April 7,
2008
Questions Answered
Today, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation
announced that the Salem site was not feasible for the needs of the intermodal rail yard.
According to the DRPT, "The majority of the site evaluation process was
focused on evaluating this site to determine if it could serve as a
feasible location for the intermodal facility. Unfortunately, the
Colorado St. site is not located on the Heartland Corridor rail line,
and serving the facility would create rail operating conflicts that
cannot be resolved without extensive land acquisition. Rail operations
would also result in the blockage of Union Street for a minimum of four
hours per day without the construction of a new bridge. This grade
separation would require the taking of multiple homes on both sides of
the Roanoke River. The total site construction cost is estimated at
$71.6 million." Complete details are at:
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/news/details.aspx?id=226
The site will be located in
Elliston. The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors are gearing
up for a fight. According to their press release, Board Chairman
Annette Perkins said, “We are extremely disappointed with the report
concluding that Elliston is the recommendation for Norfolk Southern’s
intermodal facility. Montgomery County’s Board of Supervisors and
citizens are strongly opposed to the intermodal facility locating in
Elliston because it will adversely affect our quality of life, including
increased traffic and noise, and the degradation of air and water
quality. This is not the type of economic development Montgomery County
wishes to locate here.”
http://www.montva.com/departments/pubinfo/downloads/20080407_nra.pdf
January 24, 2008
More Questions Than Answers About Intermodal Facility
Going into this campaign for Salem City Council, I knew I would have as
many questions as answers. How do you grow a city with an eye toward
the future and a respect for the past? How do you reduce taxes while
maintaining quality services? How do you support your schools and find
the funding they need? This past week, my personal question and answer
research has focused on the proposed intermodal rail yard that is
targeted for our area.
Since Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) conducted engineering studies of
three sites in our immediate area, the questions have been adding up.
Not just my own wonderings but those of my elderly neighbors asking if
their beloved city will be forever changed. Questions from
environmental groups calling attention to the pollution an intermodal
facility could bring. Questions from homeowners worried that their
property values will plummet because of congestion and noise. These are
all valid concerns that need to be addressed. In addition, there are
some purely logistical and practical questions about the intermodal
facility that we all need more information on.
The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is
“committed to establishing an intermodal facility as part of the
Heartland Corridor Project.” Their job is to review the proposed sites
and determine the “best possible location.” DRPT listed six
requirements for the site proposal. Among the criteria were:
(Source: DRPT)
1)
A proposed intermodal facility must be close to Interstate 81 and
allow for reasonably proximate access and egress to the Interstate.
2)
The facility must not create the need for additional grade
separations, particularly in congested urban areas.
3)
The facility should be a minimum of 65 acres and of an appropriate
configuration and relatively flat in topography.
Based on these needs, the site located along Colorado Street in downtown
Salem falls short of what’s required. The DRPT released this site
information regarding the Colorado street location:
(Source: DRPT)
1)
The site is approximately five miles from I-81 along the Route 419
corridor.
2)
The Union Street at-grade crossing might be blocked for long periods
of time when trains are switching in and out of the facility. The
facility access road would also be blocked at that time.
3)
The site is roughly 10 acres, permits double ended rail access. Owned
by NS except for access road to property.
On paper, the Colorado Street site does not meet the minimum
requirements established by NS and DRPT. So why is Salem still on the
top of the list for intermodal facilities? Is it because no other
community wants the intermodal facility?
Delegate Dave Nutter, of the New River Valley, has made it clear that
his district, which includes the proposed Elliston site, does not want
the intermodal. So instead, he has proposed an amendment pulling state
funding for the intermodal rail yard unless it’s built in Salem.
However in June 2006, Steve Spradlin, then Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors, Montgomery County,
signed a letter with 14 other regional officials
welcoming the facility to the Roanoke and New River Valley.
Montgomery County’s own comprehensive plan calls for industrial
development in the Elliston area.
The DRPT says the rail yard will create eight to 12 jobs and add $3.5
million to $5.3 million to the regional economy. That means the
intermodal facility could go to any of the 10 originally proposed sites
and it would benefit Roanoke, Lynchburg, Franklin County, the New River
Valley and parts of West Virginia.
The DRPT also says the real impact will come from related development
adding between 740 to 2,900 jobs and up to $71 million in taxes.
The city of Salem has limited land remaining to develop. Any
substantial growth will have to occur outside the city’s limits. So
will Salem bear the brunt of the intermodal’s operations while the
entire region reaps the benefits?
Aside from the fact that the Salem site is simply a bad fit logistically
for the intermodal, the citizens of Salem must consider all that will be
lost if we turn part of our home into a giant, asphalt parking lot.
Consider the disruption to everyday life. Studies report a projected
“increase in truck traffic on I-81 and other roads near the site.” How
can the infrastructure of our city support such an operation without
major overhaul?
Consider the pollution from idling diesel trucks and locomotives.
Diesel trucks and locomotives produce a fine particulate called PM 2.5
which stands for 2.5 micrometers. The EPA has stated, “Small
particles less than10 micrometers in diameter pose the greatest
problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even
get into your bloodstream.”
According to the American Lung Association, “Of all vehicles on the
road today, diesel engines account for more than 75% of all fine
particulate matter emitted.”
Because the trucks and locomotives are considered “transient” and not a
stationary source of pollution, they will not be regulated by the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. However, they will be
contributing to the overall pollution of the Roanoke region. If the
pollution is substantial enough, Roanoke can be pushed into a
“non-attainment” situation meaning future industries (with regulated
emissions) would be blocked from moving to the area.
I
understand city officials must do everything they can to attract new
businesses and provide for the economic benefit of its residents.
However we need to approach each opportunity with the question, “What
are we getting versus what are we sacrificing?”
Just a few questions to get the discussion rolling.
Lisa