rrittenh on 6/5/2008 4:47:42 PM wrote:
The FEW who stand to benefit financially from an Inland Port should not decide what happens to the MANY who would be robbed of their quality of life.
The Inland Port is nothing more than a way to bring in more shipping containers full of cheap plastic and lead contaminated junk from China to fill all our Mega-Marts and homes, and complete the task of de-industrializing our country. Ultimately it facilitates the continued exodus of good jobs for our people. This is the opposite of economic development.
|
lovenrv on 4/26/2008 10:22:12 AM wrote:
I don't work in trucking, or the railroad or the government. I'm a citizen who happens to be lucky to have a secure job. Getting that out of the way. Just posing a few questions for all of the above to consider. 1. Volvo layoffs 1,100+, others doing the same - so does the potential for this site to attract other co's + jobs sound attractive? Yes. Chance to literally CHANGE the MODEL of what one of these yards is...Yes. More cost? Yes. Worth it? yes. What if the design + the impact on the environment could really be changed? Make it green in all aspects from pavement to lighting to energy use to water management? It IS POSSIBLE. So do the people involved - including our citizens have what it takes to make that happen? Yes. It could work.
|
Zachariah on 4/26/2008 7:40:02 AM wrote:
Since this intermodel blog began we have had five serious truck accidents on I-81. Many
Montgomery residents will deside to not risk
travel to Roanoke because of the incresed danger on I-81. Perhaps Governor Kane and his
intermodel counties will direct VDOT to add two more lanes to I-81 between Christiansburg and Roanoke. Europe forces trucks to stay in the rt slow lane. Montgomery county should do the same.
|
Zachariah on 4/14/2008 4:56:37 AM wrote:
I-81 currently has a 200 truck per day drive count. This intermodel will direct an additional 200 new trucks per day to a 400
truck per day count. Why load these trucks
at the bottom of one of the most dangerous
hills in South West Va. Why not load them
above the incline. Add ice to I-81 and increased drive count with no current improvements to the down hill lanes. Where is
VDOT with realistic drive counts in this
$300,000 study? The sooner the containers are loaded on the rail the sooner we can see
transportation savings. Why bring them all the way to Elliston? Why pass the bill to Montgomery Co?
|
herewegoagain on 4/13/2008 1:58:23 AM wrote:
I guess it was going to be put somewhere. But NIMBY, thank god!
|
Entropy on 4/13/2008 1:18:15 AM wrote:
will the yard take trucks off the highway? time will tell. I am not convinced either way that it will. I'm glad its not going to be in Roanoke County or Salem for environmental employment and industrial reasons only.
As for I-81 being the deadliest stretch of highway in VA? i don't know if i buy that. Would like to see some proof. I have been in many more dangerous situations on 495/95/395 interchange than I can count. I-81 is never really much of a problem except for the overabundance of state troopers causing cars to slam on their brakes and create dangerous situations for everyone else. (because nobody wants to get a speeding ticket.)
|
Entropy on 4/13/2008 1:15:02 AM wrote:
Growing up here, and more specifically in Botetourt near the Truck Stop... I kind of have a love/hate relationship with the trucks.
On one hand, I hate that some of them are always pudging along at 50 mph, or two of them will hog up both lanes disallowing anyone from progressing.
However, I have also found that *most* truck drivers, being experts in driving as its their profession, know the rules of the road and will stay to the right unless passing.
More cars than tracktors fail to recognize this integral part of more fluid and safe traffic patterns on interstate travel. So I can't get behind it "always" being a trucker's fault its deadly. Sometimes car drivers are at fault and create a dangerous situation for the trucker.
|
Entropy on 4/12/2008 4:38:53 AM wrote:
jbw, yep, i meant I-70, my bad. i knew it was one of the nationwide East/west "end in zero" interstates. I spent a good portion of time on 40 out west last fall, I think thats why.
But, no, I'm not a state employee. Never have been, either.
What is your beef with tractor trailers being on I-81?
|
calindstrom on 4/12/2008 12:43:20 AM wrote:
You know, there is another option that would solve everyone's problems. It's big businesses/corporations that are using all the trucks and will be using the railway system. Quit shopping at those businesses. Support your local small businesses for all options that you can. That alone would make a huge impact on traffic, local economy, local jobs, environmental impact. Just get everyone together to do a NRV boycott of the big chain stores. Sure there would still be some products that would need to be brought in but local farmers would benefit. New small businesses would evolve and everyone's backyard would look better!
|
Entropy on 4/11/2008 8:25:52 PM wrote:
actually JBW, the Virginia Inland Port traffic would come down I-66, from Baltimore they could easily take I-40 from baltimore down to I-81.
I am fairly certain any trucker would tell you its sheer idiocy to take 95->495->66 to get to western VA from Baltimore.
|
ashea23 on 4/9/2008 9:19:59 PM wrote:
I would appreciate it if people who participate in this conversation would let the rest of us know where they call home, just generally. Not that it adds to or diminishes from your comments (we're all in this together), but I am curious. Thanks.
|
Zachariah on 4/9/2008 3:02:31 PM wrote:
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/special/files/Executive%20Summary%203-26-08.pdf
Read about it at this virginia.gov site.
|
SKJarvis on 4/9/2008 8:20:08 AM wrote:
I do not support the idea of arguing against every new development and I'm no fan of those folks either. I am in support of actual planning instead of wild west development. We need to contain our cities instead of abandoning them when they become cesspools and moving on. Go to a larger metropolitan area on the east coast and see what a lack of planning does to the quality of life. Open your eyes, look at your cities, can you honestly say that your 20th century governments have succeeded in their leadership?
|
dbaxfran on 4/9/2008 8:11:03 AM wrote:
It is easy to agree with SK Jarvis that growth for growth's sake is a bad idea. On the other hand, fighting every proposed new project is the opposite bad idea. Without new growth and the development and new industries and opportunities where are the opportunities for young people or people who lost their obsolete jobs?
New highways, development of mass transit,expansion of freight railroads, building new eletrical transmission lines, opening new power plants, and use of trash removal facilities are all opposed and yet the need for all of these services grows daily.
The development of neo-luddism (expanded) is a big cause of this country's decline as we rest on our laurels while the rest of the world passes us by.
|
Zachariah on 4/9/2008 8:05:12 AM wrote:
ADD 200 TRUCKS A DAY taking the shortest route through Shawsville and bringing the
already dangerous 200 plus trucks a day count to 400 and route 81 will be a death trap. Lets have half of those trucks breaking
to exit at Ironto on a icy morning and the access to the intermodel will be a deathtrap. I have been run off the road on 81 and have had friends killed by trucks out of control. Lets add a 10 million dollar bill to the montgomery county tax rolls and strapped county revenue. Alos let s add 12
jobs to Elliston....better to open a grocery store for $500,000. Let Governor Kane put the intermodel in his back yard. Has anyone looked at the Hong Kong intermodel? Amazing that 90 percent of the containers have Wall Mart on them.
|
quincy1775 on 4/9/2008 1:34:31 AM wrote:
That would also address the manufactured housing & credit crunch, which was entirely preventable, but people were too selfish to look at the fine print and realize that their super-low mortgage payments would rocket up faster than the space shuttle on launch day. Everyone got caught up in buying monstrously huge houses to see that they were screwing themselves...but no one seemed to mind a few years ago. We need to fundamentally alter the way we live in this country. Our bloated and overly-indebted Federal government is a shining example of the problems with America today. We spend far too much above what we earn, and we're too lazy to do anything about it, except spend more and complain that we can't afford it.
|
quincy1775 on 4/9/2008 1:31:05 AM wrote:
If people would just quit buying their cheap Made in China consumer goods and go back to making products last longer, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The reality of the NS Intermodal yard is a result of our consumerism society. We are told to buy biggerm better, faster, newer stuff all the time, and we more than oblige with our paychecks, credit cards, lines of credit, loans, and equity lines to pay for it all. You don't like jobs going to China for manufacturing, and all that frieght being moved by ship to ports where it needs to be trucked or hauled via NS to stores near you? Then quit buying so much crap, or quit complaining. We are what we made, now we have to deal with it.
|
SKJarvis on 4/8/2008 9:27:05 PM wrote:
People are entitled to their opinions, both pure and impure ("glad its not going in roanoke" reveals impurity), but this knee jerk argument that investment is always good is dangerously naive. The pollution issue is secondary to me, it is this frothing at the mouth for growth at any cost that has sold this country out. It is this same mentality that continues to transfer technology and captal to China and tax our economy with unsustainable trade deficits. It also continues to allow people to flood across our borders unchecked and ignore the long term social impact. Suits sitting in board rooms benefit, but it is the rest of us that pay the real costs Go ahead let the train fill your wal-marts with those imports - enjoy your growth.
|
SKJarvis on 4/8/2008 9:12:17 PM wrote:
Dollar for dollar regional investment does not translate into dollar for dollar regional benefit. The county believes that this will result in an overall tax negative for the county.
|
dbaxfran on 4/8/2008 5:22:28 PM wrote:
It seems the enviromental issue is a bit bogus. I-81 might as well be a railroad of endless trucks...each car in the train running on 4mpg diesal fuel..just over the hill from this location. The trains already go past this location many times a day. I doubt that the added pollution from this facility will be much if any of an increase.
Hopefully taking some long-haul trucks off the highways will help improve the overall environment. It is not difficult to control chemical runoff from a site like this and the County and local residents should maintain oversight and monitor those conditions. The proposed area is already an industrial location and probably will be improved by a first class new industry...its pretty junky now.
|
Entropy on 4/8/2008 5:05:48 PM wrote:
The argument "better your kids get sick than mine" is not quite the issue. If it had to be any argument along those lines, it is "better a small population get sick than a large one."
That is if you can go so far as to believe the intermodal will significantly impact a persons health. I believe it will bring a certain amount of pollution, and I'm glad it wont be going in Roanoke.
|
Walker on 4/8/2008 4:10:13 PM wrote:
Amen, Charles. Well said.
|
SKJarvis on 4/8/2008 4:09:01 PM wrote:
Unfortunate that we continue to be maligned as NIMBYs or Neo-Luddites,but it seems that most of the entire region was all for this thing as long as it wasn't in their backyard. Thanks for your support-Roanoke Co,and Botetourt. Better that my kids get sick than yours, right? I guess "anything for a buck" is the American way. Too bad that so many of our fellow Americans are unable to appreciate the social cost of selling our national soul. There will come an end to this foolish "growth at any cost" mentality. But in response to CharlesVA, I will take my ignorance of economic principles as well as my econ degree and shut up. What kids need to do is put away their iPods, Charles and you should appreciate that negative externalities exist.
|
CharlesVA on 4/8/2008 4:06:27 PM wrote:
I'm no tax accountant, but I'm guessing a $40 million intermodal facility will generate more tax revenue than an open field.
|
dbaxfran on 4/8/2008 2:46:53 PM wrote:
There are only two conditions in life: growing or dying. Progressives try to keep growing: Neo-Luddites prefer the other condition.
|
calindstrom on 4/8/2008 1:06:38 PM wrote:
Take the last bit of commercial space in that area of Montgomery County, turn it into a space that creates 12 job and all of the spin-off jobs go to Salem and Roanoke County! Just how does this benefit the residents of Montgomery County? This is not about NIMBY, this is about what is right for the people overall. This development will cause a loss of tax revenue for Montgomery County that will have to be made up by the residents there not the residents of Salem, Roanoke, or other locals. And, guess what, if they get away with doing it to Montgomery County, you may well be next! Having the Railroad-State government TAKING the land and stripping Montgomery County of potential revenue is not the right thing to do. What will the railroad be willing to do to offset those loses for the next 20, 30, 50 years. Who will make up the difference? Montgomery County taxpayers, that's who!
|
jstracin10 on 4/8/2008 11:11:15 AM wrote:
Bring it to Clifton Forge we will take it with open arms, jobs , business, traffic!
|
MsElenaeous on 4/8/2008 8:55:01 AM wrote:
I would hope that when the local leaders powwow they use this opportunity to get Norfolk Southern to give back to the community by pushing for them to allow their rails to be used for passenger rail service in the Roanoke valley region. As SWVA is "taking one for the team", it's now time for the team to step up to the plate and help its stranded players.
|
jetsfan on 4/8/2008 8:29:54 AM wrote:
And how about the tax benefit to Montgomery County? Has anyone paid attention to the huge increase in real estate taxes coming our way this summer? It's the old problem here: anti-business, short-sited government tries to shoulder the cost of schools, etc. on the back of property owners.
|
CharlesVA on 4/7/2008 11:55:31 PM wrote:
What a sad day for the NIMBYs and the anti-capitalism crowd. Their ignorance of basic economic principles and lack of appreciation for the system which puts food on their table and Ipods in their pockets are among the biggest threats to our nation's future.
This facility will join I-81 and the Roanoke Regional Airport as the most important economic development tools this region will have.
Considering Roanoke's semi-isolated Appalachian location, it's a small miracle that our economy is as healthy as it is. We need every advantage we can get to maintain the strength of our local economy. This facility will connect Roanoke to the world like never before and ensure it remains the economic hub of this region for decades to come.
|
lovenrv on 4/7/2008 8:46:07 PM wrote:
In the same moment, on the same Breaking News postin, is the announced closing of a plant in Buchanan that will eliminate 70 local jobs...while this intermodal site will physically employ only 12, I do know that the up to 2,900 surrounding jobs will be a very real thing based on similar projects and is a positive for the region...
So is it half full or half empty? Depends on your point of view.
|
Entropy on 4/7/2008 5:28:23 PM wrote:
No matter where the site would have gone, would have had a negative impact on the environment. Putting it in Elliston has less of a negative impact on the environment for its citizens than smack dab in the middle of salem with many citizens surrounding it.
Thank you for not polluting my neighborhood.
|
MsElenaeous on 4/7/2008 5:18:06 PM wrote:
According to the DRPT press release, a hefty price tag and extensive land acquisition were not the only problems had the Salem site been chosen. The closing of the Union Street crossing for a "minimum" of four hours daily would have also been required. That alone would have been a nightmare.
|
roenoke on 4/7/2008 4:22:03 PM wrote:
I wish people would just step up and admit that this is just a NIMBY issue and nothing else.
Quit trying to make it out to be about the environment or accidents...
|
ashea23 on 4/7/2008 3:58:22 PM wrote:
I'm all for getting trucks off the highways, but for many, many reasons (as discussed by citizens' groups, the Roanoke Times news articles, & our local board of supervisors), Elliston is the wrong place for this port, despite being the "cheapest." Paving (& storing toxins on) previously undeveloped land on the bank of a river isn't good for the environment. NS should be made to find a reasonable site.
|
SKJarvis on 4/7/2008 3:30:13 PM wrote:
You gotta admit, the system works. I am so thrilled that our tax money is working so NS can achieve a favorable ROI on this facility. We need this investment so our growing illegal immigrant population can benefit from the employment boom that is about to occur. Perhaps we are supposed to call this economic growth and progress, but be reminded that the distribution of other people's products doesn't count as growth. Besides, isn't there a truck accident around the Dixie Caverns exit on a weekly basis? - perfect sense. I would like to thank my government for continuing to work for the criminal elements of society (money grubbing corporate execs, illegal minorities, and sodomites.) They cannot continue to ignore the rest of us forever.
|
dbaxfran on 4/7/2008 2:52:55 PM wrote:
If people are really interested in the environment, they will do everything they can do to reduce the number of very inefficient trucks on the nation's highways. Trucks pollute, are inefficient, tear up the roads, kill people and don't pay their fair share of road use taxes. Looking at the environmental impact only in the terminal's immediate area doesn't take into account the overall positive environmental impact of moving freight by railroad versus trucks. In addition, if people don't soon band together to begin supporting and developing state and nation-wide comprehensive transportation systems that efficiently and effectively service all people's needs regardless of where they live, this country will remained locked in a neo-luddite mentality fostered on us by so called conservative polititians. No, I don't work for or own stock in NS.
|
ashea23 on 4/7/2008 1:33:45 PM wrote:
What a huge tragedy for the environment, water quality, & quality of life in general. So much for all the recent steps toward improving EastMont -- this NS site promises nothing but huge loss of animal habitat, large paved areas on the banks of a river, to replace our lovely night sounds with engine & loading/unloading sounds, lots of lights in our heretofore beautiful night skies, a few low-wage jobs now with even lower-wage warehouse distribution center jobs to come shortly, & the complete realization that the wishes of the citizenry (& those of its local leaders) hold no sway. Yay, progress.
|
1forword on 4/7/2008 12:17:57 PM wrote:
This is GREAT news after nearly a two year wait. The DRPT absolutely went the extra mile
in considering all the available locations before making this decision. Time will prove them right. In the 1960's and 70's, before
Interstate 81 came through the area, there were at least three truck stops plus service related businesses within a mile of the proposed site- then they all disappeared.
Silicon Valley??
not hardly, but a prosperous area of local businesses AND farms. It can happen again with the intermodal port as the catalyst. Now is the time for the true local interests to get on board and make it the best it can be.
|
Travelguy on 4/7/2008 11:21:36 AM wrote:
What a tragedy!! The beautiful countryside of Elliston will be bulldozed over for what?
Mountains of concrete and profits for the shareholders of Norfolk Southern. Employment will be nil. Its a win win for NS and the corporate lobbyists and a huge loss for the people of Elliston! The peoples' voice in this matter and their "government" was silenced once more. So Sad.
|
MsElenaeous on 3/19/2008 6:06:29 PM wrote:
Isn't tomorrow the first day of spring? Wasn't Norfolk Southern supposed to make their announcement this winter?
|
MsElenaeous on 3/9/2008 4:37:45 PM wrote:
I am so relieved that Norfolk Southern finally realized the folly of placing the intermodal yard in the heart of a Salem. I'm sure their stockholders are breathing a sigh of relief too, as well as all the parents of students and athletes that would have been affected had they had to live and play in the shadow of the yard.
|
jucoxvt13 on 3/9/2008 1:25:40 PM wrote:
We Won!! NS has realized Salem isn't the right spot for the proposed Intermodal and won't be placing it here! This proves that grassroots campaigns DO have an effect! NS HAD been monitoring the chatter in Salem. Originally, as little as a few months ago, they were planning on going the path of "least resistance" - and that was Salem. Now thanks to so many people voicing their opinions, working together, keeping each other informed, and most importantly making sure the "powers that be" heard their voices, this isn't coming to Salem.
|
sweetmilk on 2/18/2008 7:10:59 AM wrote:
The intermodal proposal and the Rockledge Inn proposal do share some similiarties but I'm not going down that road!
|
fravel on 2/17/2008 11:22:43 AM wrote:
Wake up folks and realize the stack of benefits are in NS's favor, not the area as a whole. Specific questions that have been batted around for several years now continue to go unanswered. Wonder why? Your environmental concerns, a non-specific estimate on increased heavy truck traffic, projected expansion for the future, and the direct number of new jobs created...the list goes on. Don't wait until it is too late. Demand accountable and specific replies to your concerns.
|
roenoke on 2/16/2008 3:40:47 PM wrote:
The Garman Rd site sounds like a good one. I think they should put it there.
|
MsElenaeous on 2/16/2008 10:56:54 AM wrote:
Sweet, it seems to me that non-Salemites are more worried about the valley being "ruined" by putting a restaurant on Mill Mt than by putting poisons in the air and river. Go figure.
|
sweetmilk on 2/16/2008 9:18:46 AM wrote:
Is the Garman Road site the one just off Poor Mountain Road in Glenvar?
Salem people have always fascinated me. It seems that forever they have had a fear of bucking the powers and have been content to let the Good Ol' Boys run things. Generally the GOBS did a good job. Then came the Eliz. campus issue, then the concrete plant and now the i.m.. I think this little city's officials are going to be sorry that they shook the lethargy from their citizens. This is a small town with only one degree of separation, people could really network well against this.
|
sweetmilk on 2/16/2008 9:06:48 AM wrote:
Thanks, MsEle. That's an incredibly large number of trucks being added to the RoVa roads. I know part of the logic behind this is that the i.m. facility would remove a great number of trucks from the interstates. Does that mean there would be a reduction in long distance trucks in the region but a corresponding rise in the number of shorter distance trucks in the sub regions? ( This area). Yes I read the op-ed. This is going to be very interesting to me to see if non-Salem residents of the RoVa pick up on the impact on the area as a whole. My guess is nimby.
|
MsElenaeous on 2/15/2008 9:08:01 AM wrote:
Sweetmilk, I agree. Check out the commentary in today's paper...
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/150839
According to DRPT the goal within four years is to have 150,000 trucks use the facility. Don't know how many would come down 220 but I'd bet truckers are going to use the easiest route for them, not the "recommended" one.
|
sweetmilk on 2/15/2008 7:15:29 AM wrote:
I hope that residents of the entire RoVa understand that this is a RoVa issue, not just a Salem issue. We all will be breathing that dirty air that intermodal will generate and all of us will be impacted by the increased truck traffic on the local roads and highways.
Question...Does anyone know exactly how many trucks will be going in/out of the facitiy during a 24 hour period? How many of those will be heading south on Rt.220?
|
Kringles_Helper on 2/14/2008 5:01:06 PM wrote:
Look...
There are existing models...what is termed "historical data" in the information systems business...of communities of various sorts.
There are many places that manage its resource very well, and many people want to live there, and thus the value of the Real Estate goes up...
...and then there's the rail towns.
Sure...some potential employment...but is it good for the region, or does it drain the value from the community.
It all depends upon the planning, but it is absolute that the citizens should be well-educated about any such plans before they are put into action.
Much Love!
|
1forword on 1/19/2008 3:16:57 PM wrote:
Close to two years has passed since the original announcement. Since then, two additional sites have been seriously considered- the Salem location and Garman Road, near Glenvar. Both of these sites are inferior to NS's original choice near Elliston, VA for several reasons. They are also considerably more expensive. As to Del. Nutter's proposal- why should state funds only be available for a site that is inferior and more costly? This message board is nice, but it doesn't pack much muscle. Please let your feelings be known to DRPT and the other delegates right away. Thanks.
|
cmunley on 1/19/2008 12:35:38 PM wrote:
Apparently, Salem is making its long-term plan by its de-facto actions. It chooses to exclude the progressive suggestions of citizens who urged Salem to go "green" during the Elizabeth Campus and Comprehensive Plan hearings, bring in a cutting-edge city planner, build parks,enact architectural and landscaping standards, beautify roads and connect green spaces with bike trails. All this would attract quality business with professional jobs.
Instead, Salem now imports garbage from Botetourt County and council has a united front pressing for the dirty and traffic- increasing intermodal transfer station. If this is Salem's proposed future, changes are needed in this upcoming election for three spots.
|
MsElenaeous on 1/19/2008 12:12:54 PM wrote:
Nutter's proposed bill is slap in the face to all of us in the Roanoke region, especially Salemites. I understand his need to speak for his consituents but not at Salem's expense. Who speaks for the citizens of Salem? No one, it seems. It's up to the citizens to speak up.
The bottom line is this yard is coming to somewhere in the Roanoke region. The direct effect of it will be felt the most in Salem. The most families will be uprooted, the most businesses will be closed, the most schools and stadiums will be directly in its shadow.
Due to its geography Salem will have the most congestion, pollutants, air and water, of all the sites. It also has the least amount of space. If this yard is to succeed Salem is NOT the place!
|
MsElenaeous on 1/13/2008 10:29:34 AM wrote:
Jen, I agree...no one, other than the city leaders who see dollar signs spinning around their head, would want it in their backyard. It's a matter of locating it where it would do the least enviromental and basic quality of life damage. All I know is that if I had kids in Salem's schools or who participated in any of the sports that utilize the stadiums which would be right next to the yard, I'd be up in arms to protect my family and not just blindly listen to the BS from city officals. As far as all the multitude of jobs that would be coming, that's only if the yard is a success and I'd be curious to know what type of jobs a place like this attracts. BTW, at the facility itself only 10 jobs would be added.
|
MsElenaeous on 1/12/2008 7:38:03 PM wrote:
jen, the homes might not be worth as much as the Garman Road area, but if it winds up in Salem it will affect hundreds of homes and businesses. You're right, there's been no public forums for any site. What gets me is this quote from the mayor of Salem, "The other property they looked at, it'd be rezoning, purchasing property and all sorts of things... they own this property and they can pretty much do what they want to do," says Howard Packett. "We feel like we need to help them." That's a hoot! According to DRPT's website, Norfolk Southern only owns 10 acres in Salem! So where's the other 55 acres coming from? And let's be real, they're not going to stop at 65 acres anyway.
|
MsElenaeous on 1/7/2008 4:16:56 PM wrote:
DRPT just released a 38 page Final report on the Roanoke Regional Intermodal facility. 3 facilities are mentioned, Elliston, Salem and Garman Road yet no definitive site seems to be stated. However it is definitely coming to the Roanoke region. The goal is to be up and running by 2010, starting with 25,000 containers the first year and within four years 150,000. Glaringly omitted are any environmental impact or local traffic studies concerning the site where this will end up. One look at the pics of the other facilities in this report and there's no way it could wind up in Salem.
|
MsElenaeous on 11/6/2007 6:09:08 PM wrote:
It was lucky for Salem residents that the construction company opted out as I'd bet Salem officials would have gone ahead with it. I wonder if the spokesperson of the opposition group, who just so happens to sport the same last name as who the Salem Civic Center is named after, wouldn't mind fighting the intermodal yard in Salem as well.
|
scottrc on 11/5/2007 1:28:22 PM wrote:
Well it looks like "stiff community opposition" stopped the concrete plant... keep it up!
|
1forword on 11/2/2007 12:32:22 PM wrote:
NS had it right the first time! The Elliston site is preferred and for good reason. There would be less negative impact overall and certainly fewer households (or businesses) affected. There is PLENTY of room for truck traffic, with the Dixie Caverns exit already designed for this. Little congestion (the highways up there are deserted most of the time) and lots of room for expansion. There would be much more bang for each tax dollar, since the facility could be designed and built there for far less cost. Really, NS isn't planning to knock the mountains down up there, and the area could certainly use the outside commerce to grow out of it's stagnant state.
|
ziranthia on 11/1/2007 11:31:13 AM wrote:
I agree with Scott. Roanoke Virginia does not need any more blue collar jobs. There is a major lack of diversity in industry in the Roanoke Valley. Look at Johnson and Johnson. Roanoke bent over backwards to attract J&J, only to have them abandon. Companies are like birds of a feather. Where one goes, others follow, for various reasons. To continue addding blue collar/hourly/shift-work positions to Roanoke's job base will only discourage high tech industry from coming, and encourage high tech employees to leave the area.
|
scottrc on 10/31/2007 11:57:07 AM wrote:
I will be honest, I do not know all the ins and outs of this situation, but it sure feels like Salem, in its infinite wisdom, is trying to simply add more jobs to keep up with Big Brother Roanoke... without actually taking into account a value of the jobs that are created. 7,000 jobs? Doing what? Do we really need MORE blue-collar jobs in the area? Not really. We need to attract and retain trainable professionals in this area if we are ever to grow. What happens if N/S closes the site in 10 years? now our regional unemployment skyrockets with 7,000 people looking for a job, which leads to crime, etc..
Salem, lose the ego, build on the 30-50 year plan instead of the 3-5 year one.
|
MsElenaeous on 10/30/2007 8:46:18 PM wrote:
From a business standpoint I can't imagine that Norfolk Southern is even seriously considering the Salem site with all it's negative features...lack of space, no room to grow, adjacent to schools and sports stadiums, truck traffic driving through the streets, rail crossings blocked, etc.
I believe that if NS has any sort of business/common sense it will choose one of the Garman Road sites in Roanoke County where less people would be affected. They already own 50 acres at one location and 100 at the other one. Both sites are closer to I-81. I just wouldn't hold my breath as to the "7,000 jobs" following the intermodal, however if jobs were to arrive with the rails, Roanoke County's got the room for growth while Salem certainly doesn't.
|
Travelguy on 10/30/2007 6:24:36 PM wrote:
Roanoke gave birth to the Norfolk Southern Railroad. It moved its headquarters to Norfolk as a slap in the face to this area.
Nevertheless, the railroad provides good paying jobs. The problem with this intermodal yard is how can it provide jobs to Salem citizens without disrupting the environment in residential neighborhoods?
Just like the proposed cement plant what is Salem thinking?
|
