ROANOKE TIMES 
                      Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times

DATE: Friday, December 22, 1995              TAG: 9512220048
SECTION: VIRGINIA                 PAGE: B-4  EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: S.D. HARRINGTON STAFF WRITER 


TRANSPORTATION BOARD BACKS 221 PLAN 2ND CORRIDOR MAY YET BE STUDIED

The Commonwealth Transportation Board told the Virginia Department of Transportation on Thursday to study a corridor "as close as possible" to the existing U.S. 221 for improvements to a section of the road near Back Creek.

The decision by the board, meeting in Arlington, was consistent with a recommendation by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the pleas of hundreds of Southwest Roanoke County citizens.

But the state's chief transportation engineer, Jack Hodge, said the decision does not rule out the possibility of studying a second corridor south of Back Creek.

"If the first one works, then we don't need the second one," Hodge said. "If we need the second one, then we're no worse off than we were before."

The improvements would include widening the road to four lanes with no median, Hodge said.

For about a year, VDOT has debated three possibilities for improvements to the winding two-lane road from just west of Bridlewood Drive to Poage Valley Road.

The department could have studied two corridors for possible improvements - one north of the creek and one south of the creek. It could have studied only the corridor north of the creek, where the road exists. Or it could have decided not to improve the road at all.

At public hearings in May, nearly half of the citizens who voiced their opinions wanted the improvements to stay north of the creek. Fewer favored a new road south of the creek.

In September, the Board of Supervisors recommended that VDOT keep improvements north of the creek and study no other corridors.

But two months later, VDOT's district administrator in Salem, Fred Altizer, said he favored the study of two corridors because he needed more in-depth information, such as how many homes the project would affect and the condition of the land.

Altizer said Thursday that he was perfectly happy with the board's decision to study the corridor north of the creek because it allowed for an alternative study if that corridor is not feasible.

"If we design the north side and don't have any problem, that's fine," Altizer said. "It's prioritizing the method by which we are going to do it."

When one of the founders of PAC 221, Grant Clatterbuck, heard the news Thursday, he said he was ecstatic.

The activist group, formed in February by nine residents and landowners, lobbied for the improvements to be made along the existing roadway north of the creek. The group sent packets of information to each of the 17 Transportation Board members.

"I think they were very well informed when they cast their vote," Clatterbuck said.

But Clatterbuck said PAC 221 will not back off its lobbying efforts now that a decision has been made on a study.

"PAC 221 intends to follow the engineering and design feasibility of this proposed highway," Clatterbuck said. "We're going to stay quite involved."

Hodge said the next step for VDOT will be to hire a consulting firm to conduct the study, a process he says could take four to five months.

Once the study is complete, the results, including cost estimates, will be presented to the Transportation Board and then be brought before the public.

"It will probably be at least a year to 15 months before we have something concrete," Hodge said.


LENGTH: Medium:   67 lines
ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC:  Map by staff: Possible route of U.S. 221 realignment. 



























































by CNB