Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 13, 1995 TAG: 9505150066
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GREG EDWARDS STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The routes for the highways are included in National Highway System legislation that passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday.
Their inclusion was the result of an agreement between Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C., both of whom sit on the committee.
Govs. George Allen of Virginia and Jim Hunt of North Carolina have agreed to endorse the routes for I-73 and I-74 specified in the Senate bill.
Under that agreement, I-73 in Virginia would follow a route approved for the road last year by the Commonwealth Transportation Board, and I-74 would pass through the state on the same road bed as existing I-77.
Shirley Ybarra, Virginia's deputy secretary of transportation, said the governors wanted to make it clear that Virginia and North Carolina officials agree on the routing of the roads and that the routes in the Senate bill are not just a federal initiative.
Virginia's congressional delegation consults closely with state officials on transportation matters before Congress, she said.
The I-73 route backed by the governors basically would follow U.S. 460 from Bluefield, W.Va., to Blacksburg, the proposed "smart" road to I-81, I-81 and I-581 to Roanoke, and U.S. 220 to the North Carolina line northwest of Greensboro.
Proposed I-74 would follow I-77 from Bluefield through Bland, Wythe and Carroll counties and connect with an upgraded U.S. 52 near Mount Airy, N.C.
"I'm not surprised," said Nelson Walker of Bluefield, executive director of the I-73/74 Corridor Association, when told about the governors' statement.
"We assumed North Carolina and Virginia were pretty much together on this."
Walker's association, originally a group of Bluefield business people, dreamed up the idea of I-73, a new interstate to run from central Michigan to Charleston, S.C.
The association opposes the I-73 route in the Senate bill and wants the road to run along I-77 as they originally conceived it.
The association, though, would support an I-74 designation for the route through Roanoke, Walker said.
"What's done is done in the Senate," Walker said. The association now plans to take the fight to the House of Representatives where it has an ally in Rep. Nick Joe Rahall, D-W.Va., who sits on the House subcommittee in charge of the National Highway System bill.
Ybarra, however, said West Virginia highway officials, in their discussions with Virginia officials, have found Virginia's preferred route for the road an "excellent" one. That's what Walker will hear if he talks with them, she said.
In North Carolina, under the Senate plan, I-73 would leave U.S. 220 in Rockingham County, pick up N.C. 68 to I-40, follow I-40 to Greensboro, U.S. 220 south to U.S. 74 at Rockingham, turn east along U.S. 74 to Whiteville, connect with U.S. 17 near Calabash on the Atlantic coast, and follow 17 into South Carolina above Myrtle Beach.
I-74 in North Carolina would follow U.S. 52 east from I-77, connect with U.S. 311 in Winston-Salem, and follow that route to U.S. 220 near Randleman, where it would join again with I-73.
South Carolina and North Carolina have argued over the border crossing of I-73 between their two states.
South Carolina wants the road to cross south of Rockingham near Bennettesville, S.C. Ybarra said Virginia is not involved in that dispute.
by CNB