CONNECTOR ROAD ALSO NOT WANTED

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, January 27, 1992                   TAG: 9201280153
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium
CONNECTOR ROAD ALSO NOT WANTED
OUR LOCAL representative on the state Transportation Board, Mr. Steve Musselwhite, is quoted (news story, Jan. 17) as saying: "You truly don't have to be a rocket scientist to get the message of the people. They don't want the highway."
Anyone who attended the Sept. 26 Virginia Department of Transportation hearing on the Blacksburg-Interstate 81 connector proposal (a.k.a. the "smart highway" or "direct link") might be excused for supposing that Mr. Musselwhite, who is not a rocket scientist, might have been referring to that road and not the proposed eastern bypass of Roanoke. The overwhelming majority of speakers at that meeting opposed the connector in any form, preferring alternative 3A.
A careful observer of the planning of this proposed connector road cannot avoid the conclusion that our local representative on the state Transportation Board and VDOT, at the behest of a number of wealthy and influential developers, industrialists, local politicians and Virginia Tech administrators, have very nearly pulled off a slick end run around democratic debate and the federal National Environmental Policy Act process.
The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, at least, should reconsider support for this boondoggle, since (1) most of the newly elected members of the board are on record as opposed to this road; (2) the previous board voted to support it before having even seen the draft environmental-impact statement; and (3) the road, as proposed with an interchange in Ellett Valley, would open up land for development that the county plan has designated as an agricultural and forestal district. RICHARD A. ROTH BLACKSBURG

by Archana Subramaniam by CNB