Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 16, 1995 TAG: 9511160068
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: BRIAN KELLEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG LENGTH: Medium
Invoking the specter of traffic-clogged Northern Virginia and scoffing at forecasted economic benefits, speakers overwhelmingly urged the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday to take a stand against the proposed "smart" highway.
Again and again, speakers at a 90-minute public hearing said the proposed high-tech link between Blacksburg and Interstate 81 would be a waste of tax money that would needlessly disrupt the rural Ellett Valley.
The county Board of Supervisors faces a vote Monday on the state Transportation Department's intent to condemn 140 acres in the Ellett Valley for the road's right of way. The privately held land is in county Agricultural and Forestal District 7, an area designated to give rural landowners tax breaks and to encourage the preservation of rural landscapes.
The supervisors have never opposed the smart highway, though at least one board member, Joe Stewart of Elliston, appears to have turned against the project. Stewart, though, owns one of the pieces of land the state is seeking for the road, and it is unclear if he will vote next week because of a possible conflict of interest.
By state law, the board must decide if the state's proposed taking conflicts with its policies - in this case the preservation of rural land - and if the proposed use is necessary.
Before making the decision, the board held Wednesday's public hearing before more than 140 people. Thirty-one speakers opposed the road, nine supported it, and one was undecided. What the board heard from those speakers echoed the early hearings held on the road proposal five years ago: criticism from Ellett residents and environmentalists, and support for the road from Virginia Tech employees and a few others.
"This is classic corporate welfare," said Dan Fleming, a retired Virginia Tech professor. "Turn the tap off this pork barrel, regardless of the power brokers who want it."
On the other hand, Tech's smart-road lobbyist, Ray Pethtel, argued the road will be a central feature of regional economic development efforts that have the potential to pay off in jobs for the valley. He said he is building a home in the Ellett Valley, and the smart road, in his view, will be a benefit to that area because it will have limited access that will not allow for related development in the valley.
"As an affected resident, I think it's important to build the smart road to protect the valley as much as possible," Pethtel said.
Larry Hincker, a Tech spokesman, reminded the board that there is a delicate balance between the smart road and Alternative 3A, the proposed connector between the U.S. 460 bypasses of Blacksburg and Christiansburg. Without the smart road in place to handle projected traffic flows in the future, the bypass connector will be overwhelmed.
Several speakers Wednesday said the design of Alternative 3A should simply be expanded to three lanes in each direction to accommodate the future traffic. Leslie is a member of a citizens advisory committee that's been studying the smart road's design for the past year for the state.
Several speakers cited Northern Virginia as the place where smart road technology should be tried first. They also cited it as a model for congested development that Montgomery County should avoid.
"This road has never made much sense to me," said Dow Scott, a Tech business professor. "You have to ask, does the road to get people here destroy the reason people come here?"
Memo: NOTE: Shorter version ran in Metro edition.