ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, April 22, 1996 TAG: 9604230007
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
YOUR April 11 editorial, ``Sleepless on Interstate 81,'' was quite timely.
Recent news articles have indicated that the cost to expand a portion of I-81 from four to six lanes will amount to $1.5 billion over the next decade. This, of course, is only one of a multitude of projects on urban, rural, interstate, primary and secondary highways within the commonwealth. Besides the initial cost, the expansion will mean additional lane-miles to be patrolled, maintained and cleared of snow and ice, primarily to benefit an ever-increasing volume of truck traffic.
Roughly parallel to I-81 for much of its length are railroad lines operating well below their capacity.
While I'm not in a position to suggest all the answers, it appears to me that by applying some creative thinking, the parties involved could work together to shift a portion of the heavy, long-distance freight traffic (8,000 to 10,000 big rigs per day, according to your figures) from the overcrowded highways to the underutilized rails. After all, the railroads have said that they want to provide quality freight service (no passengers, please).
Meanwhile, the general traveling public would appreciate reasonable compliance with speed limits, the exercise of courtesy, and the application of common sense by both automobile and truck drivers.
Such actions might be more beneficial than spending $1.5 billion to continue the task of paving over the great scenic valley of Virginia.
LOUIS M. NEWTON
ROANOKE
Goals 2000 funds have few catches
REGARDING Elinor D. Wright's April 5 letter to the editor, "Goals 2000 won't provide `free' money":
I agree that the money isn't "free." It's our money. We earned it, and then paid it in taxes to the federal government. The federal government is offering to return a portion of our tax dollars to us so we can invest in our schools and our children's future.
There are a few people who argue that we shouldn't allow our tax dollars to be returned to us. Their arguments are based on rhetoric, not substance.
There are very few strings attached to the Goals 2000 dollars. It would be irresponsible of our government to disburse millions of dollars if there weren't some guidelines on how the money was to be invested.
One argument raised in Wright's letter was exceptionally ludicrous: She suggests that our school systems should refuse to accept millions of dollars because it will be paid only over five years. The alternative is another federal government program that lives forever. What we don't need is another infinite entitlement program.
Wright also makes the statement: "It should be remembered that the government produces nothing that earns income."
I can remember several government programs that produce income or provide citizens with the ability to earn income. To name a few: the military, to protect our freedom and international rights; the interstate highway system, to promote commerce; and federal penitentiaries, to reduce the odds of a convicted criminal taking my income, health or life.
STEVE COX
BLACKSBURG
GOP conventions are not elections
REGARDING your March 30 editorial, ``Let Virginians vote for free'':
If the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the right to vote `` be denied or abridged by reason of failure to pay any poll, tax or any other tax,'' Republicans can recover their convention costs from those who attend.
The law clearly prohibits collecting taxes for voting in elections. Since no entity but government can levy a tax, since a political party isn't a part of government, and since a party nominating convention isn't an election, the 24th Amendment shouldn't apply to party conventions.
Republicans aren't ``charging people to vote.'' We ask our convention delegates to pay their own way. You, on the other hand, would shift nomination costs to all taxpayers.
Who says primary elections are free? Any election in Virginia costs around 50 cents per voter for voting-machine maintenance and transportation, temporary employees and other expenses. Why should supporters of the other party and those who don't care about either party be taxed to pay for any party's primary?
Is it really such a great idea to shift costs from the private sector to the public sector? Republicans don't think so.
But it's not surprising that your editorial writers prefer yet another tax-and-spend government activity, rather than allowing politically active private individuals to pay their own expenses.
TRIXIE L. AVERILL
VINTON
LENGTH: Medium: 89 linesby CNB