Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 3, 1994 TAG: 9404010069
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: F-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Greg Edwards
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The decision by Virginia transportation officials that the road would follow the U.S. 460 and U.S. 220 path - from the West Virginia line near Bluefield to the North Carolina border south of Martinsville, passing somewhere near Roanoke - is viewed in two very different ways by people in our mountain-and-valley kingdom.
One group sees the region, and itself perhaps, riding I-73 toward a future truck-borne prosperity. Another sees the road, and the traffic it will bring, as a threat to its peaceful way of life and maybe to the very homes and farms where its constituents live.
More immediately interesting than the furor surrounding I-73 is the way the idea developed in the first place.
We think of the roads built early in our history as a response to the need to transport people or goods. Daniel Boone built the Wilderness Road to help pioneers move west. Footpaths became wagon roads and wagon roads were paved over to accommodate automobiles.
I-73 didn't follow this classic model. Its boosters decided to build a road with the idea that need and commerce would follow. It's what could be called a "Field of Dreams" theory of road construction.
The new interstate is the brainchild of a group of Bluefield business people. They set out in the 1970s to improve winding U.S. 52 between Bluefield and Huntington. Having some luck with politicians in that regard, they decided that the new U.S. 52 ought to have some other place to go. They looked at Detroit, thinking they might attract the auto industry to West Virginia, and then turned south to Charleston, seeing a port for export and the tourist trade.
In a sense, Virginia boosters of the 460/220 route are buying into the West Virginians' dream that the new road will bring economic growth. But the Virginians also are pushing the road because it would benefit existing commerce now using 220 between Roanoke and the North Carolina Triad.
After developing the concept for I-73, the West Virginians set out along the route they had picked, selling their dream to civic groups and local governments along the way. They were very good and very successful in what they did because a few years later, five states have approved their work and the U.S. Congress probably will as well.
Some might call that dysfunctional government. Others might call it democracy at work.
Those in favor of the highway may - or may not - be right about the economic growth the road can bring.
Doubters might argue that the Roanoke Valley is already well served by highways, although they'd probably have to agree that U.S. 220 south of Roanoke could use some improvement.
They might question why a valley built on the back of the railroad wants to put its commerce on the highways instead. And they might insist that many other factors - such as flat, developable land and good quality living space - are more important to economic growth than another road.
But the No-Roaders also are running so far ahead of the bulldozers and asphalt trucks that they may run out of gas before they ever get their hands on a map of proposed I-73. That's because there is no map right now of exactly where the road will go and most likely won't be for several years.
Of course, the precise location of the road on a map doesn't make any difference if you're philosophically opposed to new roads or you've concluded the highway isn't needed and is a tremendous waste of tax money.
However, if you oppose I-73 solely out of a deep-rooted fear that men in orange trucks want to pave over your backyard, then you may be wasting a whole lot of nervous energy at this stage of the political game.
It's true that some faceless planners with the state Department of Transportation in Richmond laid out a 2,000-foot-wide corridor for I-73 from Bluefield through Roanoke County to Martinsville on some very detailed topographical maps.
It's also true that those maps show that corridor running right across some homes, businesses and churches - maybe even yours. But those maps mean little at this point, Transportation Department planners say. And there's no reason not to believe them.
The planners explained that they drew a corridor on the map just to see whether they could actually get an interstate highway from Bluefield to southern Henry County by laying it in the general direction of the 460/220 route.
Granted, the new highway, if and when it is built, could follow nearly precisely the route that has been laid out. However, that seems as farfetched as the whole idea of I-73 was only a year ago.
Now that the Transportation Board has unanimously settled on a 460/220 route as its recommended path for the road in Virginia, the state must wait to see whether the U.S. Congress, which pays 80 percent of the cost of interstate highway construction, is willing to go along.
I-73 is supposed to be part of a National Highway System of priority roads now being set into legislation by Congress. While the House is moving right along on a bill, the Senate has yet to get started. Congress has until Sept. 30, 1995, to get the job done.
Congress very likely will pass a bill that will place I-73 on a 460/220 route through Virginia. However, it is by no means certain that the legislation will provide any money to build the $1.2 billion Virginia portion of the road. Even if funding were provided, it would be at least six years before construction could get under way.
State highway planners say that once they get the "green" (as in the folding stuff) light, they will develop several alternative corridors for the road through the state. Each would have its own environmental and construction feasibility studies. It would take at least two years to prepare this information and then the proposed routes would face public hearings.
Under that scenario, the I-73 location debate may have grown prematurely frantic and large.
I can easily say that because it's not my backyard the road may be aimed at.
Greg Edwards covers coal, agriculture, transportation and utilities for the Roanoke Times & World-News.
by CNB