The Orem and Heber public hearings on the Provo Canyon Highway draft environmental impact statement underscored the need for a better and safer road coordinated, with other canyon uses and in keeping with sound environmental practices. Utahns have four more days to submit suggestions for inclusion in the transcript of the hearings. Written comments may he mailed to Utah Department of Transportation, State Office Building, Salt Lake City, until June 17. The lsitlresuon, as we see it, is not WHE ER img;-ovements are needed, but T0 HAT EXTENT – what is expedient from the standpoint of transportation, prudent environmentally, reasonable cost-wise, and acceptable in the light of mulgiple canyon uses such as watersh protection, recreation, fishing and wildlife, etc. Canyon road construction may he a couple of years or more away, but the Utah Transportation Commission will decide in the months immediately ahead on the pattem of improvement. Members of the cornmlssion assured the citizenry at the bearings that their minds are open and every consideration will be weighed as they mull the testimony and the various highwaguoptions – improved twolane, ee-lane, four-lane, and possibly combinations of the no tions. Officials of some of the adjacent cities and cotmttes (including Provo City and Utah County) have strongly endorsed a better road. Individual lnput at the hearings was wide-ranging and sometimes divergent depending on the environmental, travel and other interests of the spokesmen. Many were against widening and alignment revisions; others favored them – but most agreed something needs to be done. Only a few favored a “no hulld” policy. Public input is valuable and the commissioners need to be sensitive to voices of the people. But highways cannot be designed “by committee,” so to speaks We nmnlri hnm the rlnlv-nnnnmtm highway officials, with their training, experience, and over-all grasp, will have the confidence of the public in the difficult judgments they must make. This thought seems significant: When we “tear up” the canyon this time, let’s get a road that will “do the job” permanently and enhance the beauty and practical uses of the canyon – so that it won’t be necessary to repeat the ordeal in years to come. If there are stretches in heavily-traveled areas which can accommodate a four-lane road without jeopardy to other resources, then certainly this should be considered. We would caution, of course, that extreme care be used to protect such resources as the Provo City springs, the river, and other vital assets. Also that except for such enhancements as scenic tumouts, right-of-way cuts and roadbeds be held to minimum widths required for the road option selected. Four years or so ago when the canyon road planning was halted temporarily, it was declared there hadn’t been sufficient study and public input. This apparently has been remedied under environmental protection licies now in effect. Additionallmideas and data are still being received. But there comes a time when research and public input must be translated into action. With costs continually rising and the need for a better road ever-present, we look forward to a decision and ultimatetlg the “go ahead” that will make e project a reality.