Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 13, 1994 TAG: 9404130104
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-3 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: By BRIAN KELLEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG LENGTH: Medium
The advisory body isn't expected to reach any conclusions at the 7 p.m. meeting on the third floor of the Montgomery Courthouse.
Instead, the county planning staff will be seeking guidance on exactly what type of study they should undertake of Alternate 6A, the proposed corridor favored last month by the state Transportation Board.
After the county Board of Supervisors went on record last month against the separate, Catawba Valley route for the Michigan-to-South Carolina highway, Supervisor Jim Moore asked that the Planning Commission look at the remaining options.
The Board of Supervisors stood by its January resolution, which favored a route passing through Montgomery County, despite calls by I-73 foes to overturn it.
That stand amounted to a de facto endorsement of Alternative 6A, which would generally follow U.S. 460 through Giles County to Blacksburg, where it would track to the southeast via the route of the smart road across the Ellett Valley. It would then pass through the Alleghany Springs area before heading toward U.S. 220 south.
The Planning Commission will talk about the general pros and cons of that route through Montgomery, according to Planning Director Joe Powers.
He wants the commission to brainstorm about the good things that could happen to the county because of I-73, such as opening up new industrial property, and some of the negatives, including environmental concerns.
The Montgomery Planning Commission hasn't come to any previous conclusions on I-73, other than a 5-2 vote in December urging the supervisors to wait for more information before taking a stand.
by CNB