ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, December 4, 1996 TAG: 9612040025
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MICHAEL S. ABRAHAM
AS A longtime, vocal smart-road opponent, I read with much interest - but not much surprise - about the extensive, costly and disruptive ``accouterments'' planned by the Virginia Department of Transportation and Virginia Tech for the road (Nov. 23 news article, ```Smart' road plan expands''). VDOT has spoon-fed information to a highly skeptical public in its signature paternalistic ``we know what's right for you'' manner throughout the entire approval process. The ifs, whens and ``to what extent'' details on all aspects of the road have been tailored to discount viable alternatives, downplay widespread public opposition, hype speculative benefits and generally keep the public at bay.
Not convinced? Consider this example (one of many) of VDOT non-admission. Alternative 3A, the already approved project to connect Christiansburg's and Blacksburg's existing bypasses and Christiansburg's bypass with Interstate 81, is enormously disruptive (dozens of businesses and residences are affected) and extremely expensive ($130 million for little more than 2 miles vs. $103 million for the smart road and its 5.7 miles). But how many people realize that a significant amount of the cost and disruption attributed to Alternative 3A rightfully belongs to the smart road?
If the test bed were built as a stand-alone facility elsewhere - as many opponents have suggested - and the Alternative 6 (smart road) corridor wasn't built, Alternative 3A would take a shorter, less costly (by millions of dollars) and much less disruptive path across U.S. 460 Business south of Blacksburg. The design accommodations for Alternative 3A to intersect properly with the smart road are tagged to Alternative 3A when they rightfully belong to the smart road and could have been avoided. I've never heard this fact disclosed or explained at a public hearing or information meeting. It took me two years of study to figure it out.
Only now do we learn, among other things, that Tech wants snow-making towers producing 87 decibels. But not to worry, we seem to be told, their noise will be of the ``broad-band'' type, which is less annoying. But, hey, aren't we talking about 72 of them? VDOT's spokesman says any new design concerns will be looked at and will be included in the project's final review. Somehow I cannot imagine any thinking person being mollified. Anyone who thinks VDOT can be trusted to be forthcoming on details for this project must be a naive alien who just landed from the planet Zork.
Perhaps VDOT would like to tell us how, in Phase II of the project, it plans to prevent their snow from blowing across the median to the lanes on which we will be driving? Better yet, how, in Phase III, will they accommodate both live traffic and testing? Will they make snow from midnight until 2 a.m., do their testing from 2 a.m. until 4 a.m., then plow it all off again by 6 a.m. for the morning rush?
From what I have seen, VDOT's preferred answer to the ifs is ``not if they can help it,'' to the whens is ``too late for citizen opposition,'' and to the ``to what extent'' is ``as little as possible.'' And this approach seems to be working! Rather than being punished for continuing abuses of public trust, VDOT is seemingly being rewarded as this monster bulldozes its way through the approval process. I hope local officials and the public come to realize the extent of the deception being perpetrated on them, and hope the tide will turn before it's too late.
One point the article failed to explore at all was who would be paying for all this research esoteria. Got a mirror handy?
Michael S. Abraham is general manager of a manufacturing business in Christiansburg.
LENGTH: Medium: 67 linesby CNB