Letter: The inland port is irresponsible

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • Flipphone , 00
    April 12, 2019 1:13 p.m.

    dulce et decorum est - , 00
    April 9, 2019 5:25 p.m.
    It would be nice if the legislature focused a little more on the poor and needy of our community and a little less on lucrative land deals.

    Dulce, Question, were does the tax revenue come from that is used to support the poor and needy ? Could the tax revenue come from people who have Jobs? Do you Liberals, ever think?

  • Flipphone , 00
    April 12, 2019 1:09 p.m.

    Many are unaware of current plans to develop 16,000 acres in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City for an inland port, where goods can be warehoused and transported between the coast and interior. New legislation has expanded this project to include “spokes” throughout the state, i.e. the hub will be in Salt Lake with multiple authorities across Utah. This plan is short-sighted, financially irresponsible and environmentally disastrous.

    Why is this inland port that will provided thousands of good paying jobs a bad Idea?

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 10, 2019 8:15 a.m.

    To "Zabilde" no, read the study by the University of Texas. They found that the inland ports reduce traffic congestion, reduce wear on the roads, reduce noise on the roads, and eliminate many large trucks from the roads.

    You really should read the reports that I list, they show just how beneficial a port can be.

    To "dulce et decorum est" but this does help the poor and needy. It creates jobs not only at the port, but for the surrounding community as they set up restaurants and other support businesses for the port. Which is better for the poor, to give them stuff or to create jobs for them?

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2019 8:01 a.m.

    barfolomew -
    "Such a proposition, for profit, is morally reprehensible."

    "I find it incredibly ironic how the left is suddenly lecturing us about morals. The irony is evident in the way the left seems to have abandoned all morality in all aspects of society; gender neutrality, late term abortions, ANTIFA, shutting down opposing views on campuses, allowing criminals to run free in sanctuary cities, and much more. It is certainly immoral to take my hard earned money and give it to those unwilling to work."

    WOW! Off topic, disruptive and speculative. Way to go, you only left out Obama and Clinton in your rant about things not associated with the Inland Port discussion.

    Zabilde - Riverdale
    "While I don't live in that area I've driven through where the Inland port will be and I've never seen a single Pronghorn there."

    So, you don't live near there and seldom drive through the area and YOU haven't seen a pronghorn, it means they don't exist? Just because YOU haven't seen them? Have you seen any burrowing owls, egrets, pelicans, etc., etc.? NO? well that means they don't exist either.

    Have you ever seen god or Jesus? Neither has anyone else, but you believe they are real.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    April 10, 2019 2:14 a.m.

    RedShirtHarvard it may reduce the use of fossil fuels used in the port cities, but it will increase traffic and the resulting pollution here in our already overcrowded valley with it's noted problems with inversion and pollution.

    It's not like a great majority of the products aren't already coming here on trains from the coasts already. All this is, is another rail head. The containers still have to be offloaded from ships at the ports, then transported to a rail yard and loaded onto the trains as they already are. But now rather than riding on the trains to various rail heads around the west they will come here to be offloaded and then shipped over the road throughout Utah and neighboring states. If anything it will concentrate this traffic to our already congested roads as the rail system tries to use these inland ports to create a hub system similar to how the airlines handle passengers. Maybe some overall savings, but not here in this valley.

  • dulce et decorum est , 00
    April 9, 2019 5:25 p.m.

    It would be nice if the legislature focused a little more on the poor and needy of our community and a little less on lucrative land deals.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2019 2:52 p.m.

    Commerce benefits all of us. It is essential to our survival. We do not and cannot manufacture in Utah all of the goods that Utahns need to sustain life. Because we cannot manufacture everything ourselves, we must import those goods from somewhere else. Having a system that can handle the import and transportation of those goods is essential to our lives.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 9, 2019 2:03 p.m.

    But wouldn't this ultimately result in less fossil fuels being used. Think of it this way, rather than transporting goods by truck from the coast to the region for each load you replace that with one massive shipment via trains. A train can operate more fuel efficiently than many trucks traveling to the same location.

    Then once the train arrives at the port, the train is unloaded and now a bunch of trucks take a shorter trip to distribute the goods that were sent by train.

    See "Move: How Inland Ports Cut Transport Costs" at Material Handling and Logistics. See also "Inland Ports: Planning Successful Developments" from the University of Texas where they show how an inland port REDUCES fuel use and speeds up delivery time. It is a win-win for everybody.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    April 9, 2019 11:00 a.m.

    Where is their even 25 square miles (16000 acres) available in the "NW quadrant of SLC"? As has been pointed out by others, nothing makes me laugh and roll my eyes more then a crazed leftist preaching about morality.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    April 9, 2019 10:35 a.m.

    While I don't live in that area I've driven through where the Inland port will be and I've never seen a single Pronghorn there. They are not frequent visitors to the SL Valley though they can and do live in proximity to People (see the Saratoga Springs herd that lived across the street from Smiths for years as the area grew up around them.)

    Yes there are many problems with the port. The questionable claims of occupancy by animals that are going to be chased out sooner or later by development of the area anyway is not one.

    Bigger is the traffic and pollution this will bring to our already crowded roads and polluted valley. Why not place the port north of Ogden Along the rail main line, or east or south or even west in Tooele.

    Then there is the matter of stealing the land from SLC yet expecting the city to provide services with no real representation in the Authority board.

    And now the legilsature has given that unelected port authority board state wide reach to steal more land from our communities across the state.

    Those are the real concerns, not a few animals that most likely aren't even there.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    April 9, 2019 10:08 a.m.

    "Such a proposition, for profit, is morally reprehensible."

    I find it incredibly ironic how the left is suddenly lecturing us about morals. The irony is evident in the way the left seems to have abandoned all morality in all aspects of society; gender neutrality, late term abortions, ANTIFA, shutting down opposing views on campuses, allowing criminals to run free in sanctuary cities, and much more. It is certainly immoral to take my hard earned money and give it to those unwilling to work.

    "The destruction of these beings' habitat is not worth the further enrichment of a few companies and their owners and shareholders."

    Is it worth destroying "these beings' habitat" so you can have a place to live? The property you live on was once a "natural habitat" for native animals and plants. Is it OK that you have displaced these creatures so you can have a house or apartment building to live in?

    C'mon, Mr. Petersen, what does your morality dictate?

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    April 9, 2019 10:00 a.m.

    "A large majority of you tons..."

    Did you mean to say, "Utahns?"

    Just asking, 'embarrassed you ton.'

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2019 9:51 a.m.

    A large majority of you tons believe that the Republican Party has their best interests at heart. I think republican legislators have their own best interests at heart.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2019 9:14 a.m.

    Ethan
    Guess what? The goods are going to move regardless of whether or not the port is built. Why should we not make that movement more efficient and thereby reduce the overall impact to the environment?

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 9, 2019 9:13 a.m.

    I don't think "many are unaware". It's just that many are aware how helpless we our when our Legislators, and their leaders, decide to create a program where they can profit from getting their hands on a billion dollars of our tax money.