference in economic development," Jablonski said. "I believe it will provide jobs."
Joining Jablonski and Rush was Supervisor Ira Long. He didn't speak.
Moore's resolution will be forwarded to the state Transportation Board before its Thursday meeting to discuss a staff report on routing alternatives.
Before the vote, speaker after speaker called on the Board of Supervisors to take a stand against three of the routes that would pass through the New River Valley: Alternative 5, which would pass through Floyd County via Virginia 8; Alternative 6 (the Catawba Valley route); Alternative 6A, which would use the proposed "smart road" to cross the Ellett Valley and would pass through Alleghany Springs on its way toward U.S. 220 and Martinsville.
Speakers criticized Alternative 6A as one that's better for Roanoke and Virginia Tech, but not for the New River Valley as a whole. They also attacked the inclusion of the "smart road" in planning.
"What is it about the `smart road'?" asked Bill Richardson, who owns a small farm near Slusser's Chapel. "Seems like it has more lives than my old cat."
Meanwhile on Monday, Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon, as he promised Saturday in Blacksburg, sent a letter to the state highway commissioner asking that he take steps to delay an I-73 routing decision by the Transportation Board. Boucher repeated his contention that the study's consideration of economic impacts of the seven alternatives is flawed.
He also said there is "very strong level of opposition" to I-73 in Montgomery and Giles counties that may not have been reflected in public meetings the Transportation Department held last month.
by CNB