Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, May 13, 1994 TAG: 9405130117
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By GREG EDWARDS STAFF WRITER NOTE: Lede
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
But "I-83" was.
It was no typographical error.
The bill, setting up a national system of high-priority roads, included $5 million for initial planning and engineering of a new interstate-quality highway. Although the exact location was not specified, the road would run between I-81 near Roanoke and I-40 in the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina.
The surface transportation subcommittee called the road, which would improve the existing U.S. 220 link between Roanoke and Greensboro, I-83.
Virginia's Commonwealth Transportation Board decided in March that another proposed new interstate between Detroit and Charleston, S.C., I-73, should also follow the general path of U.S. 220 from Roanoke to North Carolina. The U.S. 460 and "smart road" corridors north of Roanoke were picked as the path for I-73 to the West Virginia line near Bluefield.
In approving the planning money for I-83, the subcommittee gave its blessing to what many consider the most important segment of I-73 in Virginia. But it put off a decision on the entire I-73 route until another day.
Construction of an interstate connector between I-81 and I-40 has been pushed as an economic development project by a coalition of North Carolina and Virginia business people known as Job Link. The coalition saw a 460/220 route for I-73, in part, as a way to get the connector built.
By its decision, the subcommittee acknowledged the critical need for providing a better route than U.S. 220 between Roanoke and North Carolina for safety and economic development reasons, said John Lambert of Roanoke, a Job Link spokesman.
"What this addresses is the more immediate need and allocates the funds to get under way," said Bud Oakey, vice president of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. "It's exciting."
Reps. L.F. Payne Jr., D-Nelson County, and Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, were quick to praise the subcommittee's action. Both have pushed for quick action on the Roanoke-to-North Carolina connector, as well as supported a 460/220 route for I-73.
"It's a positive sign, because what it did is recognize Job Link as a high priority worthy of federal funds and a road project worthy of interstate designation," Payne said.
Goodlatte added that the legislation "is an integral first step toward making I-73 a reality and creating high-quality, long-term jobs for the Roanoke Valley and southern and southwestern Virginia."
The subcommittee, according to various congressional sources, left I-73 out of the bill because some states have not agreed on where the road would cross their borders. For instance, Virginia wants the road to enter North Carolina south of Martinsville, but North Carolina wants it to enter south of Hillsville along existing I-77.
The subcommittee also delayed action on I-73 because of objections to the 460/220 route from Bent Mountain residents, the town of Blacksburg and others who say they are threatened by the proposed road, said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon.
But the subcommittee's basic concern was that there was a lack of connection among the states, said Jim Zoia, a member of the subcommittee staff. The legislation did recognize there are gaps in three proposed high-priority highway corridors across the country and urged the states to work them out. I-73 is one of those, he said.
Congress could deal with a route for I-73 when the Senate considers its version of the National Highway System bill next year, or it could wait until 1996, when the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Act is up for renewal. Goodlatte said the Senate is the best opportunity, with Virginia Sens. John Warner and Charles Robb supporting the 460/220 route. Warner is the ranking Republican on the transportation subcommittee in the Senate.
If I-73 eventually is located along the same route as I-83 south of Roanoke, the road would carry a dual designation such as I-73/83.
Supporters of the 460/220 route for I-73 said they don't think the subcommittee's decision Thursday will lead to a change in the state's choice of an I-73 route.
Lorinda Lionberger, a Transportation Board member from Roanoke, said she wouldn't expect that to happen. The subcommittee's approval of money for the link is a recognition of how vital the concerns over 220 are, she said. "I see it actually as a down payment on 73 as opposed to a change to 73."
Boucher said he was pleased the subcommittee approved money for I-83. But he said taking care of that problem strengthens his argument that the I-73 route should be moved farther west to open up areas to economic development that don't now have a four-lane highway. Boucher has argued for an I-73 route that would enter Virginia on I-77, follow Virginia 100 from Hillsville to Pearisburg, and then 460 to West Virginia.
It's expected the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation will vote on the legislation Tuesday, and the full House the following week. The Senate will then have until October 1995 to pass its version of the legislation.
by CNB