ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, May 18, 1996 TAG: 9605200009
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
TYPE: LETTERS
It is important for Montgomery County citizens to let the Board of Supervisors know that we wish to move ahead on the school building projects that have already been identified as necessary for the well-being of our children.
Several years ago, Montgomery County citizens conducted the Focus 2006 Study that clearly stated the citizens' concern for the quality of education. From defining appropriate class sizes, to details of program development, we want quality education for our children and we are willing to pay for it. This includes attractive salaries for our teachers; it includes not just the basics of education, but also challenging programs for our children; it includes physical facilities that will enhance learning. There has been enough crisis management, enough trailers. What is required now is vision, planning and perseverance.
The Focus 2006 study and the Facilities Use and Space Studies have clearly defined both our educational goals and the facilities needed to achieve them. We now must commit our labor and resources to make these goals a reality, and begin the building plans necessary across the county to maintain educational excellence.
Everyone who places a high priority on the education of our children must make it clear to the Board of Supervisors that we expect them to use our tax dollars to pay the bill. The Supervisors are elected by us to manage our tax dollars as we wish them to. They have already approved the bonds necessary to fund the construction. We must now let them know that we want them to budget adequate funds to pay the debt service on those bonds while continuing to support and improve our existing educational system.
We must not be discouraged by lack of vision in others. Our job is to prepare our children to succeed in this world without us. One of their best tools will be the education that we provide. One of our best examples for them will be to demonstrate the perseverance necessary to get their schools built.
Sandra Veit
Riner
Cross country fees show low regard
I would like to present an example of the questionable nature of the "smart" road and Virginia Tech's lack of support for the community. This fall, Virginia. Tech plans to begin charging the Blacksburg High School cross country teams a fee to use Tech's cross country course. The course consists of a wide grass trail winding through corn fields on the Virginia Tech campus. While maintenance of the course is required, Virginia. Tech will do this for their teams, regardless of BHS use.
Virginia Tech demolished its outdoor track in the early 1980s. Since that time, the Virginia Tech cross country and track teams have used the BHS track at free will. This includes a day in 1993 when they ran a workout on the BHS track while BHS was holding a meet. The Virginia Tech tennis teams have also used the BHS track. Virginia Tech has also used the BHS gymnasium to hold basketball games and practices when the Cassell Coliseum roof was questionable.
The BHS athletic director, coaches and athletes have always graciously shared their facilities with Virginia Tech, and plan to continue to do so. The fact that Virginia Tech wants to charge the BHS cross country teams to use their course is ... a clear example of Virginia Tech's lack of support for local schools and the town of Blacksburg. This is a chance for Virginia Tech to give a community service at no charge.
I ask the taxpayers of Virginia and Montgomery County a fundamental question: Should we pay millions of dollars to buy Virginia Tech a smart road on which to perform their research (essentially a $98 million laboratory for the Center of Transportation Research at Virginia Tech), when they refuse to support our high school students even in ways such as this that cost the university no additional funds?
Anne Gaines
Blacksburg
'Smart' road news coverage lacking
It seems to me that there is an awful lot of coverage of the "smart" road issue, but there is not very much investigative journalism happening here. I have been watching the issue and have heard what the proponents and opponents say, but I - like many of my neighbors - am still not sure what the truth is. Clearing up such confusion and informing the public are the very things that a local newspaper needs to have as its prime objective.
When I read the coverage of issues such as the smart road I am left wondering, "Where is the fact checking? Where is the investigation of anything other that the fact that a controversy exists?" The controversy by itself should not be the story; the issue and the facts behind it should be the story. For example, I have never heard a clear answer to why the advanced vehicle research planned for the smart road cannot be done on an expanded 3A. The answer usually given - and repeated in the recent statement issued by the Virginia Department of Transportation is essentially, "It can't be done on 3A because the smart road is specially designed for it." This does not answer the question, but it is reported as if it does.
Just because VDOT wrote down a response to a question does not mean that the answer given is correct or even logically consistent. The Roanoke Times, in this case, functioned well as a publicist for VDOT's release of their responses, but you offered little or no interpretation of their answers.
Let's take just one set of figures as an example: the cost of building the smart road in comparison to the costs of adding the smart highway research to the already planned 3A option. Your article reports VDOT's statement that the cost of 3A would go up by $5.5 million dollars under such a scheme and that if it ever needed to be widened it would cost an additional $60 million to $70 million. In addition, if a permanent test bed was built along the side of 3A that would cost perhaps $20 million more. Well, building the smart road is estimated to cost $98 million more than building 3A, so it seems to me that VDOT's own figures show that putting the smart highway research together with 3A would cost about the same and would mean that the road through Ellett Valley wouldn't need to be built. So, why do you report it as if shifting the project to 3A would cost more than building both roads?
While I appreciate The Roanoke Times putting the text on-line so that more people have access to VDOT's statements, this is no substitute for clear reporting of the alternatives facing us as we move into the next phase of this debate. Many of us want to see the good things that increased research can bring to the region, but personally I am yet to be convinced that this plan for building two roads can ever make more sense than building one good road that serves both transportation and research purposes.
My feeling is that the powerful local forces - from university and political officials to local developers and real estate agents who are backing this road project - may put pressure on the paper not to report what's happening "behind the scenes." The press has a responsibility to its readers not just to act as a publicist for the official line but to demand that complete answers be provided. I will continue to be interested in what happens on this particular issue, but just as importantly I'll be very interested to see whether you can get beyond the posturing of the actors in such controversies and actually provide us with the information we need to understand the truth of the matter.
Glenn Skutt
Blacksburg
'Smart' road is needed
Montgomery County seems to be an ideal place to live, with magazines and newspapers touting its benefits. As a result, the county's population has grown significantly.
This growth has outpaced the existing highway system. Before Alternative 3A, the connector road between the existing Blacksburg and Christiansburg U.S. 460 bypasses, is completed, traffic will be at near gridlock conditions. Even after 3A is completed, traffic will still be excessive. If Interstate 73 is built, the problem will be worse.
An ideal solution exists: build the "smart" road. Its proposed route directly impacts the minimum number of people because it runs mostly through agricultural and forested areas instead of more populated areas. This has a very vocal minority upset who either want it built somewhere else or not at all. The majority want progress and safer highways. Unfortunately, along with progress comes growth.
History indicates that when the Virginia Department of Transportation wants to build a road, it is almost always needed. Most of the complaints I remember are that the state does not build the new roads fast enough. For the sake of the silent majority, I hope the smart road will soon be approved and construction started.
M.T. Hadbavny
Blacksburg
LENGTH: Long : 150 linesby CNB