Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 17, 1994 TAG: 9407070064
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DIANE H. ROSOLOWSKY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Calling the action of Congress a down payment on "I-73" is wrong on two counts. First, Congress cannot make a down payment on anything. Congress has no money. Any project Congress votes to fund is paid for with the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers.
If Congress is going to participate in Vice President Al Gore's initiative to "reinvent government" the representatives of the taxpayers will have to remember the vice president's words in the National Performance Review that, "Government must have a new customer-service contract with the American people ... a new guarantee of effective, efficient and responsive government that puts our customers first." The customers are the ones who would make the down payment, and it is unlikely they would want to waste a billion dollars on a redundant, dubious project.
Second, Congress actually acted in such a way as to remove any reasonable justification for the so-called I-73, if any ever existed. According a Virginia Department of Transportation official and overwhelming numbers of letters from all sources, the principal reason for the support for route 6, which is VDOT's original designation for the so-called 460-220 route for I-73, was to obtain funding to improve U.S. 220 from Roanoke to North Carolina. Of the nearly 1,200 people who managed to brave the ice storms last winter to attend a hastily organized public comment meeting, mor than 750 appeared in Martinsville to urge improvement of U.S. 220. Recent authorization for "I-83" meets that need.
In his testimony before Congress on April 6, Rep. Rick Boucher specifically urged the inclusion of U.S. 220 between Roanoke and Greensboro in the National Highway System as an alternative to routing "I-73" down 220.
Furthermore, while the original proposal would have brought the new highway in close to Virginia 419 and I-81, the 6-A proposal will go no closer to Roanoke than Bent Mountain, more than 20 miles south of the Roanoke Regional Airport. This is certainly not a way to access the Roanoke airport, as alleged in testimony before Congress by other members of the Virginia delegation. Instead, the new 6-A variation seeks to overlap the "smart highway" and then take a flying leap into space over the highest mountains around Roanoke. There it will encounter severe environmental roadblocks that inevitably will slow any funding that might have accrued for the "smart-road" project by that avenue.
Finally, there is the question of whether Congress should fund any new freeways as such. It was clearly the intent of the prescient patriarch of the Senate, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in sponsoring legislation to turn the country toward the future by looking at alternative forms of transportation, that the nation is "through pouring concrete."
In response to inquiries, officials of the Federal Highway Administration insist there is no authorization for new freeways. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Fredrico Pena has said "the right question in transportation should be: 'How can we move people or goods from point A to point B ... cost-effectively ... while protecting our environment and enhancing safety?'"
VDOT Secretary Martinez continues to predict Congress eventually will approve the expenditure for "I-73," despite the fact that it is at least twice as expensive as one of the alternatives and an environmental nightmare. If Martinez is correct in his prediction that Congress will go along with Virginia's ill-conceived route, that body will have betrayed the American taxpayer again to serve special interests.
Diane H. Rosolowsky lives on Bent Mountain and is spokeswoman for the Blue Ridge Interstate Impact Network.
by CNB