ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, May 4, 1996 TAG: 9605060047
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG
SOURCE: ELISSA MILENKY STAFF WRITER
Five months and 63 pages later, the answers to 92 questions that could determine the fate of the proposed "smart" highway have been completed.
The Virginia Department of Transportation released a 63-page document to the public Friday, which offers a collection of facts, figures and projections on the controversial road project.
The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors will use this document to determine if it will allow the state to take 140 acres of land out of a protected conservation district, which VDOT needs to build the smart road.
The board voted against VDOT's request to take the land in November, but rescinded that vote a week later to obtain more information about the project.
What resulted was a list of 92 questions, which range from projections of the smart road's environmental and economic impacts to its effect on other road projects.
There are few surprises contained in the document about the approximately six-mile link between southern Blacksburg and Interstate 81 that is being promoted as a proving ground for transportation research and a way to boost Virginia Tech's fortunes.
Critics say the project is an unnecessary boondoggle.
The answers essentially conclude the road will not adversely affect the conservation district, the environment or surrounding wildlife.
The document also contains more information about projected economic benefits and the project's effects on Alternative 3A, a planned bypass connector in Montgomery County that would relieve traffic congestion on U.S. 460 between Christiansburg and Blacksburg.
Specifically, it addresses why Alternative 3A would not make a good test bed for transportation research if the smart road was not built.
The cost of adding lanes to 3A, which would be required if the smart road was not built, also is included.
"We've clarified some things that are out there, and we've certainly added some things," said Dan Brugh, VDOT's resident engineer in Christiansburg. "It does put it all in one place."
The state's answers to the county's questions were approved Wednesday by several high-ranking transportation officials in Richmond, including Transportation Secretary Robert Martinez.
Though all seven members of the Board of Supervisors have received the document, VDOT still must send the county an official application form before its request can be reconsidered.
Brugh said that formal request will come "in the near future." After that, the governmental wheels will begin turning as county officials consider two key issues:
* The smart road's effect on the conservation district;
* And whether the project serves the public interest.
The request also is sure to kick off another round of intensive lobbying on the issue by local environmentalists and others in opposition on the one hand, and road proponents in the Roanoke and New River Valley business communities and at Virginia Tech on the other.
The Board of Supervisors will have 30 days initially to review VDOT's request.
A joint public meeting must be held during this time, which would include the Board of Supervisors, county Planning Commission, the Montgomery Regional Economic Development Commission and a special advisory committee that deals with conservation districts.
If the supervisors decide the smart road will adversely affect the conservation district, they have another 60 days to hold a public hearing.
Henry Jablonski, the board's chairman, said the supervisors could discuss the VDOT response at their May 13 meeting if VDOT has formally reapplied by then.
At that time, the board would talk about what other agencies could be involved in the process.
Montgomery County's decision will be crucial to the future of the smart road. Transportation officials have said the smart road would be scrapped if VDOT did not acquire the 140 acres, a sentiment repeated Friday by Brugh.
There is another loophole for VDOT if the county rejects its second request, however.
The conservation district that contains the 140 acres is up for renewal this year, which means the county and the landowners within the district must decide by Dec. 31 whether the district will remain intact. Letters to the landowners in the district were sent out last month.
Certain portions of the district could be taken out of the protected area, including the land VDOT wants, said Supervisor Joe Gorman.
Gorman, one of four supervisors who initially voted against VDOT'S request, said VDOT's answers show the impacts on the conservation district are minimal and he now feels more comfortable with the project.
Several other members of the board who were contacted Friday said they had not read through the document, nor had a spokesman for groups opposing the project.
Gorman, one of two key swing votes against the project last year, said he was uncomfortable with some of the economic development projections that came from the New Century Council, adding he would rather that information come from Montgomery County.
The New Century Council, a regional economic development group for Western Virginia, has long supported the smart road.
In all, however, Gorman said he was satisfied with the document.
"I think the answers they've made are reasonable," he said.
LENGTH: Medium: 100 linesby CNB